Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Coercion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Objectivism asserts that the initiation of force is wrong because it controls people.  If you put a gun to someone's head and demand something, their love of their own life compels them to obey; in this way you disable his mind and his means of survival.

I agree that it's wrong, but I don't see how it actually controls people.

If someone puts a gun to someone else's head and demands something, I wouldn't blame them if they were to comply, but frankly I think it'd be best if they grabbed the gun and turned the whole situation inside-out.

 

In any concrete situation (not principles but actions; their physical application) there is always a third option, and a fourth, and a fifth, if you can think of them.

So, if you want someone to do something, I don't think coercion will accomplish it- just look at every law that people break, all the time.  I think that to actually control someone, as in successfully getting them to fulfill your desires, you have to recognize their mind; you have to reason with them and find out what they desire.

Taken to its logical conclusion (with that premise) to control someone would entail trade, commerce and Lassiez-Faire Capitalism.

 

Is this fallacious?  If so, how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every specific problem, there are potentially infinite solutions; these are limited only by the time and effort required to think of them.

Coercion, in any specific instance, is a problem for its victim.  Therefor it isn't control; there are any number of ways to solve it and free oneself.

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are a bunch of ways you can try to talk an attacker out of abusing you. But the keyword here is try.

 

Using a common example: if someone puts a gun to your head, tells you to shut up or he'll shoot, and rapes you, there's not much you can do to stop it from happening. The situation is literally out of your control; things are happening to you without your consent or approval, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Sure, you can reach for your cell phone or a weapon if you get the chance.. but it needs to be decided if it's worth the risk or not (will he shoot if he catches you? abuse you even more? etc.)

 

The afterward in the book 'The Lovely Bones' describes this dillema really well. Sebold says, “Those who say they would rather fight to the death than be raped are fools. I would rather be raped a thousand times. You do what you have to [to survive].” She goes on to say, "Heaven is comfort, but it's still not living." (The first quote here spurred a lot of media-hate towards Sebold.)

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are a bunch of ways you can try to talk an attacker out of abusing you. But the keyword here is try.

Yes.  But isn't this true of all human actions, in any situation (nothing is guaranteed)?

 

“Those who say they would rather fight to the death than be raped are fools. I would rather be raped a thousand times. You do what you have to [to survive].” She goes on to say, "Heaven is comfort, but it's still not living." (The first quote here spurred a lot of media-hate towards Sebold.)

This is also completely true; martyrdom is definitely not the answer.  But is it only a binary issue?

If it is simply binary (obey or die) then I agree and the rest logically follows.

 

I guess it boils down to: why is it treated as an immutable dichotomy?

 

The situation is literally out of your control; things are happening to you without your consent or approval, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Sure, you can reach for your cell phone or a weapon if you get the chance.. but it needs to be decided if it's worth the risk or not (will he shoot if he catches you? abuse you even more? etc.)

It seems more like a difference of degree than one of type.  When someone initiates force against you they drastically limit your options to ones which are difficult and risky, but the options still exist; what's the essential distinction there?

With everything pertinent to the pursuit of happiness there's a diverse and subtle range of options; does it have something to do with the difference between desire for life and fear of death?

 

Why aren't any other actions, besides compliance/death, considered valid under Objectivism?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...frankly I think it'd be best if they grabbed the gun and turned the whole situation inside-out."

As you say here, it's optimistic to think that a victim of a crime will get the chance to escape or turn the cards in his favor. It's something to think about and try to prepare for to the best of your ability, of course.. but it's just not realistic in every situation.

 

I guess it boils down to: why is it treated as an immutable dichotomy?

 

It seems more like a difference of degree than one of type.  When someone initiates force against you they drastically limit your options to ones which are difficult and risky, but the options still exist; what's the essential distinction there?


I think it's accurate to say that 'pointing a gun at someone's head and ordering them to do something' is a life or death situation. The crux of the issue is: as a victim, you have to assume that the person holding the gun (or knife or whatever) will use it. The only hope you have is that if you comply and do what's asked of you, your life will be spared. That's where this "immutable dichomoty" comes from- the belief that an attacker will take your life if you disobey him.

 

However, I do agree that there sometimes are (context dependent) options available to victims- we've all heard stories where victims are able to escape, or call 911 and get rescued by the police. (But if you're a victim and don't get any opportunities like this (or maybe you did, but were too afraid to act on them), the fault is not yours.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's accurate to say that 'pointing a gun at someone's head and ordering them to do something' is a life or death situation. The crux of the issue is: as a victim, you have to assume that the person holding the gun (or knife or whatever) will use it. The only hope you have is that if you comply and do what's asked of you, your life will be spared. That's where this "immutable dichomoty" comes from- the belief that an attacker will take your life if you disobey him.

Thank you.

 

No, it doesn't.

Why is coercion wrong, then?

 

*Philosophically wrong; I wouldn't do it myself, I feel it's wrong, but what's the line of reasoning?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone puts a gun to someone else's head and demands something, I wouldn't blame them if they were to comply, but frankly I think it'd be best if they grabbed the gun and turned the whole situation inside-out.

Do you honestly believe that? In Minnesota, where you live, the government is causing you to relinquish a number of freedoms, via the use of guns.

Pick one of those freedoms, one that would put you face to face with a loaded gun (for instance, you could walk up to a Police station with a pound of heroin, and offer to sell it to them). Then, show us exactly how one should do what you are advocating one should do with a gun to their face. Film it and post a link to the youtube vid:)

I think the only sensible way to turn these situations inside out is to make sure you have a bigger gun. And, since the biggest gun is always the government, that would involve making sure that the government is protecting rights, not violating them.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is coercion wrong, then?

 

*Philosophically wrong; I wouldn't do it myself, I feel it's wrong, but what's the line of reasoning?

 

It isn't because it controls people. As you already stated, you're ability to control someone is limited to the extent that physical force is applied, even then there will be some form of volition. For example, if you're goal is to rob a man and you put a gun to his head, demanding his money... he can manage to escape, knock the gun out of your hand and shoot you, or (but not limited to) spray you with pepper spray and run. So if we use your statement that "Objectivism asserts that the initiation of force is wrong because it controls people", that example wouldn't be wrong. You attempted to control him by pointing a gun and demanding his money, however, you failed; he escaped with his money, and therefore the initiation of force wasn't wrong.

 

The initiation of force is wrong because it is the means to violating individual rights.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add on to the previous responses, you might want to take a look at Man's Rights by Rand and OA answers to the question, "What constitutes an initiation of force and what constitutes appropriate retaliation?"

 

Eric Maughan explains why the intiation of force is morally wrong- (it "negates or paralyzes man's rational faculty"):

 

...Rand first recognized that rationality is Man's primary virtue and that exercising one's rational faculty is Man's only means of living. Rand recognized as a moral principle that it is good for people to be free to use their rational faculty to further their lives and that it is bad for people to be prevented from doing so.

 

She then looked out at the world and identified ways that people might be prevented from using their rational faculty to further their lives. From these diverse facts she formed, via induction, the generalization that is the non-initiation-of-force principle. She noted that all the instances of people being prevented from using their rational faculty to further their lives had something in common: the direct or indirect initiation of physical force against that person. She noted that force paralyzes Man's rational faculty:

 

 

Thus the meaning of "force" as used in the non-initiation-of-force principle is not necessarily the same as the meaning of "force" as used in physics. "Force" as used in the principle may include instances of indirect force like fraud (i.e., not force in the physics sense), and may exclude some instances of applying force in the physics sense like a hand-shake. The core meaning of the concept is clear---hitting, shooting, stabbing, etc. As one moves toward the borderline of the concept, keeping the context in mind can help determine which side of the border the case falls on. The essential question to be asked is "would this action negate Man's ability to use his rational faculty?" Asking this question can help clear up some of the border-line cases that exist.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Minnesota, where you live, the government is causing you to relinquish a number of freedoms, via the use of guns.

Yes, they are.  It's irritating.

 

Do you honestly believe that?

Yes, I do.

I've always had some vague approximation to the 'sanction of the victim' or some such idea.  And, like I said, if someone were forced to do something at gunpoint I would not blame them for it.

But if they were presented with one opportunity after the other to escape or fight back, and they still allowed themselves to be violated, then I might.  I apply this to myself equally although I must say I've never actually had a gun to my head before.

 

Pick one of those freedoms, one that would put you face to face with a loaded gun (for instance, you could walk up to a Police station with a pound of heroin, and offer to sell it to them). Then, show us exactly how one should do what you are advocating one should do with a gun to their face. Film it and post a link to the youtube vid:)

In another life.  I have a family, now; it wouldn't be fair of me to throw my life away to prove a point.

But at one point I spent considerable time and energy thinking of ways to overthrow the government and I came very close, on several occasions, to enacting just what you suggest.

 

I think the only sensible way to turn these situations inside out is to make sure you have a bigger gun. And, since the biggest gun is always the government, that would involve making sure that the government is protecting rights, not violating them.

Guns are only as good as the brains behind them.  That's something Ragnar Danneskjold specifically pointed out in AS.

And that's really what my complaint revolves around (coercion isn't control); your threats are effective in inverse proportion to the intelligence of your victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick one of those freedoms, one that would put you face to face with a loaded gun (for instance, you could walk up to a Police station with a pound of heroin, and offer to sell it to them). Then, show us exactly how one should do what you are advocating one should do with a gun to their face. Film it and post a link to the youtube vid:)

Case-in-point: this example would be an act of selfless martyrdom and would solve nothing.  It's not what I'm referring to.

 

The third option (instead of compliance versus martyrdom) would be to plant charges in the police station, phone in a bomb threat, wait until everyone had evacuated and then blow up all of the guns and ammo.

Fourth would be to convince the policemen to join your cause.  Fifth would be to sabotage their phones/ intelligence network.  Sixth would be to hack a predator drone. . .

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The harm of coercion is not control but prevention. Coercion prevents an individual from living his life as he sees fit according to his own judgements.

 

When I think about it, I think the "control" explanation is a rather statist concept. Isn't the entire premise of big government based on controling people for their own good? Of course implicit in such an assumption are huge errors as Harrison pointed out. Even beyond the problems of hindering independent will, individuals will naturally resist coercive control whenever possible, even to the point of being conditioned against the intended aims of the controler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The harm of coercion is not control but prevention. Coercion prevents an individual from living his life as he sees fit according to his own judgements.

This still misses how force *literally* controls a person. If you shove a person, they will fall regardless of what they had planned to do. Indeed they might react after the fact, but shoving would still be force. I suppose some fancy footwork prevents crashing to the ground, which doesn't change the fact that outcomes are being controlled. Furthermore, a chosen act of force is different than an act of nature to the extent that reasoning is based on how the world works, but reasoning under force is based on how the initiator wants the world to work. Going into examples like a gun to your head, physical means are being used to control outcomes regardless of your thoughts and regardless of the state of the world as it is. If you walk away, you'll be killed, no matter what you think or reason about. Although your entire rational faculty has not been disabled, your "sphere of freedom" has been reduced. There are still options.

 

Peikoff gives a good explanation in a very full way about force in one of his "Objectivism Through Induction" lectures. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith is excellent as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third option (instead of compliance versus martyrdom) would be to plant charges in the police station, phone in a bomb threat, wait until everyone had evacuated and then blow up all of the guns and ammo.

Ok, do that then. Don't forget the youtube vid.

Disclaimer: I in no way believe Harrison to be serious about his claims, therefor I do not believe that there is even the slightest possibility that he will act on his professed beliefs. My encouragement is facetious and not meant to cause him to act in a violent manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initiation of force is wrong because it is the means to violating individual rights.

Eric Maughan explains why the intiation of force is morally wrong- (it "negates or paralyzes man's rational faculty"):

Thank you.

 

"And that's really what my complaint revolves around (coercion isn't control); your threats are effective in inverse proportion to the intelligence of your victim."

Isn't that the same as saying, 'It's really just the victims fault...' ?

Not at all.

Perhaps 'intelligence' was the wrong word to use; I only meant that you can successfully coerce only those people who accept obedience and death as their only two options.  Or something along those lines.

I wasn't trying to say that it's wrong to obey under such circumstances, at all.

 

And, like I said, if someone were forced to do something at gunpoint I would not blame them for it.

But if they were presented with one opportunity after the other to escape or fight back, and they still allowed themselves to be violated, then I might.  I apply this to myself equally although I must say I've never actually had a gun to my head before.

To clarify, the sort of victim who I would blame for their own misfortune would be the woman who stays with her abusive husband for years, despite their entire marriage being one massive opportunity to leave him; or the slave who apologizes for his oppressors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I in no way believe Harrison to be serious about his claims, therefor I do not believe that there is even the slightest possibility that he will act on his professed beliefs. My encouragement is facetious and not meant to cause him to act in a violent manner.

Please elaborate; I don't understand this.

I get that you're mocking me because you don't think I'm taking any of this seriously, so there's no reason for you to do so either.  And you're right; I will not act on these suggestions anytime soon.  I'd like to reiterate that it's not for the reason you're implying.

 

What I don't get is that last bit about encouraging me.  Let's say I were to act in a violent manner; would you have caused it?

If I were to go out on a killing spree, and if you had happened to suggest just that beforehand, do you think you'd be responsible for my sins?  It's sort of tangential but I'm very curious about it.

 

The harm of coercion is not control but prevention. Coercion prevents an individual from living his life as he sees fit according to his own judgements.

I agree, entirely.  It's part of my confusion over this.

 

When I think about it, I think the "control" explanation is a rather statist concept. Isn't the entire premise of big government based on controling people for their own good? Of course implicit in such an assumption are huge errors as Harrison pointed out.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still misses how force *literally* controls a person. If you shove a person, they will fall regardless of what they had planned to do. Indeed they might react after the fact, but shoving would still be force. I suppose some fancy footwork prevents crashing to the ground, which doesn't change the fact that outcomes are being controlled. Furthermore, a chosen act of force is different than an act of nature to the extent that reasoning is based on how the world works, but reasoning under force is based on how the initiator wants the world to work. Going into examples like a gun to your head, physical means are being used to control outcomes regardless of your thoughts and regardless of the state of the world as it is. If you walk away, you'll be killed, no matter what you think or reason about. Although your entire rational faculty has not been disabled, your "sphere of freedom" has been reduced. There are still options.

 

Peikoff gives a good explanation in a very full way about force in one of his "Objectivism Through Induction" lectures. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith is excellent as well.

 

There are many examples of "control" that limit a person's sphere of freedom, which are perfectly okay in terms of an individual rights perspective. While I think control is an important reason on why the initiation of force is bad, it isn't the primary. The primary is that the initiation of force is a means to violating individual rights, i.e. their right to life.

 

P.S. I think I am arguing a bit of semantics here, but, I still think the statement "Objectivism asserts that the initiation of force is wrong because it controls people" doesn't accurately capture the Objectivist position.

 

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many examples of "control" that limit a person's sphere of freedom, which are perfectly okay in terms of an individual rights perspective. While I think control is an important reason on why the initiation of force is bad, it isn't the primary. The primary is that the initiation of force is a means to violating individual rights, i.e. their right to life.

Why is violating rights wrong then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still misses how force *literally* controls a person. If you shove a person, they will fall regardless of what they had planned to do. Indeed they might react after the fact, but shoving would still be force. I suppose some fancy footwork prevents crashing to the ground, which doesn't change the fact that outcomes are being controlled. Furthermore, a chosen act of force is different than an act of nature to the extent that reasoning is based on how the world works, but reasoning under force is based on how the initiator wants the world to work. Going into examples like a gun to your head, physical means are being used to control outcomes regardless of your thoughts and regardless of the state of the world as it is. If you walk away, you'll be killed, no matter what you think or reason about. Although your entire rational faculty has not been disabled, your "sphere of freedom" has been reduced. There are still options.

 

Peikoff gives a good explanation in a very full way about force in one of his "Objectivism Through Induction" lectures. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith is excellent as well.

 

As thenelli said, the control element is not the primary harm. Perhaps "control" is just a less precise way to imply "prevention" in the sense that shoving someone to the ground prevents the victim from acting according to his own judgements by removing his control over his own body. Either way, I think "prevention" is a more apt description since  it focuses on the losses of the victim rather than the gains of the assailant.

 

If the biggest effect of coercion was control, then it may well be proper to coerce people into making moral choices (on all ethical levels, not just legal). But as we all know, setting up a totalitarian, Objectivist police state would not make the world a better place. This is because as much as we might try to force people to live properly, the control will always have its limits and more often then not, end up backfiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the biggest effect of coercion was control, then it may well be proper to coerce people into making moral choices (on all ethical levels, not just legal). But as we all know, setting up a totalitarian.

I don't understand this point. I'm saying because coercion is ultimately a form of control, it is improper to coerce people into making moral choices. You seem to be saying it's improper because coercion backfires. But, it's not like coercion is only bad when it backfires, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this point. I'm saying because coercion is ultimately a form of control, it is improper to coerce people into making moral choices. You seem to be saying it's improper because coercion backfires. But, it's not like coercion is only bad when it backfires, no?

 

"But, it's not like coercion is only bad when it backfires, no?"

 

Yes, coercion is only bad when it backfires. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with controlling people. We have no problem with using retaliatory coercion against legitimate threats because we know coercion is an effective tool for restraining aggressors, even if it means temporarily or permanently taking away their independence. But if we try to use coercion against individuals for ethical, but peaceful goals, it will nearly always backfire for reasons already listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no problem with using retaliatory coercion against legitimate threats because we know coercion is an effective tool for restraining aggressors, even if it means temporarily or permanently taking away their independence. But if we try to use coercion against individuals for ethical, but peaceful goals, it will nearly always backfire for reasons already listed.

I don't understand though how we're reaching the same conclusion when I'm saying the opposite as you as my premise. You're saying here now that coercion can restrain an aggressor. That's kind of my point. The only way to control a person is with force, and using that force is bad because as you said earlier, coercion prevents a person from controlling themselves. This, in turn, stops the person from living life according to means of reason.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please elaborate; I don't understand this.

I get that you're mocking me

I wasn't mocking you. We're having an argument. I thought it's pretty civil.

I was trying to illustrate that what you wrote isn't a realistic option, by showing that you wouldn't do it. If you won't do something, you shouldn't say that it's the right option. There's no point in discussing ideas we don't take seriously.

What I don't get is that last bit about encouraging me. Let's say I were to act in a violent manner; would you have caused it?

If I were to go out on a killing spree, and if you had happened to suggest just that beforehand, do you think you'd be responsible for my sins? It's sort of tangential but I'm very curious about it.

Encouraging someone to commit violence against the Police is wrong. I would never do that. Hence the disclaimer, to make sure no one misunderstands me.

It wouldn't make me responsible for your sins, but it would make me an accomplice to your actions. Legally, and morally.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...