Coercion

[Harrison Danneskjold]

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.

That's true; we shouldn't discuss ideas that we don't take seriously.  But I do take this seriously.

 

Encouraging someone to commit violence against the Police is wrong. I would never do that.

Alright.  First of all, if you look back at what I suggested, I never mentioned physically harming a single policeman.  (the only vague point was the idea of hacking a predator drone, but I wasn't trying to imply that it should be used that way)  I don't think it's absolutely necessary under the current circumstances.

If someone wanted to shut down the police force in their area, there are potentially infinite ways for them to do it without hurting a single cop.  That's my overarching point.

Secondly, while it would be immoral to start killing cops indiscriminately, there are some who deserve to be hurt.  Pure and simple.

 

If a policeman abused his authority and used it to murder or rape someone without legal ramifications then I would absolutely advocate some vigilante justice.  Such cops are vanishingly rare, I'm not trying to imply that they're the rule and not the exception, but they do exist and they should be hurt.

 

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

That makes more sense.  Thank you.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[2046]

"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.

This doesn't really seem to make sense. If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying the injustice of using coercion comes from the fact that using it will backfire. So in instances of coercion backfiring, it's unjust, in instances of it being effective, it's just. It so happens that initiating coercion nearly always backfires, and using coercion in self-defense is generally effective.

 

This seems implausible. First, I'm not sure if it lines up exactly like that. Secondly, this seems to be too heavily consequentialist. Is the only reason why Howard Roark didn't act unethically because he really couldn't effectively get away with it? Or Galt? It seems rather that Roark or Galt wouldn't exploit other people because they would find living in a such a way to be subhuman and unworthy of them. I know Rand, at times, seems to have an instrumental explanation for adhering to justice, and consequentialist considerations should certainly count for something, but it would seem to be a violation of Aristotelian flourishing and to reduce the non-aggression principle to a mere rule of thumb to say that coercion is wrong only when it backfires.

Edited May 21, 2013 by 2046

[Dormin111]

This doesn't really seem to make sense. If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying the injustice of using coercion comes from the fact that using it will backfire. So in instances of coercion backfiring, it's unjust, in instances of it being effective, it's just. It so happens that initiating coercion nearly always backfires, and using coercion in self-defense is generally effective.

 

This seems implausible. First, I'm not sure if it lines up exactly like that. Secondly, this seems to be too heavily consequentialist. Is the only reason why Howard Roark didn't act unethically because he really couldn't effectively get away with it? Or Galt? It seems rather that Roark or Galt wouldn't exploit other people because they would find living in a such a way to be subhuman and unworthy of them. I know Rand, at times, seems to have an instrumental explanation for adhering to justice, and consequentialist considerations should certainly count for something, but it would seem to be a violation of Aristotelian flourishing and to reduce the non-aggression principle to a mere rule of thumb to say that coercion is wrong only when it backfires.

 

I think you are begging the question, or perhaps being deontological.

 

Why is the initiation of coercion a subhuman action? Because it is a short term mode of living which achieves momentary gain with brute force at the cost of long term gain with reason. If, theoretically, initiating coercion to achieve one's ends was a successful strategy for living (as it is with many animals), then it would not be immoral. In this case, all of nature would be different and Rand's ethics would have to be rewritten past the very first stage of "life being the standard of value." However, in our reality, initiating coercion is a demonstrably counterproductive action.

 

I am not sure if this reasoning is consequentialist or even when that term applies. Man's ethics should rightfully be based on the consequences of his action. Rand was one of the few to recognize that there is no dichotomy between "good consequences" and "doing the right thing." Neither side of the equation comes first, but rather they are both always one in the same. But Rand also recognized that moral principles exist, and therefore the best consequences are not achieved by pragmatism.

[2046]

I think you are begging the question, or perhaps being deontological.

 

Why is the initiation of coercion a subhuman action? Because it is a short term mode of living which achieves momentary gain with brute force at the cost of long term gain with reason. If, theoretically, initiating coercion to achieve one's ends was a successful strategy for living (as it is with many animals), then it would not be immoral. In this case, all of nature would be different and Rand's ethics would have to be rewritten past the very first stage of "life being the standard of value." However, in our reality, initiating coercion is a demonstrably counterproductive action.

Surely whether or not initiating coercion is a means to achieving one's end of successful living needs to play into the consideration, but that is not the only factor, since our assessment of what constitutes successful living likewise needs to be informed, as a side-constraint, by the content of justice. That is why most people who disagree about what is just also disagree about which actions are beneficial as well.

 

I am not sure if this reasoning is consequentialist or even when that term applies. Man's ethics should rightfully be based on the consequences of his action. Rand was one of the few to recognize that there is no dichotomy between "good consequences" and "doing the right thing." Neither side of the equation comes first, but rather they are both always one in the same. But Rand also recognized that moral principles exist, and therefore the best consequences are not achieved by pragmatism.

Very well, but then this would seem to rule out a purely consequentialist explanation of the immorality of coercion. I am just pointing out that there is tension between what you type here in this paragraph, and your earlier statement that "coercion is only bad when it backfires." There might be some instance in which one could get away with initiating coercion and it would still be unjust, but only if justice is not purely instrumental to living a successful life.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

This has been indescribably helpful to me. 

But Rand also recognized that moral principles exist, and therefore the best consequences are not achieved by pragmatism.

Isn't rational selfishness long-term, logical pragmatism?  I was under the impression that the moral-practical dichotomy was false.

 

There might be some instance in which one could get away with initiating coercion and it would still be unjust, but only if justice is not purely instrumental to living a successful life.

A mugger might "get away with it" once or twice, or even for the sake of argument indefinitely.  But think about what that statement means.

When a mugger "gets away with it" he gains some immediate money without finding himself maimed, imprisoned or dead.  This isn't something he could support himself with for any real length of time.

But even if he could, to support yourself isn't LIVING; that's just avoiding death.  What values does a mugger truly gain?  Some petty cash.  And what values does he irreversibly destroy?

Staving death off for another day aside, a mugger has decided that his mind is worthless and acted accordingly.  Instead of writing music or literature, inventing something, starting a business or just enjoying some personal hobby he has decided to live at gunpoint.  This action says both "you have no mind" and ALSO "I have no mind"!  And I think that necessarily makes it subhuman.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Dormin111]

Surely whether or not initiating coercion is a means to achieving one's end of successful living needs to play into the consideration, but that is not the only factor, since our assessment of what constitutes successful living likewise needs to be informed, as a side-constraint, by the content of justice. That is why most people who disagree about what is just also disagree about which actions are beneficial as well.

I agree.

 

 

Very well, but then this would seem to rule out a purely consequentialist explanation of the immorality of coercion. I am just pointing out that there is tension between what you type here in this paragraph, and your earlier statement that "coercion is only bad when it backfires." There might be some instance in which one could get away with initiating coercion and it would still be unjust, but only if justice is not purely instrumental to living a successful life.

I agree with Harrison. By theoretically successful coercion, I mean the typical Objectivist standard of flourishing qua man. In the case of predatory animals, they do flourish with their maximum potential through coercion because that is in there nature. There are some humans who can survive long term through thuggery but not at their highest (or even minor level of) potential.

 

 

 

 

Isn't rational selfishness long-term, logical pragmatism?

 

 

Not exactly.

 

My understanding of pragmatism is that it specifically refers to utilitarianism without principles. In practice, this becomes short term selfishness with no regards for the long term (accept possibly at some arbitrary times).  Pragmatists claim the "consequentialist" side of the consequentialist/ethical dichotomy and therefore don't believe in any guiding principles for achieving long term value. Instead they choose "whatever works" and run with it until it stops working. Even if a pragmatist specifically focused on the long run, he would never achieve it because he would fail to recognize the objectivity of ethics and reality.

[tadmjones]

Dormin111 said #31

By theoretically successful coercion, I mean the typical Objectivist standard of flourishing qua man. In the case of predatory animals, they do flourish with their maximum potential through coercion because that is in there nature

Coercion implies intent is this equatible on the animal/predatory level?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

My understanding of pragmatism is that it specifically refers to utilitarianism without principles. In practice, this becomes short term selfishness with no regards for the long term (accept possibly at some arbitrary times).  Pragmatists claim the "consequentialist" side of the consequentialist/ethical dichotomy and therefore don't believe in any guiding principles for achieving long term value. Instead they choose "whatever works" and run with it until it stops working. Even if a pragmatist specifically focused on the long run, he would never achieve it because he would fail to recognize the objectivity of ethics and reality.

Ah.

I wouldn't classify that as a specific code of morality, but as a failure to grasp the entire concept of morality or any form of purposefulness.  (actually, "pragmatism" as the word is most commonly used would probably be much more accurately described as "aimlessness")

But I get what you mean.

[Dormin111]

Dormin111 said #31

By theoretically successful coercion, I mean the typical Objectivist standard of flourishing qua man. In the case of predatory animals, they do flourish with their maximum potential through coercion because that is in there nature

Coercion implies intent is this equatible on the animal/predatory level?

 

As conscious beings, most animals (above a certain level of biological complexity) do act with intention, so I would say yes. I am not an expert on the subject, but animals can choose to engage in predatory action; think of a trained lion which doesn't murder and eat his master.

[Devil's Advocate]

The initiation of force is wrong because it invites retaliation.  As a form of trade (fear for submission), it is self destructive because the aggressor endangers their own survival by transforming trading partners from deliverers of goods into deliverers of vengeance.

[tadmjones]

 

As conscious beings, most animals (above a certain level of biological complexity) do act with intention, so I would say yes. I am not an expert on the subject, but animals can choose to engage in predatory action; think of a trained lion which doesn't murder and eat his master.

I would say that a lion can not 'murder' a trainer. The lion may not not kill the trainer, but I do not think the lion makes a conscious 'decision' not to kill, apart from reacting to its training. Coersion is the act of consciously taking actions to 'force' other agents to act in a certain way, there has to be conscious recognition of the possibilities , I do not see the type of consciousness that 'lower' animals possess as being able to operate at that level. Edited May 24, 2013 by tadmjones

[Grames]

Isn't rational selfishness long-term, logical pragmatism?

Pragmatism is by definition not ever long-term.  Pragmatism is unprincipled on principle.   That sentence you have written contains an oxymoron.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Pragmatism is by definition not ever long-term.  Pragmatism is unprincipled on principle.   That sentence you have written contains an oxymoron.

Thank you.

 

The initiation of force is wrong because it invites retaliation.  As a form of trade (fear for submission), it is self destructive because the aggressor endangers their own survival by transforming trading partners from deliverers of goods into deliverers of vengeance.

This is entirely true, but it can't be the one and only reason why it's wrong; otherwise the evil of an act of coercion depends on the violent capacities of its victim.

Now, this would seem to be consonant at first glance (some people, when confronted with such evils, will simply accept them as somehow deserved in some roundabout way; I would be loathe to come to such a person's defense) but what about people who would defend themselves but physically cannot?

The handicapped, babies, the elderly, et cetera?  If coercion is only evil because it invites revenge then logically, by that standard, it would not be evil to kill a baby before breakfast each and every morning.

Not to mention, if it's evil because it invites revenge (the threat of violence) wouldn't anything in any way offensive or upsetting to anyone on Earth be evil?  It might imply political correctness as a codified moral standard; I'd have to give it some more examination.

 

But I don't think that's necessarily false, in and of itself.  It's just that such an explanation of the evil of coercion is absolutely insufficient, in and of itself.  But I see no reason why it shouldn't be entirely consistent with any number of other O'ists' explanations.

[Devil's Advocate]

I was responding to the OP which questions the initiation of force.  This certainly isn't justified according to the violent capacities of the victim.  The handicapped, babies and the elderly are all part of a larger community of family, friends and officers of the law who are justified to respond defensively for the victim.  The consequence of vengance cannot be escaped just because an initiator of force targets the weak.

 

While I appreciate your finding my comment consistent with O'ists, I don't claim to be one myself; only that I appreciate and agree with much of the philosophy, and particularily on this issue.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

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.

"I am merely complying with the system which my fellow men have established. If they believe that force is the proper means to deal with one another, I am giving them what they ask for. If they believe that the purpose of my life is to serve them, let them try to enforce their creed. If they believe that my mind is their property—let them come and get it.”

-Ragnar Danneskjold

 

That is what I'm advocating.

Don't throw your life away- if some criminal confronts you with a bigger gun then the moral thing to do is to comply.

 

All I'm asserting is that the human mind is THE biggest gun.

[Devil's Advocate]

"I am merely complying with the system which my fellow men have established. If they believe that force is the proper means to deal with one another, I am giving them what they ask for. If they believe that the purpose of my life is to serve them, let them try to enforce their creed. If they believe that my mind is their property—let them come and get it.”

-Ragnar Danneskjold

 

That is what I'm advocating.

Don't throw your life away- if some criminal confronts you with a bigger gun then the moral thing to do is to comply.

 

All I'm asserting is that the human mind is THE biggest gun.

I agree on the supremacy of reason, and two favorite quotes come to mind:

“I don't care if I pass your test, I don't care if I follow your rules. If you can cheat, so can I. I won't let you beat me unfairly - I'll beat you unfairly first." ~ Ender Wiggin, Ender's Game

"I'll make friends with Yankee carpetbaggers. I'll beat them at their own game, and you'll beat them with me." ~ Scarlett O'Hare, Gone With The Wind

--

I believe the supremacy of reason also allows for a moral argument to rebel in the face of overwhelming odds as an acceptable risk of not complying.  I'm biased on this issue by my conviction that a right to live presumes the right to choose not to retreat from a mortal threat.

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

“I don't care if I pass your test, I don't care if I follow your rules. If you can cheat, so can I. I won't let you beat me unfairly - I'll beat you unfairly first." ~ Ender Wiggin, Ender's Game

 

 Indeed!

And you know what. . . That would seem to almost-perfectly correspond to defensive/retaliatory force, as well.  Shooting people is bad, AND SO [consequently; not in spite of] if you point a gun at me I'll shoot first.

I like it.

 

I believe the supremacy of reason also allows for a moral argument to rebel in the face of overwhelming odds as an acceptable risk of not complying.  I'm biased on this issue by my conviction that a right to live presumes the right to choose not to retreat from a mortal threat.

 

Well, that's just the thing.

1:  Legally, the right to life necessitates the right to die (no senseless obligations; only causality) and so, assuming you're defending your rights and your attackers have thusly forfeited theirs, you have the legal right to fight back against overwhelming odds.

2:  Morally, your own life should be the standard of value (although I think your happiness should truly be the ultimate value; life only being an absolute requirement for any chance of that); to throw your life away for no reason would be immoral.

But that's what I'm saying; DON'T throw it away; only understand that against a rational and determined mind there is no such thing as overwhelming odds.

 

And yes, so long as you're defending yourself, fight dirty!  Cause some damage; make the Home Alone movies look downright chivalrous!