Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

 Which is absolutely correct for attributing guilt, and mostly wrong for attributing cause.

Then we can agree that only individuals can be found guilty of crime; that whatever madness they embrace in order to rationalize unprovoked aggression, the claim that, "The Devil made me do it" isn't true.  As to cause, again if you begin with ideology and end up with individual action either supporting or rejecting an ideological goal, how can both results be caused by the same ideology?  If cause can yeild contradictory effects, what does that say about the logical integrity of cause and effect?

 

It seems to me that ideology is rendered impotent by free will; that the cause of unprovoked aggression is individuals making a bad choices.  It's not enough to blame an ideology for having followers, because that pretends the followers had no choice but to obey, which is absolutely false.  Therefore the removal of a particular ideology would have little effect on aggressive individuals, who would then simply embrace an alternate ideology to rationalize their aggression.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What of ideologies that leave absolutely no choice other than to follow its strictures?

 

Are aggressive individuals people just predisposed to violence, like brutes? If so, why would they need or want an intellectual based premise(a reason, or rationalization) to act violently, do you mean they would not be violent without a reason? Perhaps getting rid of ideologies would help in this respect, help them to remain nonaggressive if they have no rationalization. Or do violence based ideologies sometimes just have strict adherents?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What of ideologies that leave absolutely no choice other than to follow its strictures?

 

Are aggressive individuals people just predisposed to violence, like brutes? If so, why would they need or want an intellectual based premise(a reason, or rationalization) to act violently, do you mean they would not be violent without a reason? Perhaps getting rid of ideologies would help in this respect, help them to remain nonaggressive if they have no rationalization. Or do violence based ideologies sometimes just have strict adherents?

 

 

It is not possibe for a person to be devoid of an ideology or a philosophy; at the very least, all people have an implicit guidance system which determines which values they pursue. I don't think very many people are inherhent brutes biologically predisposed to violence. The closest we have, aside from people with glandular disorders, would probably be the thugs and warlord who populate African hellholes and violent inner cities. But even these people, with their extremely high rates of violence, are influenced by the philosophies of nihilism and desruction which they embody.

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If cause can yeild contradictory effects, what does that say about the logical integrity of cause and effect?

Choice determines an individual's ideology AND ideology dictates their choices.  This relationship, between free will and philosophy, is not a contradiction; it's a feedback loop.

You choose what you accept as true, pure and simple.  What you accept as true sets the terms and the context of every subsequent decision.

It is ultimately an individual's choices which determine their actions (since philosophy, which also plays a role, is also self-chosen), hence their individual guilt.  But even the most despicable of brutes has some REASON for his actions, even if it is a fantasy, even if it exists only in his own mind; he must have one, at least in his own mind.

 

So the relationship between Islam and terrorists is analogous to the relationship between Charlie Manson and the crimes of his followers. 

 

But the real issue here is not that, either; it's how much evil can be attributed to evasion and how much is due to honest error.  I wonder how many suicide bombers have blown themselves up because of their philosophy, which they did not accept as a source of rationalizations, but on the premise that "my mommy wouldn't lie to me."

 

the cause of unprovoked aggression is individuals making a bad choices.

Unprovoked aggression is a bad choice.

 

The premise "Bad decisions cause unprovoked aggression" is ultimately reducible to "bad people do bad things" i.e. a tautology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Therefore the removal of a particular ideology would have little effect on aggressive individuals, who would then simply embrace an alternate ideology to rationalize their aggression.

If an infant has, say, some neurochemical imbalance which predisposes him or her towards violence, do you think it would matter whether you taught him/her to be rational and productive and ambitious, or to be unconditionally obedient?

 

Do ideas matter at all?  Or are they arbitrary linguistic constructs which have no effect on the real world?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not possibe for a person to be devoid of an ideology or a philosophy; at the very least, all people have an implicit guidance system which determines which values they pursue. I don't think very many people are inherhent brutes biologically predisposed to violence. The closest we have, aside from people with glandular disorders, would probably be the thugs and warlord who populate African hellholes and violent inner cities. But even these people, with their extremely high rates of violence, are influenced by the philosophies of nihilism and desruction which they embody.

I agree, I just didn't know which emoticon was the 'tongue 'n' cheek" one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read through this whole thread and I have no idea what this discussion is even about. Can someone paraphrase it for me?

Muslims:  How much danger do they pose and how much guilt do they bear (and which degrees to which ones)?

Were Muslims simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (with the wrong, accidental members)?  Or should we start rounding them up for the gulags?

 

What would Ayn Rand say, if she were alive today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Garshasp had said that terrorism isn't a real threat; it's the federal government that's a danger.  I disagree because the collectivists want us all enslaved to one degree or another, while the terrorists actually want us all to be dead.

Not a little bit dead; dead-dead.

 

And I made a comment to the effect that 'most Muslims are perfectly harmless human beings' [not strictly numberically-most, but the Muslims you're most-likely to actually meet] which led to some people declaring that all Muslims are monsters and less than human, which led to other people declaring that all Muslims are harmless and the terrorists would've terrorized anyway for any reason or no reason at all.

 

Which pretty much brings us up to this post, right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read through this whole thread and I have no idea what this discussion is even about. Can someone paraphrase it for me?

 

I think the main question comes down to this: is ideology a terrorist's primary motivation for committing atrocities? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main question comes down to this: is ideology a terrorist's primary motivation for committing atrocities?

The thread is about more than just terrorist acts against western civilians. The case against militant Islam is far bigger than that. We are blaming militant Islam for religious tyranny, atrocities, terrorism, racism, antisemitism and various other forms of savagery that emanate from the Muslim world.

The wider issue isn't one of the various personal motivations of individuals, it's about the role of culture in shaping individuals into rational/moral or irrational/evil.

Of course, men have free will, therefor there will always be some people who choose to be evil and violent, and some people who choose to be rational, in any society. Because of this families and parents will also be diverse to some extent, and their behavior will shape their children into rational or irrational as well, irrespective of the surrounding culture. But culture plays an important role in swaying the majority of members of a society or group towards either rationality or irrationality. History proves a dramatic correlation between the rationality of the dominating ideology, and the rationality of the majority of individuals exposed to the culture.

With that in mind, here are a couple of facts about the Muslim world: their culture is dominated by religion. Their culture and populations are deeply irrational, as one can plainly observe simply by looking at their laws, political systems, level of education, antisemitism, etc. If one also agrees that religion is in fact irrational, the only question is, is there a correlation between the irrational ideology and the irrational end result?

I think the correlation is so obvious that it takes the entire philosophy of Liberalism, with all its power to disintegrate abstract thought, to make someone blind to it.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main question comes down to this: is ideology a terrorist's primary motivation for committing atrocities? 

Garshasp wandered off after post #18, but his initial post was interesting in that it questioned whether a disorganized external threat, e.g. Militant Islam, is greater to our population than a powerfully organized internal threat, e.g. the N.S.A.  The concenus appears to be yes, but I appreciate your continued effort to redirect an otherwise rhetorical question towards a more interesting discussion of ideology as a facade of convenience for individual acts of hostility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an infant has, say, some neurochemical imbalance which predisposes him or her towards violence, do you think it would matter whether you taught him/her to be rational and productive and ambitious, or to be unconditionally obedient?

 

Do ideas matter at all?  Or are they arbitrary linguistic constructs which have no effect on the real world?

Of course ideas matter.  The question is, can ideas define individual action so rigidly that free will is suppressed?  If not, then one must investigate beyond group ideology towards more presuasive individual motivations, i.e. perhaps study the heretic rather than the follower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA:  Suppose I came up to you in the street one day and handed you a black box.

Now, after handing you the box, how would you react if I told you it was full of money?  Alternately, how would you react if I told you it was a bomb?

 

Your ideas influence your actions by providing your choices with CONTEXT.  This does not suppress free will at all, in any way; they are an INTEGRAL PART of your free will!

 

You cannot function unless you know where you are and what you're doing, as well as why.

Without philosophy, no choices would be possible to anyone; without choice, a philosophy would be impossible to formulate.

 

You keep insisting that ideas are contradictory and antithetical to free will; that the extent of one's influence is inversely proportional to the other.  It's just not the case and I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH, could ideology makes all the difference between a suicide bomber and a war hero?

Or, more controversially, between a suicide bomber and a European priest helping poor kids in some remote African village?

The writer you quote says: "... there are three basic components in the tendency to become a suicide bomber..."

It sounds right; but, what if you step back from the specific, and generalize it? Repeat the same three tendencies, but apply it broadly, thus: most human beings want to be part of a group, they want feel their lives are meaningful, and they want to do what they think is right. Some will take these things more seriously. Some will act way outside establishment-accepted behavior from these motivations.

Looked at this way, the populations that produce terrorists are just like you and me when it comes to their human qualities and needs. The distinguishing factor is ideology.

 

Thanks again for your post. I have read papers about how 'terrorists' are made (ie: what are their core motivations, why do they do what they do, etc)- some claim that through isolation, rituals, & propaganda, people are willing to commit atrocities that were originally thought to be despicable. It's implied that given enough time, any man can be formed into a terrorist. Some claim that terrorists have below average intelligence or other mental defects, such as a mental illness. (As far as I know this has been refuted.) Others claim that the death of a family member or some other type of personal trauma can put a person 'at risk.' Still others claim that a man's environment is the primary motivation- man looks for a social group who will accept him, help him gain meaning and understanding about life, and self-esteem. It is his environment that pushes him towards one group or another.

 

I think it's a mistake to say that ideology is the only distinguishing factor between you and a terrorist (see above factors), but it's also wrong to say that ideology plays no role whatsoever (for ex, I have not heard of objectivist terrorists). I would like to settle this for myself before revisiting the issue of moral/legal responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a mistake to say that ideology is the only distinguishing factor between you and a terrorist (see above factors), but it's also wrong to say that ideology plays no role whatsoever (for ex, I have not heard of objectivist terrorists). I would like to settle this for myself before revisiting the issue of moral/legal responsibility.

Ideology is not the "only" factor, but the primary one.

The really dangerous terrorist thinks what he is doing is right and good. He isn't acting on the spur of the moment. He has made a mental journey and is convinced of a certain world view (e.g. "the U.S. is an Imperialistic state that has been imposing its hegemony upon me and my forefathers for a few generations", "Islam is a religion of peace, but the Christians won't let us live our own life. Their current hegemony, their troops in Arabia, their puppet kings in the levant, their ouster of the Taliban, are simply modern versions of their assault on Jerusalem centuries ago". And so on. The dangerous use this as a basis for their ethics. If they have the guts, they can act on this ethical view.

Of course their are also the guys and gals who do not have as strong a commitment to this world-view. They may do it primarily for all the reasons you mention: perhaps a loved one was shot by Israeli troops  and they're seething for revenge. But, these too share the world view of the more committed ones. they grow up with this world view. They may not be committed to it enough to act. Similarly there are a lot of people who sympathize with communism, but do not join the party of man the barricades. There are a lot of libertarians who simply live their lives thinking things aren't going to change anyway. So, when something clicks: a desire for revenge, for social acceptance, etc --- it is their ideology that is offering them a solution. And, further, the organizers who strap the bombs to the bodies of such volunteers, are driven by ideology, much like the first type of terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep insisting that ideas are contradictory and antithetical to free will; that the extent of one's influence is inversely proportional to the other.  It's just not the case and I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

Allow me to clarify then, because that certainly isn't the point I'm trying to make; which is that no idea/ideology forces one to act.  In the parlance of Objectivism, free will is the choice to think or not.  If one chooses to not think like a terrorist, how is it possible for the ideology of terrorism to force one to kill?  Would one not necessarily be inclined to kill, and then simply claim whatever ideology is convenient to "defend"??

 

I believe we've both made honest efforts to present our points on this issue, and I appreciate yours.  I'll let mdegges carry the argument from here, if she choses to ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideology is not the "only" factor, but the primary one.

I have to go with free will as being the primary factor, because the existence of an ideology cannot precede the existence of someone who formulated it; and that person certainly had free will prior to formulating and promoting their ideology; to think or not to think, yes??  In any case, all ideologies require willing practitioners to make it happen.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black box scenario; is it full of money or explosives?  Note that your answer, while not infringing on your free will in any way at all, would drastically alter your subsequent actions.

 

Within that context, the choice to "not think of a bomb" would constitute a certain, very specific action. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without philosophy, no choices would be possible to anyone;

Doubtful for those who choose not to think; they react based on fear or curiosity of the unknown, which means they choose to respond according to how they feel.

 

without choice, a philosophy would be impossible to formulate.

This is certainly true.

 

Black box scenario; is it full of money or explosives?

Without prior experience with money or explosives, if the black box is presented by a stranger, one is lible to react (choose to act) with suspicion regardless of philosophy.  If the black box is presented by someone familiar, one is lible to react (choose to act) according to how one feels about that person; again regardless of philosophy, or knowledge of the contents within the box.

 

One cannot dispose of free will, or the consequences of ones action.  One can dispose of philosophy as a consequence of choosing to not think.  Do you begin to understand the essential characteristic of your black box scenerio?

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without prior experience with money or explosives, if the black box is presented by a stranger, one is liable to react (choose to act) with suspicion regardless of philosophy. 

 Really?

When I was a kid I could never fully accept that bad people existed.  My parents told me not to talk to strangers, of course, but I would anyway; a stranger is simply a friend you haven't met yet.

Ayn Rand specifically identified this trait as part of the genuinely American sense of life; the inability to grasp the nature of evil.  It is part of philosophy.

 

So if a stranger handed someone a black box, their reaction would depend on their implicit philosophy; I would probably accept the box while others would refuse to, based on the opposing premises "this complete stranger is a good person" or "this complete stranger is a bad person" [benevolent/malevolent universe].

 

One can dispose of philosophy as a consequence of choosing to not think.  Do you begin to understand the essential characteristic of your black box scenerio?

Choosing not to think means that one believes whatever one is told; it does not make one immune to philosophy (it makes one a pawn to any philosophy).

To fully dispose of philosophy, and any of its effects on an individual's decisions, would mean becoming a comatose vegetable- who makes no decisions at all.

 

The essential characteristic of my scenario was a succinct demonstration of the relationship between volition and an integrated conceptual framework.

It applies equally well to your alterations; you've only moved the demonstration away from the box and towards the mysterious donor.  The underlying principle can still be clearly observed.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Really?

When I was a kid I could never fully accept that bad people existed.  My parents told me not to talk to strangers, of course, but I would anyway; a stranger is simply a friend you haven't met yet.

Ayn Rand specifically identified this trait as part of the genuinely American sense of life; the inability to grasp the nature of evil.  It is part of philosophy.

 

So if a stranger handed someone a black box, their reaction would depend on their implicit philosophy; I would probably accept the box while others would refuse to, based on the opposing premises "this complete stranger is a good person" or "this complete stranger is a bad person" [benevolent/malevolent universe].

Implicit philosophy?  As in inherent??  You lost me here... You appear to be restating my previous reply regarding reaction based on feeling for the person one is interacting with, as reacting implicitly optimistic or pessimistic...

 

Choosing not to think means that one believes whatever one is told; it does not make one immune to philosophy (it makes one a pawn to any philosophy).

To fully dispose of philosophy, and any of its effects on an individual's decisions, would mean becoming a comatose vegetable- who makes no decisions at all.

 

The essential characteristic of my scenario was a succinct demonstration of the relationship between volition and an integrated conceptual framework.

It applies equally well to your alterations; you've only moved the demonstration away from the box and towards the mysterious donor.  The underlying principle can still be clearly observed.

Believing whatever one is told remains the result of ones choice; specifically, choosing to believe, yes?  How does this indicate that one cannot equally choose to disbelieve whatever one is told?  Implicit philosophy again??

 

Whether the mystery (unknown) is a person, place or thing, the kind of reaction you're describing appears based on how one feels about their environment, i.e.  I'll accept the box because good s**t happens, or I'll pass on the box because bad s**t happens.  What is this mysterious underlying principle you're referring to which promotes action independent of knowledge?  Optimism?? Pessimism???

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implicit philosophy?  As in inherent??

 No; simply as in un-stated.  Consider it analogous to 'subconscious philosophy'.

 

For instance:  When you attempt to buy something from a store, do you always declare aloud: "I would like to buy these items with this amount of money"?  Probably not.  You may simply place the items on the counter, along with your money, on the implicit (unspoken) assumption that the cashier already knows the drill.  That's an implicit premise.

Anything which affects your reasoning, but is not specifically considered or mentioned, is an implicit premise.  And if you stop to think about it, they are all around us on a daily basis.

 

Whenever a liberal says "You only dislike Obama for his race" this is based on the implicit (unspoken) assumption that your convictions are based on the color of your skin.  Whenever an eco-Nazi condemns some new mall or apartment complex, it is based on the implicit premise that man is inherently evil (which is further based on a fundamental fear of change; i.e. pessimism).

 

 

You appear to be restating my previous reply regarding reaction based on feeling for the person one is interacting with, as reacting implicitly optimistic or pessimistic.

 And that's exactly what I'm doing.  It IS implicitly pessimistic or optimistic, which is part of philosophy.

 

Believing whatever one is told remains the result of ones choice; specifically, choosing to believe, yes?  How does this indicate that one cannot equally choose to disbelieve whatever one is told?

 

 Technically, one could simply disbelieve whatever one is told (instead of believing it), but this amounts to the same thing.

Instead of an arbitrary assortment of contradictions and conceptual rubbish, one ends up with borderline-psychotic skepticism.  Either result stems from the same cause and, in my experience, they appear to go hand-in-hand.

 

 

What is this mysterious underlying principle you're referring to which promotes action independent of knowledge?  Optimism?? Pessimism???

 Optimism and pessimism, yes; Rand called them the benevolent universe and malevolent universe premises (either the universe likes me or hates me) but they are essentially optimism and pessimism.

But they are not INDEPENDENT of knowledge.  Rather, they represent a vastly complex sum of IMPLICIT (subconscious) knowledge which is formed early in one's childhood.  I.e. from its earliest experiences of life, an infant learns what to expect from novel situations and develops this optimism or pessimism accordingly.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.  OK, yes ones premises may be implicitly optimistic or pessimistic based on an accumulation of life experiences involving action and consequence.  It seems likely then that additional ideologies one encounters are filtered positively or negatively according to implicitly benevolent or malevolent outlooks, e.g. cherry picking, or nit picking.

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...