Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
BluEarthRotting

Why Is Lying, Stealing And The Initiation Of Force Wrong?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I was discussing Objectivism with my ethics professor after class and he argued that respecting other individuals rights and property goes against the ethic of doing what is in your self interest. He went on to say that Rand never was able to adequately explain how her moral positions were consistent with self interest.

I countered that if I initiated lying, stealing or the use of force that others would recipicate, thus it is not in my self interest to do so.

His counter was that what if you were the strongest then it would be in your self interest.

I responded that no human that has been born to this world has been the strongest in everything.

He retorted what if you started from a position of strength?

It was left on that note as we both had to leave.

So, any thoughts on how to deal with these arguments?

Or another line of reasoning why violating individual and property rights is inconsistent with acting in ones self interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was discussing objectivism with my ethics professor after class and he argued that respecting other individuals rights and property goes against the ethic of doing what is in your self interest.

Food for thought:

Do you agree that man's primary tool of survival is his reasoning?

If so, how does the initiation of force affect man's ability to use reasoning for his survival?

You may get other more direct answers from folks. Past that, I can recommend some reading to you if you wish to learn this more in depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if I initiated lying, stealing or the use of force that others would recipicate, thus it is not in my self interest to do so.

This is the essence of your answer, but in a different way.

Rights are derived from the nature of human life. Due to the requirements of one's nature, one must work to satisfy these requirements. If you are the only person on an island, you are free to pursue the requirements of your nature by any means available to you.

However, as soon as one in a position to interact with other people in any way, the rational mind would recognize that others also have a specific nature and need to work to satisfy it. This recognition is the pro generate of rights.

Life requires work, so in order to live one must be free to dispose of the results of one's work. This is the right to property.

This roughly outlines the nature of rights but does not address why it is in one's self interest to recognize these rights in other people.

Without rights and an entity to protect them any group of individuals would fall into anarchy and subject to the first criminal to organize a powerful gang. That's secondary to the fact that if your rights are threatened at every turn by the initiation force on a whim or any other evil your life would be impossible. Rights and government are inseparable in the quest for a free civilization.

If you consciously violate the rights of others in a free civilization you lose any rightful claim to those rights of your own. If you refuse to recognize the right to life in another, you are throwing yours away. If you claim sovereignty over the life of another you are endorsing the idea that life is impossible. This is why it is in your self interest to recognize the rights of others. It is in the interest of you own life, it is to admit that you claim sovereignty in your own life and in yours alone.

fellow patrons: comments on this would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or another line of reasoning why violating individual and property rights is inconsistent with acting in ones self interest?

Because if you deal with others through force, fraud and deceit, you'll spend most of your time scheming and defending yourself from the schemes of others; physically attacking them and protecting yourself from their physical attacks. When, then, will you have time, or peace of mind, enough to pursue something actually useful to your life?

You'd depend on other people to actually do something useful, then you'd defraud them or steal from them (forever watching your back so no one will defraud you or steal from you). You'd be forced to live off other's efforts, abilities and skills, presuming any of them survive at all, or even find the time to pursue something actually constructive.

Your teacher's problem lies in seeing beyond the present minute and into the next hour. Let alone a truly long-term view of an entire human life spent in the conditions outlined above. Unless you are a masochist, then, respecting other people's rights is definetly in your own self-interest.

Oh and Ms. Rand made all this perfectly clear in numerous occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, see if this helps.

If my ancient philosophy class, we have been discussing Gyges' Ring (a ring that grants the wearer power to do whatever he wants and not get caught. . .it is said, based on this, that a just man and an injust man would act no differently).

So our class seem to have concluded that the only thing propelling one to be "just" was the fact that one is scared of being caught and reprimanded by his fellow men. . .if one isn't caught, it would be in his self-interest to steal, lie, cheat, etc.

After thinking about this for a while, I've come up with some answers (I think).

In order to create a society where one may benefit from another, rights must be implemented. If man A and man B constitute a society, in order from one to benefit from the other, they must accept (at least implicitly) that each has a right to his own property, to what he produces. If man A steals from man B, it woouldn't be in his self-interest b/c man B would no longer trade with him.

And even if man B was "mysteriously" stolen from, so that he had no idea who thieved him, he still would be deprived of needed goods to continue producing--so there would be no trading amongst the two b/c B would have nothing to trade.

I'll reply more later. . .sorry for this post's choppiness/incoherence, but this computer is about to kick me off so i had to type fast.

In other words, theft undermines the foundation with which trade rests upon. Thieving goes against the value which one is trying to steal. . .more to come!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I countered that if I initiated lying, stealing or the use of force that others would recipicate, thus it is not in my self interest to do so.

This is a decent answer, but a quick objection would be, "What if you can get away with stealing, is it still in your self-interest?"

What I was trying to say earlier was that stealing breaches the necessary foundation for the creation of that which the stealer is trying to steal. When man A steals from man B, essentially what he's claiming is that man B has no right to his property. If that was the case, man B wouldn't have ever tried to create anything in the first place and thus man A wouldn't have anything to gain from him.

Let me give one more example with man A & B.

Let us pretend man B makes shoes with a hammer and a chisel. Man A trades food for man B's shoes. One day, Man A decides to surreptiously steal man B's hammer and chisel (for whatever reason). Soon enough, man A realizes this was a stupid decision because his shoes have worn out and he needs a new pair, but the source from which he used to trade his items for shoes no long makes shoes, since it was deprived of the necessary tools. Thus it wasn't in his self-interest to steal.

EDIT: If you read the "Prudent Predator Thread," you'll notice there was much talk about the illegal downloading of music. Here's a rhetorical question to those college students who steal music: "How do you expect your favorite artists to continue to produce when they are robbed of that which allows them to create such wonderful music?. . .Don't complain when the world is left silent b/c you've stolen the musician's guitar, drum, and bass."

Edited by Nxixcxk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because if you deal with others through force, fraud and deceit, you'll spend most of your time scheming and defending yourself from the schemes of others; physically attacking them and protecting yourself from their physical attacks. When, then, will you have time, or peace of mind, enough to pursue something actually useful to your life?

You'd depend on other people to actually do something useful, then you'd defraud them or steal from them (forever watching your back so no one will defraud you or steal from you). You'd be forced to live off other's efforts, abilities and skills, presuming any of them survive at all, or even find the time to pursue something actually constructive.

Your teacher's problem lies in seeing beyond the present minute and into the next hour. Let alone a truly long-term view of an entire human life spent in the conditions outlined above. Unless you are a masochist, then, respecting other people's rights is definetly in your own self-interest.

Oh and Ms. Rand made all this perfectly clear in numerous occasions.

I have never posted here before, but I'd like to take a shot clarifying this idea.

What D'kian said is true, but I'd like to elaborate on it, if I may.

It is true that one of the main practical consequence to lying, cheating, and stealing is getting caught by others (and then suffering all of the consequences thereof). But there is another way that you can get caught. Actually, not merely "can" but "will". Men may not always catch you. But Nature will, every time. It is the nature of man's mind that is the key here. As Miss Rand stated on many occasions, to understand the principle you must first know what facts give rise to its need.

Rights do not exist as a matter of convenience or even because they are the most efficient social organization. They arise as a necessary consequence of the way man must act in order to survive. In essence, in principle, if you fail to act on the principle of man's rights, then you are sabotaging your own life - here and now, whether any other men ever catch you.

Your mind, your rational faculty, requires you to act on principle in order to live. I can't do more than summarize it here, but because the mind is an integrating tool, it necessarily operates to give you a wide range of knowledge at a moment's notice, at your fingertips. You have no means of automatically knowing the correct course of action in any given situation. You need principles.

With principles, you can set a long range course of action and you can apply them to specific situations that you encounter, thus ensuring that you choose correctly, thus surviving.

Without principles you act pragmatically, looking no further than the current situation, at this moment. You can't know whether to turn right or left because you have no knowledge of what lies on either fork. Ultimately you will die.

And your mind doesn't function automatically, either. You need to focus it and constantly act to integrate all the new facts with which you are presented with all the other facts that you have encountered or discovered. You must choose to do so. To do this, to use your mind and to act on the conclusions you draw, you must remain free. Specifically, you must be allowed to observe and then to act on your observations.

It is important to note that other animals have no such requirements. They do not integrate knowledge into principles. They do not need to choose to focus (indeed there is no such thing for them). They simply act on the range of the moment. They are presented with constantly new facts every moment of their lives. Granted that the brains of the more complex animals give them memories, but these are memories of specific concrete facts. Animals simply do not have minds, and therefor the concept of "principles" and "need for freedom of action" do not apply.

Okay, given those facts, then you can probably see that you definitely need to work on keeping your senses open and your mind focused on what your senses give you (along with the conclusions you have reached and principles you've discovered).

Now we have arrived at your question, the question of how to treat others.

Given what we know about human nature, man's mind, now we can make short work of the question:

If you seek to depend on the products of other men, and since those products are the products of men's minds, the extent to which you respect the nature (i.e. requirements) of those minds is the extent to which you will succeed. And the extent to which you fail to respect the requirements of the minds of others is the extent to which you will sabotage your own survival - for after all, as a man, you too must live by and act on principle.

If you prey on a herd of wild beasts, you can thin their numbers and live comfortably. Man did this for ages. You can even do this as a principled, consistent strategy. The herd will simply keep on going, automatically, for ever, or at least as long as their environment supports them. (For, unlike Man, other animals cannot adapt their environments to their own needs.)

But if you adopt a similar strategy and prey off of a group of men, even if you only "cull the herd", take a little property here, tell a white lie there, and even if you don't kill off the group, you are still acting to destroy *your means* of production. If other men are your means of production, and if other men require freedom to think and to act on their thoughts, then when you deny them that freedom (by taking the products of their actions, thereby thwarting their actions, thereby thwarting their thinking), you deny them their lives, and you disrupt your means of production. (Observe the consequences of all the different ways of violating rights, particularly organized crime and serial crime. The criminal cannot indefinitely sustain "production", and end up destroying his "means of production" - his prey. The proof of this lies ultimately in the test of reality, not in a mere deductive illustration.)

Recognizing that you (and every other man) need political freedom is the principled (and only) way to survive. You need the rights of others and it is selfish to respect them.

-Tae

P.S. Not to nit-pick, but, FYI, Miss Rand made it clear that she disliked being addressed as "Ms".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was discussing Objectivism with my ethics professor after class and he argued that respecting other individuals rights and property goes against the ethic of doing what is in your self interest. He went on to say that Rand never was able to adequately explain how her moral positions were consistent with self interest.

I countered that if I initiated lying, stealing or the use of force that others would recipicate, thus it is not in my self interest to do so.

His counter was that what if you were the strongest then it would be in your self interest.

1) Anyone who lies or steals can never be the strongest in the world. He is just a parasite feeding on people. It is the people on whom he is feeding which hold the real power because if they collapse, he collapses.

2) He is destroying his source of existence. He is acting against his self-interest.

3) Do you know why people rob and steal? It is because of a metaphysical fear of reality. Unable to handle reality, unable to take responsibility of their own life, they seek an escape. Some get that escape in destroying the mind. Some get that escape in destroying matter. Observe that a robber will go to any lengths to develop ingenious plots but will not spend an ounce of effort on real work - it is because robbery offers him an escape from the fact that he is responsible for his own life. He believes that by manipulating reality, somehow, he can get away with it.

However there is no getting away with reality. He pays with his spirit. A robber is never happy. All he is is afraid.

Evil isn't a monstrous towering personality able to do anything. It is a rotten, envy-filled piece of a parasite powerless to do anything, to accomplish anything. It only survives by feeding on the productive.

4) If you want a detailed explanation as to why a person gets that way, read Comprachicos by Ayn Rand, in the Anti-Industrial Revolution.

5) If you want a deeper understanding of the psychology of evil, read Fyodor Dostoevsky

Edited by tommyedison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Tae. That was a deeper explanation than I mannaged. I'm afraid I tend to go for practical explanations, as they are simpler, rather than theoretical ones.

P.S. Not to nit-pick, but, FYI, Miss Rand made it clear that she disliked being addressed as "Ms".

I dind't know that, as a matter of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, Tae. That was a deeper explanation than I mannaged. I'm afraid I tend to go for practical explanations, as they are simpler, rather than theoretical ones.

I dind't know that, as a matter of fact.

You are welcome. :dough:

Not meaning to get off topic, but if you'll allow me to back up my assertion with a small bit of evidence, then I'll drop it:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=63695

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, Tae. That was a deeper explanation than I mannaged. I'm afraid I tend to go for practical explanations, as they are simpler, rather than theoretical ones.

I agree with everything Tae said, but I want to add some to it:

There are two main arguments that people usually make for why it is not selfish to initiate force against others:

  • You might get caught (by other people).
  • If you want people to respect your rights, then you have to respect theirs.

They're both true, but I don't think either one of them is really the strongest argument out there.

The first one is answered very easily by saying: But what if I don't get caught. And sometimes, people get away with wrong-doing. Tae's variation of this argument is one of the best I've seen, since she points out that it is reality, not necessarily other men, who will always catch you.

The second is a weak, weak argument. For one, it is non-fundamental, since it relies on the first. If you do wrong, and nobody catches you, they will still respect your rights. But does that mean it's in your self-interest to initiate force against someone, as long as nobody else finds out? NO!

You will always get caught--by yourself. And that's really the key. There are three fundamental values that must be achieved before any other value is possible--reason, purpose, self-esteem.

Tae has already demonstrated how initiating force is a negation of reason; I will now show how it negates self-esteem. Self-esteem is a positive appraisal of oneself which says: I'm good. Good for what? All sorts of things. It says: I have all the tools necessary to live. I'm good at getting values. I'm good at life. I've been successful thus far, and I did it all myself.

The person who gains values by force is implicitly saying: I can't do this for myself. I'm no good at living. I can't get my own values, because I don't have the tools necessary to create them, but I still want values, so I'll just take them. Gaining values by force is negating self-esteem. It is telling oneself: I'm not a good person, which means: I am not a value, which translates to self-loathing, not self-esteem.

Sure, in the short-term, a man might be able to get away with suppressing the guilt from minor transgressions, but in the long-term it will always catch up to him. Suppressing guilt doesn't make it go away, it just makes it compound, and get even more deeply embedded in one's value hierarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypothetical: (seeking a loophole)

1. If I were to kill a man who I in no way needed and who produced or possessed no values that I wanted, an old homeless alcoholic say, I would not be damaging my resource base. Granted I would run out of bums, but what if I did it only once.

2. dondigitalia: Because this man would have no values I wanted or was feeding off of, I would not be violating my self esteem by acting as if I needed him to get values. I took no value from him and do not depend on him for values.

3. My motivation for killing him if he had no values I wanted would be the obvious question, I assume. Say I either a. enjoyed killing him and therefore was rationally pursuing my happiness or b. he smelled bad or his presence otherwise discomforted me and I wanted him gone. Similarly I’d be indirectly working towards my happiness but that piece of happiness doesn’t come from him, he is an impediment in reality similar to the rock in the way of my coal. Can I be certain that all killers are always made unhappy by killing--some of them certainly seem to enjoy it and I cannot claim to know them better then themselves...

4. If I were to do it in such a way that no one else knew about it (I wouldn’t get caught) I would not be putting myself in danger of attack by others because they wouldn’t know I had forfeited my rights. I could also go with “what if I’m strong enough to survive counterattack” but the waste of time having to always watch my back seems like a good enough reason to avoid that to me.

5. taegann: If I were to murder only once, and were to otherwise follow the principles I need to in order to survive, I wouldn’t be putting my life in danger.

6. killing him would be acting on the principle that human life has no value, which seems to strike at my self esteem. can not happiness justify murder? pursuit of my happiness at all costs is an expression of high self esteem--i am worthy. when i kill to defend myself i am similarly killing a human who gives me no value because I think that my happiness and desire to live trump whatever value would be lost when i killed him (i'm not addressing the forfeitng of rights bit in self defense becase as a killer i have none anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hypothetical: (seeking a loophole)

6. killing him would be acting on the principle that human life has no value, which seems to strike at my self esteem. can not happiness justify murder? pursuit of my happiness at all costs is an expression of high self esteem--i am worthy. when i kill to defend myself i am similarly killing a human who gives me no value because I think that my happiness and desire to live trump whatever value would be lost when i killed him (i'm not addressing the forfeitng of rights bit in self defense becase as a killer i have none anyway).

I think you answered your own question here.

If you put no value in human life, how can you value (and be subsequently happy with) your own? Also, you know that by killing, you forfeit those rights, which are also a value you seek to earn and keep, so how can you be happy with losing those? Doesn't this seem like a bit of a contradiction?

Also, killing in self-defense (i.e. you're being mugged) is MUCH different than cold-blooded murder. In the murder, it would seem (by the above statements) you're already losing those values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hypothetical:

4. If I were to do it in such a way that no one else knew about it (I wouldn’t get caught) I would not be putting myself in danger of attack by others because they wouldn’t know I had forfeited my rights.

If you suspend reality (causality) in your hypothesis, the conclusion is meaningless ;)

If you kill someone, you can get caught.

mrocktor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguement I'm hearing seems to contain an element of collectivism in it, unless I'm misinterpreting (i realize that collectivism is a naughty word here).

I am an distinct entity and my vicitm is a distinct entity. I don't derive value from his existence so I lose none when he ceases to exist. Say that I do derive value from killing him, killing this guy made me happy. Now according to objectivism I'm supposed to pursue my happiness at all costs. The caveat that keeps this from being a command to free-for-all is that it truely has to be happiness that i'm pursuing.

The objectivist arguements as to why i wouldn't in fact be happy killing someone, as far as I know them, are 1. self defense: you kill somone then maybe someone will kill you 2. utility: it's a waste of time having to always defend yourself (obey the rules and you'll presumably be immune) 3. greed: if i kill somone that produces values i want/need then i'm hurting my supply chain.

If all of these problems are removed--and there are several scenerios I have in mind which i'll address later--would murder be moral?

Now, first scenerio is that I would really really really enjoy killing someone. My understanding of Galt's claim that he'd prefer to die then see Dagny get axed is that the pursuit of life is subordinate to the pursuit of happiness. I remember somewhere else one of the Titans saying that it would be moral to die fighting, even if all the world opposed you, if you were fighting for your happiness (your sine quo non). Now, as the ARI people explained it to me (mind you i'm paraphrasing), the reason you shouldn't sit on your roof with a shotgun waiting for the IRS to come get you--cause otherwise it'd moral to die a martyr for yourself--is because you probably get more net happiness if you lived. If that weren't true, (i'm terminally i'll so i'll die anyway, i'd enjoy killing that guy enough that it'd be worth it to me, etc) then why shouldn't you risk dying at the hands of a counter attack? It would seem in fact that you'd be immoral if you didn't kill because there'd be no good reason why you shouldn't pursue this uber happiness???

Second scenerio, a more clear version of my last post---i still want to live but i can avoid being caught and i'd enjoy it. Now the second post seems like a nonsensical cop out. I'm "suspending reality" in that i'm pretending what happened didn't happen. Am I? I don't need to walk up to a guy and say "I ate the cookie" for it to have really happened. You make it sound as if I'd need to walk up to a policeman and say, "you know, i killed that homeless guy who you probably didn't even notice was missing" for me not to be suspending reality. I know it happened, i'm not telling myself it didn't happen, where's the problem? Do I need to waltz around the world shouting "reality is real" to not suspend reality? Is this not solipsism?

The first post is more interesting (admittedly it's one i posted myself so i'm biased). I posted it though cause I think there's a problem with it so using it against me isn't helping me understand it any better. So I'm a human and my victim's a human. We're not the same person. I don't need him to have self esteem. Screw him. If I'm happy killing him and retribution and greed are meaningless (i won't get caught, i don't care if i get caught (see above), and he's a unproductive bum so i'm not hurting my suppliers), then why shouldn't I? The only grounds objectivism has left, unless I'm missing something, is to try to prove that I'm not really happy. Now this post, my 6, claims that I can't be happy killing a human because I'm a human and I'd essentially be indirectly killing myself. But the REALITY is that I am not killing myself. I am not "Humanity", (neither is he) and I do not derive my sense of self worth from "Humanity." The claim that murder is acting on the principle that MY life has no meaning isn't accurate then, only Suicide would meet the ME criteria (and maybe not even then). Again and again I read that It is evil and impossible to derive a source of self esteem from external sources (rearden's pulling himself up from his desk scene). A = A??

Now the way i'd try to attack that would be A =C, B=C therefore A=C but isn't this collective identity-ism? I cannot equal humanity, seperate mind, seperate stomach, etc??? If I am not "humanity" then acting as if human life has no meaning doesn't bother me, I am not "human life", I am "my life". ???

Personally I like the martyr arguement better, something about this last arguement "feels" wrong (pardon me, another dirty word) but i don't see why i should think it wrong. The martyr arguement always gets me when I have to defend objectivism, which can be a full time task for a college student studying humanities....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll assume you're being facetious but it isn't useful. I already addressed that problem, twice in fact, in case you missed it. I wouldn't need to be strong if I didn't have to fight. I wouldn't have to fight if people didn't know I had killed. Its perfectly reasonable to suppose that I could kill in such a way that no one knew I had done it. The hundreds of thousands of unsolved crimes we hear about every day should be empirical proof enough of that.

Even if there was no way in hell i could ever get away with murder (a claim which seems to have no basis in reality) why would it matter if it made me happy? The pursuit of happiness trumps the pursuit of life. See all the arguements in my last post...there must be some real counter arguement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that you can kill an unlimited number of people, loot an unlimited amount of money and get away with it. But it won't make you happy.

It is selfishness and productive work which brings happiness - that is in the nature of human beings. If you are a parasite, actively destroying the source of your wealth, you are not being selfish. Life is a sustained effort. Materially, you may acquire a lot of money through murder.

Psychologically, you will have a fear of reality, fear because you are so incompetent to deal with it that you have to rely on the effort of others to sustain yourself. Your money will not translate into happiness. It will translate into stark primitive terror hidden beneath a vast string of rationalizations. You will keep trying to make yourself believe that you are selfish and happy, that you are in control of reality and your life by for example spending a lot of money. But you will never actually believe it. Because subconsciously you will know that you are impotent to deal with reality and it is only through the productive effort of others that you can survive.

I would highly recommend the essay "Comprachicos" by Ayn Rand in the book "Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution". IMO, It will clear up a lot of doubts pertaining to the metaphysical impotence and psychology of evil.

Edited by tommyedison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with your example is that you assume you want to kill this person and you assume that you can get away with it. Yet those are exactly the relevant issues in this discussion.

Why do you want to kill this person? What will you have to do to keep your secret?

mrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was discussing Objectivism with my ethics professor after class and he argued that respecting other individuals rights and property goes against the ethic of doing what is in your self interest. He went on to say that Rand never was able to adequately explain how her moral positions were consistent with self interest.

I countered that if I initiated lying, stealing or the use of force that others would recipicate, thus it is not in my self interest to do so.

His counter was that what if you were the strongest then it would be in your self interest.

I responded that no human that has been born to this world has been the strongest in everything.

He retorted what if you started from a position of strength?

It was left on that note as we both had to leave.

So, any thoughts on how to deal with these arguments?

Or another line of reasoning why violating individual and property rights is inconsistent with acting in ones self interest?

Because doing so is intra-species predatorial, and the ultimate good for us is what's good for the rest of our species. Doing things that pray on our own species is ultimately anti-thetical to our existance.

Keep in mind just how complicated the initiation of force can be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that you can kill an unlimited number of people, loot an unlimited amount of money and get away with it. But it won't make you happy.

It is selfishness and productive work which brings happiness - that is in the nature of human beings. If you are a parasite, actively destroying the source of your wealth,

for the third time, what if i am not destroying the source of my wealth? what if i don't need the victim?

Psychologically, you will have a fear of reality, fear because you are so incompetent to deal with it that you have to rely on the effort of others to sustain yourself...subconsciously you will know that you are impotent to deal with reality and it is only through the productive effort of others that you can survive.

Again, what if I do not need to kill in order to survive. I could and often do produce my own wealth, or I simply abstain from killing those useful to me? Why should I be afraid? I can live just fine on my own if i want to?

I still don't see why no one believes that killers are sometimes never caught? doesn't anyone watch america's most wanted anymore or see the myriad of missing persons or wanted adds in public places? because the emperical evidence says that people can and do avoid detection and capture, i'm suspicious that these mindless repeatitions of "you will get caught" are toeing the line of faith, which if true would collapse the whole philosophy and make it the cult all my teachers tell me it is

Share this post


Link to post
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...