Eurynomus Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 When is it the answer? Am I correct in saying that the basic Objectivist premise to war is that a country should go to war when and only when it is in that country's self-interest? I'm not precisely clear on how to judge "self-interest" in this case. Where does self-interest outweigh self-sacrifice? For example, say we were to go into Iraq primarily for oil. It would be in our self-interest to do so, but at the potential cost of the lives of many soldiers. Maybe Vietnam is a better example. There was a thread yesterday about this [sorry, I forget the name], and somebody said that it was not in our self-interest to go to Vietnam and fight Communism, when it was not a direct threat to us. But I don't get it. Couldn't it easily be argued that it was in fact in our self-interest to go to war with Communism and stop it before it spread? Obviously there is an Objective standard here, I guess I am basically asking, in regards to war, what is the Objective standard? How does this Objective standard pertain to a free country vs. an unfree country? (i.e., does an unfree country have no right to wage war?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olex Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Looks like you are not clear on what self-interest is. I suggest I study over it again. It is rational self-interest, not just whatever you can grab to yourself, as you post indicates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurynomus Posted August 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Sorry, I know it's rational self-interest. Olex, can you clarify for me what that means in this case, in regards to war, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Eurynomous, 2 things: 1. You are asking sort of a general "What does Objectivism say about X?" question. I would recommend a great first source to go to to get the Objectivist position on particular issue would be something like The Ayn Rand Lexicon. It is worth having this on your bookshelf as it is indexed, alphebatized by topic, and referenced so that you can go to essays and writings that cover the topic in more detail. 2. You mistate the position. The fundamental is not self-interest, but rather self-defense. The concept of self defense rises out of the idea of self interest, and the initiation of force priciple, but self-defense is more delimiting. So a country would go to war in response to an act of violence from another nation, or sometimes to help defend an ally from such an act, or to preempt an eminent threat of violence. It would not be acceptable to go to war to force a country to open a countries borders to trade with us, even through trade might be in "our interest." Arguing we went to Iraq for oil is not part of this principle. Arguing we went to Iraq to stabilize our security situation is more valid (although one could easily argue we should have gone after Iran, not Iraq) Also, it would not be right to go to war to aid another country, if aiding them provided us with no added security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 When is it the answer? Am I correct in saying that the basic Objectivist premise to war is that a country should go to war when and only when it is in that country's self-interest? I'm not precisely clear on how to judge "self-interest" in this case. For the most part, self defense is just about the only reason to go to war. The force that's initiated to trigger a self-defense reaction isn't always violence. Where does self-interest outweigh self-sacrifice? For example, say we were to go into Iraq primarily for oil. It would be in our self-interest to do so, but at the potential cost of the lives of many soldiers. Maybe Vietnam is a better example. There was a thread yesterday about this [sorry, I forget the name], and somebody said that it was not in our self-interest to go to Vietnam and fight Communism, when it was not a direct threat to us. But I don't get it. Couldn't it easily be argued that it was in fact in our self-interest to go to war with Communism and stop it before it spread? Obviously there is an Objective standard here, I guess I am basically asking, in regards to war, what is the Objective standard? Why would it really be in our self-interest to go into Iraq for oil? Statism involves governments use of power to control economic resources. Invading a country to gain resources, and having the conquering government direct where those resources go is wrong. Invading Iraq to spread freedom as a primary reason, to force a political/philosophical ideology on another country is wrong. Governments work on rules, people work on principles. Stopping the spread of an opposing philosophy is not the job of a government either. If we go to war it should only be to protect, not to spread our democracy, freedom, and the American way of life. How does this Objective standard pertain to a free country vs. an unfree country? (i.e., does an unfree country have no right to wage war?) Since a nation is only a collection of people, a government derives it's rights from it's people. If the people have no rights, neither does the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurynomus Posted August 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 Thank you for your responses, Kendall and Lathanar, they were both very helpful. It's weird-- I'm brand new to Objectivism and I am halfway through reading VOS for the third time at this point. Maybe I should take a break, because these are all things that I have read a bunch of times, but for some reason I just forget about them. And Kendall, the Ayn Rand Lexicon? I didn't know there was such a thing; where is it available? It sounds great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 You can get The Ayn Rand Lexicon at any major bookstore. It is great, as you can quickly find an Ayn Rand passage on tons of topics very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 (edited) Thank you for your responses, Kendall and Lathanar, they were both very helpful. It's weird-- I'm brand new to Objectivism and I am halfway through reading VOS for the third time at this point. Maybe I should take a break, because these are all things that I have read a bunch of times, but for some reason I just forget about them. I don't think you're really forgetting what you read. Rather, the essay are in conceptual, abstract form. It takes much effort and understand how these abstract principles apply in the case of each specific concrete, and it also takes much effort to understand how various concepts integrate to apply to various situations. What you describe is a common situation. The concepts sound really logical and make sense, but when you get out into a real world situation, you can't seem to pull up the right argument for a point. This takes practice in application to really understand the concepts fully. I've heard the term "chewing" referred to this process of application and reabstraction of the principles. I felt just like this when I first started studying Objectivism. It took me really about five years before I could hold my own in an intellectual debate using the Objectivist principles. Peikoff discusses this very phenomenon in his course, The Art of Thinking. If you continue to feel as though you are struggling to apply the concepts, you might consider picking it up. Also, his Introduction to Logic course is a very good one. Those are the two that really kickstarted me. The Lexicon is here. You can browse a few pages on Amazon to see what it's like. It is usually my go to reference, from which I can look up the relevant essays in my "nearly-complete" Rand library. Edited August 16, 2006 by KendallJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) ...he Ayn Rand Lexicon? I didn't know there was such a thing; where is it available? It sounds great.It's very useful to have a place where one can look up selected passages related to various concepts. I notice that used copies are selling for $3 on Amazon. More expensive, but also useful is the "Objectivism Research CD" (also available via Amazon). This has full texts of all the fundamental Objectivist books. (Some discussion about the CD in this thread.) Edited August 17, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 More expensive, but also useful is the "Objectivism Research CD" (also available via Amazon). This has full texts of all the fundamental Objectivist books. (Some discussion about the CD in this thread.) Oooh. Very cool. I knew this existed, but hadn't investigated it. Must have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miseleigh Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) There are so many books on there that I've been wanting to read..... But not Mac compatible!!! Wtf is up with that?! (what, no crying emoticon?) Edited August 17, 2006 by miseleigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.