Eurynomus Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I have a quick question that has been the source of some confusion for a while... In Peikoff's lecture, Why Should One Act on Principle?, found on the registered users page at ayrand.org, he speaks about those who act on principle vs. those who act pragmatically. As an example, he speaks about a robber, and says that if one were to act pragmatically, that is, to give in to the robber's demands, they would be surrendering and granting the robber a right to their money, for the hopes of escaping harm. But now that the robber sees virtue in his actions, that his demands will be met, he might come back for more at some future time. Peikoff doesn't elaborte much further on this example; he is only using it to illustrate the point that one should act on principle. So, I suppose his point would be to reject the robber's demands. However, doesn't morality end at the point of a gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I think if Peikoff really believed that, he would be in prison right now for refusing to pay taxes. In the end, you have to do what is in your best interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I think if Peikoff really believed that, he would be in prison right now for refusing to pay taxes. In the end, you have to do what is in your best interests. I don't know about that. Acting on principle requires the whole context. If I were robbed, I would happily hand over my wallet. Later that day I would buy a gun and or boobytrap my house. Then end him when he tried again. But that is based on the context that I thought a repeat would be likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 However, doesn't morality end at the point of a gun? It does, but the point is that you should resist the robber to the extent you can without risking being shot at. You shouldn't give in to his demands just because it is easier to do so; you should only give in if you really must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I don't know about that. Acting on principle requires the whole context. If I were robbed, I would happily hand over my wallet. Later that day I would buy a gun and or boobytrap my house. Then end him when he tried again. But that is based on the context that I thought a repeat would be likely. I agree, but Peikoff does not, if we can judge by the example given: ]As an example, he speaks about a robber, and says that if one were to act pragmatically, that is, to give in to the robber's demands, they would be surrendering and granting the robber a right to their money, for the hopes of escaping harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I agree, but Peikoff does not, if we can judge by the example given: I would need to hear his statement in the context of the talk, I think. That seems strange for him to advocate getting shot on principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Dr. Peikoff would never say "don't give money to robbers" and mean it as a context-less rule. Eurynomus, Could you provide an approximate Minute:Second (mm:ss) position of this comment so that those who're interested can check it without listening to the whole download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 I would need to hear his statement in the context of the talk, I think. That seems strange for him to advocate getting shot on principle. Absolutely, that is what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Aargh! Peikoff's discussion about the robber takes place in the context of compromise. What he is talking about is refusing to compromise with an extortionist. A compromise would consist of paying "protection" money to the mob or the government so that they won't threaten you. It is not a compromise to actually hand over your wallet under threat of force: it simply means that you were caught unprepared to defend yourself and you value your life over the contents of your wallet. However, it doesn't mean that you acknowledge that the robber has a right to the contents of your wallet, which is what compromising with the robber would do. You can be a victim, but you cannot sanction your victimizer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted February 9, 2007 Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Aargh! Thanks for clearing that up, Megan. It sounded a bit off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurynomus Posted February 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2007 Aargh! Alright alright, relax! I thought it sounded a bit off, hence the question. I asked the question about ten minutes after I heard the comment, apparently not remembering he was speaking about compromise. I believe the clip is somewhere around 37 minutes, but I could be wrong. I'll check after dinner. Thanks for clearing that up, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 (edited) Alright alright, relax! I'm not upset, I'm a pirate! See? And I think the clip is just short of an hour long. Edited February 10, 2007 by JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurynomus Posted February 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 Pirate, eh? Duly noted. I checked... it was at about 37 minutes, and yes, I was wrong... thanks for helping with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ifat Glassman Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 So can anyone summarize why should one act on principle? (I watched the lecture, but I woulld like to read a good summary of it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 So can anyone summarize why should one act on principle? Because it is the only way man can deal with reality. Man's nature means that he has to gain knowledge in conceptual form, and then translate that conceptual knowledge into action. Concrete-bound actions, just like concrete-bound thinking, do not take advantage of the full potential of man's mind, and reduce you to living the life of an animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 . . . and men are not suited to live like animals: we have no automatic form of knowledge or guide to action. We can't function successfully on the perceptual level. Basically, if you want to live, it's necessary that you know how to act. Life is really complex, so complex that your mind can't handle all the myriad details all at once. However, you do have a handy-dandy method for dealing with complexity: abstraction--namely the process of reducing concretes to their essentials and dealing with them on that basis. Principles are abstract recommendations for action. They won't tell you whether you might be able to get away with robbing this bank, this time, in these circumstances. What they will tell you is that, long-term, trying to survive by robbing banks is a null program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Aargh! Peikoff's discussion about the robber takes place in the context of compromise. What he is talking about is refusing to compromise with an extortionist. A compromise would consist of paying "protection" money to the mob or the government so that they won't threaten you. It is not a compromise to actually hand over your wallet under threat of force: it simply means that you were caught unprepared to defend yourself and you value your life over the contents of your wallet. However, it doesn't mean that you acknowledge that the robber has a right to the contents of your wallet, which is what compromising with the robber would do. You can be a victim, but you cannot sanction your victimizer. But isn't paying taxes a compromise? It seems that you would be in prison right now if you really believed what you just wrote, unless you have succeeded in deceiving the IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 There is no compromise in the case of paying taxes, since force is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 I agree that it isn't a compromise, but I'm not sure if JMS does: A compromise would consist of paying "protection" money to the mob or the government so that they won't threaten you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) I agree that it isn't a compromise, but I'm not sure if JMS does: Nyah, that was unclear, largely because it was imprecise. If the government were *totally* immoral, basically a gang of thugs collecting money from disarmed victims, then it'd be a compromise to pay your taxes (or, more accurately, "tribute"). However, the government we have here in the U.S. isn't quite that bad yet . . . it still fulfils many of the legitimate functions of government *and* it is still possible to speak out against it and work to change it from within. So it's more like allowing yourself to be overcharged by a really aggressive jerk because you don't have an alternative at the moment, but when that new store gets finished he is gone, gone, gone. Does that make any sense? The "protection" money I was talking about is that you're paying the mob or the government simply to protect you FROM the selfsame mob or government, not from any force that you do, in fact, need protection from. Edited February 11, 2007 by JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Nyah, that was unclear, largely because it was imprecise. If the government were *totally* immoral, basically a gang of thugs collecting money from disarmed victims, then it'd be a compromise to pay your taxes (or, more accurately, "tribute"). However, the government we have here in the U.S. isn't quite that bad yet . . . it still fulfils many of the legitimate functions of government *and* it is still possible to speak out against it and work to change it from within. So it's more like allowing yourself to be overcharged by a really aggressive jerk because you don't have an alternative at the moment, but when that new store gets finished he is gone, gone, gone. That distinction seems a little artificial to me. A gang can be said to perform the fuctions of government as well. They might protect your area from other gangs(for their own benefit) and even settle disputes in some cases. Disallow unsanctioned crime by other criminals. And I would be surprised to learn that mafia's took more then 1/2 of people's gross income. A "citizen evan has a chance to join the organization and work his way up. To describe it as a store does great injustice because, in point of fact, there is no voluntary aspect to it. And on top of that, the whole freedom to criticize them is not looking real stable these days either. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20070116a.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 If the government were *totally* immoral, basically a gang of thugs collecting money from disarmed victims, then it'd be a compromise to pay your taxes...Wait a minute, Jenni! That's not enough to go on. The question to ask about the context is: what options does one have -- practically, but over the long-range. Note in the audio, Dr. Peikoff qualifies his example, saying "without duress". I don't think one can say that a soviet citizen is "compromising", in the true sense of the term; such a person really finds himself in a situation where principles are being made moot. So can anyone summarize why should one act on principle?In the typical case, the question is: in making this choice am I choosing some short-term fix that will cost me in the long term? That's the role of principles. Assuming that they're right, they're rules that are designed to be practical over your span of reference (your life), and within the society/context you are in. Suppose you're training someone to fight, and you tell them to keep one fist near their face, as a guard. Let's assume that, within the context of the type of fight we're talking about, this is a good principle. Now, in a particular fight, your student drops his guard, but manages to use that "free" fist to hit his opponent. All beaming, he tells you: "see I broke the principle, and it worked". Now, assuming that the principle is the right one for the context he was facing, he basically got lucky, and that does not invalidate the principle. One might actually find that such experiences lead one to modify the principle by more clearly specifying the context in which it works (facing a decent opponent), and one might formulate a new one specifying situations where one might drop one's guard. In the abstract, it's pretty easy to explain why one has to live by principle. It is amounts to understanding the term "principle". A principle is a rule that you've formulated as being the best, most practical course of action in a given type of situation (not a specific situation, but for a type of situation). So, "why should one act on principle" translates to "why should one act by the rules that one has -- earlier, in a cooler moment -- decided will give one the best long-term advantage"? In the abstract, it easy. Often, in actual examples, people who're questioning it are not really asking "why should one act on principle". They're often really questioning the principle: e.g. "isn't it more practical to give a terrorist what he wants rather than risking the lives of his hostages" or "isn't it better to steal as long as the probability that one is caught is below 0.001%?" and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Wait a minute, Jenni! That's not enough to go on. The question to ask about the context is: what options does one have -- practically, but over the long-range. Note in the audio, Dr. Peikoff qualifies his example, saying "without duress". I don't think one can say that a soviet citizen is "compromising", in the true sense of the term; such a person really finds himself in a situation where principles are being made moot. This is true. You have to take the full context into account; are you going to accomplish something by your stand or just martyr yourself pointlessly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted February 12, 2007 Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 So can anyone summarize why should one act on principle? "For the same reason that one should jump out of the path of a speeding truck; because if one does not, then one will be squashed by an unforgiving nemesis: an absolute reality." I just love Dr. Peikoff's peroration. 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.