Force vs Retaliatory Force

Questions about Objectivism
21

Jon Southhall,

 

I have many questions concerning what you wrote in post #18. But for the sake of focus, I will ask only one here. You asked, “If life is your standard of value, you are against that which threatens it. Do you agree?”

 

I agree that if life is your standard of value then you are against that which threatens it. What I do not understand is your statement about double standards. I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you make the jump from I value my life so I must value your life?

22

 

The original post says, “I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force:…

 

Where does it state that I want to distinguish between force and retaliatory force?..

I guess I have no clue what you’re asking. Ignore my previous posts.

 

How does this question have anything to do with a political system…

Normative politics is the body of knowledge that asks: how we should live with each other and deal with each other. Robinson Crusoe does not use force (unless he equivocates :wink: . )

23

Spiral Architect,

 

I am confused by your statement from post #16, “I think the issue is that I’m assuming you have a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics.  What I really need to do is reevaluate that and start from the beginning.  Otherwise I’m going to being going in circles with you and that will just frustrate you.”

 

What does this mean? Are you saying that if I had what you consider to be a base knowledge of Objectivist ethics and politics that I would instantly understand and have no further questions when you make a statement like, “Life is impossible when people use force” or provide a two word answer of “Self Defense”?

 

Yes.  But further I would not have assumed that answer would have sufficed.  That is a ton of literature on this and generally when people ask a question here they have a base knowledge of that. You don’t, which is fine, and there is plenty of good people here to help with that.  Your question is coming from a different context and deserves an answer that starts from the beginning.

 

Self Defense stands on it’s own.   Unless you do not think people have a right to defend themselves then we have a different conversation completely.   

24

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #23 you wrote, “That is a ton of literature on this and generally when people ask a question here they have a base knowledge of that. You don’t, which is fine, and there is plenty of good people here to help with that.”

 

Why do you assume that I do not have a base knowledge of Objectivism? Is it because I asked questions based on your statements instead of simply accepting those statements as truth?

 

But let us put that aside for the moment and consider another statement you make in post #23. You wrote, “Self Defense stands on it’s own.”

 

This is another statement given without further explanation, without definitions, and without any qualifying terms. Once again, Objectivist or not, I cannot read your mind and cannot be sure what you meant by this statement so I will ask a question.

 

Consider this scenario: someone breaks into my home while I am away and steals some of my processions. I hunt that person down and kill them. This is moral because: self defense. Is this correct? 

25

FredAnyman,

“I agree that if life is your standard of value then you are against that which threatens it. What I do not understand is your statement about double standards. I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you make the jump from I value my life so I must value your life?”

I’ll explain it to you.

You would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others. If others held that same standard, it would be OK for them to sacrifice you, but not OK for you to sacrifice them. If everyone held that standard, everyone would try to sacrifice others whilst at the same time bemoaning the fact others are trying to sacrifice them. As a standard, it leads to self-defeating conflicts.

Alternatively you would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others. For this to work, every other member of society would have to hold that it is OK for them to be sacrificed by you, but that it is not OK for them to sacrifice you. The standard you hold them to is not one you would live by. If they are rational, they would not live by it either as it would permit self-sacrifice - given they want to live this would again be self-defeating.

If you held as your standard that it is not OK to sacrifice others and it is not OK to be sacrificed by others, and everyone else held that standard, sacrifice would cease to exist and this would be in everyone’s rational self-interest. Therefore it is in your own rational self-interest that no one sacrifices, including yourself.

26

Jon Southhall,

 

You wrote in post #25, “You would hold as your standard that it is OK to sacrifice others but it is not OK to be sacrificed by others.”

 

How did you arrive at this conclusion? I stated that I value my life but I do not have to value your life. How do you get from “I do not have to value your life” to “it is OK to sacrifice others”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.

 

Further, even if I hold as my standard that it is OK to sacrifice others, how come “…every other member of society would have to hold that it is OK for them to be sacrificed …” by me? Just because someone or some group of people holds a standard does not mean anyone, much less every other member of society, has to hold the same standard or be OK with the standard.

27

I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?

Part of the issue is you said “immoral to use force against someone”. No, the Objectivist view is that initiating force is immoral.

28

FredAnyman,

The double standards you asked me to explain was in the context of sacrifice.

If you weren’t talking about sacrifice, I think you may have misread my original post.

29

Jon Southhall,

 

Even in the context of sacrifice, my questions from post #26 still stand. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is OK to sacrifice others from “I do not have to value your life”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.

30

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #23 you wrote, “That is a ton of literature on this and generally when people ask a question here they have a base knowledge of that. You don’t, which is fine, and there is plenty of good people here to help with that.”

 

Why do you assume that I do not have a base knowledge of Objectivism? Is it because I asked questions based on your statements instead of simply accepting those statements as truth?

 

 

No, it’s because you  asked the questions you did. You would have known the answer to them.  That is fine.  You couldn’t so I knew I stated the conversation from the wrong point.  I was trying to be helpful - No need to read anything else into… .   

 

 

But let us put that aside for the moment and consider another statement you make in post #23. You wrote, “Self Defense stands on it’s own.”

 

This is another statement given without further explanation, without definitions, and without any qualifying terms. Once again, Objectivist or not, I cannot read your mind and cannot be sure what you meant by this statement so I will ask a question.

 

It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Do I really need to explain what self defense is and why it is acceptable?  I can but honestly I thought that was at least an acceptable baseline. 

 

 

"Consider this scenario: someone breaks into my home while I am away and steals some of my processions. I hunt that person down and kill them. This is moral because: self defense. Is this correct? "

 

 

No.  Do you honestly think that is self defense?  

31

“Even in the context of sacrifice, my questions from post #26 still stand. How did you arrive at the conclusion that it is OK to sacrifice others from “I do not have to value your life”? Just because I do not value your life does not mean that I have to, or even will, sacrifice you. And, if someone does not value my life it does not mean that they have to, or even will, sacrifice me.”

No they don’t because your comments were out of context. I assumed we were discussing sacrifice because you were responding to my point about that. I mistook your “I do not have to value your life” to mean, “it does not matter to me if you are sacrificed”.

Is this little aside of any value to you or should we return to the main point? What is your point?

32

Spiral Architect,

 

In post #30 you wrote, “It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Do I really need to explain what self defense is and why it is acceptable?  I can but honestly I thought that was at least an acceptable baseline.”

 

This is representative of one of the issues that I am having in my search for knowledge. I asked why is it moral to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone and I get answers like self defense (or some similar type of answer) and no other explanation.

 

By providing a one or two word answer without further explanation, you make an assumption that my concept of self defense is exactly the same as your concept of self defense. This may or may not be true but given that we are each individuals with our own individual ways of interpreting and understanding the world in which we live, it is unlikely that my concept and your concept will be exactly the same. Even if our respective concepts are similar, it does not guarantee we will be able to fully understand what the other is trying to communicate without a more complete or robust explanation.

 

And, based on your posts, you seem perplexed and perhaps dismayed that I ask questions. It appears that you think that I should have the same concept of self defense as you do or would have if I had more knowledge of Objectivism. This seems odd to me, in part, because as it is demonstrated by a reading of the various posts in this forum that even those with a base knowledge of Objectivism, or who claim to have a base knowledge of Objectivism, still come to different conclusions and have differing concepts on a wide variety of issues.

 

Your last statement in post #30 is an example of differing concepts. You wrote, “No.  Do you honestly think that is self defense?” in response to my proposed scenario. It appears, based on my interpretation of what you wrote (but I cannot be completely sure), that your concept of self defense, tells you that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense. And since it is not self defense, and self defense is the reason the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral.

 

Now perhaps I should conclude from this that the question is answered and no further discussion is needed, but I do have a question.

 

Let us assume that my interpretation of what you wrote is what you meant and that hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not self defense and since it is not self defense, hunting a person down and killing then after that person stole from you is not moral.

 

But, hunting someone down and killing them because they stole from you is the use of force in a retaliatory manner.

 

So, this leads to the conclusion that the use of force in a retaliatory manner is moral if it is self defense and the use of force in a retaliatory manner is not moral if it is not self defense. How can the use of force in a retaliatory manner be both moral and not moral?

33

Jon Southhall,

 

You wrote in post #31, “I mistook your “I do not have to value your life” to mean, “it does not matter to me if you are sacrificed”.” 

 

That is a very big difference between what I wrote and what you thought I wrote. While I believe that “this little aside” could be tied back to the question in the original post, it does not seem worth continuing if there is going to continued wide differences between what one, or both, of us write and what one, or both, of us read.

34

Ok I shall take everything you write literally. Do you know what double standards are? How would you define it?

35

Jon Southhall,

 

In answer to your question in post #34, I have a concept of double standards. I would define double standard, similar to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as a set of principles or rules that apply differently to one group of people or circumstances than to another.

36

Fred, just Jon will do (and note my surname is spelt Southall).

That definition is correct.

Do you think a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards?

37

Jon Southhall,

 

I apologize for the incorrect spelling of your name and I will attempt to avoid misspelling it in the future. As for using your full screen name rather than just Jon, I do that for the benefit of any other reader of this thread so that it is clear that I am addressing your posts and not anyone else that may have a similar a screen name. While this may not be necessary, I do it to be polite.

 

As to your question in post #36, my answer is that I do not know. I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.

38

You spelt it wrong again.

What factors would it depend on?

Could you clarify what you mean when you say it may both be possible and not be possible for double standards to be consistent with reason. What you said taken literally is a contradiction.

39

Jon Southall,

 

In post #38 you wrote, “Could you clarify what you mean when you say it may both be possible and not be possible for double standards to be consistent with reason. What you said taken literally is a contradiction.”

 

It is not a contradiction because I never wrote that it may both be possible and not be possible of double standards to be consistent with reason. I wrote that “I do not know if a society based on reason, where individuals deal with one another productively, can be sustained in the presence of double standards. I think that it may be possible and that it may not be possible and that it would depend on many factors.”

 

 

Since I do not have, nor could I have, any idea or knowledge about how this society based on reason operates, what its history is, about the background and make-up of the individuals who comprise the citizenry, or anything else other than a vague notion that individuals deal with one another productively, I do not think that it is possible for me to answer any question about this society that you imagine.  

40

I have a question concerning the difference between the use of force and the retaliatory use of force: If it is, as it appears to be, considered by Objectivism to be immoral to use force against someone, then why is it (or is it) moral, or at least not immoral, to use force in a retaliatory manner against someone?

 

The exact phrasing is: No man may initiate (start) the use of physical force against others.  The question you should be asking is: What should be done with or to a person who initiates the use of physical force against others?  How do you deal with such people?  It would be impossible to ban the initiation of force short of using some form of retaliatory force but if you have an alternative method for dealing with this problem that no one here knows about, I’d like to see it.