I don’t know which term is correct, “immoral” “wrong” or some other term… However:
I get the impression from reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and Part 1 of the Fountainhead) as well as other Objectivist writings, that the only real “rule” that applies to morality with Objectivism is this:
Do not initiate force on another human being.
Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this. Is this a correct observation on my part?
Thanks in advance.
Not exactly. While it is always immoral to initiate force (and that “initiate” part is key), it is also immoral to do irrational things which do not hurt others and only hurt yourself. It would be immoral to stab yourself in the eye or to abandon your dream job to go work at burger king. (assuming no extenuating circumstances, of course. I mean doing those things for no reason)
Not exactly. While it is always immoral to initiate force (and that “initiate” part is key), it is also immoral to do irrational things which do not hurt others and only hurt yourself. It would be immoral to stab yourself in the eye or to abandon your dream job to go work at burger king. (assuming no extenuating circumstances, of course. I mean doing those things for no reason)
It’s not “immoral”, it’s just stupid. Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.
The reason that the initiation of the use of force against another human being is evil is that it attempts to contradict the fact of volition and the requirements for man’s survival. Thinking (i.e. rationality) is a man’s only means of survival, specifically his OWN thinking. If he acts against his rational judgement of his best interests he risks the destruction of his life. The only way for another person to cause a man to act against his own judgement is through the use of physical force.
It is common in other philosophies (religion especially, although any form of collectivism is pretty much the same) to announce that men are not capable of knowing their own best interests and they must be forced to do the right thing “for their own good.” This is an absurdity of the worst kind and cannot be tolerated.
The same moral principle that forbids the initiation of force makes it a moral necessity to resist the use of force with force. You cannot argue with the muzzle of a gun, you cannot persuade a club. You can only remove the gun and club wielders.
It’s not “immoral”, it’s just stupid. Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.
Actually the scenarios which Mr Inspector has mentioned are immoral.
Once you have chosen to live, morality by definition consists of promoting your life. Any action which demotes your life is immoral whether it is an initiation of force against others or not.
The reason that the initiation of the use of force against another human being is evil is that it attempts to contradict the fact of volition and the requirements for man’s survival. Thinking (i.e. rationality) is a man’s only means of survival, specifically his OWN thinking. If he acts against his rational judgement of his best interests he risks the destruction of his life.
I have heard this exact claim before. I don’t understand completely however:
How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival? Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man’s survival, but why is that of any concern? I suppose I don’t make the connection between the actions against another man’s life, and contradiction of his own.
I do see the connection between his actions and the other man. Perhaps someone could explain this to me?
Thanks again.
Just to correct something, the rule against initiation of force is not the only moral rule, it is the only moral rule in regard to other human beings. Morality, otherwise, is solely concerned with the person himself, and no one else. Initiation of force then, and the concepts of rights, are the intermediary stages between morality (concern with one’s own proper living) and politics (concern with how to live with others).
Rights, and initiation of force, are not exclusively moral or political concepts, but that which links the two branches of philosophy.
It’s not “immoral”, it’s just stupid. Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.
Jennifer, I recommend you read Miss Rand’s article “The Objectivist Ethics” in the book, The Virtue of Selfishness.
In the field of ethics, Objectivism holds that the primary virtue is rationality, and from it, six other virtues are derived: independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride. The essay mentioned above defines each of these virtues and shows its derivation.
You are correct that the initiation of force is immoral, but that does not exhaust the Objectivist ethics. Being free of the initiation of force is a precondition of man’s life; however, that alone does not guarantee that he will survive. To remain alive, he must think, and from that and other facts Miss Rand has derived the virtues above.
I have heard this exact claim before. I don’t understand completely however:
How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival? Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man’s survival, but why is that of any concern? I suppose I don’t make the connection between the actions against another man’s life, and contradiction of his own.
I do see the connection between his actions and the other man. Perhaps someone could explain this to me?
Thanks again.
Perhaps this link could be helpful. Read particularly Mr Speicher’s replies. They are very informative.
Also note that it is in a criminal’s self-interest that a lawful society exist. If he violates the rights of others, others have the right to violate his rights.
I have heard this exact claim before. I don’t understand completely however:
How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival? Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man’s survival, but why is that of any concern? I suppose I don’t make the connection between the actions against another man’s life, and contradiction of his own.
I do see the connection between his actions and the other man. Perhaps someone could explain this to me?
Thanks again.
Just to reiterate what some others have been saying. It is still possible to be immoral when alone on a desert island. Being immoral means taking actions that are harmful to your own life, which one can certainly do by themselves.
The initation of force is a sitation where one contaminates another with their irrationality. You effectively irradicate that other person’s judgement when you initatiate force against them.
Also, a man is harming himself when he initiates force against others. He is harming himself directly by inviting retaliation against his initation. His is harming himself indirectly by implicitly accepting a policy of human interaction that states it is proper for one man to initiate force againt another. Thus, by initiating force against others, he is implictly rejecting the concept of rights. In a society without rights, what is the result? This time, he was the one initating force. Next time, it may be someone else, where he is their target. Who will protect him then? Certainly not anyone who knows that he has done it himself in the past.
It’s not “immoral”, it’s just stupid. Immoral would be doing something to hurt yourself for no reason and insisting that someone else be required to prevent the consequences.
Actually, Inspector is right.
Ayn Rand defined Rationality as the primary virtue, and said specifically that any act of mental evasion is immoral.
That something is immoral doesn’t mean that it should be made illegal. Doing drugs is immoral whether you ask others to pay for it or not. Prostitution is immoral even if you earn your money honestly.
The role of government, however, is to strictly to prevent the initiation of physical force. It’s not the government’s responsibility to make everyone moral.
The purpose of rights, and therefore the government that protects them is to keep the consquences of ones own irrationality confined to the person being irrational; to keep men free from other men.
I have heard this exact claim before. I don’t understand completely however:
How is it that a man, using force, is contradicting his own survival? Of course his acts of force are contradicting another man’s survival, but why is that of any concern? I suppose I don’t make the connection between the actions against another man’s life, and contradiction of his own.
I do see the connection between his actions and the other man. Perhaps someone could explain this to me?
Thanks again.
As a rational being of volitional consciousness, man survives by initiating and sustaining a process of thought, to guide the process of producing the values his survival requires. To accomplish this, one basic condition must be met vis-a-vis other men: he must be free of the initiation of force.
The man who initiates force is attempting to gain values (or destroy them) by seizing them from others, instead of producing them himself. Observe that force is always initiated to negate man’s tool of survival: his mind. A thief uses force to take your property because your mind will not give it to him voluntarily. A murderer uses force to take your life because your mind will not surrender it voluntarily.
In effect, the man who initiates force is attempting to exist as something other than a rational being. To the extent that he does this, he forfeits the rights of a rational being and is, properly, subject to retaliatory force from others.
Thank you Free Capitalist.
For the sake of this thread, let us stick with the rules governing the actions in regard to other human beings.
For the sake of this thread, let us stick with the rules governing the actions in regard to other human beings.
Sorry, but your original question contradicts the intent of the above statement. Here:
Do not initiate force on another human being.
Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this. Is this a correct observation on my part?
Your question was not asking strictly about the rules governing action in regard to human beings, so I’m confused as to what you want to know.
Perhaps if you rephrased the original question?
That would be why I just clarified.
I want to be 100% clear:
Are you asking, “Does the Objectivist view of Politics say that everything that can be considered a crime is in some way an initiation of force?”
And you are no longer asking about morality, but rather legality?
As a rational being of volitional consciousness, man survives by initiating and sustaining a process of thought, to guide the process of producing the values his survival requires.
By “a process of thought” do you mean, “his process of thought” I.e. to initiate and sustain his own thought process, versus the collective idea of thought processes that all men have?
It also seems to me that if, hypothetically, all men stopped the initiation of force against one another, that the problem would still exist. Animals initiate force (although arguably not for the purpose of negating reason), steal, kill, etc. With the absence of human force, men will still have to respond to force being used against them.
On another note, one hypothetical situation bothers me with the application of “not initiating force.” I’m not particularly familiar with the story, but I believe I have enough of the facts to reveal my dilema… An airplane goes down, say in the mountains of South America somewhere. Say, 2 people survive, and begin the trek to try to find some form of civilization because that is determined to be their most rational option. Along the way, they run out of food, and are starving to death. Rather than mutually starve and die, one resorts to “initiating force”, murders the other, eats him, and drives on. The murderer reaches civilization due to the energy he got from eating the other man, and continues to live.
This is (I realize) very loosely based on an actual incident. The problem I see here is that initiating force was in the man’s own rational self-interest (actually, both of them). By not initiating force, they mutually starve to death, and their lack of force is the cause of their death.
You can change this into any context you want, ship lost at sea, lost in the desert, on a deseted island, etc. I believe that had it been a man and his dog, not a person would object to it being moral, and rational, to eat the dog rather than starve. However, because there seems (at least to me) to be a separation of human beings and the rest of the animal kingdom, it would be considered immoral to eat the other human. Through this, I see no difference between the initiation of force on men and on any other animal.
I put this forward so that my mistakes may be pointed out, as I trust that I have made one somewhere, and I just don’t see it.
I don’t know which term is correct, “immoral” “wrong” or some other term… However:
I get the impression from reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and Part 1 of the Fountainhead) as well as other Objectivist writings, that the only real “rule” that applies to morality with Objectivism is this:
Do not initiate force on another human being.
Anything that is considered wrong/immoral by Objectivists boils down to this. Is this a correct observation on my part?
Thanks in advance.
Having read some of your subsequent posts, I am sure you will get a better understanding of “selfishness” (compared to hedonism, et al) when you’ve finished reading The Fountainhead.
To answer your question, no. The basic vice in Objectivism is evasion–an act that Ayn Rand called “the root of all evil”.
I want to be 100% clear:
Are you asking, “Does the Objectivist view of Politics say that everything that can be considered a crime is in some way an initiation of force?”
And you are no longer asking about morality, but rather legality?
If crime is more accurate than wrong, immoral, or irrational.
I am asking:
According to Objectivism, is it always wrong/immoral/irrational/a crime to initiate force when dealing with other human beings?
I made the observation that in dealing with other people, everything wrong/immoral/irrational/criminal seems to boil down to this premise, in my somewhat limited knowledge of Objectivism.
I am not sure how “politics” fits into all of this, honestly.
If my observation is incorrect, please correct me.
On another note, one hypothetical situation bothers me with the application of “not initiating force.” I’m not particularly familiar with the story, but I believe I have enough of the facts to reveal my dilema… An airplane goes down, say in the mountains of South America somewhere. Say, 2 people survive, and begin the trek to try to find some form of civilization because that is determined to be their most rational option. Along the way, they run out of food, and are starving to death. Rather than mutually starve and die, one resorts to “initiating force”, murders the other, eats him, and drives on. The murderer reaches civilization due to the energy he got from eating the other man, and continues to live.
I asked exactly the same question quite a while ago. Perhaps this could help.