Violation of Rights

Questions about Objectivism
21

It’s like saying why can’t you maintain franchise for yourself while denying anyone else the vote - because what you have then is not a vote, the whole concept of voting/democracy has been contradicted.

Why can’t I? I say that I should have the right to vote, but my friend’s 4-year old daughter should not. Where’s the contradiction? The obvious rebuttal – that there’s a relevant difference between an adult and a child that warrants my treating them differently with respect to franchise – is precisely analogous to the position that there’s a relevant difference between ‘me’ and ‘some other guy’ that could warrant me treating us differently with respect to rights.

Let me cast the question in yet another way. As Objectivists, we’re egoists. We act in ways that advance our self-interest, and reject actions that harm our self-interest. So why is it always in my self-interest to respect other people’s rights? What’s wrong with violating someone’s rights if I think I can get away with it? Many people do. (The same question can be applied to other virtues, e.g. ‘Why is it always in my self-interest to be honest? What’s wrong with deceiving someone to gain a value if I think I can get away with it? Many people do.’ Etc.) The Argument from Consistency is really just an appeal to the Golden Rule – you shouldn’t do that to other people because you wouldn’t like it if they did it to you. But the Golden Rule is hardly an axiom, so what justifies that?

22

The Argument from Consistency is really just an appeal to the Golden Rule – you shouldn’t do that to other people because you wouldn’t like it if they did it to you. But the Golden Rule is hardly an axiom, so what justifies that?

I agree the Golden Rule is not a good principle. This is because it has no content, it is purely procedural. It can be grafted onto literally any ethics at all.

In principle, there should be multiple ways to derive why one should respect other’s rights.

We have the concept of concepts, that what is true of a concept is true universally of its referents.

We have an identification of the metaphysical nature of man, which applies universally to all men.

Therefore the initiation of force against any man is to act in contradiction to a fact.

Now if you want an explanation of why contradicting facts is impractical, that is a different question.

So what we really have here is not mere consistency (which leaves unanswered the question ‘consistency with what?’) but non-contradiction to a fact. This is rather abstract, and hopefully is not the single thread restraining someone from going on a killing spree. But it serves to ground the ethics, it is not rationalism.

Generally the people asking the question “why should we not violate rights” are not potential murderers trying to talk themselves out of it, they are trying to integrate their knowledge. This is good and to be encouraged. But the integration is not complete with this argument, one should come to see other people as values to oneself and so disregarding them and destroying them is harmful to the self, in multiple ways abstract and concrete, short term and long term.

23

In short, I claim rights for myself because having force used against me harms my life. But why does that mean that I can’t rationally maintain that I can violate the rights of others without harming my own life? There’s an implicit shift from a self-centered perspective to an impersonal perspective here that needs justification.

Not really. Rights exist only in the context of a society built on them. You can claim rights all you want outside it, it will be up to the people around you to oblige you or not. Some won’t. And I agree, the Argument from Consistency won’t help you either, with those who won’t.

The way to have rights for yourself is to work (do things) toward a society built on the principle of individual rights. The way to not have rights is to do things that are against that. Either way, what you do is (if you are a principled man) based on the principles you hold. The principle to hold, in this case, is that a Capitalist society is in every moral man’s best interest, since it is the only way a amn can have rights.

Another issue worth raising is the question of whether it is in your interest to not initiate force against others, in a political system without rights. But in this case, you can’t talk about “respecting their rights”, there are no rights. In an anarchy, it would still be in your best interest to try and live in peace with those who are willing to do the same, to the degree this is possible. In a dictatorship, not so much.

24

Why can’t I? I say that I should have the right to vote, but my friend’s 4-year old daughter should not. Where’s the contradiction? The obvious rebuttal – that there’s a relevant difference between an adult and a child that warrants my treating them differently with respect to franchise – is precisely analogous to the position that there’s a relevant difference between ‘me’ and ‘some other guy’ that could warrant me treating us differently with respect to rights.

Well to clarify, I meant you cannot be the ONLY person entitled to vote, because then voting/democracy doesn’t exist. Which is a logical extreme because of course there are logical reasons why you might want SOME other people not to vote.

With rights, however, the logic of the concept is lost as soon as you discount one other human. It’s not an argument from consistency as much as it’s an argument from non-contradiction. A is A. If you only respect your own or certain peoples’ rights, then what you respect is not really a right (but a privilege I suppose).

Let me cast the question in yet another way. As Objectivists, we’re egoists. We act in ways that advance our self-interest, and reject actions that harm our self-interest. So why is it always in my self-interest to respect other people’s rights? What’s wrong with violating someone’s rights if I think I can get away with it? Many people do. (The same question can be applied to other virtues, e.g. ‘Why is it always in my self-interest to be honest? What’s wrong with deceiving someone to gain a value if I think I can get away with it? Many people do.’ Etc.) The Argument from Consistency is really just an appeal to the Golden Rule – you shouldn’t do that to other people because you wouldn’t like it if they did it to you. But the Golden Rule is hardly an axiom, so what justifies that?

Like I was saying, it’s not an argument from consistency (as you put it). All men, unlike all animals, are rational beings. As Objectivists, we are objective. We know that as rational beings, we cannot gain anything when force is used against us in human relations; we know that using force against others is to deny their rationality (and the resulting fact that trade is the best way to deal with them). Therefore we support the idea of rights, because they secure our life in society. Objectively, we know these rights must be inalienable, which means subject to all humans at all times, because otherwise they would be merely privileges granted on arbitrary whim. We cannot secure our lives on a system of whim, it is never in our self-interest to do so. When replacing rights with whim you may gain a short-term benefit, but the long term effect is much graver.

You could argue that privileges can be granted using some sort of rules and standards, not just arbitrarily tossed out, but when you got to the root of those standards you would find them to be based on whim.

25

Let me cast the question in yet another way. As Objectivists, we’re egoists. We act in ways that advance our self-interest, and reject actions that harm our self-interest. So why is it always in my self-interest to respect other people’s rights? What’s wrong with violating someone’s rights?

Do you think its in your self interest to have your own rights secure?

If Yes

Securing your own rights by violating others is just as possible as having your cake and eating it too.

26

Do you think its in your self interest to have your own rights secure?

If Yes

Securing your own rights by violating others is just as possible as having your cake and eating it too.

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you’re certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

A few replies in this thread make the argument that it is not in your overall best interest to initiate force upon another. This can’t be the definitive answer on whether or not violating someone else’s rights is immoral or not since there are (albeit rare) instances in life where that answer does not apply.

27

I have just finished reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” and it is a great read and has turned me on to Objectivism even more.

But, I have been confused in one area. Ayn Rand logically makes it clear that an organism’s primary concerns should be selfish and it’s actions should therefore be furthering it’s ultimate value: life. This fact is substantiated very logically. But, she also states that a human’s violation of another human’s right is morally impermissible. She simply says that that is so but does not substantiate the claim (as far as I can recall). So, my question is logically how can a human not violate another’s rights? Defining this fact is critical to the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism. Furthermore, where in “The Virtue of Selfishness” does she prove this thesis?

To make it clear, I don’t think rights should be violated but as of yet it has been more of a feeling that I have had than something I feel I can truly substantiate logically. To add, I agree it shouldn’t happen for the simple fact that I don’t want my rights violated but how should this be a universal moral?

You have two options in this case for your moral (and legal) code:

a ) You can initiate force at your will,

b ) you cannot.

If you live in a society and you want to enhance your ultimate value: life, it is in your best interest that the moral (and legal) code dictates (and enforces) b ).

If the moral (and legal) code is a ), then you have a thousands enemies, and you’re in a state of “warre of every man against every man”

“In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/254050.html

So the answer is “you should not violate other people’s rights because it is contrary to your self-interest”

You can steal an apple, and go unpunished, but, if your moral code is objectivism, you’ll despise the kind of person who steals, so, the damage to your self esteem is bigger than the benefit of a stolen apple.

28

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you’re certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

If you concede that it is in your best interest to secure your own rights( a = b ), and you concede that securing your own rights is not possible by violating others( b does not equal c). Then how can you claim that in any situation violating somones rights is in your best interest? How can you claim that c = a? Eating your cake and having it too is not possible in every case. Do you have an example in mind?

Objectivism holds that to act against your best interest is irrational and thus immoral. Since violating someones rights can never be in your best interest as I shown above, then violating someones rights can never be rational or moral.

29

I think what the op may be looking for is a purely selfish reason to respect the rights of others. The most purely selfish thing I can think of is an argument Peikoff used in one of his radio shows.

Let’s say you’ve got an exquisite violin. Would you be better off using it as a hammer, or using it for its intended purpose, which is to make beautiful music?

The same can be said of other human beings. Would you be better off using other humans as slaves to your needs, or using them for what they’re meant to be: Rational, volitional beings who can benefit you through trade and intellectual interaction? Humans are the only beings we know of with rational minds. If you violate the rights of other humans, you’re basically using the violin as a hammer when you could be using it to make music.

30

I think what the op may be looking for is a purely selfish reason to respect the rights of others. The most purely selfish thing I can think of is an argument Peikoff used in one of his radio shows.

Let’s say you’ve got an exquisite violin. Would you be better off using it as a hammer, or using it for its intended purpose, which is to make beautiful music?

The same can be said of other human beings. Would you be better off using other humans as slaves to your needs, or using them for what they’re meant to be: Rational, volitional beings who can benefit you through trade and intellectual interaction? Humans are the only beings we know of with rational minds. If you violate the rights of other humans, you’re basically using the violin as a hammer when you could be using it to make music.

I think there are two somewhat separate questions here.

  1. Why should we not initiate force against others?

  2. Why should we not violate the rights of others?

Peikoff’s example answers perfectly the first question. The second question may involve or allude to the first, but it introduces the new concept of rights: that is, a principle that defines and sanctions mans actions in society. So why must we uphold this political entity of rights universally? I’ve presented a logical argument above but I think we’re forgetting to mention an important Galtism:

“When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all.”

Essentially, you should not violate anyone’s rights because in doing so you’ll be violating your own rights.

31

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you’re certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past. There’s no such thing as 100% sure of no repercussions.

32

I think there are two somewhat separate questions here.

  1. Why should we not initiate force against others?

  2. Why should we not violate the rights of others?

Peikoff’s example answers perfectly the first question. The second question may involve or allude to the first, but it introduces the new concept of rights: that is, a principle that defines and sanctions mans actions in society. So why must we uphold this political entity of rights universally? I’ve presented a logical argument above but I think we’re forgetting to mention an important Galtism:

“When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all.”

Essentially, you should not violate anyone’s rights because in doing so you’ll be violating your own rights.

I was equating “initiation of force” to “violate rights”.

Is there any way to violate rights (obj.rights) without “initiation of force”? (including fraud in “initiation of force”)

Quoting AR:

"Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 108

IMHO Peikoff’s example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you’re Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

The thread was intitiated looking for a logical self-interest answer why not violate other’s rights to benefit yourself. IMHO Hobbes explanation do.

Also, with all due respect, the “Galtism” taken out of context, it’s nonsense.

“When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all.”

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

“When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare.”

33

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past.

I’d put the point slightly differently. We act on principle because principles are our only means of projecting the future consequences of our present actions. We can’t perceive the future; we have to grasp it using concepts.

34

Also, with all due respect, the “Galtism” taken out of context, it’s nonsense.

“When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all.”

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

“When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare.”

That is why it is invalid to drop context. In this case, ignoring the meaning of the words used in the original construction is not a valid mode of thinking. Even the most ironclad syllogism can be rendered into gibberish if you substitute random words for the original terms. All words and sentences are mystical if you ignore the particular referents of the words and the relationships among them highlighted by the sentence.

35

I was equating “initiation of force” to “violate rights”.

Is there any way to violate rights (obj.rights) without “initiation of force”? (including fraud in “initiation of force”)

Quoting AR:

"Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 108

You cannot violate rights without initiating force. BUT, you can initiate force without violating rights. The rights need to exist, as a political/social/governmental sanction, in order to be violated. If they don’t exist, however, initiation of force is still illogical for the reason Peikoff gave.

IMHO Peikoff’s example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you’re Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

The thread was intitiated looking for a logical self-interest answer why not violate other’s rights to benefit yourself. IMHO Hobbes explanation do.

Well let’s say there’s a man who hates you and would never trade with you. You want something he has. The only way you can get it is by using force. No violin playing. How is it not to your benefit to use force here?

Possible answers:

  1. You’ll go to hell. But there is no such thing.

  2. You’ll lose the respect of society. But what if there is no other society.

  3. You’ll feel guilty. But what if you’re incapable of that emotion. Or you forget (like dude in Memento)

  4. You’ll have harmed another human. But your morality is not based on altruism.

  5. You’ll have denied the autonomy of another individual, and thus lowered yourself to that status of brute/beast.

Hmm it’s a tough one alright. I suppose when trading with someone you logically must accept their freedom to say “no” (unlike the thief in the example I just gave), otherwise it’s not really trading. So therefore we can say: by contradicting the principle of trading, we do not simply lose the potential trade of one person, we undermine the fundamental benefit of being human. Which is obviously not in our self-interest.

Also, with all due respect, the “Galtism” taken out of context, it’s nonsense.

“When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all.”

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

“When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare.”

But healthcare and rights are not equivalent concepts here. An equivalent would be more like

“When they deny that 2 + 2 = 4, they deny the entire science of mathematics.”

or

“When they insult one woman with a sexist remark, they insult the whole female species.”

or

“When they do A, they damage B to target C, and since XY&Z also depend on B, they also target XY&Z.”

Rights can only logically exist as universal and inalienable, otherwise they’re just privileges. When you remove one person’s rights, the universality and inalienability is lost.

36

IMHO Peikoff’s example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you’re Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

You’re not Atila or Pol Pot. You’re a rationally selfish human being, not a barbarian. You have the intelligence to recognize the benefit of other rational beings to trade with or even to just socialize with. That gives you a selfish reason not to treat others as a barbarian would: You would lose the benefits of dealing with a free, willing, rational mind.

If someone else decides to be a barbarian, they have failed to recognize this, and it is no longer an issue of selfish reasons to respect rights, but of retaliatory force to stop a criminal.

37

You cannot violate rights without initiating force. BUT, you can initiate force without violating rights. The rights need to exist, as a political/social/governmental sanction, in order to be violated. If they don’t exist, however, initiation of force is still illogical for the reason Peikoff gave.

I’m lost. How can you initiate force against someone without violating [objectivistic] rigths?

But healthcare and rights are not equivalent concepts here. An equivalent would be more like

“When they deny that 2 + 2 = 4, they deny the entire science of mathematics.”

True. Because of the nature of mathematics.

“When they insult one woman with a sexist remark, they insult the whole female species.”

False. You’re insulting just one woman. (But maybe calling females a “specie” will do. :glare: )

Example: “You belong to the kitchen”. Can be a remark directed to a specific female

and does not imply all females belong to the kitchen.

But nevermind. I was too lazy to lookup the context of the Galt’s phrase.

I’m sure it’s a valid conclusion. My apologies for that.

38

If you concede that it is in your best interest to secure your own rights( a = b ), and you concede that securing your own rights is not possible by violating others( b does not equal c). Then how can you claim that in any situation violating somones rights is in your best interest? How can you claim that c = a? Eating your cake and having it too is not possible in every case. Do you have an example in mind?

Objectivism holds that to act against your best interest is irrational and thus immoral. Since violating someones rights can never be in your best interest as I shown above, then violating someones rights can never be rational or moral.

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That’s what we’re discussing. Remember, I’m specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone’s “best interest”. Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

An example? Sure. How’s this?:

I’m a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That’s what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I’m a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

Again, I’m just playing devil’s advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past. There’s no such thing as 100% sure of no repercussions.

:glare: Well, we’re just making a “judgement” on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I’ll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I’m not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

39

Remember, I’m specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone’s “best interest”.

So, you are specifically addressing “using force” as opposed to “initiating force”?

40

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That’s what we’re discussing. Remember, I’m specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone’s “best interest”. Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

An example? Sure. How’s this?:

I’m a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That’s what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I’m a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

Again, I’m just playing devil’s advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

Beyond the obvious mistake, failing to distinguish between using force and initiating force, you are also assuming that the principle of non-initiation of force doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. That would be an indictement of the principle, not of people who are refusing to live by it. The only reason to hold a principle is because it is in your best interest. Holding a principle just because Objectivism said so is wrong.

I disagree with you that initiation of force can be in one’s best interest, and submit to you that your first example (the only one in which someone is supposedly leading a life of bliss by killing people), is pure fantasy, not reality. The principle reflects reality, your example does not. That’s why people should go with the principle, not because “it’s a principle”.

Well, we’re just making a “judgement” on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I’ll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I’m not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

To have a principle that contradicts reality is immoral. To be uncritical of a “judgement” that directly contradicts such a principle si also immoral, because you are living with a contradiction at that point. It either is in your best interest to commit crimes, or it isn’t.

Again, in my view, there is no rational judgment that will lead you to conclude that it’s in your long term best interest to commit crimes. Also, I am yet to witness anyone using the number 99.9 in any way that reflects on reality, outside of a conversation about thousands of red and white balls in an urn, in Statistics class. I doubt there is any major crime that can be estimated to be 99.9% likely to not be punished.