rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (02/03/86)
Reason, Force, and Rights--Brief Points I agree with Tim Sevener that one's view of the nature of reason affects "the whole of one's later conclusions." My view of reason as an attribute of the individual is consistent with my ethics of rational self-interest and a political system to protect individual rights. His view of reason as a process of a collective is consistent with an ethics where the parts must sacrifice for the whole and a political system to force such sacrifice. Tim's view is, of course, distorted: in principle, his view is that he has no view--only society does. Since Tim is wrong on the nature of reason and since force and reason are opposites in social interaction, it is no surprise that his thoughts on rights (which can only be violated by force) are confused. A right is not a philosophical primary but a "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." [p. 93, "Man's Rights," by Ayn Rand in *The Virtue of Selfishness*.] Tim's example (claiming that property rights justify the owner of an island forcing shipwrecked survivors back into the sea) and all similar examples attack those whose *starting point* is the "non-coercion principle." Both sides of that argument are guilty of flagrant context dropping. One side tries to uphold non-coercion as a principle in a context where it is irrelevant and the other argues that since it cannot hold in that context it does not apply anywhere. In a deep sense both sides are subjective. But showing this depends on, among other things, my demonstrating an objective moral code. And if the progress I've made explaining reason and force is any indication, that's a long way off. (If you can't wait, read Ayn Rand's "Objectivist Ethics" essay. If you have already read it, I suggest rereading it more slowly and marking the points you disagree with. When you are done, take your most fundamental disagreement and post a note identifying the facts of reality that support your view.) -- Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/13/86)
> Reason, Force, and Rights--Brief Points > >I agree with Tim Sevener that one's view of the nature of reason >affects "the whole of one's later conclusions." My view of reason as >an attribute of the individual is consistent with my ethics of rational >self-interest and a political system to protect individual rights. His >view of reason as a process of a collective is consistent with an ethics >where the parts must sacrifice for the whole and a political system to >force such sacrifice. Tim's view is, of course, distorted: in principle, >his view is that he has no view--only society does. > >Since Tim is wrong on the nature of reason and since force and >reason are opposites in social interaction, it is no surprise that >his thoughts on rights (which can only be violated by force) are >confused. A right is not a philosophical primary but a "moral >principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in >a social context." [p. 93, "Man's Rights," by Ayn Rand in *The >Virtue of Selfishness*.] > >Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846 "Tim's view is, OF COURSE, distorted" (!?!) Unless you hold the view you ascribe to Tim, you can NEVER used that "of course." If you believe that reason inheres solely to the individual, you must accept that reasoning people exposed to different background information can come to different understandings. Only if reason is "a process of a collective" to which you both belong, can you say that someone's view with which you differ is "of course" distorted. Having been away from the net for a while, I don't know whether Tim made the claim that you ascribe to him, but it would be unlike anything else I have read of his, so I imagine that you have contributed some of your own presuppositions in interpreting what he said. Now my own "of course..." Reason is "of course" an individual enterprise, but equally, its directions are culturally (read collectively) controlled. It is very hard to think thoughts that deviate strongly from those to which you have been exposed, that are confounded by information given you (which is controlled by your cultural milieu), and which would seem ridiculous to your peers if you exposed them. Well, perhaps its not so hard to think those thoughts, but it sure is hard to believe them. There are lots of thoughts exposed on this net that I find unbelievable, but that is probably because I was brought up in a different culture than the people presenting the thoughts. Cultural conditioning is a good deal more powerful in most cases than our individual reason, if only because it is the product of the reasoning of a great many more person-years than any individual can afford to allot. Paradoxiacally, it is this collective reasoning that allows us the luxury of individual thought on selected topics, and which argues for the greater efficiency of partially planned over totally planned economies (or over unplanned economies, for that matter, though there is no paradox in that inequality). Of course. As for the dichotomy of reason versus force, I see none, as I discussed a month or three ago on the topic of "unused" territory rights. Reason may dictate the use of force, and force underlies all social systems of behaviour, even those that renounce its initiation. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt