rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (12/01/85)
Force is the Opposite of Reason
With respect to an example where someone uses force to get a victim
do his bidding, Jan Wasilewsky writes:
"... the threatener may have a reason for his wish;
*to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does not
give his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish
is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act -
again, rationally. Thus, each has his own reality to which he
adapts; but it is not the same. So, they are each rational but
not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?"
No. There is only one reality. If there were multiple realities,
reason would be impotent. Which reality would my sense organs be
aware of? Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate
with each other? The first premise necessary for any thought or
human discourse is that there is only one reality.
When two people disagree over a fact of reality, at least one of them
is wrong. I claim that one who initiates force is irrational. First,
note that merely having a reason is not enough to establish a claim
of rationality. Is it rational to consume your seed corn? Is it
rational to snort cocaine? Is social security rational? My point
is that having the faculty of reason is given; but being rational--
i.e., properly identifying facts of reality--is not.
Now consider a narrow application of reason: for getting other people
to do what you want. By reason in this narrow context I mean arguing--
using words (which identify entities, attributes, and relations based
ultimately on sensory evidence that is also available to the one you
are arguing with). It is clear to me that this is the opposite of
using force--with force you would use physical means. If I ask why
I should obey, you point to the gun. But note that it is not
the objective fact of the gun that is threatening me; but your wish
to use it. You don't point to some objective fact of reality but try
to convince me that you will choose to use it if I don't obey.
Your ultimate answer to my "why?" when you choose force over reason is,
"Because I want it."
Now let's broaden the context. Jan asks why can't man be a rational
predator--treating other people as a natural resource? Why is he less
rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human?
In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense
used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are
irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if
you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people as if they were
not human?
The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness. The aspect I
am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles
to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life
in order.
Consider your answer to an analagous question in the field of nutrition.
Is it rational to treat insecticide as if it were water?
I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not
hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that
"might makes right."
--
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (12/02/85)
Force is the Opposite of Reason
With respect to an example where someone uses force to get a victim
do his bidding, Jan Wasilewsky writes:
"... the threatener may have a reason for his wish;
*to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does not
give his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish
is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act -
again, rationally. Thus, each has his own reality to which he
adapts; but it is not the same. So, they are each rational but
not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?"
No. There is only one reality. If there were multiple realities,
reason would be impotent. Which reality would my sense organs be
aware of? Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate
with each other? The first premise necessary for any thought or
human discourse is that there is only one reality.
When two people disagree over a fact of reality, at least one of them
is wrong. I claim that one who initiates force is irrational. First,
note that merely having a reason is not enough to establish your claim
of rationality. Is it rational to consume your seed corn? Is it
rational to snort cocaine? Is social security rational? My point
is that having the faculty of reason is given; but being rational--
i.e., properly identifying facts of reality--takes effort and a method
appropriate to the nature of your consciousness. [The essentials of
this method are that it be hierarchical--rooted in the evidence your
senses provide you--and contextual--i.e., that new knowledge be
integrated with what you already know to avoid contradictions.]
Now consider a narrow application of reason: to get other people
to do what you want. By reason in this narrow context I mean arguing--
using words (which identify entities, attributes, and relations based
ultimately on sensory evidence that is also available to the one you
are arguing with). It is clear to me that this is the opposite of
using force--with force you would use physical means. If I ask why
I should obey, you point to the gun. But note that it is not
the objective fact of the gun that is threatening me; but your wish
to use it. You don't point to some objective fact of reality but try
to convince me that you will choose to use it if I don't obey.
Your ultimate answer to my "why?" when you choose force over reason is,
"Because I want it." It is an equivocation to hold your wish as a fact
of reality equivalent to the fact of reality pointed to by my saying,
for example, that "contradictions don't exist."
Now let's broaden the context. Jan asks why can't man be a rational
predator--treating other people as a natural resource? Why is he less
rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human?
In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense
used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are
irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if
you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people the same way you
treat everything else in the universe?
The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness. The aspect I
am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles
to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life
in order. Consider what you know about the value of a mutual exchange:
that both parties gain. Consider what you know about the value of a
division of labor society. Consider what you know about the relative
productivity of the values required for human life of various societies
as a function of the degree that the arbitrary use of force was present
or absent in those societies. All of that knowledge is consistent with
the principle of dealing with others with reason and inconsistent with
choosing to initiate force. Now do you still think that someone who chooses
to initiate force in dealing with others is exercising reason?
Consider your answer to an analogous question in the field of nutrition.
You have an immense amount of knowledge about the relative value to you of
drinking insecticide or water. But if you are thirsty and the water is
far away, you could save some effort by drinking insecticide. After all,
if a herder can treat animals and people alike why can't you treat these
two liquids alike? Suppose the insecticide were very dilute so that it
would only affect you in the long run. Would you advise it then?
Is it rational to treat insecticide as if it were water?
I hold that it is irrational for man to act opposed to his principles.
When principles are discarded, it is knowledge that is tossed out and
what is left is emotion. So if you are to hold it is rational to
initiate force, you must give a principle that supersedes dealing with
others by reason.
I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not
hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that
"might makes right."
--
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846janw@inmet.UUCP (12/03/85)
[Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh ] I am delighted to see an Objectivist (you are, aren't you?) ex- pound his views here. (It may have happened , before I started reading the net). The intent of my arguments is not to prove you wrong, but to understand you in a consistent way. >> "... the threatener may have a reason for his wish; >>*to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does not >>give his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish >>is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act - >>again, rationally. Thus, each has his own reality to which he >>adapts; but it is not the same. So, they are each rational but >>not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?" >No. There is only one reality. If there were multiple realities, >reason would be impotent. Which reality would my sense organs be >aware of? Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate >with each other? The first premise necessary for any thought or >human discourse is that there is only one reality. Oh, I wasn't suggesting "multiple reality" in any ontological sense. Just that, for each decision, there is a relevant *piece* of reality. E.g., in choosing a chess move, you can ignore the weather. This piece may be different for two interacting people. In which case, for A, the actions of B may be part of relevant reality, but not necessarily B's reasons for these actions. E.g., for a mugger, a victim's resistance is a fact to be reckoned with. But if he let himself consider the victim's *reasons* for resistance - then perhaps he would find it hard to go on. Such *partial* rationality is probably common for people who coerce other people. >When two people disagree over a fact of reality, at least one of them >is wrong. I claim that one who initiates force is irrational. First, >note that merely having a reason is not enough to establish a claim >of rationality. Is it rational to consume your seed corn? Is it >rational to snort cocaine? Is social security rational? My point >is that having the faculty of reason is given; but being rational-- >i.e., properly identifying facts of reality--is not. So far, agreed. Neither having the faculty of reason nor having *a* reason for one's actions is enough to be called rational. However, if the faculty of reason is *used* in determining which reason is sufficient for which action, then I suggest that estab- lishes the user as rational. That does not preclude his decision from being mistaken and/or morally wrong. "Properly identifying facts of reality" seems to imply infalli- bility, not merely rationality. In the common-sense meaning of the word, Napoleon, or Lenin, would be called rational because they kept *thinking* on their goals and means, analyzing them, and not acting on blind whims. I, and probably you, would call their actions both morally wrong and ul- timately mistaken. And the two *are* connected. But would you narrow the word "rational" to those who share your philosophy ? Was not Socrates rational ? >Now let's broaden the context. Jan asks why can't man be a rational >predator--treating other people as a natural resource? Why is he less >rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human? >In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense >used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are >irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if >you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people as if they were >not human? >The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness. The aspect I >am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles >to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life >in order. Very good. This, I think, is the core of the matter. This could be called the principle principle, or the packaging principle. >I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not >hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that >"might makes right." Agreed. Except that you make it sound as if it were a matter of allegiance, not just truth. "Might makes right" would destroy any society, free or non-free. Now your point would be completely made if it were established that no third alternative exists to the two principles: (1)"non-initiation of force or threat" (which you and I both prefer) and (2)"might makes right". Most aggressors, however, use some other principle that makes it possible for them to initiate force in some cases, but not in others. Such as, (3)"against non-members of the group" or (4)"if the law says so" or (5)"if customary in our group" or (6)"from superior to inferior" or (7)"against people who are not fully ra- tional" or (8)"for the greater benefit of the victim". E.g., a parent threatening a child makes use of the last four rules. State, in taxing us, relies on (4) and (8). Slave-traders used (3). My *estimate* is that (1) is, in the long run, the most ration- al. This is *part* of the reason I like it. *Survival*, however, has been successfully tried with the others, too. (Straight (2), if accepted by all members of society, would certainly ruin it. Therefore people acting on this principle usually preach some other. This makes (2) unstable). As for the will to defend liberty, it does not depend on viewing its enemies as totally irrational. If they were, they would be less dangerous, wouldn't they ? It is a *mixture* of rationality and irrationality that is most common in human conflicts. Jan Wasilewsky
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/04/85)
> Force is the Opposite of Reason > > With respect to an example where someone uses force to get a victim > do his bidding, Jan Wasilewsky writes: > "... the threatener may have a reason for his wish; > *to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does not > give his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish > is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act - > again, rationally. Thus, each has his own reality to which he > adapts; but it is not the same. So, they are each rational but > not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?" > > No. There is only one reality. If there were multiple realities, > reason would be impotent. Which reality would my sense organs be > aware of? Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate > with each other? The first premise necessary for any thought or > human discourse is that there is only one reality. >................................... > Now let's broaden the context. Jan asks why can't man be a rational > predator--treating other people as a natural resource? Why is he less > rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human? > In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense > used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are > irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if > you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people as if they were > not human? > > The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness. The aspect I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles > to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life > in order. > > I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that > "might makes right." > -- > Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846 Bob states that there is only one reality, and co-rationality (coexisting, rational, contradicting conclusions) is nonsence. However, in his rebuttal of Jan's example he applies " human consciousness of anyone who is serious about defending liberty ". This however has nothing to do with objective facts, but with subjective values. There are many systems of values which people profess. To state that only my value system is "rational" is nothing else but saying to all others with differing systems of values " you are wrong because I am right and you differ ". The favorite example of Bob is robbing a person with a gun. However, he appeals to a value system which is based on clearly subjective statements like "freedom is an ultimate good". In another system, the common good and individual freedom are connected in a min-max game: maximizing common good with minimal constraints on individuals. In the latter, the minimal constraint are diferent than none. Bob's value system says "me first, if no one else is there already". A more common value system says "no man is an island". Although I have a strong feeling that Bob's system is wrong, I can see a logical arguments behind it. I also see logical arguments behind my system. However, to argue that one can build a value system by pure application of logical reasoning to the observed facts of reality, without any additional axioms (value judgments) is a delusion. To formulate a system of values, or, equivalently, an ethical system, one has to define such notions like "good", "happy" etc. To do it, we aggregate individual observations, with judgments of the kind "this fact points to a general rule, that fact is an exception". Judgments on exceptions cannot be purely rational: one may argue that one exception is enough to defeat a generalization, the other may choose to tolerate some set of exceptions, still other one may view a different "small" set of facts as exceptions. Only the first approach is truly logical, but it allows only to deduce laws of physics, and not ethics. Piotr Berman