What makes the initiation of force/fraud wrong?

[The Question]

Man is a rational animal. Unlike other animals, man has the unique ability to restrain impulsive behavior, forego instinct, and apply the uniquely human faculty of reason to his decision making process.

Human beings with functional (not defective) brains, evaluate the world around them, and make their decisions based upon the path most likely to advance their values or secure their happiness. Even those claiming to act in deference to the will of an external entity (a God for example) do so to secure their eternal happiness.

Each man is able to recognize happiness only for himself, and his actions are motivated by the pursuit of it. My pursuit of happiness is contingent on the freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of my own will (inasmuch as only I am able to determine happiness for myself).

If I am to claim the moral imperative to act without restraint in accordance with the dictates of my own will, I must recognize a separate but equal moral imperative in others.

There are only two means, whereby the ability of an individual to act freely may be subjugated.

1) The initiation of force renders man unable to act in accordance with the dictates of his own will. His actions (when subject to initiated force) are not his own.

2) The initiation of fraud in a mutual transaction presents the mind with incorrect information with which to judge the world. Hence actions determined under the guise of fraud are not in accordance with the true will of the actor, were fraud not a component of the equation.

So the initiation of force and fraud (being the only two ways in which one human being may prevent another from acting in accordance with the dictates of his own will) may be recognized as moral prohibitions, inasmuch as they prevent each human individual from the pursuit of happiness and the advancement of his values (which is each man's purpose, however he defines it.)

The prohibition against initiated force and fraud, is the rational foundation for the concept of inalienable rights.

And thus no one and no group acting in concert – for any reason, for any purpose, for any “greater good” – has the right to initiate force or fraud.

-SR

[Hobot]

Each man is able to recognize happiness only for himself, and his actions are motivated by the pursuit of it. My pursuit of happiness is contingent on the freedom to act in accordance with the dictates of my own will (inasmuch as only I am able to determine happiness for myself).

I'm not sure if that's entirely true:

"Individuals are not 100 percent self-interested. Undeniable examples of altruism exist among families (in a strong form) and among communities (in a weaker form). Evolutionary theory gives an excellent explanation for their rise, and the Bible commands God's followers to practice both forms as well. In truth, however, people practice altruism most cheerfully only among those in their own class; they resent giving or sacrificing for other classes, either higher or lower."

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumone.htm

[Andrew J.]

And why, exactly, should I give a damn if someone else's ability to secure happiness is obstructed, if it does not affect me?

[The Question]

"Individuals are not 100 percent self-interested. Undeniable examples of altruism exist among families (in a strong form) and among communities (in a weaker form). Evolutionary theory gives an excellent explanation for their rise, and the Bible commands God's followers to practice both forms as well. In truth, however, people practice altruism most cheerfully only among those in their own class; they resent giving or sacrificing for other classes, either higher or lower."

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumone.htm

Even if one claims to be answering a "higher calling" such as his God or serving his fellow man, he is doing so because it makes him happy.

[Hobot]

And why, exactly, should I give a damn if someone else's ability to secure happiness is obstructed, if it does not affect me?

Because you don't know if will affect you or not. Unhappy people tend to lash out and cause trouble.

[Hobot]

"Individuals are not 100 percent self-interested. Undeniable examples of altruism exist among families (in a strong form) and among communities (in a weaker form). Evolutionary theory gives an excellent explanation for their rise, and the Bible commands God's followers to practice both forms as well. In truth, however, people practice altruism most cheerfully only among those in their own class; they resent giving or sacrificing for other classes, either higher or lower."

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-spectrumone.htm

Even if one claims to be answering a "higher calling" such as his God or serving his fellow man, he is doing so because it makes him happy.

True, but does one perform altruistic acts purely for one's own happiness or does one become happy as a result of the altruistic acts? I believe it is the latter. We are not always loving because it makes us happy, but because we have altruistic qualities.

[The Question]

And why, exactly, should I give a damn if someone else's ability to secure happiness is obstructed, if it does not affect me?

No one says you have to give a damn.

But in doing so you are admitting that no man has a right to unobstructed will, including yourself.

"Injustice to any one is injustice to all."

That doesn't make it your responsibility to right the wrong - acting in defense of one's rights is the proper role of government and the individual who is wronged.

[The Question]

True, but does one perform altruistic acts purely for one's own happiness or does one become happy as a result of the altruistic acts? .

Depends on each individual's values.

And one can only make that determine for himself by being free from coercion or deceit.

[Hobot]

True, but does one perform altruistic acts purely for one's own happiness or does one become happy as a result of the altruistic acts? .

Depends on each individual's values.

And one can only make that determine for himself by being free from coercion or deceit.

Yes it does depend on one's values, but my point is that we are not motivated 100% by our self-interests. However, I think for most people, the majority of their actions are driven by self-interest.

[Darth Wong]

Notice how (as usual) "The Question" posts his explanation as a series of seemingly self-evident claims.

Also note that he does not bother to offer any justification for it. Why should we accept his "force interferes with free exercise of rights" explanation over any other? Why is it intrinsically superior to the common explanation that human society does not function smoothly if arbitrary use of force is permitted? Why is it intrinsically superior to the (also common) explanation that the use of force causes pain, suffering, and unhappiness to its victims, and that those things are instinctively perceived to be bad?

[The Question]

Why should we accept his "force interferes with free exercise of rights" explanation over any other?

Because it builds from irreducible primaries, is based on reason and is built from ground up - rather than backwards, as is this....

"...human society does not function smoothly if arbitrary use of force is permitted..."

Why is it intrinsically superior to the (also common) explanation that the use of force causes pain, suffering, and unhappiness to its victims, and that those things are instinctively perceived to be bad?

Because animals who cannot reason rely on instinct to determine their behavior, rather than seeking philosophical and moral truths rooted in reason and reality.

[Darth Wong]

Because it builds from irreducible primaries

I see that "irreducible primaries" is how you justify your claim that your subjective premises are somehow more intrinsically valid than those of anyone else. I suppose you will deny that they are subjective premises, right?

Please, state and justify these "irreducible primaries", since there has so far been nothing "irreducible" about any of your long-winded ethics platforms.

[The Question]

I see that "irreducible primaries" is how you justify your claim that your subjective premises are somehow more intrinsically valid than those of anyone else.

My premises are based in objective reality, apprehended by reason.

You cannot drag my objective basis down to the level of the immoral base of your utilitarianism, which states "the ends justify the means" in an attempt to defend the immoral.

Please, state and justify these "irreducible primaries"

Posted in part before, but for your edification:

Reality is that which exists. It is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are, independent of ours or anyone else’s feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.

Reason is man’s only means of knowing reality, upon which his survival in reality depends. Whether man is alone on a desert island, scurrying around with a pack of savages, or living in a city of billions: man must think—and then act on his thinking, if life is his goal. Man is a rational animal, and reality dictates that to survive, man must be rational—by choice.

Man is a being of free will. Man can choose to think, drift, or evade—but choose he must. His thoughts determine: his character, his values, his emotions, and his actions, and so his thoughts determine his destiny. As reason is solely the attribute of an individual, and man’s thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny. The individual sovereign.

Man can gain immense values from living with other men in society—namely knowledge and trade—if it is a human society. A human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an end in himself, and that other men are not his pawns, nor is he theirs.

Such is the credo of the rational egoist.... the independent mind... who recognizes no authority higher than his own judgment of the truth. Such a moralist recognizes that man’s life is the standard of value—that which supports man’s life is the good, and that which destroys his life is the evil. Individualism is not opposed to man living in society. Individualism is opposed to man living in society as a slave.

To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator’s, or a democratic mob’s, whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute... by right. Man requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, derive.

[SirNitram]

It strikes me as incredibly funny that The Question can actually post these peices of tripe. Every one of them seems to point to the conclusion that anything he created would self destruct under it's own weight.

'Welfare can be paid for voluntarily!' Humans are greedy sons of bitches, so not enough money would go around. See inevitable doom spiral that follows.

'Each man is his own end!' You know, if ANY species, intelligent or not, acted according to that credo, they'd become extinct.

I do love how he leaps in logic. He goes from 'Man is rational' to 'Man must consider own welfare up to and including the point of becoming violent with anyone else'. I see this jackass doesn't understand that a species exists as a species, not an individual.

He's probably just being an ass because he thinks he's clever, but I'd be seriously disturbed if anyone actually thought this way. What sort of twisted mindfuck morals gets you there?

[The Question]

It strikes me as incredibly funny that The Question can actually post these peices of tripe. Every one of them seems to point to the conclusion that anything he created would self destruct under it's own weight.

'Welfare can be paid for voluntarily!' Humans are greedy sons of bitches, so not enough money would go around. See inevitable doom spiral that follows.

'Each man is his own end!' You know, if ANY species, intelligent or not, acted according to that credo, they'd become extinct.

I do love how he leaps in logic. He goes from 'Man is rational' to 'Man must consider own welfare up to and including the point of becoming violent with anyone else'. I see this jackass doesn't understand that a species exists as a species, not an individual.

He's probably just being an ass because he thinks he's clever, but I'd be seriously disturbed if anyone actually thought this way. What sort of twisted mindfuck morals gets you there?

This is a fine example of the mind-destroying effects of collectivist ethics and thinking, which are based in the evasion of reality and the necessity of holding man as a sacrificial animal.

How very sad for you.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I see, this is why Storm Rucker doesn`t discuss philosophy openly on TK, and prefers to insult his opponents.

[Darth Wong]

You cannot drag my objective basis down to the level of the immoral base of your utilitarianism, which states "the ends justify the means" in an attempt to defend the immoral.

Yet again, you state your conclusion as fact.

Reality is that which exists. It is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are, independent of ours or anyone else’s feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A. To be, is to be something: finite, limited, and non-contradictory.

Unnecessary tautology: "reality is real".

Reason is man’s only means of knowing reality, upon which his survival in reality depends. Whether man is alone on a desert island, scurrying around with a pack of savages, or living in a city of billions: man must think—and then act on his thinking, if life is his goal. Man is a rational animal, and reality dictates that to survive, man must be rational—by choice.

Reason is a method of analyzing reality. Man's only means of "knowing reality" is observation.

Man is a being of free will. Man can choose to think, drift, or evade—but choose he must. His thoughts determine: his character, his values, his emotions, and his actions, and so his thoughts determine his destiny. As reason is solely the attribute of an individual, and man’s thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny. The individual sovereign.

Another unnecessary tautology: "man's thoughts determine his actions". I see that what you mean by "irreducible" is "tautology". Perhaps you feel that a long-winded description of a tautology somehow makes it "irreducible"?

Man can gain immense values from living with other men in society—namely knowledge and trade—if it is a human society.

True. Are we going to run into anything which actually supports your value system over any other at some point?

A human society is one in which each man holds as an absolute: that every man is an end in himself, and that other men are not his pawns, nor is he theirs.

Whoops, your train just derailed, because you attempted to incorporate an assertion about ideal human society into your basic definition of human society: perhaps you figured no one would notice?

Human society is defined as a community, or voluntary association of humans. The rules of that society (which you slyly attempt to incorporate into your "irreducible" definition of society) can vary. Most societies balance individual interest against common interest, for example, and the situationally dependent authority of one man over another is a universal characteristic of all human societies throughout history: one which is made necessary by the frailties of human nature (but of course, I must keep in mind that I'm talking to one so hopelessly naive that he seriously thinks governments would be supported by voluntary contributions if there were no taxes).

Such is the credo of the rational egoist.... the independent mind... who recognizes no authority higher than his own judgment of the truth.

Pointless grandstanding. You can't justify a claim by simply stating that you believe every smart person must agree with you.

Such a moralist recognizes that man’s life is the standard of value—that which supports man’s life is the good, and that which destroys his life is the evil.

Agreed (although this is really a subjective premise, whether you admit it or not). This is also universal to virtually all ethical systems, so I don't see how it supports your position over any other.

Individualism is not opposed to man living in society. Individualism is opposed to man living in society as a slave.

Perhaps "false dilemma" is not a term that you are familiar with. Believe it or not, there is a continuous spectrum between total freedom and slavery. By the way, this is hardly an irreducible premise; it is a descriptive statement about your perceptions regarding individualism.

To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator’s, or a democratic mob’s, whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute... by right.

And where do you justify this (also non-irreducible) claim? Are you seriously arguing that it is impossible to live a rational life without this quasi-anarchic situation where you cannot be limited by society (or the "democratic mob" as you put it)?

Man requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, derive.

Do you agree, then that the performance of a system of ethics should be determined by its ability to maximize the abiliy of men to preserve their right to life, liberty, etc? Because that is the basic principle underlying John Stuart Mill's unitarianism.

You have stated a collection of facts and premises which are either universal to all ethical systems or outright tautologies. The only statements you make which can specifically be perceived to support your belief system over any other are your definition of human society and man's rights ... which are simply the tenets of your belief system! In other words, you state your conclusions as premises, ie- circular logic. Is this really the best you can do?

[Coyote]

Man is a being of free will. Man can choose to think, drift, or evade—but choose he must. His thoughts determine: his character, his values, his emotions, and his actions, and so his thoughts determine his destiny. As reason is solely the attribute of an individual, and man’s thinking determines his choices and actions, then each man is the master of his own destiny. The individual sovereign.


To live rationally in society, man requires only one thing from his fellow men: freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which may be revoked at a dictator’s, or a democratic mob’s, whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute... by right. Man requires rights to those actions necessary to support his own life, the most fundamental right being the right to life, from which all other rights, including the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, derive.

You describe the utopian argument of Communism. It cannot exist. Anarchy is not going to become a self-regulating mechanism of paradise. What you describe will devolve into somthing out of a "Mad Max" movie where vicious gangs and warlords will bully the weak; and the only way for the weak to defend themselves is to become viscious warlords themselves.

We have spent millenia trying to break away from and ditch tribalism and warlordism..... why do you want to bring it back? Do you seriously think that every person will just willingly discipline him/her self to work for the 'greater good' in the absecence of authority? Maybe some would, but if they have to spend all their time defending themselves form those that would rather eke out a living as pirates, what good do all their best intentions make?

[Darth Wong]

It would be interesting to know how SR deals with the standard post-apocalyptic survival dilemma:

Code: Select all

Your child is dying of starvation. There is only one person who has food and clean water and is within your reach. He has huge supplies of food and is quite comfortable. However, he flatly refuses to hand out any of his food, and doesn't care whether your child dies. Do you take the food by force, or do you respect his property rights?

According to SR, "need is not a claim upon the rights of another". In other words, the only "moral" course of action here is to let him keep his food. However, according to every normal person, the food hoarder is a prick, and you should take the food from him by force.

Of course, he will probably just dismiss the scenario by saying that it won't happen (even though it has, many times, in many places around the world).

[DPDarkPrimus]

It`s almost eerie how much Rucker`s opinions and "arguements" about society are so alike to those of the moron who I posted about here.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Don't worry, TQ isn't a vegan.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Exactly why I said "opinions on society".

[SirNitram]

This is a fine example of the mind-destroying effects of collectivist ethics and thinking, which are based in the evasion of reality and the necessity of holding man as a sacrificial animal.

How very sad for you.

So you have no rebuttals? Thank you for conceeding.

[Keevan_Colton]

It would be interesting to know how SR deals with the standard post-apocalyptic survival dilemma:

Code: Select all

Your child is dying of starvation. There is only one person who has food and clean water and is within your reach. He has huge supplies of food and is quite comfortable. However, he flatly refuses to hand out any of his food, and doesn't care whether your child dies. Do you take the food by force, or do you respect his property rights?

According to SR, "need is not a claim upon the rights of another". In other words, the only "moral" course of action here is to let him keep his food. However, according to every normal person, the food hoarder is a prick, and you should take the food from him by force.

Of course, he will probably just dismiss the scenario by saying that it won't happen (even though it has, many times, in many places around the world).

I already unloaded a similar scenario on him in another thread...there he seemed to think that force was ok since I'd made it a closed system by saying he couldnt just turn around and leave it.......lets see what he can do with this one....

[The Question]

It would be interesting to know how SR deals with the standard post-apocalyptic survival dilemma:

Code: Select all

Your child is dying of starvation. There is only one person who has food and clean water and is within your reach. He has huge supplies of food and is quite comfortable. However, he flatly refuses to hand out any of his food, and doesn't care whether your child dies. Do you take the food by force, or do you respect his property rights?

According to SR, "need is not a claim upon the rights of another". In other words, the only "moral" course of action here is to let him keep his food. However, according to every normal person, the food hoarder is a prick, and you should take the food from him by force.

This is just amateur league stuff.

Despite the impossibility of this scenario, when faced with such an emergency situation, one might make the active choice to violate the property rights of another by theft or force, but one would be deluding himself to imagine that it is in any way anything less than an immoral act.

Same as if I am dangling from a balcony in a high rise. If I slip and fall I might manuver myself to land on your balcony below me to save my life.

But while I would choose to act in such a way to save my life, it would not justify or forgive the fact that I have violated your property rights, nor would my need absolve me from the necessity of making restitution.

One might - in those rare emergency situation - choose to act immorally, but it is the reality evader who attempts to justify the action as moral, based on need.