Is the Initiation of Force Ever Morally Justified?

[rdmayo21]

Basic question: is the initiation of force upon someone who has not initiated force upon anyone ever morally justified?

 

[SaltGirl]

Depends entirely on what you consider moral limits and what constitutes morality. One can abuse nature yet never initiate force against a fellow man, yet to stop him one would have to initiate force against him as no amount of reasoning persuades him. Morality is a definition that evades us as it is by its own accord a subjective thing. For we have never discovered an objective source of morality although humanity has tried its best to implement one through the use of religious imagery. Remove all religious ideologies from the equation and we end up with morality where we have no priori.

Then the definition of force is also in question. If we are to divine that force is any action that may harm an organism in the present or future; in this generation or the next, then the very act of living holds the very initiation of force itself. Just by stepping into this world we are initiating a force on the very fabric of reality and each and every action we make has consequences. Even our inaction can be an initiation of force. Our refusal to participate in reality, and perhaps committing suicide, would be the initiation of force upon those who care about us. This is in fact one of the representations of karma.

In fact, by asking this question you are by its very nature initiating your own force against the universe, and all those who reply to you are in return initiating their force against you. So in the end, we are in fact all perpetrators of a certain level of violence even though it may not be physical. This happens if we define force as whatever biological processes we may initiate by chance that degrades the energy field of other individuals through our questioning and/or disagreements.

So, to get an answer to your question you would have to define your "force", morality, and the "initiation of force" more clearly, but that can then expand upon itself indefinitely as you encounter newer and newer permutations of whatever you consider an aggravation.

At that time you will hold in your hand what in many cultures would constitute as a religious text or at least one that is defined in such legal manners that it could only be upheld by authority. It will then become so convoluted and nebulous that your only choice would be to redefine it from the grounds up.

You have now come full circle.

The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.

- Alan Watts

 

[tara]

Yes, absolutely. I believe I have been justified in initiating force to restrain young children from running onto the road, etc, and all parents do this.

If by force you mean the subset that is violence, then it gets a bit murkier, as SaltGirl mentioned.

Does depriving people of the necessities of life, by whatever means, constitute initiating force?

 

[Richiebogie]

If the "innocent" party A is supporting B who oppresses C, then C might find it useful to inflict damage on A.

However C should first try to deal with B, and maybe win A over.

Morally, you should imagine a situation from all 3 sides. The universe loves to treat you like you treat others.

 

[rdmayo21]

For we have never discovered an objective source of morality

Here you go: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-idea ... thics.html

 

[pboy]

why is this guy on ayn rands nuts

 

[sugar daddy]

why is this guy on ayn rands nuts

just misguided probably


as for the question of force, no not really but sometimes it's unavoidable

 

[rdmayo21]

Of all the forums out there, I would have expected this one to not be so dogmatic towards a person just because they've been made out by the mainstream as crackpot. Read the source material and think for yourself.

 

[narouz]

why is this guy on ayn rands nuts

Isn't it obvious?

 

[sugar daddy]

My view of her isn't formed from the mainstream.

I am fully aware of her ideas and find them lacking.

Maybe you should try Telemachus Sneezed.

 

[rdmayo21]

And if you think Rand and Peat have nothing in common, think again. Both are heavily influenced by the works of Aristotle.

 

[sugar daddy]

I'm out this is silly

 

[Such_Saturation]

Moral systems are enforced with violence, so yes. Ethics, on the other hand...

 

[SaltGirl]

For we have never discovered an objective source of morality

Here you go: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-idea ... thics.html

Wow, you could just as well quoted the Bible as a source of "objective" morality. I mean, philosophers are still asking what morality is, and Sam Harris is trying to find a scientific basis in morality, but it appears Moses... I mean Ayn Rand, has delivered unto us the truth of the world. Only thing missing was some stone tablets.

This is also why Ayn Rand is considered a pseudointellectual. She believes herself to hold the truth of the universe and everything else is just filthy lies of [insert enemy].

This link is actually quite hilarious. In attempting to explain the virtues of morality she cites John Galt, which by the way is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER she created. Oh man oh man, this is literally priceless.

I should maybe start citing Paul Atreides from the series Dune, Simon from the series Gurren Lagann, or maybe Littlefinger from Game of Thrones. I mean, it will be an objective truth(according to Ayn Rand) so it can't be wrong.

Still can't believe I read this drivel by Ayn Rand. I mean, I couldn't stop laughing when she starts to cite her own fictional character. Then she tries to make a disastrous analogy with biology and she basically drives a small honda into a concrete wall metaphorically. I am actually surprised someone believes this crap to begin with. If anyone believes this stuff I suggest reading fiction and non-fiction by authors that are not Ayn Rand. Perspective helps a lot in making a rational decision and reading just a single perspective will make you stupid.

Remind me again why I read this drivel? Was it to see that Objectivism is a disastrous pseudointellectual philosophy from the start? Because I already knew that from other works I've read from her.

Also quite funny how you try to say Rand and Peat are similar because they both like Aristotle. Aristotle has quite a few interesting things to say, but it can also be interpreted in many ways, and is only a small part of the larger equation. To draw the conclusion that something is similar because of such a singular thing is reaching a lot.

Let us not forget that Ayn Rand abused the philosophy of Artistotle a lot and misrepresented his arguments. Again, we see that she is a pseudointellectual hack.

https://stpeter.im/writings/rand/aristotle-rand.html

Yeah... things are not looking good for Objectivists. So where is this really different from a religion? I mean, this is starting to embody every characteristic of a bona fide religion.

I don't see even why I should continue this discussion for the same reason I can't bother debating with religious fundamentalists.

 

[SaltGirl]

Of all the forums out there, I would have expected this one to not be so dogmatic towards a person just because they've been made out by the mainstream as crackpot. Read the source material and think for yourself.

Read it and still considered her and her writing nuts. There is a reason she is made by everyone as a crackpot. The reasons are very similar to the reason why people think L. Ron Hubbard was a crackpot.

 

[rdmayo21]

For we have never discovered an objective source of morality

Here you go: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-idea ... thics.html

Wow, you could just as well quoted the Bible as a source of "objective" morality. I mean, philosophers are still asking what morality is, and Sam Harris is trying to find a scientific basis in morality, but it appears Moses... I mean Ayn Rand, has delivered unto us the truth of the world. Only thing missing was some stone tablets.

This is also why Ayn Rand is considered a pseudointellectual. She believes herself to hold the truth of the universe and everything else is just filthy lies of [insert enemy].

This link is actually quite hilarious. In attempting to explain the virtues of morality she cites John Galt, which by the way is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER she created. Oh man oh man, this is literally priceless.

I should maybe start citing Paul Atreides from the series Dune, Simon from the series Gurren Lagann, or maybe Littlefinger from Game of Thrones. I mean, it will be an objective truth(according to Ayn Rand) so it can't be wrong.

Still can't believe I read this drivel by Ayn Rand. I mean, I couldn't stop laughing when she starts to cite her own fictional character. Then she tries to make a disastrous analogy with biology and she basically drives a small honda into a concrete wall metaphorically. I am actually surprised someone believes this crap to begin with. If anyone believes this stuff I suggest reading fiction and non-fiction by authors that are not Ayn Rand. Perspective helps a lot in making a rational decision and reading just a single perspective will make you stupid.

Remind me again why I read this drivel? Was it to see that Objectivism is a disastrous pseudointellectual philosophy from the start? Because I already knew that from other works I've read from her.

Also quite funny how you try to say Rand and Peat are similar because they both like Aristotle. Aristotle has quite a few interesting things to say, but it can also be interpreted in many ways, and is only a small part of the larger equation. To draw the conclusion that something is similar because of such a singular thing is reaching a lot.

Let us not forget that Ayn Rand abused the philosophy of Artistotle a lot and misrepresented his arguments. Again, we see that she is a pseudointellectual hack.

https://stpeter.im/writings/rand/aristotle-rand.html

Yeah... things are not looking good for Objectivists. So where is this really different from a religion? I mean, this is starting to embody every characteristic of a bona fide religion.

I don't see even why I should continue this discussion for the same reason I can't bother debating with religious fundamentalists.

Calling something drivel and crap is not an argument.

The essay you linked to looks interesting. I'll review it when I have more time.

 

[tara]

So where is this really different from a religion? I mean, this is starting to embody every characteristic of a bona fide religion.

I'm not religious, but I think you might be being a bit harsh on most religions. :)
Most religions I've heard of have make at least some reference to community and caring about other humans being important, even if the practitioners don't don't always manage to carry this out in everything they say and do.

 

[pboy]

why is this guy on ayn rands nuts

Isn't it obvious?

dam...nevermind, I see now

religions are ok at best, training wheels for noobs, but staunchly religious people or people that make their identity out of being of a religion are hopelessly constipated in life, cause they never grow or learn to observe and think and their heart isn't coming from inner, its coming from it being like a rule. And generally those type of people do many ills, minor things and on large scales...moreso than non religious or more natural spiritual people, because they harbor angst, repressed emotions and stuff, and feel superior and justified. They feel endowed rather than actually being pleasant and fun to be around. Somehow fun gets thrown out to religious people, they live in fear as slaves and yet somehow think they are doing the right thing....its like no man, if you aren't doped and joyous and shed that vibe in life, you're a problem. Its no coincidence kids avoid religion and church and generally don't want to be around those kind of people. They are stiff and non open and fun and are stuck to some random detrimental beliefs or...words. They got a clouded lens, that cant see life, it only sees some hazy thing they have been trained, indoctrinated, out of fear, to try to see. If from birth someone grows up in a nurturing environment...that lets each person totally express themselves individually as whatever they are, and be, and have a pretty good diet, they naturally are an extremely good person...better than most religious people!

 

[mt_dreams]

I'm not religious, but I think you might be being a bit harsh on most religions. :)
Most religions I've heard of have make at least some reference to community and caring about other humans being important, even if the practitioners don't don't always manage to carry this out in everything they say and do.

Religions support community b/c they know the community will act out the religions desires.
Also they only really support their own kind, so you will have to be prepared to adhere to ALL of the religions beliefs.

There would be no gay hatred without religion. It's the power which authorizes people to kill & rape those whom are gay, like what is happening in some parts of Africa & the middle east.

There's too much war, ethnic cleansing, and ideals taking place within religion to mask with a couple of positive attributes that region also possesses. Those positives are merely in place to keep peoples faith. I'm making this point towards religions as a whole, not necessarily the people whom follow it, who might be great people in of themselves.

 

[pboy]

yea mt, and in that same light..Darwinian evolution as adopted by the british empire was kind of the same thing