Freedomain Radio

Hello, all.  I wasn't sure where to post this.  I thought it would fit most neatly into a morality category but since there is none, I figured here was the next best place.  If not, please say so.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I'll start with a few basic questions.

 It's understood among humans and throughout much of the animal kingdom that aggression is met with aggression.  If I attack you, you attack me.  Of course, we don't have to sign any agreements in order to share this understanding.  Does that make it an implied contract or is this simply an issue that goes beyond contracts? 

Let's assume the former.  What about a situation in which one person attacks another and a third, having been a witness to the original attack, steps in on the victim's behalf?  Did they have a moral right or duty to do so and if so, does that make them a party to this contract?  If the answer is yes, and we can apply this to two or three individuals, then it must apply to all individuals.  Thus we have the social contract and the seed for the state.  As we all know, that seed can quickly grow into a twisted vine as people begin to seek power for its own sake.  The essential truth, however, is that people are entitled to protection if for no other reason than the fact that a danger to one could be a danger to many.  Wouldn't you agree?  And if so, would you also agree that people are entitled to equal protection?

I look forward to your responses.
 

It's understood among humans and throughout much of the animal kingdom that aggression is met with aggression.

I'm a porcupine. :) 

bockman:

It's understood among humans and throughout much of the animal kingdom that aggression is met with aggression.

I'm a porcupine. :) 

"I am the walrus.  I am the walrus.  Dude, I am the walrus."

"Shut the fuck up, Donny."

Sorry, not related in any way shape or form, nor intended as a response to anyone, but bockman's quote reminded me of this line.  10 points if you know it without searching th3 int3rw3bz! 

I think blackacidlizzard responded very well to the logical crux of your argument and your hypothetical.  So, I'll just add some commentary on the first part, that of a sort of understanding going beyond a contract. 

We are animals so we operate with some level of instinct.  This instinct is mostly unnecessary, but still helpful, in modern life since there are not saber-tooth tigers lurking in overgrown fields waiting for us to lure into pouncing range.  Nor do we really migrate so our dead reckoning skills are not as useful for getting us to the nearest seafood restaurant as a GPS anvigation device is.  People know that fire burns as they know that violence can spawn defensive violence.

Anyway, I would say that the initiation of violence is a priori evidence that violence will be used defensively.  Humans who resort to violence to get their way know violence will/may be used in a defensive manner so they try to use an appropriately high level of violence that their victim will not be able to match/defend against/overcome/survive.  Yes, people can do all sorts of other things to get their way besides resorting to violence but some resort to it because they know that those methods are not available to them (i.e. stealing because you do not have the money to pay for something you want) or they are simply sociopaths.  So, people know that they can not just walk up to a person and start taking their wallet, jewelry, iPod, briefcase, etc. so they use violence to affect the theft or whatever form of violence is being inflicted.

"I am the walrus.  I am the walrus.  Dude, I am the walrus."

"Shut the fuck up, Donny."

Sorry, not related in any way shape or form, nor intended as a response to anyone, but bockman's quote reminded me of this line.  10 points if you know it without searching th3 int3rw3bz! 

 "V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!"

"what the fuck is he talking about?"

Best... Movie... Ever.

Dust:

"I am the walrus.  I am the walrus.  Dude, I am the walrus."

"Shut the fuck up, Donny."

Sorry, not related in any way shape or form, nor intended as a response to anyone, but bockman's quote reminded me of this line.  10 points if you know it without searching th3 int3rw3bz! 

 "V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!"

"what the fuck is he talking about?"

Best... Movie... Ever.

<3

blackacidlizzard:

atypicalanarchist:

 It's understood among humans and throughout much of the animal kingdom that aggression is met with aggression.  If I attack you, you attack me.  Of course, we don't have to sign any agreements in order to share this understanding.  Does that make it an implied contract or is this simply an issue that goes beyond contracts? 

I see the phrase "implied contract" as a self contradiction designed to allow for anything once it is accepted. A contract by any definition I know of (save the eerily religious "social", "implied", etc. varieties) must be explicitly agreed to with conscious intent. The acceptability of violent self defense is not of contractual nature,  but the impossibility of a non-self-contradictory prohibition upon it can be shown. If it is not acceptable to stop the destruction / harming of life because the nessecarry actions would harm life, then violence must be allowed to go on unimpeded beacause violence can not be allowed. Once violence has begun, there is often no way to end it, except through violence. Therefore one can not be prohibited from violent reaction, as passivity would also be an endorsement of violence.

Interesting.  So you're saying that a prohibition against violence could not, itself, be enforced by violence as that would imply a contradiction.  Also, you view the concept of an implied contract as a slippery slope.

Is this correct?

 

 

 

What about a situation in which one person attacks another and a third, having been a witness to the original attack, steps in on the victim's behalf?  Did they have a moral right or duty to do so and if so, does that make them a party to this contract? If the answer is yes, and we can apply this to two or three individuals, then it must apply to all individuals.

 The impossibility of a prohibition on violent response to violence, as outlined above, in combination with the nessecarry universality of rules, allows a "right", if you like that term, for anyone to respond to violence with violence. Making this a duty would require everyone to be constantly seeking violent aggressors to react to, as well as require that every person put their life at risk in the name of protecting another's well being - yet another contradiction of morals : one's life must be protected, meaning another's must be put at risk - not very universal.

So, just to clarify, you think that a person has a moral right to protect themselves and others.  And, you do not think they have a moral duty to do so.

Thus we have the social contract and the seed for the state.  As we all know, that seed can quickly grow into a twisted vine as people begin to seek power for its own sake.  The essential truth, however, is that people are entitled to protection if for no other reason than the fact that a danger to one could be a danger to many.  Wouldn't you agree?  And if so, would you also agree that people are entitled to equal protection?

In conclusion, the social contract is indeed a lie created by those who seek power. A person is not entitled to have protection, he merely can not be prohibited from offering protection to himself or others. The number of people who may be affected by a danger has nothing to do with the rights or responsibilities applicable to the situation. What one may do, one hundred may do.

 

Please let me know of any flaws or other problems with this line of reasoning. Thanks.

I can't see any flaws in your argument and I thank you for the reply.  There were a few questions I asked to clarify it a little but so far, your reasoning seems sound.  

Can I assume that you agree with the idea of moral rights but do not agree with the idea of moral obligations?

Cooper MacLean:

I think blackacidlizzard responded very well to the logical crux of your argument and your hypothetical.  So, I'll just add some commentary on the first part, that of a sort of understanding going beyond a contract. 

 

We are animals so we operate with some level of instinct.  This instinct is mostly unnecessary, but still helpful, in modern life since there are not saber-tooth tigers lurking in overgrown fields waiting for us to lure into pouncing range.  Nor do we really migrate so our dead reckoning skills are not as useful for getting us to the nearest seafood restaurant as a GPS anvigation device is.  People know that fire burns as they know that violence can spawn defensive violence.

Anyway, I would say that the initiation of violence is a priori evidence that violence will be used defensively.  Humans who resort to violence to get their way know violence will/may be used in a defensive manner so they try to use an appropriately high level of violence that their victim will not be able to match/defend against/overcome/survive.  Yes, people can do all sorts of other things to get their way besides resorting to violence but some resort to it because they know that those methods are not available to them (i.e. stealing because you do not have the money to pay for something you want) or they are simply sociopaths.  So, people know that they can not just walk up to a person and start taking their wallet, jewelry, iPod, briefcase, etc. so they use violence to affect the theft or whatever form of violence is being inflicted.

 

So then, do you agree with all of the points blackacidlizzard made? 

Why?/Why Not?

Interesting.  So you're saying that  a prohibition against violence could not,  itself, be enforced  by violence as that would imply a contradiction. 

     Actually,  I'm saying.... (the converse, perhaps?), that there can be no  prohibition  against violent reaction to violence, because demanding passive  non-response would promote violence in the name of denying violence.  Does  prohibiting the initiation of violence (which I did not bother  to address) come  out to the same conclusion? Not as far as I can  tell - here's what I got on  that:

     Once violence is underway,  there is no option of non-violence, the acted upon  party can not  be held to blame for the violence. Also, to prohibit any  action is to sanction the use of violence to stop it (how else  can one enforce  anything?). If unprovoked attack is bad, then  the use of violence to cease it  must be acceptable. If there is  nothing wrong with unprovoked attack, than I can  see no way that  attack in self-defense could be called bad. If self defense is  not  bad, then a prohibition against initiating attack can not be bad.

     So if initiation of force is evil, violent response is  acceptable.
     And if initiation of force is amoral, or even  good, violent response is still  acceptable.

     Therefore,  I do not find it to be contradictory to use violence as the means  of prohibiting initiated violence, and in fact, can find  no way that  such a prohibition could be called wrong in any way.
     The  evil of initiating force is another matter, and seems to be solidly  supported in the self-ownership framework.

Also,  you view the concept of an implied contract as a slippery  slope. Is  this correct?

     Actually, I view the coruption  of language as one of the primary tools  to destroy minds, to warp  and enslave people.
     The value of a contract is that it is  an objective measure of what people  explicitly agree to. A contract  is a wonderful and valuable thing. Now take that  word that has  so much value, and graft it onto something that lacks all of the  properties that give the word value - it feels like something  valuable because  the word itself has that attachment to something  valuable, but it is in fact  stripped of it's value. Now it is  an "implied" (therefore never agreed to, never  codified, merely  some vapor-like vague idea, subject to whim) "contract". To  give  this air of nobility to that which is it's opposite screws up thinking  and  morality in serious ways.

     Just consider what has come  in the name of the following self  contradictions:

"public  property" "collective responsibility" "religious truth" "peacekeeping  force"

So, just to clarify, you think  that a person has a moral right to protect  themselves and others.  And, you do not think they have a moral duty to  do so.

     Correct.  I can see no reason that one must only survive an attack if they  are  able to resist it on their own. This would be a right of an  initiator of  violence to not face violence from anyone except who  they choose. The victim of  attack has already had this hypothetical  right violated, therefore the attacker  should have no protection  against the same.
     Nor can I see any duty of self sacrifice  being valid, for the reasons stated  in the previous post. (it  would make one a sacrificial lamb to another... are  there different  classes of people?)

Can I assume that you  agree with the idea of moral rights but do not agree  with the  idea of moral obligations?

     I am not  completely comfortable with the term "rights", perhaps for asthetic  reasons or the abuse the word has gone through in the hands of  many - also  because at this moment, it seems to imply a positive  to me, even when the  ridiculous "positive rights" are removed from  the definition. For now I'll say  that I do not agree with setting  up different categories of people with seperate  moralities, and  therefore there can be no moral justification for initiating  interfereance  with another's choices. This stance supports the "right" to be  left  alone, and also destroys any notion of duty or obligation, save  for chosen  obligations.
     I find chosen obligations to  be valid because once one agrees to them, to  withdraw is an act  of force - some common methods are theft, fraud, and neglect.

blackacidlizzard:

     So if initiation of force is evil, violent response is  acceptable.
     And if initiation of force is amoral, or even good, violent response is still acceptable.

Could not agree more.

atypicalanarchist:

So then, do you agree with all of the points blackacidlizzard made? 

Why?/Why Not?

Yes I do.  Once violence is initiated then the person against whom it is initiated (let's not dilute the argument by saying this person was an initiator in a previous episode) has every right and justification to use violence to stop it.  Now, this does not mean a person must use violence but only that it is an option.  Some people may be pacifists and choose not to retaliate and so they are entitled to that course of action.  Also, blackacidlizzard said that the use of violence is not incumbent on anyone; if you see someone being attacked then you are not obliged to stop that attack but you are free to do so.  I think his further explanation, after my initial post gives much more explanation and also gives the best debunking of an  implied "contract" and how it is merely a product of sophistry rather than having anything to do with contracts.

blackacidlizzard:

Interesting.  So you're saying that  a prohibition against violence could not,  itself, be enforced  by violence as that would imply a contradiction. 

 

     Actually,  I'm saying.... (the converse, perhaps?), that there can be no  prohibition  against violent reaction to violence, because demanding passive  non-response would promote violence in the name of denying violence.  Does  prohibiting the initiation of violence (which I did not bother  to address) come  out to the same conclusion? Not as far as I can  tell - here's what I got on  that:

     Once violence is underway,  there is no option of non-violence, the acted upon  party can not  be held to blame for the violence. Also, to prohibit any  action is to sanction the use of violence to stop it (how else  can one enforce  anything?). If unprovoked attack is bad, then  the use of violence to cease it  must be acceptable. If there is  nothing wrong with unprovoked attack, than I can  see no way that  attack in self-defense could be called bad. If self defense is  not  bad, then a prohibition against initiating attack can not be bad.

     So if initiation of force is evil, violent response is  acceptable.
     And if initiation of force is amoral, or even  good, violent response is still  acceptable.

     Therefore,  I do not find it to be contradictory to use violence as the means  of prohibiting initiated violence, and in fact, can find  no way that  such a prohibition could be called wrong in any way.
     The  evil of initiating force is another matter, and seems to be solidly  supported in the self-ownership framework.

Also,  you view the concept of an implied contract as a slippery  slope. Is  this correct?

 

     Actually, I view the coruption  of language as one of the primary tools  to destroy minds, to warp  and enslave people.
     The value of a contract is that it is  an objective measure of what people  explicitly agree to. A contract  is a wonderful and valuable thing. Now take that  word that has  so much value, and graft it onto something that lacks all of the  properties that give the word value - it feels like something  valuable because  the word itself has that attachment to something  valuable, but it is in fact  stripped of it's value. Now it is  an "implied" (therefore never agreed to, never  codified, merely  some vapor-like vague idea, subject to whim) "contract". To  give  this air of nobility to that which is it's opposite screws up thinking  and  morality in serious ways.

     Just consider what has come  in the name of the following self  contradictions:

"public  property" "collective responsibility" "religious truth" "peacekeeping  force"

So, just to clarify, you think  that a person has a moral right to protect  themselves and others.  And, you do not think they have a moral duty to  do so.

 

     Correct.  I can see no reason that one must only survive an attack if they  are  able to resist it on their own. This would be a right of an  initiator of  violence to not face violence from anyone except who  they choose. The victim of  attack has already had this hypothetical  right violated, therefore the attacker  should have no protection  against the same.
     Nor can I see any duty of self sacrifice  being valid, for the reasons stated  in the previous post. (it  would make one a sacrificial lamb to another... are  there different  classes of people?)

Can I assume that you  agree with the idea of moral rights but do not agree  with the  idea of moral obligations?

 

     I am not  completely comfortable with the term "rights", perhaps for asthetic  reasons or the abuse the word has gone through in the hands of  many - also  because at this moment, it seems to imply a positive  to me, even when the  ridiculous "positive rights" are removed from  the definition. For now I'll say  that I do not agree with setting  up different categories of people with seperate  moralities, and  therefore there can be no moral justification for initiating  interfereance  with another's choices. This stance supports the "right" to be  left  alone, and also destroys any notion of duty or obligation, save  for chosen  obligations.
     I find chosen obligations to  be valid because once one agrees to them, to  withdraw is an act  of force - some common methods are theft, fraud, and neglect.

Thank you.  I'm going to lay the implied contracts idea to rest for now.  I agree with you on that subject and only decided to introduce it to see how board members would approach it.  I'd like to focus now on the moral right to violence against violence.  

I'll start with a question.  Do you think it would be moral to defend another against violent coercion even if you don't know that individual nor the circumstances of the situation?  

I think it would and further I think it would also be moral to defend everyone equally; even one's enemies.  That isn't to say I think people ought to be obligated to do so for the same reasons you cited but it would be morally justified and perhaps even compelling to do so.

"I am the walrus.  I am the walrus.  Dude, I am the walrus."

"Shut the fuck up, Donny."