This is a basic question that everyone should be able to answer. Do you deny that it is immoral to initiation the use of force (either through physical violence or via fraud) against others?
In general, no, I do not deny that it is immoral to initiate the use of force (either through physical violence or via fraud) against others. But, to truly answer what I view to be the spirit of this thread, I believe requires a somewhat more nuanced definition of what qualifies as force. For instance,...do you consider all forms of coercion as lumped in with "physical violence" as far as morality goes? Or would it only be immoral in the case that my fist literally reached the edge of your nose, or my bullet actually passed through your own personal physical form (or 'property')? In other words, would it be immoral force if I merely threatened to do either of those things? I assume most would answer yes to that. Would it be immoral force then for me to not physically harm you with overt violence or the threat of it, but rather simply to deny you or threaten to deny the means by which you might achieve prosperity without the use of force of your own? More to the point. Regardless of intention, if I were to build a small fence around you, thereby trapping you, would you consider that an immoral use of force? What if the same fence where a bit bigger, would it still be an immoral use of force? Perhaps the fence contains everything necessary no more and no less than what is needed for a very basic level of survival. Is this fence immoral? Now let's say that the fence does not enclose you but instead encloses me and all but a very few of the natural resources, would this change any the dynamic of morality? If so, then how and why? Can you see where I'm going with this? If the first fence I mentioned was indeed an immoral fence, then at what point does such a fence become not an immoral use of force? Does it become moral if I allow you, the person trapped inside (or outside), to pay your way out (or in)? Is it moral if you can choose who or what to pay in order to achieve these same goals? If so, then how much of a choice must you be provided with before we can deem this fence not immoral? -Meta
You can't deny the power of a good old fashioned ass whoopin. However, I must add that it aint right to hit first.
Of course it's not immoral to initiate the use of force. If you really want to have a discussion you might post something other than your silly assertion like, oh, some justification for your statement.
Wait. I just realized that I read the question wrong and answered this backwards. I do not support the initiation force, usually. But I'm fairly sure somebody can come up with a scenario where I would, so I'll admit up front that I sometimes would.
Well, he hasn't dropped the other shoe yet. But I'm betting it's going to be that requiring him to pay taxes and generally follow the laws of the country he is in counts as "initiation of force" against him because that's what the police would do if he starts breaking laws.
So you are saying "it's not immoral to initiate the use of force." This would mean that it be moral behavior for someone to rob you at gunpoint and take your wallet. Are you sure that's what you are asserting (and then, laughably, calling my assertion "silly.") Well, it's virtually self-explanatory, but many people seem to struggle with accepting this principle. Any moral principle that can govern behavior must be able to be applied universally. If it cannot be, than it's not morality, but simply subjective preference, ala yellow is better than purple. The non-aggression principle (NAP), stating that no one should initiate force against another human being can be applied universally and equally. It is the most rational and moral basis for human interaction, at least that I am aware of.
Hey, I almost did that too, but I was previewing my submission and managed to catch myself before posting. Is this directed at me? Just curious. Also, how do you view the definition of initiation of force as far as morality is concerned? Where do you draw the lines when it comes to defining what counts as an immoral initiation of force? And what types of force do you consider for this exercise? I'm sure that most people can agree that when a fist reaches a nose or bullet a chest where force has not previously been initiated, that this would be immoral initiation of force. But where, when, how and under what circumstances can I build my hypothetical fence before it too becomes an immoral initiation of force??? -Meta
[/thread] Never strike first, but if you come across somebody who only understands violence and they attack you, knock them the (*)(*)(*)(*) out.
No, that was actually in response to PatrickT's comment above. I think you have the general idea about when something becomes the use of force. I would expound upon it to include all property violations (including one's body). This also includes fraud. Some specific examples which may not seem obvious would be a factory polluting the air which then poisons the lungs of people nearby, or perhaps a prescription drug that someone purchased which gave no warning that it may cause dyskinesia (and did). One example that many people have a difficult time accepting is taxation. If someone were to resist paying their taxes, the state would eventually kidnap this person, jail them, and if they resisted arrest, kill them. This is also the initiation of the use of force.
To initiate (cause or facilitate the BEGINNING of), force, directed at another person, is unwise if that person has done nothing to provoke the initiation, or has not asked to have force directed against him. And if a person did provoke a response by being the instigator, then the person who received the force is entitled to respond with equal force, but not greater force. Thats what the Old Testament (Torah) version of an "eye for an eye" meant. However, Killing was a violation of 10 commandments, so there was an implied limit to killing in response to killing. Which is why the old tradition of dueling was practiced, as the rational was that both parties would use equal force and were initiating that force nearly simultaneously. However, there was still an imbalance when expert met novice, so quarrel solved by elimination of opposition, was somewhat unjust, and unequal still. The highest and most difficult philosophy to live by is that practiced as "turn the other cheek" ideal. Many people have achieved that level, one famous one,not varying from it even unto his own torture and death., and even instructing one of his students to put down the sword while healing the ear cut off from his enemy.
So, is murder or rape (both extreme initiations of the use of force/violence) morally acceptable as long as a given society's mores allow for it? What about your morality, isn't that what matters most to you?
Murder and rape have been totally socially acceptable based on the mores of certain societies. Look at Rome in the past.
You're asking two different questions. One about morality and one about personal ethics. Yes I deny that it is always immoral to initiate the use of force or commit fraud against others. It depends on the culture, community, and philosophy of the people affected by said actions. Morality is not a human absolute it varies from place to place. For me the initiation of force comes down to a personal choice and the present situation that is being dealt with. I may think violence, fraud, or taunting may be the best solution in some scenarios however they could also be the worst. Humans are dynamic creatures living in an ever-changing world, it's imperative we question our ethics and our past decisions to reach the best conclusion for our efforts. Being bound by our convictions makes us easily predictable and exploitable while always flowing with the tides of change will make us pushovers. It's important for people to find their own balance.
Oh, OK, well that all make sense, except for in the case of taxation, I would say that it is not automatically an immoral initiation of force if the person or group taxing has a moral/agreed right to what is being taxed away. In the current U.S. for example, what is being taxed away is federally created currency (dollars, coins, and credits), and just as a private citizen or organization in general should have the right to decide how when and under what circumstances their own private property is used, so too should the public have the right to determine under what conditions publicly created/owned property gets used, wouldn't you agree? I feel I should mention though that in the past it might not have been uncommon for the U.S. government to tax things other than federally created currency, and some of the same laws that allowed for that may even still be on some of the books, but as it is currently being practiced in the U.S., I see nothing immoral about the way people are being taxed as far as coercive force initiation is concerned. Again, if the right of private individuals to set the terms of use for their private property is something to be protected, then so is it the right of the public to define the terms of use of publicly created goods. ^To that point though, there is also the issue of "the restrictive fence." I do not believe that currency creation and taxation of that currency alone in any way unfairly restricts what any individual can do. However, in the U.S. there is the added addition of counterfeit laws, and laws that generally discourage the creation of alternate currencies that are similar in appearance to U.S. currency. While I view such laws and their enforcement as more than reasonable in essence, and not immoral seeing as how violations of them may be categorized under fraud, one does have to wonder if perhaps their specific implementations may be taken too far and to unfair extremes in the U.S. in some cases. All of that said, I do not believe that all "restrictive fences" are necessarily immoral initiations or force. Like I described a few posts back, there is a sort of continuum when it comes to this issue, at one extreme, most can agree there would be immorality, while at the other end it is much less apparent that the specific activity in question equates to unfair coercion. For me personally on that matter, it comes down to practicality, and or the level of availability of alternative choices and or the level of direct control over those choices for all parties involved. -Meta
