IRC log started Fri Jan 3 21:53 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Means vs. Ends and the Initiation of Force," and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. <> Tym fiddles with Ircle...agghh!! :/ Get lurchie to help out. Tym: Use Aline's PC! :) Or the PC. Awright.... So, does Tym have the means to suit the end? Traditionally ethics has been split into two camps... ...thhose who hold that the good consists of acting according to certain principles and consequences be damned... ...and those who say that the good lies in consequences irrespective of means. Objectivism and common sense tell us that this is a false dichotomy, and that ends and means cannot be sundered. So why the hell hasn't this been obvious to the likes of Kant or John Stuart Mill (and other proponents of this split)? Type faster, Tym. :) Because they do things based on emotions seperated form reason. Tym: i think it has been obvious, obvious that it is the sure means of making man end. My contention is that people get confused when applying it to real world problems.... Tym: I would question whether people who focus on the means are " acting according to certain principles ...such as the initiation of FORCE. Tym: I think they are acting according to RULES. Betsy: ditto: These are only pseudo-principles...i.e. divorced from perception. Tym: The former don't believe that ends can be reliably determined and just stick to principles, while the later don't trust the ability of man to have valid principles. JimN: exactly. JimN: what we're going to investigate is WHY. Both groups do not see the CAUSAL link between actions and their consequences. I think Kant was more viciously evil than that...perhaps some of the earlier philosopher's were merely mistaken, but not Kant. OK, let's briefly review just what each camp stands for so that everyone's up to speed here. Question: how does Kant and his ilk diss consequences and concentrate on means solely? Tym: It comes down to the presentation that man's mind is not linked to existence. Man's mind can come up with rules, but whether or not these will bring a predicted end is cut off from knowledge. TomM: Right. Tym is now demonstrating this... ;) TomM: Kant said that consequences didn't matter; only principles counted as the good, even if it brought harm. Examples anyone? A principle is ssome abstraction about reality. Rules may be arbitrary. Duty. Tym: Being "honest" at all times, even if it means giving away your position to an enemy. Something's good if it does you no worldly good. Tym: Doing your duty even when there is nothing in it for you -- i.., no desirable consequences. altruistic actions Subetai: you are forgetting that according to Kant, there is no determined reality. Betsy, Tom: good! "Worldly good" meaning some material good. Wright: ok then, so what is a brief description of the "the other camp" and who leads it? Or what you imagine to be "material" Now... John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians thought differently... ...they thought that only the "bottom line" counted, regardless of what means werer employed, ie no principles. Subetai: However, kant also siad you should receive no spiritual well being from following his "principles". Tom: Yeah, he said it mustn't make you feel good. Tom: and Mill said that you could create well being following no specific method. Subetai: BAsically, one shouldn't receive *any* benefit from doing the Good. Tym: The pragmatists are also in the "whatever works" camp. Betsy: right. That's what I meant by "worldly good" - real benefit. There are no others. Subetai: You said "material." OK, why can't means and ends be sundered? I apologize, Tom. Acting according to duty is merely "praiseworthy", but it only has actual moral merit if you do it because you should, best determined when you do it but don't want to. Tym: The first means is thought, but if man's mind is not aware of existence, then anything goes. It's a denial of causality. Sube: how so? Tym: It always involves a contradiction. example: Sacrificing some individuals to save others. It denies that certain actions lead to specific results. It denys the law of identity at the root. Means and ends are tied together by causality. One leads to the other. Sure. Subetai, Tom: right! word of advice: Never give Tym a tracball Something happened. He'll be right back *laugh* Tym has left existence...when he returns, he will give us a report about the neumenal world. ;) :) OK, on to the next part... If ends and means can't be sundered, well the hell wasn't it obvious to these idiots? Because they had a different view of existence. isn't the principles dichotomy just the A-S dichotomy applied to ethics? Tym: i've already indicated that it *is* obvious, but they were out to destroy man at the root. I mean, a sixteen year old would know better. I did, when I first read about it. Their metaphysics didn't hold reality as an absolute. Tym, you have a different basis for your philosophy than they do. OK, I'm going to do an about-face and show just how hard it can be to concretise the unity of means and ends... So why do they insist on this basis? If reality isn't an absolute, there's no fixed identity and no causality. tym: maybe they were trying to hide from themselves the true nature of their ends. If the mind is not capable of knowing reality, then the door is left open for anything. ....as applied to the real-world problem of the initiation of force.... But can be sure that for all these men, their purpose was to destroy man? Okay, Tym. Even the ancients dimly grasped the idea that individually we're ALL better off in the long run if no one can initiate force against others ...and poliotical theorists before Kant (such as Hobbes) tried in vain to elucidate the correct principles for achieving this ideal situastion... ...but thast didn't stop people from rationalising, implicitly or explicitly, from making all sorts of exceptions to "civilised" ie noncoercive behavior. Why? Tym: it had a lot to do with what they thought was "the good." So long as individual effort to aceive happiness was banned, force had to have a say somewhere. Tym: There was no _positive_, correct view to stop them with. It was not until the Enlightenment and the Lockean concept of individual rights that men had anything to oppose force with. I think maybe they didn't think people COULD get along that way. I think people still find exceptions to the non-initiation of force. The difference is they justify it differently. Kelly: That attitude had a lot to do with the idea that selfish man *has* to be irrational, and therefore dangerous to others. Betsy: they certainly had less excuse after that. But HOW did they6 rationalise making exceptions for themselves, "just this once", etc.? ...right up until now? Peiople do it all the time. Why? As I remember, Ayn Rand herself said that she couldn't have developed Objectivism prior to the Industrial Revolution. I don't remember the source, however. Instead of "I'll kill you and take your money because it'll make me richer" or "I was born a noble, I own you" it's now "but think of the poor" Mike: True, but man's rights were outlined before then...it's what gave rise to the industrial revolution. Tom: the "selfish" man was seen as a threat to the well-being of the community ie everybody else. Why? Tym: They made exceptions by blanking out the causal connection between their actions and the consequences. Betsy: good! Tym: Primarily because "selfish" meant anti- Judeo-Christianity, which was taken as the implicit/explicit Good. Or rather, they see the consequences they want to see. They narrow down their context drastically. Because it was thought that human interest lay in initiating force against others. TomM: The practice of the principles, yes. But even Locke established individual rights on the basis of a belief in God and the story of God's delivery of the stewardship of Earth to Adam. Tym: because they are thugs - they want to impose their whims on others. People who don't want to work or think in order to get what they want try to use the work and thoughts of others to get what they want.... Betsy: so wouldn't that make it semi-plausible to someone who was confused, to agree with Kant and say that principles were all that counted, since to focus on results would lead to exceptions? Mike: Sure, it wasn't fully grounded in existence until Miss Rand. Tym: I don't think that's why people agree with Kant. It think it has to do with the fact that almost everyone was raised to regard morality as arbitrary "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" and never learned to treat it causally. Kant was just cashing in. Tym: The question is: what results are you trying to get? Initiating force against people violates the result I value, namely, the value of voluntary cooperation with others. Tym: Depends on if the persons being asked is an intellectual or not. Most likely, an intellectuall would side with "priciples" even if not grounded in facts. Betsy: but a lot of people that had been secularised by the Enlightenment bought into Kant's moral theory. Tym: That was because nobody had a causal theory until Ayn Rand. Tym, Betsy: because of the nature of emotions. They were taught from birth to be somewhat altruistic, so they *felt* that they had to be altruistic. A lot of people who don't believe in god still take a somewhat "religious" view to things like morality. JimN: the point I'm trying to make is that people see how non-coercion is overall beneficial, yet they fail to understand the consequences of their OWN use of force, whether it be lying, stealing, etc. Actually, it comes down to Miss RAnd being the first philosopher to make ethics a species of cognition. =Halley97= [21:50] Do you mean "not worth missing?" Tym: To see the consequences of anything, you have to analyze things causally and I don't think most people do that at all. Tym: As you say, "they fail to understand the consequences...". The validity of the principle is still in the results, if you know what results you're trying to achieve, and how to validate them. Betsy: that's true. And that's what I'd like to examine next. Why don't people understand the consequences of their OWN "exceptions"? After all, if maximal benefit regardless of means is the only thing that counts, as Mill says, then we should initiate force or not as the occasion dictates. Why is he right and Kant wrong? Or the other way around? Or why are they BOTH wrong?\ Tym: The answer is short-term vs long-term thinking. A thief stealing my money thinks short-range that he will have money to spent, even if long-range, he will be caught and punished. Tym: It's because they see themselves as "exceptions." They haven't learned that the causal connections they have observed about others (i.e. how others should behave to be successful) applies to them. them = themselves. Tom: but it won't have any long-range effect if he steals "just this once", right? ;) Tym: People fail to realize that they can edn up being the means to someone else's end. They are not thinking in principles. They are too concrete-bound. Also, the incorrect, non-cognitive morality would lead them to "thinking" it is OK to force others to be good. "Because he will be caught" is not th reason for the thief not to steal. Because when others don't initiate force against them, it helps them. And when they initiate force against others, it "helps" them. Their point is getting out ahead. Tym: In that case, he blanks out on any long-term consequences. Betsy: why can't they just say: "we'll coerce until the disadvantages outweigh the benefits"? That's what the Utilitarians say. They're not for non-initiation of force because of principles. They're for it because it means people won't rob or murder them. Tym: "a murderer wins out over a pick-pocekt" in that type of "reasoning." I think they want it when it seems like a good idea (Helping the poor) but not when it's a bad idea (murder). ALL: does everyone see how ends and means break down when applied to this problem? What's the way out? Subetai: In other words, they aren't seeing the value that is achieved by the principle of rights, but only the negative that is avoided if other's refrain from initiating force against them. Tym: If you understand the nature of man and what the causal consequences of force are, you'll understand why force destroys ALL benefits. Subetai: That value being: a division of labor society. ah...I just jumped in. I can only guess that the conversation centers around abortion. Tym: If the means are irrational (not based on man's nature), man has to lose. When the ends are irrational (not based on man's nature), man has to loose. Zarinch: Nope. Jim: Right. The principle's too abstract, like betsy said. ah..my mistake. Betsy: my contention that any civilised person grasps that on some level, yet don't see the consequences to exceptions of principle. Why? In any situation where the "benefits" come now and the "consequences" come later, the short-range mentality will be unconcerned with consequences. Tym: Primarily because he doesn't have the right "principles." Tym: They have to evade seeing that if they use force, force may be used on them. Betsy: and what ARE the consequences? After all, the world won't stop tomorrow if I engage in mail fraud. Tym: but *your* world might, *if* you get caught and punished. Tom: what if it doesn't? Tom: is it ok then? or if someone decides that mail fraud is for wimps, but murder is for real men. Tym: As Ayn Rand said, "I [can't do something bad] because I see the consequences too clearly. The consequences of using force are not obvious, but once you understand what it will do to you and your values, the thought is no longer attractive. What is this "caught and punished" stuff Tom keeps talking about? I gathered this was an *ethical* discussion... the fear of capture has nothing to do with the ethics of non-initiation of force. Colby: I meant "punished" in a somewhat broader sense of reality catching up with him. Colby: The possibility of getting caught is ONE of the things involved. Betsy: we're trying to make the consequences obvious, and how they flow from abiding by principle or not. =show how Betsy: I don't think that's true. A crime is still wrong if you're certain of avoiding getting caught. It's not integral to the issue. Colby: Besides, part of the criminal mentality is they think they can get away with it, i.e. avoid punsihment by not getting caught. Initiating force kills the goose that lays the golden egg by harming the source of the value you take. It also has horrible effects on your own self-esteem. Colby: by existence is such that even if men don't catch them at it, they wil still suffer the consequences. betsy: are you refering to conscience? Betsy: but we want to link consequences with self esteem. Otherwise, we're back with Kant, no? kukabura: "Conscience" is a pseudo-concept. yes Colby: True. People don't just refrain from initiation force because they think they'll get hurt in response, but because they see how they can gain value by dealing with others voluntarily, and promoting a society of voluntary cooperation. Jim: but the criminal mind blanks that out. Kuka: No. A person with perverted values may not feel guilt -- but he will always feel anxiety. Anxiety is the fear that you COULD get caught and it is worse and most acute when you DON'T get caught. TomM: Right. The criminal mind is blanking that out. I think a crime's effects on one's self-esteem are beside the point, too. Betsy's first point is the integral one, the *only* integral one. Colby: It's *all* integral. Causality in ethics is such that all those things happen simultaneously. Betsy: the fundamental issue isn't getting caughtor one's self esteem. Those are secondary. The consequence is: initiating force destroys man's mind, the source of all values. Tym: Self-esteem is the feeling that (1) you are able to live and (2) you are worthy of living. Using force destroys (1) -- you are living thru and by means of your victim. Betsy: right. Tym: I think what Betsy was trying to say is that by initiating force, one destroys one *own* mind. Tym: It destroys OTHER people's minds. They way it indirectly destroys the forcer's mind is that it puts him at odds with reality and his fellow man and encourages short-range, non-causal, unprincipled cognition. Tym: Right. Initiating force destroys the source of values, man's mind. A criminal is a parasite, living off of other life while killing it, rather than promoting life so that more value is created. By reducing himself to the level of sub-human, the criminal cuts off his mind from existence. Which means he looses reason, purpose, and self-esteem, as well as free co-operation with others. TomM: Exactly. Betsy: so yr saying that even if the world doesn't collapse tomorrow if I engage in mail fraud, it still wasn't JUSTIFIED? Tym: It wasn't justified by any concern for your own, long-range, self-interest. If you engage in fraud, it will be very hard to live with yourself -- for a lot of reasons. Tym: Justice means requiting the good with the good, and the bad with the bad; so, no, it's not justified...ie.e is not an act of justice. Tom: guess I shoulda used the word "validated". Justice presupposes the good, which is what we're discussing. I think Tym means "justified" in terms of "warranted conclusion". Tym: Sure, the point is that if the world doesn't colapse tomorrow, what about the day after tomorrow? blank-out. Betsy: right. "Justification" or "validation" is what links means and ends. How? Neither the short- nor long-term consequences of an individual person's life are relevant for his determining which priciples are right. Moral principles are based on what's right for man. = *on* an individual's Tom: yr saying that the world HAS to collapse if I engage in mail fraud? Steal a penny? Nonsense. joe: That sounds very intrinsic. joe: you sound like Kant! that Kant be ;-) Tym: Justification elucidates the CAUSAL relationship between a persons choices and actions and their actual, long-range consequences. It shows why action X lead to results Y. <> Tym notes that people are already dichotomising again ;) Isn't Joe right? Moral principles are about what is right for me in my role as an instance of humanity. Tym: Well, the consequences are as big as the means, so stealing a penny may not hurt much, at first, but try to stop it there. IOW reiterating what colby said ealier, its not fear of punishment - by men or by your conscience - that should guide our actions. vis a vis force. joe: No, fear is not the motivator. I don't think anyone meant to imply that. Betsy: very good. Only in this case, I'd say that the IMMEDIATE consequence of unprincipled behavior is that it is ARBITRARY. Agree? colby: applying them yes, but deriving them is based on nature of man. Whether you meant to or not, Tom.... B) Joe: Do you mean that moral principles should be based on the _consequences_ of certain actions for all men? Colby: I didn't say anything of the kind, I said a criminal *does* fear getting caught, or getting forced by someone with less scrupples than he. The *logical* consequences, of course, not the temporal ones. Tym: Not necessarily. You could have a "reason" to use force that's just wrong or short-sighted. Whether or not he fears getting caught is meaningless to this discussion, though. Sociopaths are just as evil as sensitive criminals. Colby/joe: Morality is derived via observing interactions of man with other men and existence. But, one's *personal* benefits are certainly the motivator. Betsy: I mean objectively arbitrary. That is, they could use the same rationale to make exceptions ad inifinitum. Colby: there is the far deeper fear (that I don't think you grasp) of a man cutting his mind off from existence which all criminals feel. Tym: I guess so. Joe: I mean that moral principles should be universal. Actually, I would say fear of punishment is a powerful disincentive for exactly the kind of mentalities who can't see beyond anything more concrete than the concrete of prison walls. By "criminal" I mean someone who thinks initiating force to achieve some end is good (for him or for others). Betsy: so even if they DON'T make exceptions ad infinitum, they were still unjustified in doing it in the first place. I can't count the number of times I've returned incorrect change, or corrected a restaurant cheque or such against my favor, simply because I like to pay for what I receive. Tym: They are unjustified by any _principled_, _long-range_ standard -- which we have and they probably never had. Tym: I don't understand why you keep saying "justified." by what standard? Certainly many (objective) criminals have "justified" their actions by some twisted rationalization. TomM: what Betsy said. Betsy: Sure, we've already discussed that aspect of it. REmember, thinking is *work* and the criminal mind **HATES** working. I guess I'm done ;) Everyone wander at will! :) Thanks, Tym :) Thanks Tym. It made me think some new thoughts. Tym: Wnet pretty weel for a last-minute thingie. oops went pretty well... Yeah :) Thanks for the topic, Tym. Welcome all. Please continue if you wish, people. <> Tym was nearly killed on the freeway coming to see Lurch 8-{) Was Lurch driving? ;) Tym: Really? Glad you survived. Betsy: hate to think what LA freeways are like ;) Tym: they're pretty safe Tym: Were you almost in an accident? My friend Greg will have an editorial in this month's Intellectual Activist, about Ontario's War on Doctors. Our province is turning into a fascist state at an appalling rate. He brought the Health Care Restructuring Act to dinner tonight to show me. It is unbelievably appalling. Tym: Oh..are you in the flooded great north west? It nationalizes all hospitals. Empowers the Minister to make any order to any hospital, as if he was their board. Tom: yup :) Brad: Acks! BradA: Greg Shoom in TIA? Gives him power to unilaterally set doctor's fees, where they can practice, under what terms, etc. Brad: Any strike in the making as a protest? All the bureaucrats involved has been exempted from all legal liability -- you can't sue them. Tom: There was some meek protest, but the doctors caved in. I heard no public voices opposing the principles involved. Brad: Too bad they are such altruists. If they strike, they will be pegged as selfish, and would result in public outcry, I assume. baz: Ah, I remember that to some degree. Tym: Yes. Brad: Sue them for what? causing untold deaths? and slavery? ;) BradA: this type of thing is normal for canada. why are you so surprised? But what is just unbelievable, is the Nationalization. I mean, it is exactly on the Fascist model. After this bill, there are literally no property rights in hospitals in Ontario. Literally, exactly, practically, in principle, in any way form shape or method ... property rights. Speaking of "loose cannons", what's the scoop on gingrich? Gingrich is, and always has been, a mental midget of frighteningly microscopic stature. Brad: i'm speaking of him being scathed by some incident and possibly loosing the Speaker of the House role. Brad: there are no property rights in the rest of canada - notheing new. (as has been discussed before) TomM - Gingrich is keeping his job - only being "chastized" If you were a private hospital owner, or a charitable hospital owner before this bill, you are a state slave now, and your hospital belongs to the state. Literally, explicitly, and without even the semblance of civility that left-wing expropriations have: compensation. I'm going to go now also. Thanks for the discussion. Joe: That is not true. Lurch: Well, what exactly did he do? i'm unclear on that. I used (if I have this right) political funds to help produce that idiotic lecture series BradA: sure its true - read sec. 34 of the charter. er - HE used.. Lurch: Ok, I got that much, but what is the hubbub all about? Anyone else seen the bumper sticker "Keep Working - millions on welfare are counting on you" ? And now, we have had our municipal representatives usurped by trustees, and a vast, breathtaking (or better: breathsucking) municipal restructuring imposed on us here in Metro Toronto -- never campaigned on, never discussed, no referendum. Brad: Welcome to socialism. These guys are way, way infitely worse than any North American populist socialist. Dagny: Have you been in Sweden lately?! ;) Tom - that's about it - recently it was that the Dems wanted to drag the proceedings out, and the Reps were pissing about it now, it's all overwith Amy - yes, I have a copy of it here someplace Joe: You can own property in Canada. Case closed. can you own a handgun? Lurch: but is that illegal? I think that was unclear. Something about it being a ideological content, and therrefore illegal? BradA: the 1982 constitutional amendment eliminating individual rights was passed without referendum, and very litle debate. TomM - I've exhausted my knowledge on the subject. Lurch: Ok, mine too ;) Tom: This is not socialism. This is the *conservatives* doing this. And they are heartily endorsed by right-wing publications. This is the New Fascist Right. These are the people Robert Tracinski has been warning us about. And I submit, based on what I've seen, they are not that different from very many Republocrats. Brad: Ok, collectivism, then, it's all the same at the root. But, you *know* the conservatives are doing it all for *your* benefit ;) In fact, I am embarrassed to think we may be leading the vanguard here. The vehicle I saw it on had two other stickers. One was something about jesus being King and the other a statement about protecting the unborn. I'm half convinced this person took that 'Keep Working' one seriously. Consider this: the Health Minister is now just like Wesley Mouch from AS. He has awesome dictatorial powers. So, of course EVERY minister is going to want these powers now. TomM: the left is opposing it because it is being introduced by the right. that's all. there is no ideology in Canadian politics. Brad: It just goes to show that conservatives are not the defender of rights they are presented as. joe: Ok, gotcha. Imagine, to be a minister without Total Powers of decree, and total savings from liability?? Embarrassing. Tom: Exactly, and I hope Greg's editorial helps make that point. It seems so many Objectivists seem to be "acquainted" (if not friendly) to the Republocrats, such as Peikoff endorsing and interviewing Steve Forbes, whose platform I read and who really was not good enough to endorse. Peikoff endorsed Forbes? Being the least worst of a bad bunch is not enought to deserve encouragement or endorsment or sanction. BradA: I must say I'm distressed by that LFB thing of yrs :/ Joe: defacto is a fact Brad: Don't get sick ;( Tom: why good for the left? Well, cynically, I'd say that democracy has been good to the left, especially municipally. But more generously, I would say that most social democrats do consider sanction important, and do believe in democracy, public hearings and debate, etc. Brad: Sure, that's what I was getting at earlier. Brad: Of course, a ruly mob is still and unruly mob. I need to be going...thanks for the discussion and the (horrible) news. Tym: Why? I'd be happy to entertain refutations or criticisms. And I have enough respect for my fellow men to assume they can read a book critically, without succumbing to its arguments if flawed, if that is your concern re LFB and some of its more disreputable material. This is exactly the kind of tactics employed by Rand's heros. It is rather Dominequean, I'd say. (Ephraim@U) Something good: I searched every book store I could find in Redding, the biggest city near me, and was unable to find "The Fountainhead," or almost any book by Ayn Rand. They had all been purchased for christmas. From my conversation with the employees at the bookstores, they are still pretty popular. What LFB thing? (Ephraim@U) Of course, it was not good in the sense that I wanted to purchase "The Fountainhead" since I cannot find the one I already have. BradA: I agree with Tony. BradA: what say you to his points? Ephraim: where are you? Speaking of the popularity of objectivism--since i find that "midas" and "phantom" are often picked for usernames on websites that require registration, i often try Galt and JohnGalt--which i find are always already picked! Mike: I am going to start buying Second Renaissance-boycotted valuable books from their competitor and enemy: Laissez Faire Books, and add a double measure for justice, by buying an additional title I could have bought from SR. Ok... why? Brad: what books has SRB boycotted? Something bad: *A Treatise on Political Economy* by Say, is *not* back in print, as I had been led to believe. The publisher has none, and doesn't plan a reprint. Gads, what a crime. Brad: Don't e.g. Amazon books have it? midas: Books by: Nathan Branden, David Kelley, now George Reismann, and doubtless books and materials of other intellectuals. Brad: even their good books? Just buy the Reisman books from Reisman's own service. Lyceum: Yes, probably. But the reason SRB is not selling them, is the reason I choose to buy them from their (one would suppose) worst enemies.