Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hound!rwsh
From: rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Force is Unreasonable, still
Message-ID: <1497@hound.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 23:16:37 EST
Article-I.D.: hound.1497
Posted: Tue Nov 19 23:16:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:18:25 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 35

Consider the difference between a threat and an argument.

The threatener says, "My wishes--products of my consciousness
which need have no tie to reality--will guide your action."

The arguer says, "Guide your actions by reality.  Here are the
facts of reality that lead to the actions I recommend.  None of
these reasons are based on non-objective products of my consciousness.
It is true that I desire you to act this way; but my desire should be
irrelevant to your decision."

It should be clear that the threatener--someone who proposes to use
force to have his way with others--is the opposite of the arguer--someone
who proposes to deal with others with reason.

It is true that the person threatened can continue to use reason to guide
his actions just as he would use reason to decide what to do if a grizzly
challenged him for his lunch.  But we are no longer talking of *human*
interactions in either case.  To the extent that someone chooses to use force
rather than reason, he abandons his claim to be treated as man--the rational
animal.

What is the epistemological status of the whim of the threatener?  Where is its
tie to reality?  Are all products of consciousness equivalent?  Are whims
the same as reason?  Can the threatener survive on whims without you?
You know that your own emotions do not give you truth.  Why should someone
else's emotions do so?

The sense in which force cuts off your tie to reality--your reason--is that
it attempts to elevate the arbitrary, subjective contents of someone's mind
to the same status as metaphysical facts of reality.  How can anyone hope
to use reason to identify and integrate the material provided by his senses
if any arbitrary desire is to be treated as being as real as existents?
-- 
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846