Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Force is Unreasonable, still
Message-ID: <28200327@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 21:58:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200327
Posted: Sat Nov 23 21:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:07:58 EST
References: <1497@hound.UUCP>
Lines: 51
Nf-ID: #R:hound:-149700:inmet:28200327:000:2371
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 23 21:58:00 1985


[rwsh@hound]
I agree with your ethical attitude: that a threat  is  dehumaniz-
ing,  corrosive  to rational faculty, and, as far as possible, to
be eliminated from social interaction.  Moreover, I am optimistic
enough to hope it *is* possible, sooner or later.

But the logical and epistemological scaffolding baffles me
(as it did in Ayn Rand's writings).

>To the extent that someone chooses to use force rather than  rea-
>son, he abandons his claim to be treated as man--the rational animal.

He may abandon some ethical status; but rationality is not a matter
of how he is *treated*; it is a matter of fact; he may be a
rational predator - say, a pirate or slave-trader, - treating other
people as a natural resource. That does not give him any *claim*
on their sympathy or respect; but why is he any less rational
than a hunter or a herder because his prey is human ?
E.g., the slavers who built the wealth of Liverpool or Boston
were probably cool-headed businessmen; they would have put their 
money in whaling had that paid more. How would their rationality
have changed ?

>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 sur-
>vive on whims without you?

Again, why do you assume that the threatener acts on whim ?
His desire is tied to reality if he knows what he wants
and where to get it. Isn't it ? The threatener, without
the victim, might be able to switch to honest work, and 
so survive. All this is awfully trite, so I must be
missing something. What ?

I would agree to the extent that power tends to corrupt, and  may
corrupt  rational  faculties as well. (Submission is no less cor-
rupting). But this is a long-run tendency, not a precondition  to
wielding power ...

Wait! I've just had an idea of a possible interpretation of  your
words.  Try this : the threatener may have a reason for his wish;
*to him* it is not a whim, but based on reality. But he does  not
give  his reasons to the victim. To the latter, the former's wish
is a whim, and also a piece of primary reality on which to act -
again, rationally. Thus, each has his own  reality  to  which  he
adapts;  but  it  is not the same. So, they are each rational but
not *co-rational*. Does that make any sense to you ?

		Jan Wasilewsky