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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hound!rwsh
From: rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Co-rationality is Nonsense
Message-ID: <1522@hound.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 23:34:43 EST
Article-I.D.: hound.1522
Posted: Sun Dec  1 23:34:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Dec-85 04:49:53 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 88


		Force is the Opposite of Reason

With respect to an example where someone uses force to get a victim 
do his bidding, Jan Wasilewsky writes:
                "... 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 ?"

No.  There is only one reality.  If there were multiple realities,
reason would be impotent.  Which reality would my sense organs be
aware of?  Which reality would we point to when we try to communicate
with each other?  The first premise necessary for any thought or
human discourse is that there is only one reality.

When two people disagree over a fact of reality, at least one of them
is wrong.  I claim that one who initiates force is irrational.  First,
note that merely having a reason is not enough to establish your claim
of rationality.  Is it rational to consume your seed corn?  Is it
rational to snort cocaine?  Is social security rational?  My point
is that having the faculty of reason is given; but being rational--
i.e., properly identifying facts of reality--takes effort and a method
appropriate to the nature of your consciousness.  [The essentials of
this method are that it be hierarchical--rooted in the evidence your
senses provide you--and contextual--i.e., that new knowledge be
integrated with what you already know to avoid contradictions.]

Now consider a narrow application of reason:  to get other people
to do what you want.  By reason in this narrow context I mean arguing--
using words (which identify entities, attributes, and relations based
ultimately on sensory evidence that is also available to the one you
are arguing with).  It is clear to me that this is the opposite of
using force--with force you would use physical means.  If I ask why
I should obey, you point to the gun.  But note that it is not
the objective fact of the gun that is threatening me; but your wish
to use it.  You don't point to some objective fact of reality but try
to convince me that you will choose to use it if I don't obey.
Your ultimate answer to my "why?" when you choose force over reason is,
"Because I want it."  It is an equivocation to hold your wish as a fact
of reality equivalent to the fact of reality pointed to by my saying,
 for example, that "contradictions don't exist."

Now let's broaden the context.  Jan asks why can't man be a rational
predator--treating other people as a natural resource?  Why is he less
rational than a herder or hunter because his prey is human?
In other words, even if force is the opposite of reason in the narrow sense
used above (dealing with other humans), why do I hold that you are
irrational (that is violate the correct application of reason) if
you weigh all the alternatives and choose to treat people the same way you
treat everything else in the universe?

The answer is in the nature of the human consciousness.  The aspect I
am focusing on here is that you need to think in terms of principles
to keep your mind in order and to act on principles to keep your life
in order.  Consider what you know about the value of a mutual exchange:
that both parties gain.  Consider what you know about the value of a
division of labor society.  Consider what you know about the relative
productivity of the values required for human life of various societies
as a function of the degree that the arbitrary use of force was present
or absent in those societies.  All of that knowledge is consistent with
the principle of dealing with others with reason and inconsistent with
choosing to initiate force.  Now do you still think that someone who chooses
to initiate force in dealing with others is exercising reason?

Consider your answer to an analogous question in the field of nutrition.

You have an immense amount of knowledge about the relative value to you of
drinking insecticide or water.  But if you are thirsty and the water is
far away, you could save some effort by drinking insecticide.  After all,
if a herder can treat animals and people alike why can't you treat these
two liquids alike?  Suppose the insecticide were very dilute so that it
would only affect you in the long run.  Would you advise it then?
Is it rational to treat insecticide as if it were water?

I hold that it is irrational for man to act opposed to his principles.
When principles are discarded, it is knowledge that is tossed out and
what is left is emotion.  So if you are to hold it is rational to
initiate force, you must give a principle that supersedes dealing with
others by reason.

I would hope that anyone who was serious about defending liberty would not
hold that it is rational for men to attempt to survive on the principle that
"might makes right."
-- 
Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846