Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Ayn  Rand's  definitions of force and reason
Message-ID: <1910@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 22:51:57 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1910
Posted: Sun Dec  1 22:51:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 20:22:49 EST
References: <1482@hound.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 163

Bob Stubblefield objected to the use of force in a society (or
human relationship in general.  He presented several interesting
quotes of Ayn Rand.  In my opinion, Ayn Rand introduced interesting,
but quite flawed philosophy.  I will first quote Bob and Ayn Rand,
and then I will write my comment.
> 
> Force has been recommended for  financing  public  education  and
> street sweeping, enforcing standards against pollution, licensing
> physicians, and  making  wearing  of  hockey  helmets  mandatory.
> Anti-force  answers  used  protection of property rights (for the
> pollution cases), individual responsibility  (public  education),
> and  voluntary  contractual  arrangements  (licensing  and street
> sweeping).  But as long as people do not understand that force is
> wrong  in principle, someone will be making up a problem he would
> "solve" with force that nobody has yet solved without force.  And
> since  force *is* wrong  in  principle,  there  will  always be a
> voluntary alternative.
> 
> Arguments go on and on  because  the  anti-force  side  does  not
> defend  their  position in principle.  As long as non-coercion is
> treated as a starting point--just some rule  that  has  an  equal
> status   with   any   other,   there   will   always  be  alleged
> counterexamples to argue about.
> 
> What is wrong with force in principle is that it is  incompatible
> with reason.
> 
> Ayn  Rand's  definition,  "the  faculty   that   identifies   and
> integrates  the material provided by man's senses," captures what
> I mean by reason.  It is my faculty of reason that allows  me  to
> identify,  for  example,  the  door  to my room as a door.  It is
> reason that allows me to integrate what I know about  doors  with
> the  fact that I want to leave the room and guides me to open the
> door first.  Reason is my means  of  acquiring  knowledge  and my
> guide  to action.  In contrast, I might wish that the door were a
> curtain and try to walk through it.   If  I  did,  I  would  bang
> against reality.  It is reason, not wishes, that keeps me tied to
> reality in what I know and do.
> 
> The concept of force does not arise in any  relationship  between
> my  mind and reality as long as no other person is involved.  The
> fact that I must open the door if I want to  go  through  is  not
> because  of  force.   It is because of a metaphysical fact; i.e.,
> that's the way it is--no one's wishes will change it.
> 
> Force is when someone uses physical means to get you to obey  his
> wishes.   Force  is  grasped  by distinguishing it from values or
> arguments that someone might use to get you to change your  mind.
> For  example,  it is force when a thief says, "Your money or your
> life."  It is not force when the sales clerk says, "Ten  dollars,
> please." It is force when you are not allowed to make up your own
> mind how to act.
> 
> Force is a gun aimed at your mind.  Force cuts off  your  tie  to
> reality--your  reason.   Reason  tells  you  to do this.  Force--
> someone else's wishes--tells you to do that.  He wants to put his
> wishes  between  your  mind and reality.  If he had more than his
> emotions to offer you--if he had an argument or a value, he could
> use  reason  instead  of  a  gun.   If  *your*  emotions  do  not
> automatically guide you to the right actions, why should his?
> 
> Force is anti-mind in a still deeper  sense  than  its  divorcing
> reason  from  action.  Imagine that in addition to wanting you to
> change your action, a mugger wanted  you  to  change  your  mind.
> "Don't  just  give  me  your  wallet; but believe it is the right
> thing  to  do.   Don't  just  obey.   Believe!"    Force   cannot
> accomplish  what  a  logical  argument  can.  Force can destroy a
> mind--it cannot change it.
> 
> There are two ways of dealing with people--reason or force.  When
> someone recommends force, he is subordinating reason to something
> he holds higher.  When he says "It does not matter if  you  agree
> with my reasons," he is telling you his wishes are more important
> than your mind.  Such a person is no defender of reason.
> -- 
> Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh 201-949-2846

The dychotomy of Ayn Rand is false.  She puts reason on one side,
force on the other.  She presents an example of a passerby and a
mugger.  The mugger, instead of appealing to the reason of the 
passerby, applies force, hereby he is an opponent to reason.

This parable presumes that there are two kinds of motivation for
a human being: rational and irrational.  The mugger has an
irrational urge to have money, so he achieves it not by "reasonable"
means, but through application of force.

Another point of view is the following.  Both the mugger and the
passerby have their hierarchies of material needs.  Mugger figures
that the most efficient way he can get material goods is to take
them by sheer force.  Indeed, there is no reason to believe that
he can actually convince the passerby to give him more than a dolar,
and even that is not quite likely.  Using the same capabilities of
mind which tells him how to open a door, he figures a way to get
his loot.  The most specific feature of the mugger's way of thinking
is not lack of reason, but treating the other person as a thing, 
which of course points to the absence of ethical principles.

Agreed, ethical principles may be deduced with reason.  
What is wrong in the approach of Ayn Rand is her belief in the 
determinism of reason.  In her view, prepositions are either true
or false.  Thus if two ethical principles contradict, at least one
is false.

However, ethics is not absolute but relative to a group of people
to which it appeals.  I agree that one of the good measures of 
progress in human thinking is the breadth of the scope of ethical
systems.  Ultimately, there should be a system which would encompass
equally all human race.  Practically, we treat people differently,
dependend whether their are in the same family, ethnic group, nation,
group of nations, religion, philosophy etc.  

The best example is the principle "do not kill".  Originally, it
applied only to the members of the same group.  Decision not to
kill members of other group was subject of circumstances like
probability of gain or loss.  It is widely discussed now whether
this principle should be applicable to some cathegories of felons,
or to unborn, or even to animals.  
To me it is clear that the final judgemnts cannot be justified by
reason alone.  Ultimately, we must agree on a common denominator
of various ethical systems as the basis for the law, and let
different groups cultivate their principles within legal limits.

The dangerous side of Rand's objectivism is the way it may be
aplied.  Practically, there are always groups with disagreeing
values.  It is usually the case that one of them is in the position
of power, or in the position of great influence.  This group
claims that its point of view, unlike the others, is supported
by reason.  In the case of Rand, this would be the group of
people which feel that they 
a.  can afford to pay for all necessary services;
b.  have sufficient knowledge to purchase all services in an
    unregulated market, and still do it right (purchasing right
    kind of expertise if necessary).
These people feel that any distribution of incomes and services
other than the "outcome of the free market" is wrong, i.e. that
they would do better in such a system.  In my opinion, this would
serve very well the very wealthy, moderatedly well the educated 
ones and possibly very badly the less wealthy or less educated.
The corrosive effect of the latter would ultimately serve bad
things to almost everybody.

Since the income redistribution by state (or by force, as some 
call it) does not work very well, and at times the quality of
the outcome deteriorates, the scope, character, methods etc. of
regulation and redistribution by the means of state is a point
of valid argument.  

However, the Rand's argument by the first principle is dangerous, 
because is inherently unpluralistic.  Ultimately, it leads to the 
Plato's republic governed by philosophers (how otherwise eliminate 
the influence of the majority, prone to demagogical appeals to 
"un-reason").  Rand presents the view point of the well-to-do as 
the only correct outcome of "reason".  Her followers scorn everyone 
else as not thinking correctly.  The modern art, modern literature,
modern music, modern politics, all of them defy reason as defined
by Rand.  Humanity is ethernally on the slippery slope, only selected 
Anglo-Saxon enclaves preserved the noble tradition of reason.

The philosophy of Ayn Rand is narrow-mindedness dressed as an
ultimate virtue.  

Piotr Berman