Covenant Theory: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Covenant Theory » Covenant Theory

Covenant Theory
Part 2 of Philosophy of Conquistadorianism

Covenant Theory

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/06/08 - 07:41 PM: Subject: Covenant Theory	#1
For Part 1, see http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/philos... Now Part 2: Imagine that your plane ditched in the ocean and you found yourself, like Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) in "Cast Away", stranded on a desert island. Like Chuck, you would be quite focused on harnessing the resources of the island to survive and perhaps be rescued. One way to think about it is that the island is your world and within that world are objects, inert materials, plants, and animals, that you can fashion to your purposes and destroy threats as necessary, as might be the case with a dangerous predator. In a phrase, you can impose your will upon the island limited only by your abilities. But now suppose that you discovered that you are not alone. There is another person on the island with you. You have no prior relationship with this person, no reason to trust him at all. You could, in fact, treat him like the other objects on the island, as a resource to be used or a threat to be eliminated. But assuming that this person is sufficiently sane, you have another option: to forge an agreement with this person and thus to work together for a common purpose. In our island situation we have a choice in dealing with the other person, whether to treat him as an object to be used, an enemy, to be destroyed, or as a potential partner in an agreement. Every option carries risks but there are rewards from cooperation that make it worth the risk in most situations. But now let's complicate the situation further. Suppose that you discover not one but nine other people on the island. Nobody knows one another and the risks are pretty much the same except for this: whoever manages to forge an agreement to cooperate will have an advantage over those that do not. All things being otherwise equal, two people who cooperate can defeat each of the other individuals on the island, one after the other, either to kill them or to taken them into slavery, until only they remain. Similarly, a group of three will have an advantage over a pair, and so forth. What we can conclude from this is that we have a big incentive to seek the cooperation of others if only for our survival and freedom. What is an agreement? The dictionary gives various definitions but I like the one given by Joe Parish (Anthony Hopkins) in "Meet Joe Black," when he said, "you give your word, I give mine that we'll do what we say. It is a truth exchanged between two people." The fact is that we can manufacture the future by the choices that we make. An agreement is an alignment of two or more people toward one mind of the future to be constructed. It can be something as simple as an exchange of animal skins for sea shells or as complex as the creation of a nation-state. Agreements can be explicit or implicit. An explicit agreement is a contract, often written and formally signed by the parties such as contract to perform in the future. An agreement may be implicit where two people share an understanding without explicitly communicating it though the more implicit the agreement, the more likely that one party or another will complain that it has been violated. In any situation, there is a value of conflict and a value of cooperation. Depending on the situation, either may be of greater value. However, in general, we will see that, on balance, cooperation is where the bigger opportunities lay. Nevertheless, ignore the value of conflict at your peril. Before we go further, though, I think it appropriate to digress to consider an alternative to Covenant Theory, the non-initiation of force principle otherwise known as "live and let live". The problem with this is that it does not work in the general case. That is to say, it is possible to construct examples where it does not work and these examples can be found in real life. Suppose, for example, that one faces another and that the relative strengths of each vary randomly so that, at any given time, either may have the advantage in a conflict. If the other rejects an agreement then sitting back in a non-initiation posture invites destruction. Sooner or later the other will be stronger. Better to strike as soon as you have an advantage. While this example may seem contrived, it is actually very common in real life. The conclusion to be drawn is that someone who rejects an agreement should not necessarily be treated neutrally. How are agreements forged and how are they maintained? We can divide this into two broad categories: rational and irrational. The simplest form of rational fulfillment of agreements is to structure an agreement such that ratio of value to risk is high. For example, if beads are being traded for copper coins, alternate delivery of beads and copper coins so that if the other party cheats, losses are minimal. Keeping the agreement then is more valuable than breaking it. You've probably heard the phrase, "your word is your bond." Few people really appreciate the significance of it though. When you are trusted your words have power. When you are not trusted, they are nothing. It is a rational strategy to keep your word in order that you earn trust and thus empower your words. But humans are equipped with an additional mechanism for forging and maintaining agreements: emotions. It's well understood that we can manipulate others emotions to persuade them toward our will but why would we ever allow ourselves to be so persuaded? Suppose, for example, that a man and a woman desire to have children. The woman wants assurance that the man will stick around to care for the children. The man wants assurance that the woman will remain faithful so that he is certain that the children he cares for are his own. The two of them might look for rational mechanisms but the more typical solution is to "fall in love." (More typically, in modern societies, falling in love precedes the decision to have children but the point is the same.) Now a very clever person might seek to fake love in order to cheat in a marriage. It happens on the time. But humans are not so easily fooled. Much of what happens during courtship is a mutual examination to test whether the other party is serious about investing emotionally in the relationship. A similar example is the military squad. The bonds that soldiers form with one another are often as strong, or stronger, than marital ties, because each depends on the other for his life. One simple way to approach our relationships with others is to sort people into the categories of friends and enemies. Friends, to various degrees, are those with whom we have a formal or informal agreement, often an emotional relationship. Enemies are those we do not trust for whatever reason and perhaps from whom we even expect danger. These relationships can become complex in interesting ways. For example, in sports, the players on the same team are the friends, while the players on the opposing team are the enemies. We pursue goals shared with the team against the opposing team. But the conflict exists only within the context of the game. Watch a football game. While the ball is in play, opposing players seek to stop or even their opponents. But when the whistle blows, opposing players help one another up. Maintaining agreements is seldom a simple matter. If it is founded in part on emotional ties, then those ties need to be renewed form time to time. And situations may change such that the parties to the agreement no longer agree. Sometimes these difficulties can be relieved by building procedures into the agreement to enable it to evolve with changing circumstances but no agreement is ever safe. In the next part, "The Eightfold Path to Success" we will consider more specific strategies for navigating the world. But first, two digressions: First digression: I am not particularly interested in political theory but we see here the basics ideas behind it. Typically people make emotional investments in their communities, the nation-state being a particularly popular focal point. We call this patriotism. Laws are part of the package. And here is where we find justice and fairness: the emotional investment in the ideals of the community. What is interesting to note, though, is that to the extent that one does not invest emotionally in a community, one may choose from among competing communities, choosing the community that offers the best deal. Second digression: While some may reject the idea of God, others will wonder where God fits in. Well, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God makes a covenant with mankind. The terms of the covenant are given, see elsewhere for the details. My own opinion is that Christian ethics require us to offer an agreement, that is to seek cooperation, but not to be pacifists. Where to draw the line between the two can be challenging but the details provide some guidance there.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/13/08 - 03:22 PM:	#2
Sorry for not replying sooner, I must have missed this post. I agree with everything about mutual cooperation and agreement/contract until we come upon this "non-initiation of force" business: cortes wrote: Suppose, for example, that one faces another and that the relative strengths of each vary randomly so that, at any given time, either may have the advantage in a conflict. If the other rejects an agreement then sitting back in a non-initiation posture invites destruction. Sooner or later the other will be stronger. Better to strike as soon as you have an advantage ...The conclusion to be drawn is that someone who rejects an agreement should not necessarily be treated neutrally. Despite what you may think, "non-initiations of force" (at least in the libertarian perspectives I know of) state exactly this. The "non-initiation" applies up until the point where the contract between two parties is violated. When one party acts against the contract and the rights of the other party, that other party which respected the contract has the right to defend his interests. Non-initiation of force, being based on contract, no longer applies when the contract is voided. "Striking when you have the advantage" only leads to isolation and mistrust and a lack of agreements being made between rational parties. "Non-initiation of force" allows each party to complete its side of the contract yet build up its defenses in case of a rights violation. One party does not enter a contract with the intent of growing stronger, and with the trust of the other party, seek to strike. Your conclusion is exactly right; but the "non-initiation of force" agrees completely with you: retaliatory force is permitted and strongly suggested when violations occur. In your example of beads and copper coins, this is one of the best to defend against initiations of force, to make it so that a rights violation is punishment in itself. Another defense, as you mention, is the bad reputation of being a rights violator. Being a rights defender, of course, leads to pity (pity not in a bad way but "pity" as in "hey, that's unfortunate, but we would have done the exact same thing."). cortes wrote: One simple way to approach our relationships with others is to sort people into the categories of friends and enemies. Friends, to various degrees, are those with whom we have a formal or informal agreement, often an emotional relationship. Enemies are those we do not trust for whatever reason and perhaps from whom we even expect danger. Or we could use reason to distinguish those whom we wish to call 'friends' in order to justify loyalty to them; and enemies who have certain characteristics which we are emotionally repulsed by. The categorizations work either way: we can use combinations of both, use either one for both friends and enemies, or mix and match. And, as you say, it is different in different contexts. cortes wrote: Maintaining agreements is seldom a simple matter. If it is founded in part on emotional ties, then those ties need to be renewed form time to time. And situations may change such that the parties to the agreement no longer agree. Sometimes these difficulties can be relieved by building procedures into the agreement to enable it to evolve with changing circumstances but no agreement is ever safe. In terms of contracts, the objectives which are laid down by the contracts are often fulfilled within a certain amount of time: each party has lived up to their expectations. It is a matter of forming a new contract, or amended the old one. cortes wrote: First digression: I am not particularly interested in political theory but we see here the basics ideas behind it. Typically people make emotional investments in their communities, the nation-state being a particularly popular focal point. We call this patriotism. Laws are part of the package. And here is where we find justice and fairness: the emotional investment in the ideals of the community. What is interesting to note, though, is that to the extent that one does not invest emotionally in a community, one may choose from among competing communities, choosing the community that offers the best deal. Yes, very capitalistic. I do, however, see "choosing the community that offers the best deal" as mostly, if not wholly, rational. I suggest that we invest emotionally into a community because it serves one's best interests the most. Seeking the community that best serves one's best interests is a rational process based on contemplation and comparison and deduction, not an emotional characterization. But, of course, when we are speaking of humans, there can be any number of factors that lead one to live in a specific community and devote x-amount of emotion to it. cortes wrote: Second digression: While some may reject the idea of God, others will wonder where God fits in. Well, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God makes a covenant with mankind. The terms of the covenant are given, see elsewhere for the details. My own opinion is that Christian ethics require us to offer an agreement, that is to seek cooperation, but not to be pacifists. Where to draw the line between the two can be challenging but the details provide some guidance there. Religion is very much so based on agreements and is very much capitalistic in that sense: theists agree to worship, pray, and further the illusion of God's existence while God offers them a system of morality and beliefs to guide them through life.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/13/08 - 06:18 PM:	#3
The_Rational_Animal wrote: Despite what you may think, "non-initiations of force" (at least in the libertarian perspectives I know of) state exactly this. The "non-initiation" applies up until the point where the contract between two parties is violated. But my point here is to consider the case where there is no contract. (If you are in fact saying that non-initiation of force is dependent on a contract then we are in fact in agreement.) Consider, for example, my island situation. Imagine that you are alone and as you are exploring the island you come across a man sleeping under a palm tree with a sword at his side. Wishing to be "nice", you wake him and offer an agreement: "let's agree not to kill one another." He looks up at you, declines your offer with a flat "no", and goes back to sleep. Now what do you do? No contract exists, no contract has (as yet) been violated. But I'll bet at the minimum, you're going to have trouble sleeping. Just because you decline to kill him in his sleep doesn't mean he will return the favor. In fact, he has declined to promise not to do just that. I can offer other examples if you like but this is simple and to the point. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Yes, very capitalistic. I do, however, see "choosing the community that offers the best deal" as mostly, if not wholly, rational. I suggest that we invest emotionally into a community because it serves one's best interests the most. Seeking the community that best serves one's best interests is a rational process based on contemplation and comparison and deduction, not an emotional characterization. But, of course, when we are speaking of humans, there can be any number of factors that lead one to live in a specific community and devote x-amount of emotion to it. What I meant to convey in this digression was that one can make a very rational evaluation of community options and then bind oneself to the community emotionally (per the previous discussion of the role of emotion in agreements).
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:13 PM:	#4
cortes wrote: Consider, for example, my island situation. Imagine that you are alone and as you are exploring the island you come across a man sleeping under a palm tree with a sword at his side. Wishing to be "nice", you wake him and offer an agreement: "let's agree not to kill one another." He looks up at you, declines your offer with a flat "no", and goes back to sleep. Now what do you do? No contract exists, no contract has (as yet) been violated. But I'll bet at the minimum, you're going to have trouble sleeping. Just because you decline to kill him in his sleep doesn't mean he will return the favor. In fact, he has declined to promise not to do just that. As far as I am concerned, the right not to be killed by another human being is an implicit contract, whether you are in society or not. When in negotiations about a merger between two companies, an arbiter doesn't say, "oh yes, Pip, add a clause to the contract about not being able to kill one another!" When someone violates this implicit contract, one has the right to defend himself with equal force. There is no need to explicitly agree on such a matter because neither party would think automatically that it is in one's best interests to kill another person, without reason. Only when it becomes apparent to one or both parties that murder may serve a valid purpose do people begin to negotiate a contract for life: "Please, sir, don't kill me! I have ten dollars in my wallet that you can have!" In your example, if you (the wimp) feel or suspect that this man with the sword has some motive to kill you, then you have the right to prepare a defense. That is, the implicit contract you have is not enitrely certain; but it is still in place. Just because the man said "no" does not mean you don't have a contract: he did not say, "no, because I want to kill you in your sleep". If you were in society, you could not legally kill this man based on a suspicion that he wants to kill you. I only suggest you sleep with one eye open and make your own sword.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/13/08 - 09:50 PM:	#5
The_Rational_Animal wrote: cortes wrote: Consider, for example, my island situation. Imagine that you are alone and as you are exploring the island you come across a man sleeping under a palm tree with a sword at his side. Wishing to be "nice", you wake him and offer an agreement: "let's agree not to kill one another." He looks up at you, declines your offer with a flat "no", and goes back to sleep. Now what do you do? No contract exists, no contract has (as yet) been violated. But I'll bet at the minimum, you're going to have trouble sleeping. Just because you decline to kill him in his sleep doesn't mean he will return the favor. In fact, he has declined to promise not to do just that. As far as I am concerned, the right not to be killed by another human being is an implicit contract, whether you are in society or not. When in negotiations about a merger between two companies, an arbiter doesn't say, "oh yes, Pip, add a clause to the contract about not being able to kill one another!" When someone violates this implicit contract, one has the right to defend himself with equal force. There is no need to explicitly agree on such a matter because neither party would think automatically that it is in one's best interests to kill another person, without reason. Only when it becomes apparent to one or both parties that murder may serve a valid purpose do people begin to negotiate a contract for life: "Please, sir, don't kill me! I have ten dollars in my wallet that you can have!" In your example, if you (the wimp) feel or suspect that this man with the sword has some motive to kill you, then you have the right to prepare a defense. That is, the implicit contract you have is not enitrely certain; but it is still in place. Just because the man said "no" does not mean you don't have a contract: he did not say, "no, because I want to kill you in your sleep". If you were in society, you could not legally kill this man based on a suspicion that he wants to kill you. I only suggest you sleep with one eye open and make your own sword. This then is a point of major divergence. I would argue that you are not recommending the rational choice. It is not rational to presume an implicit contract particularly when, as in this example, an explicit contract is rejected. (Obviously the situation is different in a society but there are parallel examples in that situation, this one has the virtue of purity and simplicity.)
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/14/08 - 08:53 AM:	#6
cortes wrote: This then is a point of major divergence. I would argue that you are not recommending the rational choice. It is not rational to presume an implicit contract particularly when, as in this example, an explicit contract is rejected. (Obviously the situation is different in a society but there are parallel examples in that situation, this one has the virtue of purity and simplicity.) It is rational; it is based on induction that I conclude that this man, and most sane humans, will not automatically feel the urge to kill me. It is irrational and paranoid to think that this man will kill me, but it is rational to conclude that he won't because he has no motive to do so and to create your own defense in case he violates your right to life. Just because he explitly turned down the contract does not mean he will inevitably kill you. No, the implicit contract still remains: someone alive is more useful than dead, and this person has no reason to think that you dead serves more purpose. If you ask me, this ethical policy will only lead to agreements being made from paranoia and irrational fear, as well as deceptive modes of dealing with others. It will create isolationism between nations and distrust amongst human beings; it rests on the cynical premise that other entities are malicious, the universe is evil, people are bad, and "might makes right". People and nations respect others' rights to exist as the most basic contract, so basic it need not even be said. The only times when this contract is not in place is when one or both parties would prefer the other not exist to stand in the way of their interests. Then, both parties have a right to defend their interests. Because the man did not express his interests and you cannot possibly know them, you have no right to destroy him, especially when he could serve far greater good alive than dead. Edited by The_Rational_Animal on 05/14/08 - 08:59 AM
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/14/08 - 09:22 AM:	#7
The_Rational_Animal wrote: cortes wrote: This then is a point of major divergence. I would argue that you are not recommending the rational choice. It is not rational to presume an implicit contract particularly when, as in this example, an explicit contract is rejected. (Obviously the situation is different in a society but there are parallel examples in that situation, this one has the virtue of purity and simplicity.) It is rational; it is based on induction that I conclude that this man, and most sane humans, will not automatically feel the urge to kill me. It is irrational and paranoid to think that this man will kill me, but it is rational to conclude that he won't because he has no motive to do so and to create your own defense in case he violates your right to life. Just because he explitly turned down the contract does not mean he will inevitably kill you. No, the implicit contract still remains: someone alive is more useful than dead, and this person has no reason to think that you dead serves more purpose. If you ask me, this ethical policy will only lead to agreements being made from paranoia and irrational fear, as well as deceptive modes of dealing with others. It will create isolationism between nations and distrust amongst human beings; it rests on the cynical premise that other entities are malicious, the universe is evil, people are bad, and "might makes right". People and nations respect others' rights to exist as the most basic contract, so basic it need not even be said. The only times when this contract is not in place is when one or both parties would prefer the other not exist to stand in the way of their interests. Then, both parties have a right to defend their interests. Because the man did not express his interests and you cannot possibly know them, you have no right to destroy him, especially when he could serve far greater good alive than dead. I think that you are correct to base your conclusion on induction but mistaken in your induction. First, let me reinforce the first point. Suppose that I add an element to the story: around this man are deacapitated heads in various states of decay. Would that observation not influence your decision? A rational person in this situation is forced to make a judgement about the future behavior of this person. If the evidence suggests that this is a person inclined toward violence then the rational decision will lean one way. If the evidence is to the contrary, the other way. Before I go to the second point let me address one comment you made: that "someone alive is more useful than dead". This is obviously not a reliable truth. Someone bent on your destruction is more useful dead than alive. And it is this determination of fact that I have forced us to consider here. Now to the second part, the induction. Let us assume for the sake of argument that rational people would agree to cooperate. The question here might then be framed as follows: is this person rational? Because if not then you have no assurance that he will choose cooperation. It is possible that this is Charles Manson's grand nephew. So it is certainly possible that this person will choose to attack you in your sleep. The question is whether it is probable and what the rational decision is in the absence of certainty. Now against this risk we have to weigh the value of cooperation against the cost of death. If this person had the ability to provide food or rescue we might be more inclined to take a risk. Your argument is steeped in talk of "rights" but are rights an explanation for overrulling a raiontal decision or are they designed to lead to a rational decision? It would appear to the former.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/14/08 - 10:46 AM:	#8
cortes wrote: Suppose that I add an element to the story: around this man are deacapitated heads in various states of decay. Would that observation not influence your decision? This changes the situation completely. Before, the sword may have been only used in defense of his rights, now it is apparent that it is a tool of unreasoned destruction. And a man who keeps decapitated heads around is not sane, by the way, which also changes the original scenario. If this sword is his only weapon, take it from him. If he has a store of weapons, take them. This man still has expressed no reason and given no indication that he wishes to kill you. If it is intelligent/rational to assume this man is dangerous, but like in society, we leave him be, give him no motivation to kill. The contract still exists: "I leave you alone, I shall do the same". Seizing the opportunity to kill him is a sign of paranoia and an expression of your mental/physical weakness. cortes wrote: Before I go to the second point let me address one comment you made: that "someone alive is more useful than dead". This is obviously not a reliable truth. Someone bent on your destruction is more useful dead than alive. And it is this determination of fact that I have forced us to consider here. As I said before, when did it become apparent that this individual is "bent on your destruction"? He did not say so, you inferred it based on a biased, subjective judgment, which is not proper justification/rationalization for preemptive murder. cortes wrote: The question here might then be framed as follows: is this person rational? Because if not then you have no assurance that he will choose cooperation. It is possible that this is Charles Manson's grand nephew. So it is certainly possible that this person will choose to attack you in your sleep. The question is whether it is probable and what the rational decision is in the absence of certainty. Now against this risk we have to weigh the value of cooperation against the cost of death. If this person had the ability to provide food or rescue we might be more inclined to take a risk. Other than your cynical genetic fallacy about Charles Manson's nephew, your mistakes about rationality and being "insane" are killing me. I thought this individual already decided against explicit cooperation, so why are we still discussing it? The thing I don't understand is that you are positing this person is insane and therefore he may attack you in your sleep, despite what you propose: doing the exact same thing. You propose attacking him in his sleep and then calling this rational self-defense. This makes your ethics entirely subjective, and therefore irrational: biased and relative. In your last point, you say that simply coexisting together is impossible; it is interesting that these two people must choose between killing one another and sharing food. If sharing food is not a viable option, killing him is animalistic and tribal, not rational and opportunistic. If it is "probable" that he will kill you, then make a valid defense; killing someone in their sleep is not a valid defense, it is a sign of your inability to defend yourself. cortes wrote: Your argument is steeped in talk of "rights" but are rights an explanation for overrulling a raiontal decision or are they designed to lead to a rational decision? It would appear to the former. The only thing that you speak of here that is rational is self-defense, a defense against a violation of implicit rights-to-life. For future reference, this bears repeating: killing someone in their sleep is not self-defense. Yes, this other man having a right-to-life impairs your ability to make a preemptive strike, but a preemptive defense is not rational, it is based on fear and an inferrence that "because he denied the proposition that neither of you kill each other, that means he will". My position can be described as the latter because it leads one to see that what you are doing is irrational, keeping you from doing what you propose: killing based on delusion.

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/14/08 - 01:47 PM:	#9
Just to clarify, I've intentionally structured the scenario to be ambiguous. We don't know if or to what extent the person poses a threat though we can throw in facts that make it look more likely. We don't know if he's rational or even if he is sane though it is most odd for a person not to agree to a mutual respect for life. There might well be an peaceful explanation for the heads or maybe it is as you assumed. The only thing we do know is that he has declined to agree not to kill us, that he has a weapon, and that he is currently sleeping. What you seem to be suggesting is that we owe him the benefit of the doubt. What I'm arguing is that we owe him nothing and ought to make our best judgement about the liklihood that he poses a threat and act on the basis of that knowledge. That is the rational course of action. The fact that he declined to agree not to kill us is not evidence that he intends to kill us. But it is evidence that he is unwilling to make even the pretense of taking that option off the table. The_Rational_Animal wrote: This changes the situation completely. Before, the sword may have been only used in defense of his rights, now it is apparent that it is a tool of unreasoned destruction. And a man who keeps decapitated heads around is not sane, by the way, which also changes the original scenario. If this sword is his only weapon, take it from him. If he has a store of weapons, take them. This man still has expressed no reason and given no indication that he wishes to kill you. If it is intelligent/rational to assume this man is dangerous, but like in society, we leave him be, give him no motivation to kill. The contract still exists: "I leave you alone, I shall do the same". Seizing the opportunity to kill him is a sign of paranoia and an expression of your mental/physical weakness. Or perhaps the rational course of action under the circumstances given that we must, ourselves, sleep at some time and thus exhibit such "mental/physical weakness" then. The_Rational_Animal wrote: As I said before, when did it become apparent that this individual is "bent on your destruction"? He did not say so, you inferred it based on a biased, subjective judgment, which is not proper justification/rationalization for preemptive murder. Well, of course any judgement of an ambigous situation is, I suppose, going to be subjective, even the choice not to kill. (This, by the way, is one area where I think Rand's philosoph is particularly weak. She doesn't deal well with uncertainty.) The_Rational_Animal wrote: Other than your cynical genetic fallacy about Charles Manson's nephew, your mistakes about rationality and being "insane" are killing me. I thought this individual already decided against explicit cooperation, so why are we still discussing it? The thing I don't understand is that you are positing this person is insane and therefore he may attack you in your sleep, despite what you propose: doing the exact same thing. You propose attacking him in his sleep and then calling this rational self-defense. This makes your ethics entirely subjective, and therefore irrational: biased and relative. Please reread, all I'm doing is nominating possibilities against your assumption that he is rational. I am assuming that it is uncontroversial to point out that such people exist. The_Rational_Animal wrote: In your last point, you say that simply coexisting together is impossible; it is interesting that these two people must choose between killing one another and sharing food. If sharing food is not a viable option, killing him is animalistic and tribal, not rational and opportunistic. If it is "probable" that he will kill you, then make a valid defense; killing someone in their sleep is not a valid defense, it is a sign of your inability to defend yourself. Essentially you are arguing for a "fair fight" which entails greater risk than killing him in his sleep. Now it might be that under some circumstances the risk is worth taking a defensive posture but one must be honest about the risk that is assumed by that choice. The_Rational_Animal wrote: The only thing that you speak of here that is rational is self-defense, a defense against a violation of implicit rights-to-life. For future reference, this bears repeating: killing someone in their sleep is not self-defense. Yes, this other man having a right-to-life impairs your ability to make a preemptive strike, but a preemptive defense is not rational, it is based on fear and an inferrence that "because he denied the proposition that neither of you kill each other, that means he will". My position can be described as the latter because it leads one to see that what you are doing is irrational, keeping you from doing what you propose: killing based on delusion. I am arguing that: 1) a preemptive defense may be rational under particular circumstances, and 2) one does not have a moral duty to assume a risk without compensation. You are arguing, in effect, for self-sacrifice: assuming a risk without compensation.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/14/08 - 03:00 PM:	#10
cortes wrote: What I'm arguing is that we owe him nothing and ought to make our best judgement about the liklihood that he poses a threat and act on the basis of that knowledge. That is the rational course of action. Yes, I agree that is rational. But where we disagree is not in principle, it is within this particular situation. I do not dispute the italicized section, only the assessment that this person is a genuine, inevitable risk. These different interpretations are subjective, but ultimately mine is more rational because it is not based on inferences and interpretations and "what ifs". My judgment is based on the view that men are rational and unless they prove to me otherwise, this is consistent throughout reality. Your assessment is based on "hey, what if this guy's nuts?" (from: "The only thing we do know is that he has declined to agree not to kill us, that he has a weapon, and that he is currently sleeping"). cortes wrote: This is one area where I think Rand's philosophy is particularly weak. She doesn't deal well with uncertainty. Even in the absence of certainty, one can still use reason and avoid emotional subjectivism to find the right conclusion. Nothing is without a context with which to evaluate it. Omniscience is not the standard of certainty, as Rand would say; there are things that you can know in this situation for certain: the fact that this man is going to kill you is not one of them.
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 971

Posted 05/14/08 - 03:55 PM:	#11
I think we're close enough to agreement to let this issue go. I have no qualms about admitting that I would exercise subjective judgement in a situation of uncertainty, which of course the hypothetical sceanrio intentionally constructed. The_Rational_Animal wrote: Yes, I agree that is rational. But where we disagree is not in principle, it is within this particular situation. I do not dispute the italicized section, only the assessment that this person is a genuine, inevitable risk. These different interpretations are subjective, but ultimately mine is more rational because it is not based on inferences and interpretations and "what ifs". My judgment is based on the view that men are rational and unless they prove to me otherwise, this is consistent throughout reality. Your assessment is based on "hey, what if this guy's nuts?" (from: "The only thing we do know is that he has declined to agree not to kill us, that he has a weapon, and that he is currently sleeping"). However, I don't think this is a fair assessment. What we are seeking to do is to rationally assess and weigh the pros and cons and probably outcomes of our options. For me the key fact here is that this individual declined exactly the implicit contract that you rely on. What hope is there for cooperation with such a person? What reasonable person would decline this but otherwise cooperate? And if it is unreasonable to expect this person to cooperate there is no value to letting him live, only risks. I don't need to assume that he's nuts, only to observe that he's not willing to affirm the most basic covenant of civilization. At a minimum, I would knock the guy out and tie him up but human nature being what it is, that would probably only postpone the inevitable.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.