This must be a mistake.....

If a man has something to offer to another man, he should be able to convince the other of this through the use of reason. No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced. The trader principle states that man should trade value for value as opposed to force for value or non-value for value. This is based partly on justice, in that people should get what they deserve.

I'm going to assume that this line is a mistake, I read this in The Trader Principle under Ethics in Objectivism 101. I thought I'd bring this to someone's attention.

Post 1

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:13am

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.�

I'm sure that's all it means and you're only being stuck-up about the wording.
No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced.
If the other cannot be convinced it doesn't follow that force is necessary. Do you think that is what the author intends to suggest, honestly?

Inability to convince somebody peacefully is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, for visiting them with force.

No sexual foreplay is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced. Does it follow then that an unresponsive other must be visited with further advances?

If it's better wording you need, try this-

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else." - J.Mill Jr

Post 2

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:23am

William:

Yes, as it is written it's not only a mistake but is contrary to any Objectivist view. I don't have the source of the quote but unless there's some other context it's inconceivable how this got through even perfunctory proof reading.

Trying to justify this statement is merely spin.

Sam.

Post 3

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:09am

Sunday, July 17 - 3:13am

Referring to the statement, "No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced." Rick Giles wrote, "If the other cannot be convinced it doesn't follow that force is necessary."

It does from that statement! The statement, "No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced" is the same as saying, "If the other cannot be convinced, then force is necessary."

"Do you think that is what the author intends to suggest, honestly?"

I don't know if that's what he intends to suggest. I do know that that's what he said. And that's all we're questioning: what he actually said.

"Inability to convince somebody peacefully is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, for visiting them with force."

Yes, in fact - but not according to the statement we're discussing.

"No sexual foreplay is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced. Does it follow then that an unresponsive other must be visited with further advances?"

Yes. The statement, "No sexual foreplay is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced" is the logical equivalent of, "If the other cannot be convinced, then sexual foreplay is necessary."

"If it's better wording you need, try this-

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else." - J.Mill Jr"

Assuming that by "harm" we mean any act that is against the victim's will, then we agree: Mill is right on target. Would that he had followed his own advice; unfortunately, Mill ended up as a socialist, due to the influence of his wife, if I remember correctly.

- Bill

Post 4

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:33am

I had read it as simply stating force is outside the realm of reason and trade, not advocating it as an alternative on equal ground. I see how the statement could be construed as advocating force as the alternative though, so wording probably could stand to be cleaned up.

Post 5

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 10:49am

Someone needs to read EATS,SHOOTS AND LEAVES...

Post 6

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:08pm

No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced.

I would assume that this is a typing mistake. Probably what was supposed to be written was:

No force is necessary if the other cannot be convinced.

Even with the correction, I still think the sentence could still do with revising.

Post 7

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:33pm

It's imprecise but not as bad as you and Sam Erica seem to think.

No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced.

is equivalent to

If the other can be convinced, no force is necessary.

which is true but not very interesting. The original statement seems to say that if the other can't be convinced, force is necessary (or at least permissible), but this doesn't actually follow from it. A better way of putting it would be

Force is never necessary among rational (or merely peaceful) people.

Peter

Post 8

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 6:50pm

No matter how you distort the English language the original statement, No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced, admits the possibility of force � and this is not in the context of self defense.

William merely did a service to point out an error of Objectivist thought and now everyone wants to nit pick that it wasn't an error. Why don't we all just thank William for pointing this out?

Cheeeez!

Sam

Post 9

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:02pm

Because the True Believers have risen, Sam...

Post 10

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 9:30pm

Sam,-
William merely did a service to point out an error of Objectivist thought and now everyone wants to nit pick that it wasn't an error.

Well how's that for respect. Some of us don't agree with the way you read things but you don't even give us enough credit that ours rates even as an opinion, it's "nitpicking". That's what they do on Newstalk ZB (NZ talkback radio)- people who call up with liberal, capitalist viewpoints aren't classed as having legitimate positions but as people with a screw loose or who lack compassion.

Dwyer,-
"Do you think that is what the author intends to suggest, honestly?"
I don't know if that's what he intends to suggest. I do know that that's what he said. And that's all we're questioning: what he actually said.

Well, see, that's a fairly pointless exercise. It's what people mean that matters, what they say is next to meaningless. Where would we be if people said what they meant? We had a children's book read to us in school, Amelia Bedelia, about a woman who thought like that and she was always getting up shit creek.

Mill ended up as a socialist, due to the influence of his wife, if I remember correctly.

Partly due to his wife, Harriet wasn't it? I never call him a socialist, but in his last days he said it himself.

It does from that statement! The statement, "No force is necessary unless the other cannot be convinced" is the same as saying, "If the other cannot be convinced, then force is necessary."

Well good grief Charlie Brown, there are better things for all of us to be wearing out the QWERTY row on than this subject. Once more for fun though...

You're driving home quietly, though at speed, on a damp slippery road in your dark blue Ford which has all tinted windows. The moon is out but not giving off much light. Ahead on the road you see a black man walking on the road with his back to you and he's wearing a long black coat. There is no fog, it's clear conditions. Your car has fog lights but you don't need to use them unless your headlights fail, which, has it happens, they have. You're closing fast on the guy on the road and there's no sign that he's seen you coming up from behind. Your fog lights haven't been switched on for some reason. Question: Is it necessary to switch them on?

Post 11

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:31am

Rick:

I don't think that you really meant what you said.

Sam

Post 12

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:35pm

Well, see, that's a fairly pointless exercise. It's what people mean that matters, what they say is next to meaningless. Where would we be if people said what they meant?

Rick, I may be new to objectivism, but isn't there an emphasis on definition? This statement only tells me that you don't wish to be correct in what you say, you're giving yourself a "way out" of anything you say. Are you saying that words are meaningless because people can't use them properly? C'mon Rick, this is the English language. There's a way to read, and write and speak it. It's my opinion that on an Objectivist site, there should be some kind of pursuit for its content to be correct, not what someone "meant" it to be.

I agree with Marcus. This was just a simple mistake, and we've already narrowed it down to the probable word the author "meant" to use. Shouldn't we correct a mistake, instead of trying to read into what the author was trying to say? Why don't we make it explicit what he "meant" to say? Why does it have to be an insinuation, or an assumption?

My answer: It doesn't.

P.S. I don't know about you, but I try not to waste my time saying things I don't mean. What I do try to do, and succeed in doing, is saying what I mean. I consider that something an objectivist should do.

(Edited by William Bardel on 7/18, 12:37pm)

Post 13

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:59pm

Interesting question. Reading the explanations of what "it really meant to say" is like watching christians do the same about the bible. Also, the first sentence says,"If a man has something to offer to another man, he should be able to convince the other of this through the use of reason".

What makes makes the first man so sure that the second man gives a rat's ass about what he has to offer him? If the 2 men are objectivists then neither one cares about the others view because they live for themselves. Also, if the second man isnt an objectivist and doesnt subscribe to the use of reason as the first man does, then it is pointless to try and reason with the second man because he must be controlled by emotion. So therefore, you can throw out the trader principle because it isnt trading when one man has to convince another to accept what he has to offer. It then becomes the Selling Principle. I gotta go. Jbrad

Post 14

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:46pm

Joshua,

If the 2 men are objectivists then neither one cares about the others view because they live for themselves. Also, if the second man isnt an objectivist and doesnt subscribe to the use of reason as the first man does, then it is pointless to try and reason with the second man because he must be controlled by emotion.

Living for oneself does not imply lack of caring about others' views; only that others do not have a claim to your life. You present your second point as if the use of reason means "syllogism or die!" If the other party makes decisions based on emotion and there is mutual gain to be had, appealing to the person's emotions is a reasonable thing to do.

Sarah

Post 15

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:47pm

I agree with Sarah, even if the other person isn't an objectivist, it's still possible to deal with them socially and within trade. As long as you do not sacrifice yourself in any way, and you do not ask the other person to do so either. You can trade with someone only of their own free will, you cannot force a trade. If you cannot convince the person that it is in their own benefit, or they simply refuse to trade with you, that's it. You may need to trade with someone, but no one person in particular.

Post 16

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:00am

Sam,-
I don't think that you really meant what you said.

How did you get the smile of your portrait above to widen like that beyond the smile in the former image?

Bardel,-
Rick, I may be new to objectivism,

Your lower case 'o' shows that.

This statement only tells me that you don't wish to be correct in what you say, you're giving yourself a "way out" of anything you say.

Nah mate. I've got a dozen other, far more artful, ways to do that if I wanted to.

Are you saying that words are meaningless because people can't use them properly? C'mon Rick, this is the English language. There's a way to read, and write and speak it. It's my opinion that on an Objectivist site, there should be some kind of pursuit for its content to be correct, not what someone "meant" it to be.

There is a right way to read, write, and speak it. My way!

Distrust of grammar is the first requisite for philosophising. We call the Queen of New Zealand our 'monarch', yet she is the monarch of nothing. Any twat with a press pass and a microphone gets to be a 'journalist' in Australia and journalism just doesn't enter into the matter. However, to be an 'accountant' you need qualifications and a government rubber stamp despite what you know or what you do. In engineering we speak of "catastrophic failure" but if it sounds to others like that means the world is ending, no, it just means your electric toaster is in really bad shape. Then you've got euphemisms "coloured" . And sarcasm, "yeah, right." And idioms, such as 'burning the midnight oil'- which does not mean igniting a petroleum product at midnight, although that's what it says. And discard this one if you like but my cat says "meow" but really means "Hey Rick, glad to see you and aren't I good looking today and why don't you feed me?" If you were to write a literal translation of Hamlet your result would be far longer because there is far more content in the meaning than in the saying.

It's what people mean that matters, what they say is next to meaningless. Where would we be if people said what they meant? That would be a huge impediment to communication in this language.

This was just a simple mistake,
Shouldn't we correct a mistake,

I don't agree that it is a mistake, and the talk above of meaning vs saying is not my basis for dispute.

"Don't restore your system from secondary backup unless your primary backup fails." Well, suppose your primary backup fails but you don't even need to restore your system. Need you do it anyway?

"Don't activate your fog lights unless your headlights fail.". Well now take it as given that your headlights have failed. Need you activate the fog lights? By Williams' reasoning the answer is "yes".
Refer Rick10 above where I'm trying to trick you into thinking it's night time. If it's daytime, as it could be, then you can see that this is another counter-example to your logic. You understand, yes?

Post 17

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 7:16am

Rick:

"How did you get the smile of your portrait above to widen like that beyond the smile in the former image?"

If I am able take your meaning as you've expressed it it seems that you think I've had more than one portrait on this site. I haven't and it hasn't been altered.

Sam

Post 18

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 12:47pm

Sara,

First of all, to live in a society, we do have a claim on each other�s life. It is through this claim that propels us to live peacefully and coherently with our neighbors.I have a claim on you and you have a claim on me. It is called responsibility. To live and prosper in an evergrowing society we will each need to assume greater care of eachother and ourselves. I know you will vehemently disagree and I welcome an example of your claim. Secondly, I did not imply �that the use of reason means �syllogism or die�� . I believe that I was using inductive reasoning but whatever I was using I don�t think I implied death . Syllogism or die makes no sense to me in the aspect of your usage. Please explain the phrase �syllogism or die�. I am under the impression that a syllogism is an inference in which a proposition(the conclusion) follows the necessity of 2 others(premises). I wasn�t making an inference. I was just stating what the phrase said about a man convincing another to accept his offer. Lastly, you say that it is reasonable to appeal to an emotional person when there is a mutual gain. Upon appealing to that person, you uncover your motive of want. The emotional person did not come to you. You went to him. He was fine. It would then appear that you have more to gain than he, just an observation.Of course, that may be more inductive reasoning.hmm. I ardently await your response. Thanks. Jbrad

Post 19

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:27pm