| | Christopher wrote, Someone had posted to this thread a while back asking where it was that Peikoff said in OPAR that intitiation of force against others is always wrong or whatever. The quote I was referring to is as follows, and is on page 315 in my copy: "No good is achieveable under any circumstances or for anyone by means of the intiation of force." (Italics mine.) It is always well to interpret a writer's meaning within the broader context of his remarks. Peikoff was referring to the victim's good in this case, not to the perpetrator's. Here is the full context of his statement: No good is achievable under any circumstances or for anyone by means of the initiation of force.
Because "force and mind are opposites," force and value are opposites, too. (Emphasis in the original)
Values, in the objective interpretation, are facts -- as evaluated by a mind guided by a rational standard. "Value" thus implies a valuer who concludes, by a process of cognition, that a given object will sustain his life. One cannot, therefore, sunder "value" from the requisite process of cognition; one cannot sunder it form the mind of one's intended beneficiary -- from his consideration, thought, judgment. To force an individual, however, is to disdain and bypass this process of cognition. No result of the initiation of force, accordingly, can qualify as "good." It is not "good" in relation to the victim. (emphasis added) OPAR, p. 315
Peikoff does add parenthetically, "(Since there are no conflicts of interest among rational men, it is not "good" in relation to anyone else, either.) But observe that this parenthetical remark implies a normal context, not a lifeboat emergency, for in the latter case, conflicts of interest among rational men do exist.
Christopher then states: Also, Dean: Your remark that lassez-faire is just even if it punishes men in certain (albeit extremely limited) circumstances for taking action which may nonetheless be right for them intrigues me. Although it seems counter-intuitive to me for the most part, I wonder if there might be some truth behind it somewhere. I will definitely give some of what you said some thought ;) The justification for Dean's position is that the law exists to protect people from the initiation of force. That is its sole reason for existing -- its raison d'ê·tre, if you will. It cannot, therefore, defend the initiator of force, even if such an act were in the initiator's self-interest. There is another reason it must side with the victim, and that is that insofar as the initiation of force is justified in a lifeboat emergency, it necessarily occasions a conflict of interest, because it is not in the victim's interest to have force initiated against him. In that case, however, the law cannot defend the interests of both parties simultaneously. Therefore, it must choose whom to defend, and since the force was started by the initiator, the law must defend the victim by acting on his behalf, in which case, it would impose on the initiator an appropriate penalty, consistent with the mitigating circumstances of the emergency. In other words, the initiator would receive a penalty, albeit a lesser one than a person who committed the same violation in a non-emergency.
I hope this helps in answering your question, Christopher. Thanks for asking.
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/27, 12:46am)
|
|
