TTI Forums

As some of you may already know I have not read any of Ayn Rand's books and had only heard of Objectivism through second hand sources (hearing people who were not Objectivist themselves discussing the philosophy) so I am still trying to learn more about it. During my first round of readings (really philosophy 101/wiki article stuff so nothing too deep), I have stumbled across what seems to be a contradiction and I'm hoping y'all can help shine some light on it.

Objectivism states that use of force to coerce another person into behaving a certain manner is, generally, immoral as force often overrides both the victim's and the perp's ability to reason (which is our highest moral calling). This includes, but isn't limited to, violence, theft, deception, and threats. It does make a general exception, however, for self-defense and retaliation. That is, in the words of a wise man, if someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back.

My concerns are:

1) How does Objectivism define "retaliation"?
2) Would Objectivism say that "relatiation" can become coercion through force? Why or why not?
3) In order to qualify as a rational, and thus moral, action does retaliation have to be proportionate to offense against you (eye for an eye so to say). Why or why not?
4) Does self-defense and retaliation include preemptive strikes? What level of certainty, if any, is needed to determine the threat requires a response?

Again, forgive me if these seem like basic questions; however, I figured y'all would be the best ones for me to direct them towards.

1) sorry cant help you on that
2)again no idea im rather simple minding
3 & 4) my understanding or retailation is acting on someone elses action weather those actions themselfs were aimed at you. i dont think you could have a preemptive strike on someone and says it retailation even if the the enivitable was on the verge of occuring. in a small scale for example put your self in your local bar having a beer, a guy who is very intoxicated gets in your face and starts to intimidate you etc but in a nut shell swings for you...weather he connects that punch or not i believe thats when you qualify for a justified retailation against this drunk yob.

the question is how far do you take this retailation against him and wheere do you draw the line, do you give him one back and leave it or smash his face off the nearest table more times than years youve been alive?

weather thats what your after i dont know but my 2 pence anyhow

Retaliation is the response or action and self defense is the intention. The two are very closely related, but the intention is of utmost concern here. There are many people that would say that once an engagement is set upon that all is fair, and though that may be the case, experience has taught me that investing just enough energy and risk to resolve the issue is the best course of action. What exactly does this mean? Well I do everything in my power to make sure that I am in control of my self and the actions I take. If someone gives me reason to defend myself I will invest the least amount energy to do that for two main reasons. First of all if I use undue force and engage in more in depth conflict then necessary I put my self in a position of liable and/or being harmed. So if someone tries to harm me, I counter in a calculated order of escalation starting with words, then deflection, to inflicting minimal harm to discourage the attack, then to disabling the other to the point where ultimately the threat has been eliminated. First of all, if I can diffuse a conflict I am in control and if I over step rational defense I put myself at the mercy of the sociological rules by which we must live, i.e. there may be punitive actions taken by law enforcement. I choose to pursue my agendas instead of conflict and rational conclusion of conflict facilitates just that.

My concerns are:

1) How does Objectivism define "retaliation"?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/retal ... force.html

2) Would Objectivism say that "relatiation" can become coercion through force? Why or why not?
See above

3) In order to qualify as a rational, and thus moral, action does retaliation have to be proportionate to offense against you (eye for an eye so to say). Why or why not?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law-- ... ctive.html

4) Does self-defense and retaliation include preemptive strikes? What level of certainty, if any, is needed to determine the threat requires a response?
1) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-defense.html
2) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html
3) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html

I think "Virtue of Selfishness" would help answer a lot of your basic/ technical questions- I linked the Rand answers because I'm assuming you don't want a mediocre explanation from me

Thanks for the responses. I'm taking it that the short answer is read more and stop being a lazy git ;p

But seriously, those quotes seem to state that retaliation, or the threat of retaliation is indeed justified if:

1) It occurs under an objective set of rules. That is, if A happens we will respond with B.
2) It is in response to aggression against you.

The quotes didn't seem to fully address if retaliation can go too far and become aggression or coercion beyond stating that it must happen under an objective set of rules and not fall whim to "mob rule". I'm gonna imply, however, that the threat of retaliation (under the constraints listed above) does coerce through force however, this is a good thing as it discourages "bad" behavior and encourages "good" behavior. Essentially we are pointing a gun at an armed gunman and saying "If you shoot at me I am going to shoot you back".

Something that might help is to distinguish between the use of force apart from the initiation of force. You need to use force to defend yourself. It is the initiation of force that is an issue.

Along the same lines, think in terms of defense rather than retaliation. Retaliation tends to mean something along the lines of the eye-for-an-eye as you noted. This is the idea that an escalation is expected that draws out the conflict until there are no eyes left.

Defense means enough force to counter the threat. In a society of laws, this would include reparation for injustice enacted for which no counter was possible at the time of the act.

As for getting off your lazy ass and reading, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. However, I know I like to review these things and hear different points of view on the topic. And sometimes, you may not know what to read and discussing them here will point you in a productive direction.