The Power Of Principles
A recent post by Andy Clarkson, regarding reason as the proper means of human interaction, is a perfect illustration of how a sound principle can provide extremely persuasive, or at least thought provoking, dialogue.
In a recent lengthy discussion with a friend who is an Obama supporter, she wanted to focus upon economics. Her view was that top economists had endorsed Obama. Why was that not enough for me to support him?
One, I refused to discuss economics. I explained to her that there are different schools of economics and each is based upon different philosophical premises.
Two, I told her that no matter what issue or argument she would bring up, my answer would be exactly the same. I oppose the initiation of force against another human being.
And then I provided a list of examples: murder, rape, taxes, robbery, burglary, slavery and so on. I explained that the only proper way for human beings to interact is based upon reason, persuasion, logic, discussion, collaboration, and so on.
I didn’t budge from this stand because it provided the moral high ground. It also provided the platform for extending the conversation eventually into selfishness, rights, and capitalism.
The approach was successful in that she shifted focus from economics and began asking questions about rights. The conversation will continue. But I will be sure to use moral opposition to the initiation of force as “home base” — and more importantly the role of reason and persuasion as the proper means of interaction.
I think it is also the ideal response for shorter conversations or one- liners. [emphasis mine]
I really like this tactic. In similar conversations I typically promote rights as the determining factor. I usually contend that if an action violates ones right to life, liberty, or property than it is immoral, unjust and certainly not within the proper role of Government - the protector of rights. Of course Andy’s litmus test, being wider in abstraction, would include my condition because to violate a right is to encroach upon it by initiating force. The hazard of the “rights” angle is that many people don’t have a sound integration of the concept, which can lead to a more involved conversation of rights, privileges, and all the potential tangents - a conversation that would likely require a more lengthy discussion than appropriate. With the “initiation of force” angle, there are fewer underlying premises to manage and the point is still made.
His more abstract principle lends itself to more persuasive and less controversial dialogue. He sows the see without trying to rip the old plant by its roots - which I’ve learned the futility of doing so, the hard way.
I also appreciate how Andy integrated this tactic into his letter to our state officials:
I ask that you take into consideration one principle as you judge whether to support or oppose various issues in the coming year.
That principle is the immorality of the initiation of force against another human being. Initiation of force against another human being is immoral because it destroys human beings’ primary means of survival.
The primary means of survival for human beings is: reason. Reason, logic, persuasion, discussion, collaboration are the only moral means of human interaction.
Obvious examples of the initiation of force include murder, rape, robbery, and slavery.
To some, less obvious examples include taxes, fraud, required or compulsory community service, the military draft.
The common thread among all of these examples is the actual use of physical force or the threat of physical force if one does not comply with the demands of another. None of these examples involves reason, logic, or persuasion. Thus they are immoral.
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of citizens — through proper police force, courts, and jails. When the government violates the rights of its citizens by initiating force, it destroys or violates the lives of those citizens.
I ask that you focus upon this principle as you make your decisions.
He’s presented here an excellent display of the power of principles.
