Does Truth = Peace?

Is it possible for a person who obeys rigorous logic and reason to rationalize the initiation of violence against others if they know, understand, and accept the truth about any given situation?

I’m working on a theory that states violence is fundamentally tied to lies and truth is fundamentally tied to peace – do I sound like a New Age hippie yet?

Hear me out.

I arrive at this conclusion because it is logically irrational to justify the initiation of violence in any given situation. It is literally impossible to find any situation where the initiation of violence against another person is logically appropriate and results in a positive outcome for society. The only time violence is logically appropriate is in defense of oneself, property, or others.

I believe Austrian philosophers have rigorously proven the non-aggression principle to be true, so I will not go into a long rigorous proof of why it is always irrational to initiate violence against an innocent person, but if one accepts the non-aggression principle as being true, then one must accept that truth and peace, violence and lies, have a fundamental relationship with each other.

If one does not accept the non-aggression principle, then they also must reject any fundamental ties between truth and peace.

If we can empirically demonstrate that it is logically irrational to justify the initiation of violence, then it follows that any person who initiates violence against another person is acting irrationally.

If a person is acting in an irrational fashion, then they must have first internalized a lie as truth otherwise they would not be acting in an irrational manner.

In order for a person to initiate violence against another person, the person initiating the violence must have first internalized a lie that allows him to rationalize his own violence.

Irrational actions require self-delusion.

Self-delusion requires the internalization and acceptance of a lie as being the truth.

From this it follows that if everyone in a given society had full knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the truth about the world they lived in, it would be impossible for that society to experience any violence at all.

Simply stated, if an individual actor has full knowledge of the truth, understands the truth, and most importantly accepts the truth about any given situation, his only rational response to that situation will be peaceful, unless he is defending himself/property/others from the direct aggression of others.

A person who has full knowledge of the truth, understands the truth, and accepts the truth about any given situation can not rationally chose to initiate violence. It is only through the deception of others or of oneself that the initiation of violence becomes an internally rational response to any given situation.

Obviously not all lies end in violent conflict, but if the logic of the non-aggression principle is rigorously proven to be true, then all violence must originate in a lie.

Does it follow that, the more lies a society rationalizes as the truth, the more violent that society becomes? Whereby there is a direct correlation to the amount of lies being propagated in a society to the amount of violence a society experiences? Are those individuals who believe the most lies also the most violent “rational” actors in a given society?

If this is indeed true, we should see a direct correlation between those with the most statist views consistently being the most violent actors.

If you follow Austrian economics you may be able to see where I am going with this.

Obviously the Austrians consider the State to be a gigantic lie machine that spews nothing but disingenuous propaganda aimed at rationalizing it own existence in the minds of the public. In looking at the total picture though, I think violence is not just correlated to the State lie machine, but also to how society interacts with each other at the individual level.

My rule is universal, as it applies to individuals as well as entire societies, which are obviously nothing more than large groups of individual actors.

If someone can find an exception to this rule, I’d like to hear about it.

And now, after that mind bending exercise in philosophy, I leave you with this:

“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, ‘It is better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than to be selfish and worry about my liver.’”

-Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handy




footnotes:

Justification of the non-aggression principle is arrived at through:

Argumentation ethics. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued that property rights are inalienable;
Natural law. Murray Rothbard has made efforts to derive non-aggression from self-ownership;
Contractarianism;
Objectivism. Ayn Rand has made efforts in deriving the principle from the right to life; and
Universally Preferable Behavior. Stefan Molyneux formulated a rational proof of secular ethics that made an effort to validate the non-aggression principle.

Truth seems to be subjective. Many do not follow materialist logical analysis, and an argument could be made that it is not the only way to view reality.

Suppose a tribe was attacked for generations by a neighboring tribe. According to experience they create the truth that the neighbor is violent, and undeserving of life. Is their truth wrong? All the available evidence and experience supports that the neighbor is indeed violent and deserves destruction. They are not living from a lie, but from a truth that their circumstances provide. Is their truth any less valid?

Am I understanding your argument?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Another thought provoking piece mnemeth1, and it made me sit and analyze some reasons for violence, their truth and place(if any) in our world.
My first thought was, if someone is attacking and hurting my mother, I would intervene. Now, would I utilize violence to stop it, or violence to stop AND finish it? After further thought, I could see disabling the attacker somewhat non-violently, and moving on. So, would self defense qualify any violence? Force meets force? Or would the classical Ghandi passive approach be best, and more truthful?

Another thought was when a civilization attacks another for their resources, in order to sustain life for themselves?
I'm not necessarily talking about an "occupation" of their land, but more the slaying of people and taking their resources. Is there any justification in that? Me thinks there could be diplomacy and negotiations too, but man, we just can't expect others to to think the way we do sometimes. You know, logic does not always sway or convince, and fairness is not necessarily a universal attribute with us all.

Then, that thought led me to consider violence in the animal world. BUT, we are more than animals, with the ability to rationalize and plan, so perhaps the "natural" modality should not fit for humans.
Hmmm, it seems everything I can think of, COULD possibly have a non-violent solution, but we, as humans, would kind of have to be on the same page, and that seems unlikely, not by definition, but by practicality in diversity and where each of us(individually and as a society(s)) are in our growth and maturity.
So, in conclusion, it is my opinion that at this time, truth= both peace and violence, not ideally, but more realistic. Ultimately however, I think/hope that we strive to move past violence, or at least make it a strictly self defense option. At least till the whole world comes together.....

Peace,
spec

From this it follows that if everyone in a given society had full knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the truth about the world they lived in, it would be impossible for that society to experience any violence at all.

ETA: It is my opinion that "truth" is too subjective, and any efforts to make them universal could be misconstrued as invasive to some. Think about the biggest influence in today's world....religion. Now that is one fortified concept that would take a loooong time to abandon or change for many.

Interesting thread my friend. I do have a question before I can really comment further.

From this it follows that if everyone in a given society had full knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the truth about the world they lived in, it would be impossible for that society to experience any violence at all.

What is this truth?

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


The non-aggression principle leaves room for violence against aggressors.

So if someone is threatening me or my family, I am fully justified in using violence to stop that threat.

This is not logically inconsistent with the non-aggression principle.

The non-aggression principle says the initiation of violence is immoral.

reply to post by mnemeth1

The non-aggression principle says the initiation of violence is immoral.

Thank you for the clarification, and yes I agree with that whole heartedly.
spec

reply to post by IAMIAM


Truth is what logic and reason demonstrates to be factual about the world we live in.

A belief that is in "conformity with fact or reality"

Here is the "TRUTH" :

Being hurt or hurting others sucks big time.

OP you are 100% correct in my estimation.

Only lies can lead us to harm each other.
The truth will prevent us from harming each other.

You basically stated your theory and disproved your own theory in one post.

I arrive at this conclusion because it is logically irrational to justify the initiation of violence in any given situation.

The only time violence is logically appropriate is in defense of oneself, property, or others

The two pre-stated statements are mutually exclusive.

I do not necessarily agree that truth = peace, although it does lead on the proper path. When you have the truth you have a good foundation to build upon rather that a faulty one.

An animal, which we are, will do anything to advance theirs or their families life, there is nothing we can do about that, it is one of our most primitive instincts. As for acquisition of resources, that is the equivalent of advancement of life. It would be more civilized if we could talk it out and come to an understanding, but, as a species we tend to follow the most outspoken an oppresive leader we could find.

We have yet to understand that the idea of a leader is a false one. No one knows what life is about more than the next, if we would stop looking for a leader figure then we would figure out that is we came to a consensus and advance as a society, together.

We follow people that know little about "truth" and that is our biggest faults.

Pred...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Truth is what logic and reason demonstrates to be factual about the world we live in.

A belief that is in "conformity with fact or reality"

Logic and Reason would tell you automatically that harming people in the name of X (Govt, Corp, Religion, etc) is wasteful and irrational and serves no actual gains but instead represents massive losses and failures within that system of indoctrination.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
You basically stated your theory and disproved your own theory in one post.

I arrive at this conclusion because it is logically irrational to justify the initiation of violence in any given situation.

The only time violence is logically appropriate is in defense of oneself, property, or others

The two pre-stated statements are mutually exclusive.

No I disagree.

Because if we all followed statement # 2, statement # 1 would never even happen.

They may be somewhat collectively exhaustive events, but they are by no means mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive means that both cannot be true at the same time. Rather, in this particular case, I would argue that both are mutually dependent and that when one is qualified the other follows. So they would exist simultaneously in harmony. **Theoretically**
(That's why I said "somewhat" collectively exhaustive, I realize the paradoxical circular logic this is creating)

Also, here is a great link I know the OP will love.
What is Bounded Rationality?

Bounded rationality is the notion that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
From this it follows that if everyone in a given society had full knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the truth about the world they lived in, it would be impossible for that society to experience any violence at all.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Truth is what logic and reason demonstrates to be factual about the world we live in.

A belief that is in "conformity with fact or reality"

I know what truth is my friend. What I meant was what is this truth that will be given to society.

The truth WILL end violence in society. The problem is people do not want the truth. They like the little lies in this world. Lies are more comfortable than truth. Truth hurts. Truth is a light that reveals the darkness in mankind, thus we turn our eyes from it. The truth has been given to man through many enlightened souls through our history. Those men were mocked and ridiculed and even murdered for presenting the truth to man.

So, what truth do you present that will usher in peace? It is not enough to simply state, thou shalt not kill. That has been played to no avail.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
You basically stated your theory and disproved your own theory in one post.

I arrive at this conclusion because it is logically irrational to justify the initiation of violence in any given situation.

The only time violence is logically appropriate is in defense of oneself, property, or others

The two pre-stated statements are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not.

Initiating violence is not the same as defending yourself from it.

This should be obvious.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I know what truth is my friend. What I meant was what is this truth that will be given to society.

The truth WILL end violence in society. The problem is people do not want the truth. They like the little lies in this world. Lies are more comfortable than truth. Truth hurts. Truth is a light that reveals the darkness in mankind, thus we turn our eyes from it. The truth has been given to man through many enlightened souls through our history. Those men were mocked and ridiculed and even murdered for presenting the truth to man.

So, what truth do you present that will usher in peace? It is not enough to simply state, thou shalt not kill. That has been played to no avail.

With Love,

Your Brother

edit on 22-2-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

Reality dictates what is true or not true, what people believe is another matter entirely.

In fact the entire point of the post is to point out that unless people believe the truth, a cycle of violence will perpetuate itself.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


He's getting at the "initiation of force" on others is always wrong and irrational, and that defending oneself from that initiation of force is rational. Of course this leads into definitions of what constitutes everything from "voluntary" to "irrational", ironically.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Reality dictates what is true or not true, what people believe is another matter entirely.

In fact the entire point of the post is to point out that unless people believe the truth, a cycle of violence will perpetuate itself.

If reality dictates what is true, what IS TRUE?

You have not stated what you perceive to be TRUTH.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Reality dictates what is true.

We determine what is true by using rigorous logic and reason.

If we can empirically demonstrate that initiating violence against the innocent is illogical, then we can make the claim that a belief which holds the initiation of violence against the innocent is good must be false.

Getting hurt by others, and hurting others Sucks.

That's the true reality right there.

But that's not what people think when they hurt someone else.

They think everything except that.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
No, they are not.

Initiating violence is not the same as defending yourself from it.

This should be obvious.

You are making assumptions with that logic. Logic has to be true for all possible variables. You can not make assumptions about variables with logic.

Your assumption is that the only possible time that you would want to defend yourself, is if you are defending yourself against a violent act.

Your assumption is that the only act that can threaten someone’s life is a violent one.

There can be many situations where a non violent act can be life/liberty threatening.

If your are presented with a situation where a person is performing a non violent act that is threatening your life/liberty, then do you have a right to use violence to deter, incapacitate, or eliminate the person threatening your life.

The term “violent” is arbitrary in it’s self. A violent act to one person may not be to another. What arbitrary barrier do you cross where the act is now considered “violent” and justifies your act of self defense?

Is it a violent act when a captain of a ship turns his ship away from port, to the open ocean? No

Does it threaten anyone’s life? When the ship is low on fuel, and a hurricane is bearing down on their location and the captain is not acting logically. Then yes it does threaten the life of everyone on the ship.

Do they have a right to mutiny and forcefully restrain him, or kill him if they can not remove him from the bridge. YES!!!!!!!