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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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
edit on 22-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)