regarding predation

You are looking at force. I am looking at value. Value is the point of this thread - should one prey upon others to get one's values. You cannot tell me that you think the minister is providing an objective value to his victims. That is what makes them victims, however willing, that they accept a non-value for a real value. Unless you want to argue that there are no objective values, and that the minister's dupes are not victims because they "get what they want" with whim being the criterion of value.

Edit - Wendy, you have made it explicit. You are taking whim as the standard of value. I would argue that one has a legal right to act on whim, but that does not make one any less a victim or the minister any less a predator - he depends upon others to provide a value which he does not return.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/18, 10:34pm)

Post 61

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 11:11pm

One can be a victim without having their rights violated. Being a victim is a wider category. Like, someone who is the victim of a practical joke, or of ridicule, or of bad advice, or of stepping front of a bus, or of catching a disease.

And there can be predators without a violation of rights. An online stalker that never violates rights but seeks to prey on peoples emotions, or gullibility. (I'm thinking of certain Wikipedia editors and people who love to create urban myths).

I can envision a businessman whose psychology is such that he likes to financially dominate and damage others, in a legal fashion, maybe in forced mergers, for example. He is careful to never step over the line into fraud. He is clever enough to take advantage of the average businessman who is financial difficulty. He is a predator and his victims are the prey he seeks and he doesn't violate their rights.

Post 62

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 12:38am

You are looking at force. I am looking at value. Value is the point of this thread - should one prey upon others to get one's values. You cannot tell me that you think the minister is providing an objective value to his victims. That is what makes them victims, however willing, that they accept a non-value for a real value. Unless you want to argue that there are no objective values, and that the minister's dupes are not victims because they "get what they want" with whim being the criterion of value.

Are the tobacco companies preying on smokers by not providing them with an objective value? I would say, no, because the smokers choose to buy their product, even if it's not objectively good for them. If a fat person chooses to eat fattening foods, he cannot blame the makers of chocolate cake and ice cream. He has only himself to blame; he must take responsibility for his actions.

One can be a victim without having their rights violated. Being a victim is a wider category. Like, someone who is the victim of a practical joke, or of ridicule, or of bad advice, or of stepping front of a bus, or of catching a disease.

True. I was using "victim" in the sense of someone else's prey.

And there can be predators without a violation of rights. An online stalker that never violates rights but seeks to prey on peoples emotions, or gullibility. (I'm thinking of certain Wikipedia editors and people who love to create urban myths).

Insofar as you're talking about a person who misleads others, this may not be considered a crime, but the victim is being conned nonetheless, and is therefore a victim of fraud.

I can envision a businessman whose psychology is such that he likes to financially dominate and damage others, in a legal fashion, maybe in forced mergers, for example. He is careful to never step over the line into fraud.

Well, if there's no fraud, then the alleged victims are willing participants, so they're responsible for their own choices, however bad these turn out to be.

- Bill

Post 63

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 6:57am

You cannot, do not, create value for yourself by the use of force - whether that force be physical, or deliberate misrepresentation with intent to defraud. Such action only sanctions the use of that same force against yourself - simply and clearly a self-destructive action.

One can be predatory (in the business example) and still remain legal, but I'm not so sure I'd say that 'so called' predatory business practices could all be called ethical. While the average consumer should at least be aware of the term "the fine print", and its implications, there is still a presumption of fair trade - a value given for a value earned - that is implied in all business transactions. Businesses knowingly withholding knowledge of dangers of their product, or deliberately misleading buyers about the applicability of their product, breach this ethic (fair trade). That they can do so legally, does not excuse their action.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 1/19, 6:58am)

Post 64

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 9:40am

This is Wendy speaking now. Ted, would you please refer us to the post in which I literally said whim was the standard of value? And, if you cannot, would you please consult the O.E.D. for the meaning of "literal?" Thank you.

Post 65

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 11:49am

No, Wendy, I am not going to go further down some derivative irrelevant matter. I repeat my original assertion, that one can be predatory without initiating the use of force. I am sure that you can understand this point.

Post 66

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 12:58pm

At least you recognize your post as irrelevant.
But Ted, surely you know that assertions, by themselves, don't carry any weight at a place like this?

Post 67

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 2:09pm

Mindy, maybe you'd be more fully satisfied offering death threats on Ed's blog?

Bill, I asserted, contra your statement, that there are predatory non-criminals.

"Are the tobacco companies preying on smokers by not providing them with an objective value? I would say, no, because the smokers choose to buy their product, even if it's not objectively good for them. If a fat person chooses to eat fattening foods, he cannot blame the makers of chocolate cake and ice cream. He has only himself to blame; he must take responsibility for his actions."

My assertion was that one can be predatory without being criminal, and I gave a minister (think televangelist) as an example. His existence is entirely parasitic, and he offers no real value. Fattening foods can be eaten in moderation. (I offer no opinion on cigarettes, I don't smoke.) But a minister who only bilks a little old lady out of half her savings could hardly be said to be offering her a moderated value. The analogy fails.

Is my point that while politically, an act can be legal, but ethically it amounts to predation, that impossible to understand?

Post 68

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 2:32pm

Ted,
The hostility comes through, but what you mean about death threats is a total puzzle. Do explain yourself.
It's not like you to think your assertions should be exempt from critique.

Post 69

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 2:44pm

Apology accepted, Mindy.

And I really am serious. My sole point is that being predatory is fundamentally an ethical issue, while crime is political. Of course criminals are predators. But not all predators are necessarily criminal. The law allows people to act on whim. They can irrationally participate in their own self-deception. Cowbirds willingly raise the chicks of cuckoos. A minister who tells his listeners that unless he raises a million dollars "god will call him home" and who thus gets little old ladies to donate their life savings to his church is predatory. He does not offer any objective value to his dupes. (One can say that they get pleasure from their actions, but Rand would call this whim worship and irrational, and not life affirming.) He takes their money, and leaves them with nothing. Like a cuckoo, he hijacks their drives. That they partcipate does not make him less a predator.

Post 70

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 4:06pm

What apology?
I've already addressed this, saying, essentially, that you are failing to grant that the believers have a mind and are capable of making reasoned decisions. Did you notice I argued that he could be a con-man, without anyone successfully getting conned?
Whether or not there can be legal predation depends on what acts are included in the term. I looked up "prey" and "predation" and found they both (no, it isn't surprising) have primary meaning of pillaging, violence, theft, and secondary meaning of carnivorous feeding. That means "predation" cannot mean legal, but immoral, dealings with other people. You just need to pick another word. "Predation" doesn't do what you want it to. Don't go Lewis Carroll on us, OK?

Post 71

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 4:27pm

Okay, I hereby grant you unopposed ownership of the word predator.

Post 72

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 4:33pm

And I promise to keep it in pristine condition.
There are a couple of words I want to grant you exclusive rights to, but we'll have to discuss that in a PM.

Post 73

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 5:18pm

There was sad excuse of a man that wanted to con little old ladies out of their money, but he was stupid, and lacked the needed skills. He was a predator, just not a very effective one. An old lion won't catch as many gazelle, but he is still a predator.

Perhaps the most fundamental distinction is between relationships that are founded out of a fairly accurate appreciation that each party expects to give value for value, and all other relationships.

This implies that the values really are of value, as opposed to con-man pitches. Take a look at the value arena; do I look at a potential business or personal relationship as an equal in the perceived giving and getting, or am I thinking I might be prey, or am I intending to be a predator. In a poker game, if I'm holding a pat hand, I assure you, I'm all predator - no mercy would be shown. And, like someone once said, if after twenty minutes at the poker table, you can't figure out who the patsy is, it is you - and hopefully you will suddenly feel like prey and push back that chair and leave.

It might he hard to describe that difference for moral philosophy, but we all know it. Is a man going out with a woman while concealing his motives? Then he is hoping to prey on her. Or, is he offering her what value he believes he has with hopes she will want to offer him more - that is the exchange of equals. If a minister is sincere in his beliefs and accepts donations, and the little old lady thinks his ministry has value, it is true they are both deluded, but isn't that different from the sleazy televangelists we have all seen? We know and the televangelist knows his praying is preying.

Intent has to be a part of this equation. Because the difference between being prey and a voluntary partner to a relationship lies in one's choice (gazelles don't want to be eaten), or ones awareness of the other's offering (the little old ladies don't know what they are getting isn't real - predators don't offer fairness).

I have photographs of a wild polar bear playing with someone's dog - it came back on several different days to romp with the Husky. By their natures, the polar bear is a predator that wasn't preying, and the dog was prey that joined in a 'value' relationship.

Post 74

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:03pm

Bill, I asserted, contra your statement, that there are predatory non-criminals.

If by "predatory non-criminal," you mean predatory non-rights violators, then I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned. If there's no force or fraud, then the alleged victim is fully responsible for his actions and chooses your alleged non-objective value. If he chooses it, then he is not anyone's prey, except perhaps his own.

My assertion was that one can be predatory without being criminal, and I gave a minister (think televangelist) as an example. His existence is entirely parasitic, and he offers no real value.

The fact that he offers no real (i.e., objective) value is irrelevant, unless he is defrauding his parishioners. If he is not defrauding them, then they are choosing to accept his religious message, because they already believe in the religion that he advocating. In that case, they are not being preyed upon.

But a minister who only bilks a little old lady out of half her savings could hardly be said to be offering her a moderated value. The analogy fails.

But he's not "bilking" her out of her savings, if all he is doing is asking her to contribute to a religious cause that she already believes in and supports. She is contributing to it voluntarily and is responsible for her choices. If people contribute to the Democratic Party, because they believe in its message, are they being bilked out of their money? No, because they believe in the Party's cause, however false it happens to be.

Is my point that while politically, an act can be legal, but ethically it amounts to predation, that impossible to understand?

No, if the act is not only unethical but fraudulent or rights violating, but the examples you give don't necessarily imply that. The televangelist doesn't commit fraud, unless he uses the money he solicits from his subscribers for a purpose other than the one for which he is soliciting. If he does, then yes, he's committing fraud and is preying off his subscribers. If not, then he is not committing fraud and is not preying off his subscribers.

- Bill

Post 75

Monday, January 19, 2009 - 10:46pm

So, Bill, there is nothing at all unethical about what such a minister does? It is obvious, although I don't know why you don't state it, that you are simply defining predation as only that which is criminal. Fine. Do you deny that there is a concept applicable to those who take the money of others, knowing that they do not provide them with a real value in return? Yes, there are of course ministers who think they do provide their patrons with value. But there are also ministers who knowingly "take advantage' of their benefactors.

If you do not call these predators, what do you call them?

Also, if all predators are necessarily criminal, then how do you differentiate predators from criminals, or do you simply use the terms as synonyms?

Post 76

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 12:01am

It's all neat and tidy to define "predation" as initiating violence, theft or fraud. But I don't see that as capturing the essence of the word. When I fall prey to food poisoning was I a willing victim, or attacked by protein that may have been left by long-since dead bacteria? Who was the predator? Or if my immune system gets all excited and attacks a heart valve like with Rheumatic fever, am I both predator and prey? Yet it makes sense to say that I fell prey to Rheumatic fever.

Clearly some people are more predatory in business practices - is that an invalid usage of the word unless they go too far and violate a right? Is there no psychological sense of being predatory - like a man that acts like getting lots of women into bed is scoring points. Does it matter that the women could many different responses (disdain, acceptance, anger, laughter, ?) - his attitude is what it is. Hell, some people here at RoR are more predatory in their posting practices than others - doesn't that claim make sense? The word carries a sense of hunting, of conquering, of subduing, of taking - those aren't exclusive to rights violations.

Post 77

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 10:34am

Bill,
Excellent parallel with the Democratic party!
At the risk of being guilty of Mike's "marketing 101" could I refer you back to my post 49, where I explain how he can be a con-man without being successful at conning anyone, successful because he attracts colluders?

Post 78

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 5:22pm

Do enlightened individuals have a moral obligation to spread their knowledge of the enlightened world to the ignorant? I believe yes, if we wish to live in a world where a harmony of rational interests guides us, it's serves our interests to spread the idea of reason to our fellow men. Does the atheist priest have a moral obligation to his parishioners to stop spreading gospel he doesn't believe in? I believe yes, if he wishes to live in an age of reason rather than an age of ignorance. Does the psychic who performs cold readings on his willing customers have a moral obligation to stop? Yes, I believe he does, if he wishes to embrace the world of science and the countless benefits it has provided mankind. Even though society is far removed from the dark ages, there still exists a great deal of ignorance. All of these charlatans are contributing in their own way to the destruction of reason. I do believe they are predators. They prey on people's ignorance, and thus prey on man's long-term survival and happiness. If you could see what some of these people do you would quickly agree they are predators, people like "Faith Healers" that promise good health to a cancer patient if only he believes in 'God' and donates to the church to help others "heal", or the "guru" that rejects western medicine and gleefully takes money from desperate individuals with life-threatening diseases with the promise of a miracle cure in return. It's vicious, and it's mean. Whether it meets legal fraud or not is moot, it is fraud nonetheless and it is destructive.

Post 79

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 6:37pm