Social Relations

The branch of philosophy which is supposed to deal with human relationships is politics. Technically, political philosophy is the study of the application of moral principles (ethics) in a social context. It is the attempt to apply moral values to the proper relationships between individuals.

All of political philosophy can be summed up in the single principle upon which it rests: It is morally wrong for an individual to initiate the use of force against another individual for any reason. Everything else in political philosophy is an expansion on this principle or is incorrect. Most political philosophy is incorrect.

Most political philosophy is based on the assumption the initiation of force by some individuals against others is sometime morally correct. This assumption is necessary because most political philosophy assumes government is necessary to a society and a non-coercive government is a contradiction in terms. In most cases, therefore, what is called political philosophy is primarily a study of what a correct form of government would be. The essential moral principle of non-coercion, however, excludes government.

The real problem with political philosophy is that it does not address the most interesting issues of social relationships. The first corollary of the principle of non-coercion is: The only proper relationship between individuals is the trader relationship. In any other kind of relationship, force or the threat of it, is involved.

This does not mean the only relationships between human beings are commercial. It means, in all relationships, each individual must enter into and participate in it of their own accord and without coercion. This includes all relationships, business, social, romantic, personal, private, and public. It is in those relationships that are not usually considered “political” that these principles are often most important.

As an example, consider romantic relationships, such as dating and marriage, and their extension to family relationships. The exclusion of the use of force and the necessity of every relationship being entered into freely and uncoerced solves endless human problems that are disastrous whenever these principles are violated, which is more often than not.

Also, consider the fact that many things which are considered the domain of politics, are in fact, not political at all. Forcing them under the umbrella of political (coercive) force has distorted all political thinking.

As an example, fraud is frequently lumped together with force, as something which force can be used defend against. It is morally wrong for any individual to defraud or attempt to defraud another. This is not a political issue, however, but a matter of individual morality. To some extent, fraud always has a subjective element, because it involves subjective evaluation. No one is compelled or coerced into being a “victim” of fraud, and to some extent, no fraud is possible without the complicity of the victim.

The biggest mistake most people make in their relationships with others is the presumption that others are like themselves. While all human beings share some characteristics, it is always their differences that are most profound and significant. When dealing with others, it is much safer to presume they do not like what you like, want what you want, believe what you believe, or feel what you feel.

Where force is excluded in human relationships, the mistake most people make is assuming others have the same tastes, motives, and purposes as themselves. This is one of the most common mistakes made in business, and is a total disaster in educational institutions.

The first principle to be considered when policy or formalized practices, such as those used in business, are being developed is everybody is different. While people have common characteristics (those that distinguish them as human beings), it is their differences that are significant, and those differences that must be considered when setting any kind of policy or practice that will affect more than one person. Planning for the things people have in common are easy. Planning for, which most means allowing for, their differences determines the success or failure of most enterprises.

People mistakenly think the “politically correct” concept of “diversity” being shoved down the gullets of the gullible is a recognition of the essential differences in people. In fact, it is just the opposite. By emphasizing nonessential differences in people, like physical characteristics, cultural preferences, and sexual practices, the essential differences like intelligence, character, integrity, accomplishment, ambition, and ability are obfuscated.

Race, national heritage, and physiological characteristics are the least significant qualities and differences in human beings, because none of these are matters of choice and do not determine how an individual behaves, except as some physiological characteristics may limit some actions for some individuals. These characteristics become significant only as the individuals themselves or others choose to make them an issue.

Religion, tastes, personal practices, habits, and preferences in food, dress, and other personal matters have significance only in those areas where choices must be made relative to them. In most cases, no kinds of employment, business dealings, or social relationships will be affected by any of these. In some respects, however, these things have important significance, because they demonstrate an individual’s values and principles in certain areas, and where these are related to a job or social relationship, they must be considered.

Intelligence, character, integrity, competence, dependability, and ambition are qualities which directly affect an individuals choices and behavior. These are the most important of human characteristics and the ones that must be considered in every relationship, but these are the very characteristics that are ignored or glossed over by our PC multi-cultural society today.

The only proper relationship between individual human beings is as traders, offering value for value. In every other kind of human relationship, someone is a victim of coercion. —(Ayn Rand, paraphrased)

The only human relationship is the trader relationship. All other relationships are inhuman, below that even of the brute beasts. It is the capacity to reason and to make rational choice that distinguishes humans from all other creatures. Only when men offer their products, their opinions, and their affections to others to be evaluated and judged by others who are free to accept or reject what is offered is the relationship a human one.

Be courteous to everyone. The inferior declare their inferiority by insulting those they perceive to be their superiors.

Etiquette, or manners, are a recognition of the rational nature of others. Good manners are nothing more than an objective attempt to deal with others rationally and decently. Discourtesy is simply ignorance of how to deal with others or the intentional lowering of ones self to an irrational level. Almost nothing is more affective when dealing with the irrational than to maintain one’s self-control and remain courteous, without condescension. It is personally very rewarding and frequently overcomes the most obtusely ignorant behavior of others.

Forgive every wrong but never forget a wrong or who did it.

Revenge costs more than forgiveness. No wrong can be undone. Whatever a wrong has cost you, seeking retribution will only cost you more. So called, emotional satisfaction, is highly overrated. The idea that causing someone harm who has caused harm is justice is incorrect. It is just repeating the wrong, on the basis that two wrongs make a right, or it is doubling the total amount of harm. Justice is only served when, whatever the loss or harm, it has been repaid, repaired, or restored (to the one who actually suffered the loss).

If someone harms you, seek restitution or correction, if you like, but understand, it is unlikely you will get it. Do not incur more cost or expend more effort in seeking restitution then you can reasonably expect to have restored. Otherwise, forgive them immediately. It will surprise and confuse them. It may make them think they got away with something but that mistake will be part of the price they must pay. Just don’t forget who caused the harm, or how they caused it, and never allow them the opportunity to do it again. Though you forgive them, never do anything to help them avoid the consequences of their wrong actions. Though you forgive them, there is no reason to befriend them or like them. Why would you like someone who causes you harm?