| | Luke:Years ago, Peikoff was on "The McQuistion Program" and debating a liberal and a conservative. The liberal asked, "A pregnant woman comes to your door and is bleeding. What do you do?" Peikoff politely explained that if she asked nicely and conceded that he had no "duty" to help her, he would gladly see what he could do to help. Conversely, if she demanded that he "owed" her assistance, he "would stand there and watch her bleed -- and that, in essence, is capitalism."
I completely agree with Peikoff's forthright statement. Jason:The important point of this whole discussion is that Objectivist conceptions of justice and benevolence are not the same as conceptions of what should and shouldn't be legal.
There are plenty of immoral things I can do without initiating force. Luke pointed out very clearly that not helping a starving kid that he didn't starve is not something that he should be held accountable for via the law. We might call him a scum bag, but we should not be able to put him in jail. And here, ultimately, I agree. Public opprobrium will do the trick. The scumbag will regret his indifference. Like, mom leaves her newborn in a dumpster. Sure, the Mounties look into it, but she don't go to jail up here -- why should a passerby, right? Leave de dang baby in the dumpster, I'm late for work.
* * *
I don't like the scenario put forward (how the heck did the baby get dumped in the woods?), but I'll work with it. Who said objectivism wasn't fun? You get to argue about starving babies and the 'ick' factor.
-- if it is in the real world, then the brute (we'll call him Luke) who came across Baby 'A' in the woods -- and walked on by -- is not really in danger with the law, in my country. And to be fair to Luke's argument, if charged, he could fairly argue against any such charges using his reasoning in this thread. I would take from my pocket to help defend him. It would be a great trial.
But, hey, that scenario . . . how about keep the Baby 'A' in the woods, and stipulate a couple facts; how about the baby is found dead a week later, and it can be shown that Luke passed by and passed on.
Investigation not only shows that Luke walked by, but on questioning, he says he did not consider hydrating or carrying the baby to the road or to a nearby person, or to a phone, nor did he consider giving it a bit of his microwave spaghettios. He thought it was lost and would soon be found by its owners if it was valuable to them.
[optional kicker to the story -- the baby *was* lost (left in the woods by a deranged crackhead who stole it from the 7-11 parking lot), and its parents devastated at the subsequent death]
Long story short, some arcane British Columbia law is brought out, 'depraved indifference to human life' is charged. Luke says, 'Hey, read Post 100! How come baby dumpster mama don't get charged? Leave me alone, fool.' The Crown goes 'Oh christ.'
I figure in my jurisdiction that authorities would try like hell to make something stick, starting with the RCMP, and on through the child protection and human rights acronyms -- but they'd fail. There simply doesn't seem to be a strong law on BC books for the Crown to use . . . maybe another BCer on the thread might know.
Mind you, I think Luke or facsimile would be not quite finished with the issue after charges were stayed, if ever laid, or after a not guilty verdict ends the trial. The newspapers/media would eat this up, and people would treat him in general with restricted benevolence. We maybe don't need a law, because people's potential disgust prevent any but a sociopath from such indifference -- the lash of shame and guilt and remorse is most effective for most of us. We can envision the consequences of our actions and we choose our behaviours accordingly.
(but -- in contra, consider that one might argue that the common-law rooted crimes of depravity at root here may have been an early filter for the evil that lurks among us. The only possible justification would be utility: the only people that would transgress the law are evil consciousless beings without species solidarity. Thus the law does not apply to me or you or Michael or Dean or Luke. Thus, we may filter out of circulation the not-quite-fully-human . . . )
Me, I would obey the unwritten law of my values, and heed my emotions. I have serious questions for the person who may have allowed an unecessary death to occur -- if a person could foresee the danger, and yet behaved with indifference, that person is likely to be a sociopath. That person would frighten me. No doubt such a person already could boast a list of assault and fraud beefs, so what need a law to compel decency? Such evil is indifferent to law.
Luke is right. There need only be social obligation, not law. In the coming world, as we dismantle the non-objectivist state, recent and longstanding laws that mandate assistance to those in need will be abolished. All good samaritan laws will be abolished. There will be a bonfire of petty laws!
WSS
Postscript: I just realized that I am the thread hijacker, first commenting on Neil Parille's observation in post 8, offering a lighthearted riposte to Dean, introducing the ARI tsunami flap, and in later conversation with the lovely Ed Thompson -- I further wrote of newborns deserving food.
I should note again then, my only point in this long thread. Cast in the form of a question, it is "What about the ick factor?" In other words, how does objectivism avoid boners like Holcberg's -- how does objectivism avoid being associated with 'malignant hearts,' even sociopathic tendency? do objectivists give a shit about the ick factor?
Must you stand together with me at Luke's defence table, or must you stand with Michael of the Crown as he prosecutes 'reckless endangerment' (or some other statute that now performs common-law duty against such behaviour, as in the luscious legal language that Teresa summoned up in the note from Texas: depraved mind, depraved indifference, abandoned & malignant heart).
______________________________
Unasked for advice, as I await the fate of all hijackers . . .
Michael Stewart Kelly, be not so proud, let some of your wind out, and relax back to the good old days when you were a dependable, if dreamy, interlocutor. Pull back always from reaction to "pathetic whiny commie greaseball fuck" and so on . . . if you must insult do it like Noel Coward, not Don Imus. These guys is your allies, ultimately, and you have it in your power to stand down a little bit from your heights and admit some honest error, tighten up your diffuse style and build some bridges. Nobody here is your enemy, and you ain't a big enough lump to let any of it interfere with your amour-propre. What irks your erstwhile debate opponents is your 'authority' presumed or assumed. Dean alluded to this in his plangent admission that your frigging Atlas Points irked him! It's a good time to de-pontificate a bit, and excise from yourself the stern moralism that you disdain in others.
Luke, my heart goes out to you, having read the occasional glimpses into the life of a very nice man, who has gone out of his way for others and been exploited. It can't be good feeling such anger. I wish you could reserve such epithets as fascist for more deeply evil persons . . . I bet you that retracting those words will benefit you with Michael's loyalty hereinafter. Forgive him his transgressions. You both played marvelous parts in this morality play.
. . . we'll see you again on the next 387 post megathread!
< end unasked-for advice >
Thank you all for a rousing read and a rousing think, and Teresa especially for pulling up relevant statutes. It puts the weight on reality. If we can forgive Michael and Luke the roles they had to play as Ur-defence and Ur-Crown, then we can reap the lessons of all your observations and experience . . . until the dismantling begins.
(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 2/21, 10:10pm)
|
|
