| | Michael, you wrote: Maybe I don't understand altruism in the same manner you do. I understand it to mean that self-sacrifice is man's highest moral duty and purpose in life. Well, that being so, I have not advocated that. You have argued that I have no right not to help someone who needs it even when I judge it to be against my interest -- that I should be forced to help him and that you would see to it that I was punished for the failure to do so. Are you not, therefore, saying that I should regard his interests as more important than my own? If you are not saying this, then why do you argue that I must sacrifice my interests for his sake? And if you are not arguing that I must sacrifice my interests for his sake, then why do you claim that I should be compelled to help him, if I choose not to? Also, I simply don't see the self-sacrifice here. You mentioned values and pursuit of them. What values? To be precise, it was sacrifice at the hands of others: "A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value." This includes the forcible surrender of a value in order to alleviate starvation. Isn't survival the basic value for an emergency? Basic value for whom? For the person whose life is in danger, yes. But his survival may not be the basic value for someone who is in a position to help him. And if it isn't, then forcing that person to provide the help constitutes a sacrifice. If the person chooses to provide it, fine. No one is objecting to that. What we're objecting to is the idea that the person has no right to refuse to provide it. I learned that in Objectivism, helping others is peripheral in ethics, not divorced from it, and emergencies are peripheral, not central. There are emergencies taking place right now in other parts of the globe. Am I responsible for sending food to starving children in other countries simply because I can afford it? Or do I have a right to refuse to provide it? That is the real question. If I understand you correctly, you would force me to provide it and charge me with murder for refusing to send a care package to some kid who needs it. I also learned that your right to life is inalienable. That also applies to the kid. His right to life does not mean the right to be supported by those who are not responsible for his welfare. Where has Objectivism ever said anything like this? I'm not sure how your right to life extends to allowing a strange kid to starve to death in an emergency. My right to life means the right to live my life free of interference by others, including those who would force me to devote my resources to alleviating starvation. So you can maintain your property rights to the only source of survival during that time? That is the pursuit of values you hold sacred? Yes, I hold the right to control my own life and property as sacred. Sounds like a real noble ideal. One worth fighting for. Yes, self-determination is a nobel ideal, and one that is well worth fighting for! Anyway, once the kid dies, the issue becomes academic. The right to control one's life and property is never "academic." If it can be compromised for the sake of starving children, it can be compromised for the sake of needy children and then for the sake of not so needy children, and pretty soon for the sake of anyone who is poorer than you are, until everyone is equally poor, equally destitute and equally starving. Again, the issue is not whether one should or should not help starving children around the world. That's up to the individual. The issue is whether one has a right to exist and to live one's life without helping them. As I understand it, your position is that one does not have that right. If your view is consistent with Objectivism, then I've been laboring under a serious philosophical delusion for the last 40 years.
Now it is true that if you are in an emergency yourself, it would certainly be in your self-interest to steal food in order to survive, provided of course that you paid it back when you were able to. In this case, there is a genuine conflict of interest between you and the property owner. The owner has every right to resist your attempt to steal his food. And in cases like this, the law must side with the owner. It cannot become an agent of the thief. That is why no third party would be justified in acting on behalf of the thief. The only time such theft would be morally justified is if the thief himself needs it for his own survival, in which case, the theft is dictated by an ethics of egoism. The moral agent must always act in his or her self-interest. But you cannot institutionalize theft by legalizing it on behalf of the less fortunate. There is nothing here to serve as a rationalization for the welfare state.
- Bill
|
|
