RoR: Forum

I feel sad that the "unsanction" feature no longer avails itself here as I would cheerfully use it against MSK's most recent post.

After a long and equivocating diatribe, he asked:

Shall we now talk about character and morality?

I already have. You have repeatedly exposed yourself as an evader and a fascist. You hinge your entire argument on this central thesis:

Physical in-your-face type starvation of another human being (adult or child) who is a citizen of our society is abuse.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Based on that argument, you can justify the entirety of today's welfare state and many other intrusive programs.

You twist Ayn Rand's words to have meanings not possible in the wider context of her philosophy. If I never placed that adult or child in that situation in the first place, I have no obligation to share my food with that person. Only the people who initiated force so as to actualize the starvation should be legally punished -- not anyone else.

Stop calling yourself an Objectivist. You clearly are not one. Fortunately, I do not need you.

Post 101

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 11:54am

Luke,

Pardon me for butting in.

Could we limit ourselves ONLY to MSK's hypothetical.

"A man encounters an abandoned child in the woods. He has food and the child has none. It would be no sacrifice to the adult to feed the child until help could be found. The adult eats and lets the child starve to death."

The situation could only be caused in the first place by the CRIME having been committed of abandoning the child in the woods, presumably to get rid of him [kill him]. Altruism aside, is, by allowing this crime to be carried out when it is in your power to prevent it not being an accessory? Legality aside, what do you think the correct moral action is given the circumstances: what would Luke Setzer do? A crime has been committed, you have the power to thwart the intended consequences of the crime.

Does objectivist morality say NOTHING about circumstances like this? We believe in minimal government, that is, we give the power of the use of force over to agents of the government, by choice. If no agent is present, are there no actions we are morally required to take if we are witness to a crime?

Post 102

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:13pm

Mike Erickson, if you are asking what Luke Setzer would do, well, of course he would feed the child -- unless the child demonstrated himself as a total brat. But if you are asking what the government should do to Luke Setzer for taking no action, the answer is, "Nothing." Speculations about how the child was left there, etc. leading to accusations of "accessory to a crime" are just that -- speculations. The central issue here is whether the child has an inherent "right" to the food in my backpack simply because he is there. My answer is, "No."

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.

Post 103

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:23pm

Luke,

I am not in complete agreement with LP. I may (or may not) tell the women that she is in no position to demand anything, then I would nevertheless help her. I think objectivists who say things like they wouldn't help a bleeding, pregnant women on their doorstep are not being truthful. Of course they would. To be personally dishonest while trying to illustrate an abstract moral point kind of works against itself, don't you think? Overstatement of a point is also a logical fallacy.

Regardless, what do you make of my last question in my previous post: "Does objectivist morality say NOTHING about circumstances like this? We believe in minimal government, that is, we give the power of the use of force over to agents of the government, by choice. If no agent is present, are there no actions we are morally required to take if we are witness to a crime?"

Post 104

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:28pm

Luke,

I stand by Rand's words. Citizens have the right to life. Starvation (under the conditions discussed) is abuse.

I call myself an Objectivist. And I do not need you either.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/19, 12:30pm)

Post 105

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:52pm

Mike Erickson, you asked:

Does Objectivist morality say nothing about circumstances like this? We believe in minimal government, that is, we give the power of the use of force over to agents of the government, by choice. If no agent is present, are there no actions we are morally required to take if we are witness to a crime?

Morally or legally? A witness to a crime who stands to lose nothing by reporting that crime to the police would act immorally, i.e. against his own self-interest, by not doing so. Discouraging crime by reporting it helps everyone in the long run. As for the law, that is another matter. But you asked about morals and not laws.

You also asked:

I think Objectivists who say things like they wouldn't help a bleeding, pregnant woman on their doorstep are not being truthful.

We shall have to wait and see. I can think of a few people to whom I would offer no assistance but instead would watch bleed and die such as Hillary Clinton, Fidel Castro, and other notables, as well as some of the bullies I recall from my school years and certain unsavory coworkers. Schadenfreude!

Post 106

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 1:07pm

"I can think of a few people to whom I would offer no assistance but instead would watch bleed and die such as Hillary Clinton, Fidel Castro, and other notables, as well as some of the bullies I recall from my school years and certain unsavory coworkers."

Luke, I hope your above statement is rhetorical and not literal.

Post 107

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 1:08pm

Wow, I think I'm talking to a lot of people who haven't lived near section 8 housing.

---Landon

Post 108

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 1:12pm

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.

(The question of parental obligations was dealt with in my previous post, so don't try that diversion again MSK. And keep your posts to a couple of paragraphs. Your long posts are intellectual disasters.)

MSK's particular example is a diversion from the rest of the discussion that took place before it. But it isn't a hard one to answer.

Helping people in such circumstances is a moral, benevolent and pro life thing to do. Someone with a rational heirarchy of values wouldn't give a second thought to helping a starving baby on the side of the road (in most contexts) but this question has nothing do with what they are legally obligated to do in that case. That question requires a different set of parameters for very very important reasons.

- Jason

Post 109

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:03pm

Hong asked:

Luke, I hope your above statement is rhetorical and not literal.

I did mean it literally, Hong. So what? Would you help anyone in need regardless of his character or past behavior?

Landon wrote:

Wow, I think I'm talking to a lot of people who haven't lived near section 8 housing.

Please explain this. I grew up around poor people. Some had decent characters while others were total losers. What would you like me to do about that?

Post 110

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:13pm

Then, Luke, you just fully endorsed that you yourself (or your loved ones) should be left to bleed to die by somebody who disagree with you (or your loved ones) merely on ideologies.

Post 111

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:17pm

Hong,

Luke said:

"My life ultimately belongs to me and no part of it belongs to my neighbor or his children. I take no issue with assisting a helpless child as the decent action to take. I take profound issue with government mandating such assistance "or else."

And later he said:

"If I never placed that adult or child in that situation in the first place, I have no obligation to share my food with that person. Only the people who initiated force so as to actualize the starvation should be legally punished -- not anyone else."

These are the only two statements that he should have said, nothing else. So, one can rail all they want about Luke�s delivery and examples; as usual, they leave much to be desired. But his central tenet, his fundamental argument � that the state should NOT have the right to coerce an individual citizen out of any aspect of his life; that argument is wholly consistent with Objectivist philosophy. And it is valid no matter how many implausible emergency scenarios one wishes to construct, and no matter how horrifying the consequences within those emergency scenarios. The legal obligation of the state to protect individual rights, does not by corollary, imply any legal duty upon its citizens.

Life is not one giant hospital, and it is also not one giant government agency; with every single individual being required to fulfill the duties of a policeman or soldier.

So notwithstanding Luke�s desire, to allow the kid that hit him with a spitball in the 8th grade to starve to death, and his lumping of Hillary with Fidel, his central argument is nonetheless: wholly valid.

Of course, Hong, you might ask me, �What would you do, George?� But I think you already know the answer to this. Not only would I feed the child if I had enough food for both of us, as Luke says, but even if I did not, and as a consequnce it endangered my life by doing so. But the standard that I have set for myself, as a personal moral obligation based on my own value system; that does not give me the right to impose it on other people, by force, or the threat of force.

George

Post 112

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:24pm

William Scott Scherk,

You asked me about the Yaron Brook statement on tsumani victims. I was mistaken. It was not him. It was an article by David Holcberg, entitled "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims," and published on December 30, 2004. It is either no longer on the ARI site, or I haven't been able to find it there. It stated flat out that the USA should not send money to aid the victims. He considered government aid for disaster victims to be an act of "vicious morality" (altruism). He stated clearly that the disaster victims should not be helped because they, even in those straights, "have less," and did not earn the wealth. Thus, with no moral claim on those who did produce, they should not be helped. (His syllogism.) From the article:

According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it.

What is now up on ARI about tsunami victims is a small piece by Bernstein entitled "Technology and Industry Saves Lives," dated January 11, 2005. The issue of government aid to victims is avoided entirely in this article.

For some reason, the reality of all those dead bodies on TV made the issue of helping the survivors seem to the public a little more than just an exercise of a vicious morality. It was too clear that the emergency situation imposed its own conditions above those of human design.

Man cannot dictate human morality to the forces of raw nature, nor claim a "normal conditions" moral standard for cleaning up the mess. That is why the concepts of "emergency situation" and "normal conditions" exist.

David Kelley suggested at the time that generosity is in our own best interest and there were many other Objectivist discussions on outrage at the mismanagement of funds, Indonesia's arrogance, etc. But ARI was first in line to offer its suggestion to the American public. It did not sustain that suggestion over time.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 2/19, 2:31pm)

Post 113

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:26pm

Well said, George.

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:26pm

Section 8 housing is welfare discounted housing. The way people create more financial ability for themselves is by creating more problems. They have children simply to create a liability the state must take care of (or if they don't do it intentionally they sure as hell don't try hard to avoid it).

I'm not saying that being poor automatically makes you immoral but being comfortable with the welfare state does.

And it was more in response to your detractors than to you.

---Landon

Post 115

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:28pm

Hong wrote:

Then, Luke, you just fully endorsed that you yourself (or your loved ones) should be left to bleed to die by somebody who disagree with you (or your loved ones) merely on ideologies.

Of course. I would feel shocked if they did anything else.

Post 116

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 2:59pm

Luke,

You said:

"Morally or legally? A witness to a crime who stands to lose nothing by reporting that crime to the police would act immorally, i.e. against his own self-interest, by not doing so. Discouraging crime by reporting it helps everyone in the long run. As for the law, that is another matter. But you asked about morals and not laws."

I believe you just conceded MSK's position on his hypothetical because it contains the statement: "It would be no sacrifice to the adult to feed the child until help could be found." Therefore the adult "stands to lose nothing".

So, it would be immoral, in this case, to not feed the child because you would not merely be reporting a crime but you would be preventing it from being carried out to its conclusion.

As far as distinguishing the MORAL from the LEGAL: I would hope in an Objectivist minimal government legal system that the moral and the legal would be VERY much in synch with each other. Not that we would be COMPELLED to be altruistic, but it would be illegal to aid and abet crime.

Further; to insist that you would allow a child to die "if they were a brat" or a pregnant women to bleed to death on your doorstep "if they were Hillary Clinton" shows a profound lack of the ability of INTROSPECTION. I am CERTAIN that you would do neither. Perhaps this sort of lack of introspection contributes to the lack of credibility of OBJECTIVISM as explained by some of it's more adamant advocates?
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 2/19, 3:08pm)

Post 117

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 3:19pm

They walked to his doorstep... they can walk to the next one.

---Landon

Post 118

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 3:21pm

Yes, George, I can even guess what you would do to somebody who disagree with you "merely on ideologies", or whom you don't even like.

The problem is that Luke did not stop where he should have. As you see now, he has gone far beyond "his fundamental argument � that the state should NOT have the right to coerce an individual citizen out of any aspect of his life". I don't have any problem with this point at all. The paragraph that I cited and his last posts (#109 and #115) are the things that I'd like him to clarify, and they have nothing to do with government, but everything to do with the person.

You said that �But the standard that I have set for myself, as a personal moral obligation based on my own value system�� Yes, you should then be surrounded by people who share the same value as you and treat you just as how you would treat them. What I want to say is that, your behavior (that you could even endanger yourself to help somebody you deem deserving) is not only in your own self-interest, but also in full agreement with Objectivist ethics. As far as I understand it, the Golden Rule is fully consistent with Objectivist philosophy.

Hong

Post 119

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 3:28pm