RoR: Forum

Interesting how often full context is ignored even though Objectivist ethics are contextually absolute.

Example: Shipwrecked on a desert island. Presumably alone. Where is the social context? What if you were stranded in a snow blizzard? How did you happen to be where a blizzard occurred? Does it make a difference if the shelter you find is locked? If it shows or does not show signs of recent use?

Example: How did you happen to be in this "emergency situation?" Was it the result of choices you made? Did your wife's illness happen suddenly? How likely is it then that you would know about the effectiveness of the medicine and the fact that it's in the pharmacy? What if the pharmacist had it because he thought his own wife might need it? Should the pharmacist suffer because of your own poor planning?

Part of being responsible for you own life means accepting the consequences of your choices.

Post 101

Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 5:38pm

Jeff, you write,

Maybe our differences on this topic are more semantic than substance, but I cannot help but wonder at your language where you repeatedly define moral principles as applicable only when they "obligate" us to act in accordance with them. I would never use language like this (I don't believe that Rand does either, although I could be wrong).

You are wrong. I use the term "obligation" in the same way that Rand uses it when she says that a person's "rights impose no obligations on [others] except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 94) In other words, rights impose obligations, but the obligations are only to abstain from violating them. Like Rand, I do not use the term "obligation" in the Kantian sense of a categorical imperative, if that's what you were suggesting.

Instead, I speak about making weighted choices between various alternatives in service of a goal.

That's fine, as long as you recognize that moral principles are the scales on which you weigh them, for it is the moral principles themselves that are formulated in service of a goal. Once formulated, they must be followed consistently and without exception (unless one decides to revise or reject them).

I think that the reason we choose these different approaches in dealing with moral choice may actually have to do with our differences regarding free will vs. determinism.

This doesn't have anything to do with free will versus determinism. I'm a compatibilist; I would make the same argument even if supported the Objectivist view of free will.

In any event, it is not sufficient to say that one is not obligated to follow a moral principle in a specific context unless you can show the reasons why one was at one point obligated to do so and at another point is now under no such obligation.

I thought the reasons were obvious. You are under no obligation to sacrifice your highest values in order to respect the rights of others, which you would be doing if you chose to commit suicide rather than steal someone else's food.

Or in other words, it seems that you are just substituting the term "obligated" in place of "rights applying" in your explanation, so that it is now obligation that winks into and out of existence depending upon the context.

Rights imply obligations. If I have a right against your stealing my food, then you are obligated to abstain from stealing it. Therefore, if you are not obligated to abstain from stealing it, then I do not have a right against your stealing it. (If P implies Q, then not-Q implies not-P.)

You seem to be saying that emergency situations (which would need to be defined in some precise manner) free us from the need to respect certain rights (which would also have to be defined and tied to the context of the specific emergency). I, on the other hand, simply say that that when circumstances bring one or more of our moral principles into direct conflict, in order to act we are required to make a choice between them. The proper choice is determined by an analysis of the benefits and harm that may result, along with an understanding of whether that harm can or can not be mitigated in the future, and to what degree. I am never obligated to act in any particular moral manner. I choose to act in a particular way because it gets me to, or as close as possible to my goal of being the type of person I desire.

True moral principles do not conflict; if they conflict, then at least one of them is false. If you discover that your principles conflict, then the conflict must be resolved by rejecting the ones that turn out, upon examination, to be false. To be sure, in formulating your principles, you do so based on the benefits of following them, but once the principles are formulated, they are absolute and must be followed consistently and without exception (unless, of course, one decides to revise or reject them).

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/18, 5:40pm)

Post 102

Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 5:58pm

Rick,

How you got stranded on an island without food or in a blizzard without shelter or in need of life-saving medicine for your wife is irrelevant to the morality of using force on behalf of your own (or your wife's) survival. If the choice is between your wife's survival and the survival of the pharmacists wife, you choose your wife's survival. You do not sacrifice her life for the sake of respecting the pharmacist's rights. Nor do you sacrifice your own life for the sake of respecting the property rights of the owner of the food or of the shelter which you need in order to survive.

Yes, it's immoral for you to have foolishly put yourself in that position, when you could have avoided it, but that doesn't mean that you are therefore obligated to bear the consequences if it means your own demise. Why would you? You have nothing to gain by it.

- Bill

Post 103

Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 6:39pm

Bill,

To be sure I understand, you're saying that criminals are morally correct to defend themselves from the cops.

Post 104

Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 9:29pm

Rick,

Yes, if it is in the criminal's self-interest, but that's a very questionable premise, isn't it?! Again, this is a matter of context. What are the criminal's prospects, if he is arrested and goes to jail? How long is his sentence likely to be.

If he is going to be incarcerated for only a few months, it probably would not be in his interest to defend himself against the cops. If his attempt to defend himself fails, he could be charged with a much more serious crime, and be in prison for a much longer stay. And even if he succeeds in defending himself, he will be sought after for resisting arrest and if apprehended will suffer the consequences. He should, of course, recompense his victim if he can, which spending time in prison would certainly interfere with.

But let's say that if arrested and convicted, he will likely get the death penalty or spend the rest of his life behind bars. Then yes, he should do his best to avoid being apprehended. He certainly should not turn himself in. I had a discussion with John Hospers about this very issue, and he argued that the criminal was morally obligated to turn himself in. What could a criminal who is facing the death penalty possibly gain by doing that?? However, I don't think Hospers is an ethical egoist, so I wasn't surprised to hear him make that argument.

Of course, the criminal should not have committed a crime, in the first place. That would have been his most self-interested course of action.

- Bill

Post 105

Sunday, May 18, 2008 - 10:05pm

Well, I'd sure like to see Rand's reaction to this latest revelation regarding criminal morality! And all in the name of ethical egoism too!! I'm certainly getting a long overdue education about the intricacies of Objectivist ethics and now understand that I haven't been thinking clearly at all about this subject. This certainly gives me quite a lot to ponder as I consider a whole new set of moral precepts to guide me towards a wondrous new future. I just love that giddy feeling I get when my mine expands. Why, it's just like falling off a cliff .....

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 106

Monday, May 19, 2008 - 3:15pm

Bill,
Suppose a person in an emergency situation steals someone's property in order to save his wife's life. Why is he "obligated to make restitution" if it turns out not to be in his best interest to do so?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 107

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 8:22am

Glenn,

Good question! I would say that it IS in his interest to do so, because it's in his interest to respect other people's rights (in non-emergency situations). Once the emergency is over, he is morally obligated to continue respecting other people's rights, which would include paying back "the loan," since at that point his wife's immediate survival is no longer threatened.

- Bill

Post 108

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 9:05am

Bill,
So, aren't you saying that this person should "turn himself in"? Suppose the victim decides that paying back "the loan" is insufficient, and that the perp should be arrested. Is he morally obligated to turn him self in then?

Why don't the practical considerations that you invoked for the criminal defending himself from the cops apply here? It may be true in general that it is in a person's best interest to respect other people's rights, but if I live in Missouri and the theft took place in California, is it really in my best interest to turn myself in and face jail time (and here I am with a sick wife), or should I just blow off the guy in CA, knowing that I will never have to deal with him again?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 109

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 9:24am

Bill:

You write:

> Making an exception to rights in the case of a 'life-boat' emergency is not pragmatic,
> because one is not, strictly speaking, abandoning a moral principle. The moral principle
> simply doesn't apply in such a case.

and

> Rights imply obligations. If I have a right against your stealing my food, then you are
> obligated to abstain from stealing it.

and

> True moral principles do not conflict; if they conflict, then at least one of them is false.
> If you discover that your principles conflict, then the conflict must be resolved by rejecting
> the ones that turn out, upon examination, to be false.

Based upon these quotes as well as other sections of your writing on this topic, I am confused as to how you are defining a "right" and a "moral principle".

If a person has a "right" to their property and one has a "moral principle" that they should not steal another person's property which they are obliged to follow, then, when placed in an emergency situation, how is it that the "moral principle" and/or the other person's "right" "simply doesn't apply"? This is where I get confused.

I understand the point that one's life is one's highest value and that that highest value may be in jeopardy in the emergency situation and that these extraordinary circumstances may require extraordinary choices and actions in order to save oneself. But despite all that, I still fail to see exactly what is responsible for moral principles (and possibly rights?) being applicable at one moment and non-applicable at another. In the emergency situation, where I see tough choices needing to be made between competing principles, you appear to see a clear choice unobstructed by any conflict whatsoever, because the moral principles that generally applied to one's life are now no longer even a factor needing to be considered under the new circumstances as they do not apply. Despite my best attempts to understand your arguments, I get stuck here. So either I am failing to identify some aspect of the nature emergencies that can explain why moral principles do not apply to them, or else I must be failing to understand exactly what you mean by the term "moral principle".

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 110

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 9:53am

Rick makes a good point when he asks how it was that the individual came to find himself in the “emergency.”

Bill responds: “How you got stranded on an island without food or in a blizzard without shelter or in need of life-saving medicine for your wife is irrelevant to the morality of using force on behalf of your own (or your wife's) survival. If the choice is between your wife's survival and the survival of the pharmacists wife, you choose your wife's survival.”

It is hardly irrelevant since it goes to the question of who caused the “emergency.” For example, if you go up Everest with no preparation, declare an emergency on the second day, and start choosing your wife’s survival over everyone else’s on the hill.

By Bill’s logic, “If I have a right against your stealing my food, then you are obligated to abstain from stealing it. Therefore, if you are not obligated to abstain from stealing it, then I do not have a right against your stealing it.”

So, not only will the victims have to contend with the marauding couple, they will also have to swallow the notion that they do not have a right against the mal-prepared, murdering thieves! And it is the victims, by this logic, who will face charges later for putting up a fight—which they had no right to do—against the couple that found themselves bereft of obligations due to their “emergency.”

This is a mess, Bill!

Post 111

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 10:03am

Bill - responding to post 95, and I have not had time to finish the thread, I think you are wrong in this final statement:

Good question. If the person were a close friend, it would very difficult for me to do, although if I were capable of it, it would not violate the morality of egoism, which is the key issue here. If it were a total stranger, I think that I probably would steal the food, even if it meant the other person's death, because if I have to choose between his survival and my own, I would choose my own. If it were my wife or significant other, I don't think I could do it.

First, I think it is sort of a false scenario, in that it is highly unlikely verging on impossible to take a property that would result in someone's death - much more likely to be the scenario Rand describes where to you - life is at stake in the immediate timeframe - and for them it is mere property. In this case life trumps it, and to my mind even as a "victim" I can't really imagine wanting property at the expense of someone's life. So many digressions... in post-apocalypse or something I may because there may be more people than can possibly survive - but for now let us assume I would be just fine without the object.

Ok if it is what you describe, say I have to kill someone to get the food, or take some medicine they have but I didn't bring and they would die - then I am sacrificing their life for mine - I am living on the life of another - and I don't think I could do that to anyone, period.

Post 112

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 10:36am

How does someone else's "emergency" affect my right to my property?

If your emergency means you have the "right" to take my property, does that mean I no longer have the right to defend it?

Kurt's point is excellent:

Ok if it is what you describe, say I have to kill someone to get the food, or take some medicine they have but I didn't bring and they would die - then I am sacrificing their life for mine - I am living on the life of another - and I don't think I could do that to anyone, period.

Remember Objectivism talks about man's life qua man. The Objectivist ethics is not about physical survival as the ultimate end.

Post 113

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 6:13pm

Glenn wrote,

So, aren't you saying that this person should "turn himself in"? Suppose the victim decides that paying back "the loan" is insufficient, and that the perp should be arrested. Is he morally obligated to turn him self in then?

Why is what my victim decides the standard for what I should do? What I should do is make the victim whole, not turn myself in just because he decides that I should be in custody.

Jeff wrote,

If a person has a "right" to their property and one has a "moral principle" that they should not steal another person's property which they are obliged to follow, then, when placed in an emergency situation, how is it that the "moral principle" and/or the other person's "right" "simply doesn't apply"? This is where I get confused.

Because the context is different, and moral principles are context dependent. For instance, it's wrong to lie, but not if doing so is necessary to protect your child form a kidnapper. The principle of honesty doesn't apply in the latter case, because the context is different. Similarly, the principle of rights doesn't apply when respecting it deprives you of your highest values.

Jon wrote,

By Bill’s logic, “If I have a right against your stealing my food, then you are obligated to abstain from stealing it. Therefore, if you are not obligated to abstain from stealing it, then I do not have a right against your stealing it.”

So, not only will the victims have to contend with the marauding couple, they will also have to swallow the notion that they do not have a right against the mal-prepared, murdering thieves! And it is the victims, by this logic, who will face charges later for putting up a fight—which they had no right to do—against the couple that found themselves bereft of obligations due to their “emergency.”

By saying that my victims had no right against being robbed, I simply meant that I was not obligated to abstain from robbing them. That doesn't mean that they would not be justified in defending themselves. In this situation, there is a genuine conflict of interest. My interests conflict with theirs, so they would be as justified in trying to stop me from robbing them as I would be in trying to rob them. Moreover, the law should side with the victims, not with the perpetrator, because the purpose of a legal system is to defend people against the initiation of force, and it is I who am initiating force, not my victims.

Rick asked,

How does someone else's "emergency" affect my right to my property?

If your emergency means you have the "right" to take my property, does that mean I no longer have the right to defend it?

No, as indicated above. To say that I would have "a right" to take your property if my life depended on it is simply to say that I would be "justified" in taking it. It is not to say that you must allow me to take it. You would be equally justified in defending your property against my attempt to take it. Once again, what exists here is a genuine conflict of interest.

Kurt's point is excellent:
"Ok if it is what you describe, say I have to kill someone to get the food, or take some medicine they have but I didn't bring and they would die - then I am sacrificing their life for mine - I am living on the life of another - and I don't think I could do that to anyone, period."
Remember Objectivism talks about man's life qua man. The Objectivist ethics is not about physical survival as the ultimate end.

The Objectivist ethics is not about physical survival bereft of values as the ultimate end, for according to Objectivism, suicide is proper if you have nothing left to live for. But the assumption in the emergency scenario is that you do have something to live for, and that in order to preserve your life (or your wife's), you must initiate force against another human being. There is no reason whatsoever why I should give up a life that I value in order to abstain from initiating force. I have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.

- Bill

Post 114

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 10:42pm

Bill,

Previously, especially in your post 98, you seemed to hold fast to preserving the lack of any conflict of principles or interests. You seemed to say that the individual in an emergency situation doesn’t violate the rights of those he murders or steals from because they don’t have rights in an emergency situation.

Now you have backed away from that, clarifying that these situations do in fact present a “genuine conflict of interest,” and that the perpetrator in fact initiates force against (violates the rights of) the victims.

I’ve seen many Objectivists try to argue that one may never initiate force against (violate the rights of) another—then go on to say that in emergency situations there are no rights, so all bets are off and whatever proceeds cannot be considered an initiation of force or a violation of rights.

I like your clarification better because it is more honest. Instead of saying one may never violate the rights of another but sometimes rights don’t apply, you seem to be saying that sometimes one can violate the rights of another (if I understand you.)

I continue to agree with Rick that the circumstances under which the “emergency” came about are critical. If it is no one’s fault, I’m mostly with you, I think. If it’s the fault of the party that now wants to rampage those who share no fault, then no.

Post 115

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 11:36pm

Bill writes:

> Similarly, the principle of rights doesn't apply when respecting it deprives you of your highest values.

Having re-read your restatement of the two examples, I still have no idea how to objectively identify the context that rises to the level of an emergency that justifies this dismissal of another's rights from one that does not. Nor do I know what the cutoff point is in my value hierarchy where moral principles once again trump the requirements of my "highest values" and swing back into force.

Rather than commenting on this further myself, I'll just highlight this particular statement and let others draw their own conclusion as to whether this seems like an appropriate application of Objectivist ethics. Comments are welcome. I would love to know what you think.

Regards,
--
Jeff
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 5/20, 11:46pm)

Post 116

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 1:50am

Jon wrote (to me),

Previously, especially in your post 98, you seemed to hold fast to preserving the lack of any conflict of principles or interests. You seemed to say that the individual in an emergency situation doesn’t violate the rights of those he murders or steals from because they don’t have rights in an emergency situation.

Jon, my point was that they don't have a right against my initiating force against them in that situation, but they still have a right to be recompensed once the emergency is over, because once it is over I no longer have a life-saving need for their property.

Now you have backed away from that, clarifying that these situations do in fact present a “genuine conflict of interest,” and that the perpetrator in fact initiates force against (violates the rights of) the victims.

He initiates force against them, but my point was that in those situations, they don't have a right against his doing so. Therefore, his initiating force against them doesn't violate that right, because in those situations, they don't possess it.

I’ve seen many Objectivists try to argue that one may never initiate force against (violate the rights of) another—then go on to say that in emergency situations there are no rights, so all bets are off and whatever proceeds cannot be considered an initiation of force or a violation of rights.

No, no. That's not my argument. My argument is that it is indeed an initiation of force, but that in those situations the victims don't have a right against it.

I like your clarification better because it is more honest. Instead of saying one may never violate the rights of another but sometimes rights don’t apply, you seem to be saying that sometimes one can violate the rights of another (if I understand you.)

No, you misunderstand me. A right is that which, by definition, cannot justifiably be violated. If you have a right against my coercing you, then I have a moral obligation not to coerce you. If, on the other hand, I am justified in coercing you, then you cannot have a right against my coercing you.

I continue to agree with Rick that the circumstances under which the “emergency” came about are critical. If it is no one’s fault, I’m mostly with you, I think. If it’s the fault of the party that now wants to rampage those who share no fault, then no.

Okay, I understand your objection. I would simply say that, even so, the irresponsible party would still have nothing to gain by placing the freedom of others above his own survival.

- Bill

Post 117

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 6:30am

Bill - are you arguing that you would kill someone who did nothing to you in order to save your own life and end theirs?

Post 118

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 8:34am

Fred decides to stop for a beer after work. One beer leads to another and before long it's 9:00 PM. Suddenly Fred realizes that he was supposed to stop at a particular drug store to get medicine for his wife. It's critical that he get it to her immediately in order to keep her alive.

When he gets to the drug store it's closed for the evening. Realizing that he is in an emergency situation, he breaks in the back door and takes the medicine, leaving behind compensation for the medicine and the broken window. But, just as he's leaving, the owner comes in with a gun and tells him to stop. Fred tries to reason with him, but the owner isn't buying his story. Fred realizes that he's in an emergency situation, so he attacks the owner and kills him with his own gun. However, he doesn't realize that the owner had set off a silent alarm system and the police are on the way.

Just as Fred is leaving by the back door, he hears the sirens. He runs to the sidewalk, just as the police cars pull up to the drug store. The police give chase and Fred ducks into a crowded department store. The police tell Fred to stop, but, realizing that it's not in his best interest (because of his sick wife) to be arrested, Fred fires at the police. The police return fire. Fred sees that he's in an emergency situation so he grabs a twelve year old girl to use as a shield. He then escapes through the back door, leaving the girl's bullet-ridden body behind.

Once outside, Fred realizes that time is of the essence. This is surely an emergency situation. So, he tries to commandeer a car from a motorist stopped at a red light. When the driver refuses to give up the car, Fred kills him and takes the car. Since time is now even more of the essence, Fred drives as fast as possible, forcing several cars off the road, killing three people. He manages to make it home without being followed. He goes in the house and gives his wife the medicine. He's just in time and his wife is fine and they settle down to watch "American Idol".

Question: which, if any, of Fred's actions were not justified?

Post 119

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 10:15am