Suggestion for Dr. Yaron Brook re wartime innocents

The following comment by Bob Palin:

James Valliant made an excellent point on the SOLO immigrant thread about the difference between citizens and persons. While persons have the same inalienable rights everywhere, the government’s proper function is to protect the rights of its citizens, not all persons.

reminded me of my November 19, 2004 post on the now-defunct TIA Forum, one that I would like to put up here in order to give it some permanence. The message generated hundreds of replies (taking up seven Forum “pages”) and thousands of views. My sense is that most posters agreed with the points I was making.

The basic idea is to counter Yaron Brook’s statement (I forget where) that, in time of war, innocent citizens on the other side have no rights. Much as I am convinced that Valliant, in his book on “the Brandens,” is being militantly nonobjective and has succumbed to rationalism (which, in the form practiced by many Objectivists, I define as extending principles beyond the observational basis that gave rise to them, or refusing to recognize new knowledge that mandates their alteration), on the basis of Palin’s comment I must agree with Valliant’s point here, and spell out its application to international relations.

I will post the message next.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/12, 1:19pm)

Post 1

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 1:17pm

Suggestion for Dr. Yaron Brook re wartime innocents

Posted 19 November 2004 07:50 PM

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[On the TIA Forum]

I am very impressed with Dr. Yaron Brook. To my mind, he is one of the most dynamic and eloquent spokesmen for the Ayn Rand Institute ever. He always seems to say the things that most need saying, and in the way they need to be said.

However, I am puzzled by the way he has chosen to express the proper attitude to take toward the rights of innocents in war. While granting that all men have rights on the basis of their nature, he states that innocent citizens on the other side in time of war have no rights. On the face of it, this is a contradiction, and I would like to suggest a way in which it can be resolved in accordance with the principles of Objectivism.

The real question here concerns the nature and function of government. Although all men possess rights globally, any given government is an institution charged with the protection of the rights of those people under its jurisdiction. An actual government is always formed with some such limitation in mind; it does not assume the responsibility of protecting the rights of everybody in the world. Like all human institutions, a government has limited resources, and, if it is a rational one, it must view itself as a bulwark against the rest of the world, not as a guardian of it.

Now, if in fulfilling this function of protecting the rights of its citizens, the government of a country must declare war on another country, it must have the object of winning. If in doing so, its armies must kill or injure noncombatants and/or those who had no responsibility in the wrongs the war is an attempt to nullify, then that is merely an illustration of the principle that those wrongs are indeed such and therefore destructive in one way or another. It is worth pointing out here that the “wrongs” in question are almost always the result of the establishment of a system that violates individual rights—that is, dictatorship. The deaths of innocents within a dictatorship that free countries must make war upon are really just one more form in which an unjust social system occasions human suffering.

To sum up, although it is true that all men possess rights by their nature, and that the function of government is to protect those rights, the function of any particular government is only to protect the rights of the citizens under it, by whatever means necessary. It cannot take upon itself the task of protecting everyone on Earth. That is the responsibility of all the other governments. And if they fulfilled it, there would be no necessity to go to war in the first place.

Perhaps the above, or something similar, is Dr. Brook’s actual thinking on the issue. But to my mind, he has not expressed it exactly or explicitly enough to satisfy listeners who might be swayed. Which, to repeat, seems unlike him!

Rodney Rawlings

“Music, Melody, and Songs”

http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm

To hear my musical paean to HALLEY’S COMET (headphones or good speakers urged!):

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rawlings/halleys.comet.mp3

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/12, 4:06pm)

Post 2

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 3:45pm

Rodney, let me give you my impression of Dr. Brook's statements.

Governments are not entities detached from the citizens they represent, and as such the citizens are just as responsible for the actions of their government. Now there are three types of citizens. One actively supports his government, and is therefore guilty and deserving of whatever damage is inflicted upon him through war against his government. The second knows his government is evil, but rather than risking his life, he decides he would rather live a shackled life, but a life nonetheless. While I can't fault him for that decision, he accepts the consequences of association with his government. His taxes and or labor are used to further this evil. He is not innocent. The third type is innocent. It is the dissident who is imprisoned by his government. I believe we should avoid casualties to these people, however, if they are unintentionally killed, I agree with Brook that it is their government that bears moral responsibility. I would imagine that they would welcome that risk, if it meant the possibility of freedom. Do you think I have misunderstood Dr. Brook's statements?

Post 3

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 4:02pm

Jonathan: He said they (presumably including children, who are not imprisoned but are definitely not represented by their governement) have no rights. I was addressing the issue of consistency this raised.

Post 4

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 4:14pm

I would say that they still bear some responsibility. If they are killed in an attack against their government, it is ultimately their government which bears responsiblity for their deaths, (assuming that it was justified retaliatory force used by the attacker). Obviously we should avoid killing these children if at all possible, but I would put them under the same category as the dissident. They are most surely a prisoner of their government.

Post 5

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:43pm

Hi Jonathan,

Who bears responsibility? I don't follow.

Are you sure you understand what I was saying? I say all men have rights, and only lose them if they support their government, etc. The innocent ones retain their rights, but never had any agency to secure those rights for them. And it is not up to us to take that responsibility on.

Post 6

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 6:44pm

Rodney, I don't have an answer already worked up. In a way you are witnessing my exploration of the question, so bear with me if I veer off track.

Let's say an armed assailant barges into my apartment. In this emergency situation I am justified in doing anything in my power to prevent harm from being inflicted upon myself. Let's say I fire several shots, downing my attacker, but a stray bullet passes through the walls and kills an innocent bystander.Who is morally responsible for the death? My attacker, wouldn't you agree? If you do then you can agree that unintended civilian deaths during war, (provided it is a just war), are the moral responsibilty of the agressor nation. Now, the question remains, what if we know, for certain, that innocent people will die in an attack? Let's consider a bank robber who takes several people hostage inside a bank. Now let's say he's got a bomb, a rather large one that is sure to kill thousands, and he is threatening to set it off. What if you could disarm him, but you would almost certainly kill a hostage in the process? I would say that once the bank robber initiates force, he has created a "lifeboat ethics" situation, and each individual owes it to himself to do anything he can to survive, provided he does not intentionally target only innocents. In my first example, if I turn away from my attacker and shoot someone not involved in the attack, that would be wrong. Similarly, if Iran threatens us with a nuclear attack, and we bomb France, we would not be justified. I think an example of an appropriate action, is when our government ordered that any hijacked airplanes after Sept 11 be shot down, knowing full well that innocent people would die. I look forward to your comments on the issue.

Post 7

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 7:56pm

You are walking down the street and a giant radioactive octupus bursts through the pavement and in one tentacle, he has the President of the United States and in another 50 school children and in a third your wife and in a fourth tickets to the World Series and in the fifth a white flag of surrender and in the sixth an atomic bomb and in the seventh and eighth he is juggling back and forth the rights to Ayn Rand's Estate. You are armed with a semi-automatic rocket-launcher, a crossbow, a morningstar, a 9-mm Glock, an Uzi, a syllogism, and a large bucket of fresh oysters. Before you can react, Kofi Annan arrives on the scene, dressed like an octopus, but unknown to you, really is an octopus dressed like a man dressed like an octopus. You decide to kill him with the Glock but between the time you pull the trigger and the time the bullet arrives, you realize that it really a kind of quantum gravitation lens image mirage, and you have really shot yourself. In desparation, you turn to the octopus and offer him anything he wants to save your life. But, the octopus replies that saving your life would not be in his best interests because he loves your wife.

Now, I know we have discussed this before, but this time, I want to consider an alternative to the usual reponse most Objectivists give to this problem. Therefore, would it make a difference, if you could substitute anyone else for Kofi Annan?

You see the dilemma, of course.

Post 8

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 8:02pm

You slay me!

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 8:11pm

Marotta needs to stop making sense, otherwise, we're all going to die from common sense... @_@ ;)

-- Bridget

Post 10

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 8:13pm

Aaron: You slay me!

Ah! Thinking outside the square. Slaying Aaron was not a solution I had considered. Good job, Aaron!

Post 11

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:35pm

Jonathan you have written some excellent posts but I think the original thread was discussing whether innocents in an aggressor nation have rights or not. I think it's an interesting question but I don't think it's terribly important question that needs an answer. Since these innocents could never really exercise their rights until their oppressive government is toppled anyways. We could debate whether they have rights but we all know they can never make any use of any rights until they are free to do so.

I think Rodney agrees with you, that innocents (the third kind of citizen you defined) in an aggressor nation that are killed as a result of retaliation from a nation defending itself, are the responsibility of the nation that initiated force.

The question is, Yaron Brook insists innocents of an aggressor nation have no rigths. But I have a hard time agreeing with that as well as they have done nothing to forfeit them. Children, who have no power over their government, or dissidents actively trying to topple their aggressor nation's government, must surely still retain rights. Only that their safety is not guaranteed or expected by the nation retaliating.

Post 12

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 2:49am

Can anyone direct me to where Dr. Brook made that statement?

Post 13

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 4:21am

Rodney, Jonathan, James and Yaron do not write intelligently on this subject, and that was the purpose of the "radioactive octopus scenario." The argument is without context. The original scenario could be concretized to specific cases -- World War II is an easy one for us, but how does that compare to the Napoleonic Wars? -- and from those discussions, basic principles could be identified. However, that is not what is occuring and it is not what has taken place in the previous "innocent civilian" arguments here in the old SOLO days. It is an unprofitable discussion, being more like "angels on the head of a pin."

Neither wars nor skyscrapers spring into existence without causal antecedants. Both require "clients" who expect "tenents" and "architects" who have "plans" as well as "materials" and "laborers" to say nothing of "building permits" and other rigamarole. The essential distinguishing characteristic between a war and a skyscraper is that the latter is an act of creation, whereas war is destruction, by definition.

That point warrants strong emphasis. Weapons have no productive potential. If a bomb misses its target, less loss occurs, though merely exploding will destroy its surroundings. Just building the bomb, the labor, the materials, all are lost -- even if it is never used. When you consider opportunity cost (that which you give up to get the bomb), you see that the losses compound quickly. It is no accident of history that wars are the actions of governments rather than of businesses.

To assume "a war" or "a just war" or "a defensive war" is to drop the context.
What if you are walking down the street and a man wielding a knife demands your wallet and the only weapon you have will kill everyone on Earth except you? Well, before you hasten to answer, ask yourself how this came about. Where did the man come from? Where did your weapon come from? "...the only weapon" is not the same as "the only alternative." You could run away. You could give him the wallet. You could offer him your wallet and your watch in exchange for his knife and ring. That could psycholoogically disarm him, taking him by complete surprise. Much is possible. And I still want to know why you have this tremendous energy source and the only application seems to be to destroy everyone on Earth. I mean, something that could do that would power a lot of creation -- and might even allow a perfect defense against all weapons.

The "Brangelina" issue of New Individualist has a review of Robert Mayhew's Ayn Rand Answers. Read what Rand said about gun control. She was not a fan of guns.

Skating over the thin ice of psychologizing, I maintain that people who want to bomb cities "with good reason" have unresolved personal conflicts centered on their lack of self-esteem.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/13, 4:25am)

Post 14

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:08am

I maintain that people who want to bomb cities "with good reason" have unresolved personal conflicts centered on their lack of self-esteem.

That was really dumb the last time you said it, and it is still a really dumb statement.

I maintain that people who think that people who want to bomb cities "with good reason" have unresolved personal conflicts centered on their lack of self-esteem themselves have unresolved personal conflicts based on thier feelings of inadequecy, repressesed sexual feelings for their mothers, a longing for a hippie free love state of peace accomplished through all manners of irrationality and absolute pacifism, repressed sado-massachistic erotic fantasies, and of course enjoy skinning cats alive (you sicko!)

To boil down an incredibly complex issue of rights and self defense into such an absurdly disingeneous statement is childish as well as pretentios in it's implicit statement that you alone possess the only accurate knowledge of the world and everyone else is a rabid war mongerering fool purely because they feel bad about themselves. Mind if I take a look at this crystal ball that grants you with the only divine wisdom of the world?

Post 15

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:42am

I sanctioned your bizarre octopus post since it was so creative and so well satirized really bad ethics/war discussions I've encountered. I don't remember all the details, but the worst one I've been in included 'what if Hitler had an antimatter device?'

I don't think you're doing justice to the posts in this thread, however, especially Jonathan's post 6 which it appears you thought you were most parodying. Examples thus far have been either real scenarios or realistic. Context matters, of course, and if stated, principles can be derived from such examples. Also, context is situational, but doesn't require going back to all possible antecedents. Is your assailant armed with a gun...or a wallet? - matters. Did you murder his family? - matters. Did your assailant have a bad day at work or not get the pony he wanted for his sixth birthday? - doesn't.

Post 16

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 7:01am

Cognitively said, Michael, even if there are those who prefer dickeying around your stating the essences and evading the logical consequences..... it is, of course, the old contrast - as I pointed out times before - of the two fundamental worldviews, the Trading or Individualist Syndrome and the Taking or Tribalist Syndrome... further, these syndromes explain the contrast between Islamists and the Western World...

Post 17

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 7:25am

Similarly, if Iran threatens us with a nuclear attack, and we bomb France, we would not be justified.

I part company with you here. It is always justified to bomb France.

Post 18

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 7:32am

Michael,

Post 7 is the best thing I've read in a long time.

Fauth thinks he disagrees with Rawlings, yet every post he writes screams that he doesn't. It seems he can't understand an argument that is not in his own words.

Post 19

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:09am