who acted morally, who acted immorally, in this recent incident?

Don't tell me to ignore your post when you address one to me that I am replying to:

Curtis, Ted,

I'm talking about the justification for the creation of a law that compels people to help others. That is altruistic -

Do you disagree that laws like the "hit and run" I mentioned are "an inadequate argument for laws"? I'm not. I'm saying such laws are precisely for the purposes of what Rand said man's self-esteem and egoism are for

--"Other men are of value."

There is no need to get huffy with others when they offer you a reasoned argument after you have named them as someone who is qualified to reply. I will address whom I wish, when I wish, and in the fashion I see fit. You talked about laws forcing "altruistic acts." I offered my opinion that putting Rand's idea into law would do what she said was the reverence of species solidarity.

But you challenged me, and upon further research, I found in the chapter "Collectivized Ethics" this:

"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society--as an organized political system--has no rights in the matter at all."

So you are correct, and my assumption about what Rand would do to protect civilization in a manner that serves and protects that civilization if it is a rational one was entirely incorrect. It was my position to say there should be such laws, very limited in scope, and certainly not to find a correspondence between "the general welfare" and society's "many intrusions into our lives and the many violations of our individual rights." But "the general welfare" does exist, and while I agree it must be limited in scope, it nevertheless exists.

So I ask this in earnest: What ought to be done with a person who witnesses a murder and then walks away, or witnesses a hit-and-run who then drives away? What about compelling a person to speak as a witness in court? Why do you think they lock up material witnesses who may flee? When and where is it wrong for society to protect itself in such situations when the goal of the civilization is NOT legalized altruism, but rather civil justice for victims?

Post 21

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 2:29pm

Ted,

Could be worth a new thread to ask: Under Objectivism, what do citizens owe their government; What should be the consequences if that debt goes unpaid?

Jordan

Post 22

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 4:59pm

Curtis,

You said, "Do you disagree that laws like the 'hit and run' I mentioned are 'an inadequate argument for laws'? I'm not. I'm saying such laws are precisely for the purposes of what Rand said man's self-esteem and egoism are for
--'Other men are of value'."

I'm not following you clearly enough on that - you'd have to say more about what you mean by 'inadequate argument for laws'.

But I can say that I would never accept maintenance or promotion or support of 'self-esteem' as a justification for a law. I can not even imagine how that relationship would work. I was very fortunate in being able to spend considerable time with Branden when I was working for my license in psychology and you won't find a bigger proponent of self-esteem, but I would never make it the basis of a law.
--------------------

I reserve the right to periodic huffiness. Tough it up... You'll survive. :-)

But you misunderstood me when you bristled about my telling when or to whom or under what circumstances you can post. I wouldn't try to tell another what to do - remember, I'm taking the position that if it doesn't violate rights it shouldn't be prohibited. What I meant was that if I have mischaracterized your argument, just say so, but you don't have to, you can also choose to ignore me.
---------------------

I deeply appreciate your recognition that you were wrong in thinking that Rand took that position. It is rare that one finds people with the level of integrity and the good sense to correct misstatements. Contrary to popular belief it increases credibility and effectiveness.
---------------------

You said, "What ought to be done with a person who witnesses a murder and then walks away, or witnesses a hit-and-run who then drives away? What about compelling a person to speak as a witness in court? Why do you think they lock up material witnesses who may flee?"

Here you are on much stronger ground. Whereas the witness did not violate the rights of anyone, there is a person who did violate rights, and for the government to act on behalf of the victim of the rights violation, the state must have the machinery - including subpoena power.

On a practical level it is needed for government to protect individual rights and to create the machinery and the environment in which rights have the best chance of not being violated.

On a theoretical level you can not have such a thing as a right to violate a right. So, I have some sort of error to work out.

In the meantime, I am going to opt for keeping those laws but being extra careful to see they aren't abused.
-----------------------

You said, "When and where is it wrong for society to protect itself in such situations when the goal of the civilization is NOT legalized altruism, but rather civil justice for victims?"

I would never use that language because it will make it so hard to get it right. Society is a group of individuals and they don't rightfully protect society - the protect the rights of the individual. And I'm not clear that we should ascribe motivations to civilizations in that fashion.

Post 23

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 8:08am

Steve, you said "Society is a group of individuals and they don't rightfully protect society - the[y] protect the rights of the individual." I agree. I was using "society" as Rand used it in the particular instance I quoted: "as an organized political system--." I would guess that as organized individuals, it has the right to protect its members: citizens.

Since this debate began with the question of whether those EMTs had the right to step over and to ignore a person in need, I think we would have to ask this question: Is the life of a person in need worth more in that emergency situation than the right of anyone to simply step past without assisting? Of course, we would necessarily have to ask: Worth more--to whom (or what)? I include "what" because a life is important to a society of individuals who value species solidarity.

Objectivists believe "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a nonvalue." (Rand; Ethics of Emergencies) In that chapter Rand wrote that altruism has "destroyed the concepts of any authentic benevolence or good will among men [and] indocrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness..." (Perhaps those EMTs were "indocrinated".)

She went on: "This present discussion [the chapter "Ethics"] is concerned with the principles by which one identifies and evaluates the instances involving a man's nonsacrificial help to others." She goes on for several paragraphs about people we love, such as family, but then says that if the person is a stranger "it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal..."

So I ask: does a political system that is rational and which values species solidarity value the life of one person more or less than the rights of another to walk away, when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal? "Minimal" would have to be legally defined if such "Good Samaratin Laws" were to become more prevalent than they are now.

But that doesn't diminish the question of the value to a rational society versus the value to society of the individual's right to walk away? Which is worth more?

I am not asking for specific instances. If such a concern was taken up by any State's legislature, and the decision was made that a life is worth more than the right to walk away, we may conclude one of several things: 1) "the general welfare" would indeed become " the most good for the most people and would come to deny the rights of individuals when those right are worth more; 2) the law would be used hesitatingly by rational legislators uncomfortable with denying individual rights over the so-called "group rights" of the needy and all would remain well; 3) an irrational legislature would forget where the line is drawn.

Specific instances are for later, after the metaethics question has been answered: Are Good Samaratin laws, providing for an "opt out" when the individual feels his safety is at risk, proper in a society that values human life over the rights of individuals in emergency situations; or the do individual rights trump a life in need, thus (seemingly) negating species solidarity? OR does species solidarity pertain to absolute individual rights when the life of another may be lost?

"A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all other values, and, as such, a common bond..." Rand wrote, and he "regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty, and grants them that initial good will in the name of their human potential." This is the same "good will" involved in the "psychological base of species solidarity."

So, if rational men are able to find that balance whereby they do not invalidate the individual rights of one while at the same time upholding that life is more valuable than the Good Samaratin laws in emergencies, is it right to conclude that those Samaratin lawa are merely the concretized codice of the statement Rand made that "for the value of the human life [ ] one helps strangers in an emergengy--and only in an emergency"?

Post 24

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 11:52am

resubmitted as blog entry.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/09, 10:13pm)

Post 25

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 4:06pm

Curtis,

You said, "Since this debate began with the question of whether those EMTs had the right to step over and to ignore a person in need, I think we would have to ask this question: Is the life of a person in need worth more in that emergency situation than the right of anyone to simply step past without assisting?

Maybe they did NOT have that right because of an oath they took or a term in their contract. And I agree that it was a morally reprehensible act.

But, my only concern, in this debate was to ensure the requirement of laws arising out of individual rights stayed as bright as possible.

So, if for the sake of argument we establish that they had no oath, and had no contractual obligation, and they were not paid by taxpayers, and that someone proposed a law that would compel them to help a victim in dire need. If you agree there should be a law under those conditions, we still have an argument.

If you still believe that that system you described as "...which values species solidarity value the life of one person more or less than the rights of another to walk away..." (which I don't fully understand) justifies using force to compel a bystander to help - to pass law that makes that bystander a criminal - that threatens him with jail or fines... then we do have an argument.

I do not disagree with Rand's moral judgments in this area. But I do disagree with your attempt to convert her moral argument into political arguments that justify the state violating the rights of a bystander who has violated no ones rights.

If you are arguing on the utilitarian or pragmatic basis of which society would be the better one - a society that holds a strict and severe interpretation of individual rights or one that makes exceptions and permits violations of individual rights in order to ensure the possible well-being of some victims that would be handled better in certain emergency cases... Then the answer is clear. The first society, the one that is fierce in it's demand that laws not be passed that violated individual rights will prove to be the more benevolent in the long run. And even if that weren't so, I'd not make my stand on a pragmatic or utilitarian basis.

I appreciate your attempt to tie together benevolence, the fact that we share a common bond of humanity, common decency, a culture (society) that values life, and limiting instances to cases of emergency where the 'Good Samaritan' would be in danger from helping - but however you do this, no matter how noble your aspirations, you end up setting a premise that something trumps individual rights as the basis for laws. And further, that there are conditions under which it is okay to violate individual rights.

You are attempting to forge an improvement in our society and with the wrong tool. You can't force benevolence or decency to come into being - to inhabit a soul not already so disposed, by pointing a gun. This is the only practical argument that makes sense. Direct your efforts not to a law, but to how children are raised, to the transmission of good values from one generation to another, and you don't need a law (a law that would do more harm to society, by diminishing individual rights than it would help).

The point that becomes insurmountable for you to continue to argue your point is this: Will a law make a criminal of a man who has not violated the rights of another - for doing, literally, nothing? Then it is the case of finding for the side of tyranny, not freedom - you are just doing it from the perspective of the end justifies the means - saving lives, helping grandmothers, protecting puppies, preventing diseases... lots of good ends, but before long you have established the precedent that the means can include violation of rights.

Post 26

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 4:52pm

You make a very compelling case. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I was not making the "attempt to convert her moral argument into political arguments that justify the state violating the rights of a bystander who has violated no ones rights."

That quote of mine that you didn't understand might be understandable if I put a rephrase it, and use only the parts that are syntactical.

Does a political system that is rational, and which values species solidarity, value one person's life more than, or value it less than, the rights of another to walk away, when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal?

Or are they equal? As I said, "'the general welfare' does exist, and while I agree it must be limited in scope, it nevertheless exists."

Is it possible that the general welfare is best served by conceding that the life of one is equal to the right of another to walk away?

Post 27

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 5:53pm

Does a political system that is rational, and which values species solidarity, value one person's life more than, or value it less than, the rights of another to walk away, when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal?

I'm re-phrasing this for my own sake.

"Can a rational people, who value species solidarity, value one person's life more than, or value it less than, the rights of another to walk away, when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal?"

Yes, I think they can value one life more, or less than the other. Law in some states even speaks to this. These laws prohibit rescued victims from suing their rescuers if victims are injured during the rescue.

Post 28

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 7:08pm

"species solidarity"

I have to say that that is a phrase I'm uncomfortable with. I don't know exactly what it means. "Solidarity" is most often encountered in Marxist union cant. And what exactly does this solidarity look like? Where in my priority list of values does it go? Do I have to like all people (no matter how obnoxious) more than I like my pet dog? (If I had a pet dog). And how does "society" engage in species solidarity? So, I'm just going to ignore this phrase since I do not conceive of it being something that would exclude or surpass individual rights.

Where your argument is strongest is your comparison of the value of a human life relative to the value of the tiny bit of time required to phone 911. No one is going to say that the that 2 minutes dial time measures up to an entire human life. And they ARE comparable in a sense - all of one person's life, versus 2 minutes of another person's life... all else remaining equal it is simple math.

But when we are done with the comparison of the two values we still don't (as third parties, or as a society, or as a government) own either life - not the whole one, and not the 2 minutes of the other one.

So, what would the principle be that allowed that third entity to force a choice that clearly supports the greater value? I do not believe you can find a principle that will over-ride individual rights since it governs the use of force which is what the law would be doing.

I oppose the abuse of drugs - morally, but not legally. I see that many lives would be saved if it were possible to outlaw that abuse. Lives would be saved but at the expense of individual rights. Or if not drugs we could talk about wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, or seat belts, or eating trans fats, etc. Individual rights will end up saving more lives in the long run when you are talking about law. So, where is the principle that throws that over?

Post 29

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 8:34pm

Hi Ted,

Jordan, I am curious if you know about any similar formulations where, instead of punishment, contemporary law responds to outlaws with passive sanctions.

Off the top of my head some opt-in laws come to mind, those laws where you have to do something first to trigger government protection, e.g., filing to incorporate, or to get a patent, or to secure a copyright. All licenses involve opt-in laws as well. If you don't shell out the proper payments and paperwork, you risk losing the legal protections in this area. Your proposal is a little different in that I think you'd have the government protection in place already, and you'd have to do something later to lose that protection. That's more of an opt-out scenario. I'm having a harder time thinking of opt-out laws that would serve as appropriate examples.

Jordan

Post 30

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 10:15pm

I edtited, then resubmitted my above post to which you responded, Jordan, as a blog entry, here.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/09, 10:34pm)

Post 31

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 5:05am

See my new blog entry "Neighborly Nutters" for more.

Post 32

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 5:29am

Steve, I think I was agreeing with you, but once again you ignored it. I will repeat it once again.

Is it possible that the general welfare is best served by conceding that the life of one is equal to the right of another to walk away?

Post 33

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 7:44am

Curtis,

I don't think there's any way to reconcile the two any way but "equal."

The slope looks really slippery.

Post 34

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 8:19am

Curtis,

My apologies. I didn't read it carefully enough to see the agreement. I'm still not comfortable with it since it doesn't say why they are equal and because it implies that general welfare might be that principle.

Post 35

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 10:09am

Q: Does a political system that is rational, and which values species solidarity, value one person's life more than, or value it less than, the rights of another to walk away, when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal?

A: It values one person's life less than the rights of another to walk away even when dangers to the second person are nonexistent or even minimal ... because the "species solidarity" it values as "rational" allows for freedom of the individual to choose with which members of its species to form such a solidarity (or not).

Post 36

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 10:21am

Apparently, somewhere this article doesn't explain, there was a debate on this very topic we've been discussing. It's written by Jeff Shaw--who is he? and is titled "Taking Responsibility as Individuals."

"This topic, while highly berated, has the potential to make for interesting debates. I would like to congratulate each of you debating at nationals on a job well done," wrote Shaw. In the article he seems to regard Ayn Rand rather well, but makes the foolish mistake of calling her ethics

"ethical egoism." An appropriate name, by the way. The reasoning goes like this: we are only responsible for what we create, encourage or engender. That is, if I discriminate against someone, I am culpable for that act. If someone else does -- government or individual -- that is their responsibility."

I don't think Shaw's article helps us much here, in understanding this topic, but it was interesting to discover.

Post 37

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 10:42am

I agree we can't legislate altruism.

But I keep searching for the right moral answer to the dilemma of what the law should say.

Men who "are totally indifferent to anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man or a dog left mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind)" wrote Rand, in the Ethics of Emergencies, "are those psychopaths who do not challenge altruism�s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion against self-sacrifice by announcing that they are totally indifferent..."

I discovered the "psychopath" quote after going over and over that chapter. I found it in a blog that begins this way:

Joe: �Hello? Oh, Fred, hi. Yes, the mailman came, and it looked like he dropped mail at your house. Oh, by the way, your son, Bobby, is bleeding to death on your front lawn, after he severed his foot under the lawnmower. Actually, I think he�s dead�. What? No, I didn�t. I was busy with this crossword puzzle. I know we�re next-door neighbors and all, but I have no obligation to help other people. I�m free to live on my own and be selfish as long as I don�t hurt anybody�. Listen, Fred, you�re obviously too upset to think clearly about this, so I�m hanging up now. Bye.�

In the end, the author agrees with the idea that you can't legislate morality:

It is a common misconception that illegal acts are, or ought to be, a subset of immoral acts. In fact many acts that are properly illegal, like underage driving, are not immoral (provided you�re an adequate driver); and many acts that are immoral, like watching little Bobby bleed to death, are properly legal. Libertarianism is a legal position, and to dissect it we need to concentrate more on law and less on morality.

Post 38

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 11:04am

Watching someone bleed to death is a borderline case as far as human nature is concerned. It just wouldn't happen.

What, then, would be any motivating factor for society to compel and mandate an action that under normal, unfettered circumstances, comes so naturally to human beings?

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 1/10, 11:05am)

Post 39

Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 11:10am