| | Bill says:
> Remember, morality is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Moral principles are guidelines for their
> practical living, not Kantian imperatives to be followed for own sake, irrespective of the consequences.
Bill, you repeat this point over and over as though it offered an explanation for something. I do not think that anyone is disagreeing with you regarding this. But recognition of the fact that morality is a practical guideline for living and not an authoritative commandment from God does not tell us how to formulate an appropriate moral code and how to then practice it successfully in a wide range of circumstances. All of these examples being offered by various people in this discussion are focused on those "hows".
Does our moral system provide us with some guidance on how far we should go in service of a goal or value when it may have an impact on one or more people besides ourself? Are there any limitations on the actions we are justified in taking when facing an emergency? You appear to be clearly stating that, in principle, when one's life is at stake and you are acting in service of self-preservation, there are no moral limits on what one may do, regardless of the consequences to others. You then seem to be clearly extending this same pass on moral limitations to other "top values" you may possess, such as the preservation of the life of a loved one. So I believe that what people are trying to determine through these various hypothetical scenarios is the following:
How does one morally determine which personal values are important enough to provide a moral justification for causing harm to others and which ones are not? Is this a subjective or an objective issue? For example, you have said that the preservation of one's life and the life of a loved one justify killing another person in an emergency situation. Would that extend to saving the life of a beloved pet? Why or why not? How is the average Objectivist supposed to arrive at the answer to this and all the other examples being proposed? Do you even think that answering questions like this is the proper realm of a moral code?
I stated this in an earlier post in this thread, but it seems to need repeating and elaboration. There is much confusing arising here because the issue of individual rights is being co-mingled with the separate issue of the appropriate nature of an ethical code. Both issues are in play in the many examples being discussed, but these are really two separate things and they need to be examined individually in order to get a clearer view of each.
Individual rights is a particular species of moral principle that recognizes the individualistic, rational, conceptual nature of humans and sees that a respect for these attributes is a practical requirement if we are to survive and thrive amongst one another. As Bill says, as with all moral principles, the recognition of other's rights is not an imperative which we must follow. It is simply a recognition of a general principle that derives from an analysis of the facts of reality and we elect to implement it as part of our conduct because it proves to be beneficial to our lives. We break down the broad category of "human rights" into sub-categories such as the "right to life", the "right to liberty" the "right to property", the "right to privacy", etc. as a matter of practical convenience so that these principles can be better understood and thereby more easily put into practice. Rights are a "social" principle and only have meaning in the context of our dealings with other human beings. And our social interactions are only a subset of the totality of the actions in our lives. Please note one important thing which I will pull out for emphasis:
The moral principle of rights is not something that we observe as an attribute that exists in other people (as the proponents of natural rights would have it), nor is it some existential aspect of nature that we uncover like the law of gravity. It is simply an idea that we formulate in our heads. It is a very high level concept that embodies a recognition of the nature of man and integrates it with an understanding of the consequences of our actions in relation to other men. More on this later.
A moral or ethical code is a much broader intellectual system which subsumes the concept of "rights" as only one of its parts. The purpose of a comprehensive moral code is to provide us with guidance in all of the decisions and actions we make in life. This is an important point worth repeating:A comprehensive moral code should provide guidance for all choices and actions we make throughout the course of our life. Of course, there may well be a difference between how our ethical system should function and how well it actually does depending upon the amount of thought any given individual has performed in integrating it into comprehensive system and validating the components of that system against reality. To act, we need goals, and to establish a specific set of goals we develop a hierarchy of values that become the standard for their development while our moral code guides us in making appropriate decisions and taking effective actions in service of achieving those goals. It's all a marvel when you understand it!
I contend that there is nothing particularly special about emergency situations over those that we encounter daily. Each day we are faced with issues of survival. We make decisions to work productively so that we may then acquire food, shelter, clothing, and so on to meet our basic needs. Fortunately, most of us live in circumstances which allow us to go beyond providing for simple needs and engage in other pursuits that give greater meaning and happiness to our lives. But, regardless of the nature of the pursuit, in every case we need to set a goal and then choose a suitable course of action. Therefore, we constantly need to avail ourselves of our moral code.
During the course of developing her ethical system, it was Rand's great observation that, in general, it was possible for men to live together in a social context, each pursuing their own independent, self-interested ends without fundamental conflict so long as each was willing to respect the rights of the others. Of course, in reality, conflicts exist all the time between various people under all sorts of benign circumstances. In many cases the struggle results because one person or group of people do not respect even the most fundamental rights of others. In other cases problems arise due to people attempting to live by moral codes that contain innate contradictions that must inevitably lead to strife. And of course, there will be potential problems when a circumstance arises where one's moral code is insufficiently developed and unable to provide guidance, forcing one to make decisions without benefit of a moral compass. Any of the conditions I have just described can and do arise for many people during the course of normal life, and they also arise for even more people during an emergency.
Occasionally, we all find ourself in extraordinary circumstances, faced with the need to make extraordinary difficult decisions. What we call "emergency" or "life-boat" situations are simply extreme versions of many other slightly less tough situations that we encounter during our journey through life. If we were judging culpability, then it might be important to determine how someone got into the current state, but for the purpose of this discussion it really isn't germane. Because, regardless of how we got there, what makes these decision so difficult is that we find that we are now forced by the situation to make a tough choice between two or more important values which do not compete with one another in our typical day-to-day life.
For example, I generally conduct myself in such a way that I can feed myself (self-sufficiency and personal survival being two of my values) without having to rob from another, thereby respecting their property rights (another value of mine). Now, after a plane crash in the ocean, and having washed up on the island with the single unoccupied cabin, and having exhausted all other avenues I can think of, I am left with one choice: starve to death if I do not eat soon which will require that I break into the cabin and steal the food which I can see through the window. I decide to break in, because I perform a moral calculation that this is the better of the two choices. As it turns out, this is actually a relatively easy decision for me because I immediately see that, although I am greatly troubled by violating the stranger's property rights, I can make restitution to the owner by repairing any damage and replacing any supplies that I use, thereby, very probably minimizing the impact I will have to that of an inconvenience for them, and when weighing their inconvenience against my life, the decision is clear and easy.
Now, notice a couple of things that happen when thinking through this scenario. First, while there was a moral quandary to resolve, it was something completely personal to me. This wasn't a moral struggle between me and the property owner. The property owner isn't in the picture and is completely unaware of what is happening. The moral conflict is mine alone and takes place between competing values that I hold which have now been placed in conflict with one another. And as per my original argument that kicked off this entire thread, it is important to have an ethical code that has been sufficiently developed through exposure to sample emergency situations like these so that it is prepared to guide me appropriately should I ever find myself in a similar real-world circumstance.
Secondly, it is important to understand that it makes no sense to talk about moral principles or rights "not applying" in a circumstance like this. The simple fact is that these rights, or any of the other moral principles, are just concepts in my head. I can honor them or ignore them any time I choose. How I am going to actually respond in any given situation will ultimately depend upon the totality of my character. How strongly do I value my integrity, my honor, my honesty, my sense of justice? What is my strength of will? How do I respond to shock or the unexpected? How do I control my fear? Am I afraid of death? And so on. Bill, if anyone appears to be coming close to accepting the concept of "categorical imperative" it would seem to be you when you speak as though we are somehow bound to or "obligated" by our moral principles in some odd fashion such that when they might actually come into conflict with one another, it becomes necessary for you to argue that they somehow mysteriously wink out of applicability as the explanation for why we are then able to act against them. Honestly, I cannot even begin to grasp what this idea of "non-applicability" of moral precepts might relate to in reality, but I'm still listening if you can explain it in a new way. In the meantime, I think it is just a simple matter of choice! Be true to yourself or don't. However, in choosing, you reveal to yourself and to other your true nature.
Before closing, let's look at the more serious example where people are locked in a situation where one's survival depends upon the other's death. Actually, the TV show 24 dealt with this issue a few seasons back. A terrorist calls CTU and informed them that he would immediately release a toxin into populated LA (or explode a bomb, I can't remember the details) unless Jack took a fellow agent to a remote site and executed him with a bullet through the head. What are the proper moral choices? Do you negotiate with terrorists who probably cannot be trusted to keep their word anyway? As the director of CTU, knowing that there is not enough time to locate the terrorist, do you authorize or prohibit the killing? Do you order your subordinate to allow himself to be killed or do you leave the decision up to him? Do you agree to pull the trigger yourself and execute your colleague in order to save thousands of innocent lives? As the intended victim, do you fight violently against your associates for your own survival or do you peacefully acquiesce and allow yourself to be killed in the name of a devotion to some higher principle that is at stake? There's no correct answer to any of these questions. Each decision will depend upon the character of the individual facing it, which will further depend upon their values and the level of sophistication of their ethical code. We can all agree that the ultimate responsibility for whatever the outcome rests upon the terrorist and we can all probably agree that we can absolve any of the other players from moral culpability regardless of which choice they ultimately make. But, when everything is said and done, we will certainly know an awful lot about the character of each person.
I once thought that if I were forced to place my life in the hands of another individual, I would be best served by picking a fellow Objectivist who would have a strong understanding of my rights, a deep appreciation for the value of my life and a highly developed moral compass. After an immersion in one discussion after another like this, I'm pretty sure that I would have a higher chance of survival picking a random citizen off the street. :-(
Regards,
--
Jeff
|
|
