Photo - child stalked by vulture

Joe,

Jon brings up in post 34 (re-quoted by Ted in post 36) the issue of a Libertarianesque meta-contextual worship of the NIOF principle. As you yourself have used this very notion with regard to Libertarians (note: capitalized "L") opposed to the Iraq War, I was wondering if you'd comment on a fundamental difference -- between your use, and Jon's.

Relevant notes regarding this request for comment:

Bush (publicly) declared a pre-emptive war on Iraq -- an initiation of force -- based on a potential, rather than an actual, imminent threat. Potential danger being sufficient for the initiation of force.

He also publicly declared that you don't have to be a terrorist for us to attack you -- that just letting them live in your country was a sufficient transgression for us to initiate force against you.

Assuming that what G.W. declared regarding letting terrorists "live" in your country (being sufficient for us to initiate force against you) is a good policy, then wouldn't it also be a good policy for the individual to follow -- i.e., to engage in individual, unorganized violence; based on a threat which stems from the non-action of others -- "in the absence of orderly society"?

I may not have summarized the above events accurately; and would be open to hearing alternative views on the matter.

Thanks.

Ed

Post 41

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:23pm

And given Robert's statement, I suppose if war were to break out around him, we would find him under his bed reading Rand waiting for someone else to politely explain to the bad guys that they shouldn't be initiating force?

Nothing like seeing ad hominem in a supposed objectively assessed arena - more like a paen to emotionalism again, a typical contextless spew at being called out for the rationalization of trying to give justification for wishing to act as a baboon instead of a human....

Post 42

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:00pm

"It's the typical libertarian worship of the principle of non-initiation of force divorced from its context." - Jon L.

My understanding is that, according to Objectivism, it's always wrong to initiate force, except in order to save your own life in an emergency. Rand gives the example of being marooned on desert island without food, and of finding a cabin with no one home. She says it would be proper to enter the cabin and take whatever food one needed, but that one has a moral and legal obligation to pay it back. The justification for stealing the food in this case is the preservation of one's highest value -- one's own life.

But that doesn't give one the right to force another to provide aid to someone else whose life depends on it. By that standard, the government would be justified in forcing Americans to send aid to starving people in other countries or even to force them to fund a life-saving operation for those who can't afford it. This is the philosophy behind welfare entitlements and socialized medicine.

It behooves us to consider the implications of our principles before adopting them.

- Bill

Post 43

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:15pm

Let met state here that while I strongly disagree with Ted and Jon here, I generally value their contributions. As owner of this site, I try not to get too personal and insulting because I don't want the position of power to be seen as a threat. Also, I would like to encourage benevolence and civility in this forum. So it might be useful for me to point out why I find this particular debate so offensive.

Rand said, standing on one leg, that Objectivism is:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

What I see in this argument is:
2.) Epistemology: Emotionalism.
3.) Ethics: Altruism
4.) Politics: Welfare state

Is need a claim on our lives? Certainly it appears to be here. The child is in need, therefore we must help the child! This is altruism. Sure, you allow people to live their own lives for the most part. But as soon as 'need' comes around, our lives no longer belong to ourselves.

Capitalism is a system that respects individual rights. But the premise here is that individual rights are contingent on helping those in needs. If you don't help the poor child, you don't "deserve" rights. (This is the same premise as the welfare state) You're too irrational (read immoral) for them. Your rights end where others' needs begin. This is the convergence of altruism with politics.

And how is it all justified? Through emotions. I feel very strongly that he doesn't deserve rights! I feel very strongly that he is dangerous! I feel very strongly that I'd like to kill him! And despite my very, very weak arguments, I have so much certainly of my position that I'm willing to take a human life!

This is why I don't feel like pulling punches in this debate is acceptable. Here we have a complete sacrifice of three of the most major principles of Objectivism. These principles are not just significant because they're part of Objectivism. They're major principles because of their philosophical and life-affecting importance.

What we see is, when the stakes are high, Objectivist ideas are thrown out in favor of a person's traditional beliefs or feelings. All you need is one starving child, and people surrender the philosophical battle to the altruists. All you need is a strong emotional incentive, and principles are discarded. And not simply discarded. Discarded with pride. As if people with principles are just dogmatic, reciting their mantras, worshipping their abstract ideas. This is just romanticizing emotionalism and lack of principles.

Post 44

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:15pm

Bill what about notions of "obstruction of justice" or simply just notifying an authority of a crime that was committed or is about to be committed. In these instances there is no damage suffered by the individual aiding others (i.e. the authorities) in seeking justice, at least none that I can see. I would draw the line at risking life and property to oneself to help someone from being a victim of a crime. I would also say your example of aiding others by requiring citizens donate food to other countries implies people would be obligated to provide for someone else's material existence, and I can't see that as being the same as establishing justice, i.e. taking action or requiring action to comply with a court order for a subpoena or requiring authorities be notified if you see or know a crime will be committed.

Post 45

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:27pm

Of course your unsubstantiated accusing people of rank emotionalism would never count as an ad hominem remark, Robert. Your accusation aside, I fully grant the validity of the profound arguments you presented in the remainder of that post, for which, see here.

Ted

Post 46

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:32pm

Ed, I suggest reading Robert Bidinotto's article on rights. I'll quickly summarize. Ultimately, the concept of rights is based on our own self-interest. In most circumstances, there is no conflict, and respecting and promoting rights is the best means of promoting our own lives (by establishing our individual liberty). That's why we have the concept of rights. To further our lives.

In some rare situations, the two conflict. If a murderer straps a baby to his tank, and gets ready for a killing spree, the concept of rights no longer apply. The context and justification for them (which are based on your own self-interest) are completely gone. Self-interest must trump rights. Morality tells you how to live, not when to commit suicide.

In that situation, the rights conflict with your own survival. This is why Ted's argument that in a lawless society, you may have to make a deadly judgment to survive has some appeal. Certainly the same standards don't apply. And this is more so in even deadlier situations. The problem with Ted's argument is that he sets the bar based on his feelings (anger and fear), and not on any objective standard.

So then apply this idea (that rights are based on self-interest, and if they ever conflict, self-interest is the ultimate standard) to the starving child. Is your life threatened by his inaction? No. Is respecting his rights in conflict with your own life? No. Is respecting his rights in conflict with your emotions? Yes. But that's not an argument. That's a blank check for murder.

The contextual nature of rights does mean that we can't treat them as some kind of mindless rule to follow. But it doesn't open the door to discarding them whenever we want to, no matter how much we want to. It only requires us to recognize that this principle for promoting our lives cannot be used as a justification to destroy our lives. This does not apply.

And I'll leave the Iraq debate for another forum, except to say that I disagree with your analysis.

Post 47

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 3:02pm

Joe, I don't mind you disagreeing with me. I do still want to know which headline or headlines it was that you found offensive. As for the suicide thread, I never declared that I myself was the sole arbiter of who is or is not a danger to society, I said that it would be a matter for the courts.

It would be fair of you to concede this.

In this thread, I have specifically said that I am speaking of a situation in which there is no polity or government in order to enforce the law. In that case, individuals would have to take the law in their own hands. If accusing people who make what amount to pacifist arguments of being pacifists counts as ad hominem, then I am guilty. But where have I accused anyone of emotionalism or called anyone stupid? Ad hominem doesn't consist in my disagreeing with people or in my strongly insisting that they are wrong. It consists in such absurdities as saying things such as "James Doe is so ugly that his arguments are not worth answering." The worst condemnation I have made here, behind which I still stand, is:

"The refusal to act but to rely upon words to effect the defense of oneself or others is prayer. It is pacifism, not manhood; wishful thinking, not justice; evasion, not civility; cowardice, not Objectivism."

It would be fair to concede that I have not engaged in ad hominem - or please to provide quotes.

Otherwise Happy and Unharmed,

Ted

John A., I had not heard that the photographer claimed to have shooed away the vulture. Is there a link? In any case, did he take the child to safety? If not, does anyone think the vulture did not return?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/06, 3:08pm)

Post 48

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 3:36pm

Jon Letendre, you wrote in a Solopassion thread:

This is from a Raymond Newman interview of Ayn Rand, (about 1980, not certain):

Newman�s Question:

�Miss Rand, Article 6 of the Bill of Rights gives individuals the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in their favor, and people who don�t respond to those subpoenas are subject to contempt citations and possible fines and imprisonment. Does this deny the freedom of the witness if he chooses not to testify?�

Rand�s Answer:

�No, not really. I am in favor of those laws because if a court case, then somebody, presumably, has been hurt. The witness has knowledge that is relevant to the issue, and if he refuses to testify he is the one who is then violating the rights of the defendant, or whoever is involved. If either party needs the information which you have, you couldn�t have a rational or an honest reason for refusing that information because you are interfering with justice then. You are in effect saying, �The court may decide otherwise without me, but I don�t want to testify.� I don�t think that that�s legitimate.�

Although this isn't a terribly flushed out argument from Rand and I can't at this moment verify the source (not doubting you Jon, just want to make sure this is verified to be a true source), I'm curious what other Objectivists think about compelling a witness to testify or come forward with evidence? Is that considered a violation of the NIOF principle?

Post 49

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:21pm

So long as the court case is prosecuted in good faith, it is the criminal or the tortfeasor who has initiated the use of force or fraud. The court (presumably) uses the subpoena power only on probable cause and so the person inconveniencing the person called to witness is the guilty or liable party, not the court.

Post 50

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:40pm

Just some quick comments (no time to get involved, but I am certainly enjoying the fracas that has ensued)...

Ted,

You said in post 36

"Icky" is your childish term, and has nothing to do with any part of this conversation.

As far as I can tell it was Jon L who used the term icky, and Jeffrey was merely quoting him.

John A.,

You said in post 39

But we're not talking here about an individual risking life and limb to prevent a crime. It's only asked (by at least me) that they simply report the future crime to an authority that has the power to stop it from happening.

If I recall, in a recent debate with Steve Wolfer on the Irag war, and also on the Vietnam thread, you justified these wars with an analogy comparing someone who listens to the sounds of his neighbors being slaughtered by a serial killer without acting. You also used the phrase depraved indifference a few times. Now it seems you are defending the journalist? That is confusing to me, could you clarify?

Post 51

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:40pm

I'm curious what other Objectivists think about compelling a witness to testify or come forward with evidence? Is that considered a violation of the NIOF principle?

I wish it weren't, but I don't see any way around the conclusion that it is. I understand the emotional appeal, but I don't see how to justify compelling someone to testify. The refusal to provide evidence is not a violation of the defendant's rights, any more than the refusal to defend an innocent man from an attack is a violation of his rights, or the refusal of a doctor to save someone's life by giving him a needed operation is a violation of his rights.

One possible solution to this problem is to give people the option of agreeing to testify, once they turn 18 (say) in exchange for having their own cases heard in court or for being allowed to vote. A person would be free to refuse the offer, but if he exercised that option, he would lose these civil privileges. Another possibility is to offer to pay witnesses to testify. Jury duty is also matter of compulsory legal service, which I think should be voluntary. The payment for jury duty today is pathetically small. If it were increased, people would be induced to serve, even if they weren't required to.

But, no, I don't see how forcing people to testify is justified, unless, of course, it is done to uphold a contractual agreement that the person consented to of his own volition.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/06, 4:52pm)

Post 52

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:49pm

Joe,

Is there a way to allow one to correct spelling errors after posting the title to a thread? I'm a little embarrassed every time I see the misspelling in the title to this thread "Photo - child staked by vulture." when, of course, it should be "child stalked by vulture"!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/06, 4:50pm)

Post 53

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:01pm

Joe,

Thanks for the insightful response. And, while we may continue to disagree about the order of events (or their public "justifications") which led us into -- and keep us involved in -- the Iraq war, we do seem to have some common ground:

I, too, would blow a little baby to smithereens (with a nearby grenade launcher) -- should the poor girl be strapped to a tank being used by a maniac who's hell-bent on (and capable of) taking my life.

Not so much of an altruist after all, am I?

Ed

p.s. Of course, I'm assuming -- at least by your words -- that you'd do the same thing in that same situation.

p.s.s. Oh, and my personal stance regarding the justification of the Iraq war is that judgment must be withheld -- due to non-access to the "top secret" information which Bush and Cheney and Rove have seen.

Post 54

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:05pm

Jonathan:

If I recall, in a recent debate with Steve Wolfer on the Irag war, and also on the Vietnam thread, you justified these wars with an analogy comparing someone who listens to the sounds of his neighbors being slaughtered by a serial killer without acting. You also used the phrase depraved indifference a few times. Now it seems you are defending the journalist? That is confusing to me, could you clarify?

Are you implying I'm being contradictory here? Is one morally depraved if they don't lift a finger to help a neighbor from being slaughtered (like say call the police), I say yes. Or are you telling me you don't think refusing to call for help for a neighbor who is being killed morally depraved? Emotionalism or not, having such disregard for the sanctity of life I think should make anyone who values life cringe a little at such indifference to it. Especially since we're talking about a simple phone call (or in the instance of the murderer killing your neighbors a threat to your safety as well as there is no presumption he won't turn around and kill you next)

I'm not sure I see though the similarity with the photojournalist. He wasn't covering up a crime, withholding information of a crime, or refusing to testify in court.

Plus when I call someone morally depraved in their indifference to life, that does not mean I advocate force be employed against any instance of moral depravity.

I'm going to have to part ways here with Objectivism (or perhaps I'm not as Rand agrees with subpoena power?). Someone refusing to testify or provide evidence that can prove guilt or innocence is as Rand puts it is an initiation of force against the defendant or the victim (depending on the nature of the evidence whether it proves innocence or guilt) I don't think people have a right to prevent justice from being established.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 5:08pm)

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 5:12pm)

Post 55

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:11pm

I think we all agree that a failure to act when there is no clear danger to oneself is certainly depraved and despicable, however I draw a distinction between an individual choosing to help, and commiting our nation's armed forces. That's what I was getting at, however, to delve into that issue further would be to hijack the thread, and I don't want to do that. Perhaps the issue could be explored elsewhere.

Post 56

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:24pm

John,

The tape says,

�AYN RAND
Objectivism in Brief
The Raymond Newman Journal
Box 508, Lenox Hill Station, New York, NY 10021
Copyright 1983�

I got it from the ARI in the late eighties.

Wish I could help more.

Post 57

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:26pm

I think that's sufficient thanks Jon L.

Post 58

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 6:00pm

"I'm curious what other Objectivists think about compelling a witness to testify or come forward with evidence? Is that considered a violation of the NIOF principle?"

Yes. I recommend following the discussion on Solopassion concerning this topic. the thread was very thought-provoking and gave me a lot of respect for James Valliant, who best argued against subpoena power. Check it out - it's a great read regardless whether you come to the right conclusion or not :).

Post 59

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 6:06pm