| | In reply to my Post #268, Joe asks: Bill, did you read my article? Yes. I know it's long, but I did mention the honesty thing in there too. It's ultimately a methodology issue. When you use short-hands like saying we are obligated to respect rights (within a context), it throws out the principle of understanding for a kind of moral rule-of-thumb. And then you have to say that the moral rule-of-thumb doesn't apply in some contexts. But the principle still applies, even in those circumstances. How does the principle still apply in those circumstances? You're saying, in so many words, that it doesn't if it doesn't pass a cost-benefit analysis. Converting it into a rule-of-thumb doesn't provide any benefit, and throws out vital information. But moral principles are not "rules of thumb." They apply without exception to every case falling under them. For example, I cannot simply decide on the basis of expediency whether or not I should respect your rights? I cannot say, "Well, Joe isn't around, and his wallet is laying on the table. I can steal a couple of bucks, which he probably won't miss, and even if he does he won't know that I stole them. Granted, I believe in the principle of rights, like the principle of honesty, but in this case, I find that it doesn't pass a cost-benefit analysis. So, I'll steal the money, because I can get away with it. But, of course, I still believe in the principle of rights." The article describes it more. But the bottom line here is that treating rights as a "obligations" creates a barrier to discussing it clearly. As evidence, I can simply point to this entire thread. Joe, I already stated in the very post to which you're replying that by "obligation," I mean nothing more than what Rand means by it, when she uses the term. Do you disagree with Rand here? Are you saying that it is wrong for her to say that we have an "obligation" to respect the rights of others -- that instead she ought to say what you're saying? Recall her essay, "The Wreckage of the Consensus," (CUI) in which she writes, "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected." (p. 256-257) This doesn't mean that, according to Rand, there aren't exceptions to that obligation. Obviously, she's indicated that there are (viz., in life-threatening emergencies). Nor does it mean that, according to her, rights are simply "rules of thumb." She is saying that we have an obligation to respect the rights of others, if we are to be logically consistent.
In your article, you state: What happens when the principle [of honesty] is converted into some kind of rule? In the context of the murderer at your door, the rule is said to be taken out of context. You have to discard the rule. But what's the point in formulating it as a rule, especially one that can be broken? What do you gain from it? Joe, the rule isn't "broken" when you lie to the murderer; it doesn't require that you tell him the truth. You don't get the benefit of having a real moral rule, which is that you can apply it in an unthinking way. Because the rule has exceptions, you can't simply follow it. You have to decide whether the rule is beneficial to follow or not. The so-called "exceptions" are PART of the rule or principle. The principle is qualified qua principle. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as a "right" to free speech, which everyone must respect on principle, because there can be no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. There is no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because the right to free speech doesn't include it, to begin with. The right to free speech already has certain qualifications. It doesn't mean the right to say anything to anyone at any time. All moral principles are qualified by reference to one's ultimate standard of value. The end result is that you just add an extra level of complexity to your decisions. You formulate a rule, intended to make it easier to act without thinking through the consequences, but you still have to think through the consequences to decide if the rule applies. Formulating a moral rule out of it is a worthless step. You think through the consequences in advance, which is what you do when you formulate moral principles to begin with, since these principles are designed to serve your life and happiness. When I refrain from stealing your money, I don't do so based on assessing the likelihood of your finding out or of being apprehended by the police. If that were my approach, what value would the principle of rights have to begin with? It would serve no useful purpose, since it would be entirely irrelevant to my decision. When I refrain from stealing your money, I do so based on the recognition that unless people refrain from sacrificing others to themselves, they will create a society in which no one is safe from his neighbors or free to produce the values his life require. When I decide to be honest, I do so based on the recognition that trustworthiness is an important social value, one which optimizes inter-personal relations and benefits the lives of everyone involved. There is more wrong with translating these into moral rules. A moral rule demands you act in a particular way. Yes, you might make exceptions to them when your life is on the line, but in all other cases you have to obey them. This removes your ability to make an optimal choice based on your clearest idea of the costs and benefits involved. You see, this is where your thinking goes awry. The costs and benefits are already considered in advance of formulating the principle. The principle reflects an assessment of these costs and benefits. It tells you which actions are beneficial and which are not. The principle is qualified to exclude those cases in which following it is not beneficial. Moral rules act as intrinsic values. Intrinsic values aren't integrated in with the rest of your values. Because they're valued for their own sake, and not in relation to your life, there's no rational way to compare them to your other values. Not true. This is not the Objectivist view of moral rules or principles. For Objectivism, moral principles are based their value to your life and happiness. You are refuting a straw man. A moral rule tells you that you should act in a particular way in all cases. Yes, in all cases falling under the rule -- in all cases subsumed by the principle. That's what a principle is. It applies without exception to every single case falling under it. Otherwise, it's not a principle. For example, it makes no sense to say that you have a right to your property, but that the state may take it when it deems it in the public interest. Your property rights are inviolable on principle. You may create exceptions, but every situation where it applies, it applies with equal strength. If you follow the moral rule that you must always be honest except in emergency situations, then in every other situation your choices are artificially restricted. Not artificially restricted, assuming that the principle is valid; restricted by the facts justifying the principle. However, I would not say that you are obligated to be scrupulously honest in every situation except life-threatening emergencies. You don't have to volunteer information to people who are not entitled to it. If you are asked a question which your refusal to answer would by implication convey the information that you don't want revealed and to which the questioner is not entitled, then you have every right to lie as a way of protecting your privacy. This is not an emergency situation, but it is nevertheless one that allows for a less than honest answer. If however, you've been cheating on your wife, and she questions you about it, you owe her the truth. The principle is, if a person is entitled to the truth, you owe it to him or her.You can't make a rational judgment about whether any particular lie may be beneficial or not, or to what degree is it harmful. Because it's expressed as a rule, you blind yourself to the possibilities. You don't blind yourself to the possibilities. The possibilities are assessed in advance and are incorporated into the principle. In your approach, principles become irrelevant, because all you're doing is assessing the costs and benefits on an ad hoc basis. So why have a moral principle to begin with? Why have a principle of rights? Since you're not obligated to respect it, there's no need for the principle. It serves no useful purpose.
- Bill
P.S. I'm cross-posting part of this reply to the discussion section of Joe's article, "Rough draft: Functions of morality"
(Edited by William Dwyer on 6/12, 5:45pm)
|
|
