About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0


Post 200

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Bill was explicit when he used the term "justified" that he was referring to being "justified" by the person's self-interest.  According to dictionary.com:

1.to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2.to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.


He was using definition 2.  You are using definition 1.  Personally, I would hesitate to use the term "justified" in this context because of the possibility of confusion.  But I do agree with Bill (if I understand his position) that the choice is "warranted" by the standard of self-interest, in that it is the choice that is best supported by that standard.

As for your next question, concerning whether their rights are violated, I would also suggest we try to avoid any semantic issues.  Bill, for instance, isn't saying that we should find these cases to be acceptable by us or that we shouldn't punish the person for them.  He's making a semantic argument about what the term "rights" refers to.  If we want to determine if there's an actual disagreement, we have to refrain from using the word and try to describe the concepts involved.  From that perspective, I don't think there's an actual disagreement on what kind of actions we would tolerate, and what we wouldn't.

In terms of the semantic debate, I understand where Bill is coming from, but disagree.  He thinks rights denote an obligation, and so in contexts where there cannot be an obligation (these emergency situations), they must not be "rights".  This assumes that moral "principles" tell you that you must do something, and the moral "principles" just don't apply in some contexts.  We went around and around on that topic.  My belief, as I stated above, is that principles provide guidance by providing knowledge of likely consequences of our actions.  They're epistemological tools.  And so I don't have the problem that my principles disappear in certain contexts.  They're just as valid in emergencies as elsewhere.

But if you think that principles do tell you what you must do, and do denote obligations, you only have two choices.  Do what Bill does, and say the rights simply evaporate in those contexts.  In this case, he is just arguing that the term doesn't apply, not that suddenly it's perfectly okay to go on a murdering spree.

The other option is to insist that even in emergency situations where respecting rights would be against your actual self-interest, you should follow them anyway.  This puts so-called "principles" ahead of self-interest.  It makes the tools more important than the ends to which they're supposed to serve.

I disagree with both of these options, and I think they share the same fundamental flaw.  They try to make moral principles into moral rules.  Once this error is committed, you're stuck with two undesirable positions.  If I had to pick, I'd go with Bill's, because his position means discarding the moral rules when they don't apply and resorting to self-interest.  I think that's better than disregarding self-interest and choosing to follow rules anyway.  But fortunately, I'm not stuck choosing either of these positions.


Post 201

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 2:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Seems I had more questions.

Post 202

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 6:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Egoism is the view that the actor's own non-moral values (e.g., his life and happiness) are his highest moral purpose.



Life together with happiness, or happy human life, or eudaimonia are not "non-moral values."

It seems you went too far arguing against Jeff there and it led you to say that those key moral things were non-moral. It's as if you want to say that there is this totally separate and value-neutral thing that we call morality, and we each get to have one of these new-fangled things -- as if out of a Cracker Jack box. And, with these gadgets we call morality, we then get to feed our subjective desires (values) into them to see what gets spit-out of the other end.

Would you agree with that criticism?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/23, 7:03am)


Post 203

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "Egoism is the view that the actor's own non-moral values (e.g., his life and happiness) are his highest moral purpose."

Ed replied,
Life together with happiness, or happy human life, or eudaimonia are not "non-moral values."
By saying they were "non-moral values," I didn't mean that life and happiness were not "values" -- i.e., were not good things worth pursuing, but simply that they were not moral values -- were not things that were valuable, because of the values they served. Morality is a principled means to an end, not an end in itself. The end itself is the purpose of morality, which is the satisfaction of one's non-moral values -- the satisfaction of that which is valuable for its own sake.

The argument I was making against Jeff was that he was begging the question by assuming the very moral values that he was attempting to justify as a means of justifying them. Since morality is not an end in itself, you have to justify it by showing that it serves a non-moral end -- something that is valuable for its own sake. You can't say that initiating force is against your self interest, because it is a breach of moral integrity, if moral integrity is itself based on what serves your self interest -- on what promotes your non-moral values.

- Bill

Post 204

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, Bill.

I think I see what you mean. You seem to be saying that ultimate values aren't moral. That they just are -- and that morality is that kind of thing that either improves or frustrates our achievement of ultimate value(s).

Is that right?

Ed


Post 205

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 12:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ultimate values aren't moral. That they just are -- and that morality is that kind of thing that either improves or frustrates our achievement of ultimate value(s).
...................

I would agree with that - from an objective standpoint...
and since life consists of making choices, those acts of choosing are as such moral considerations [within the context of their point of choice-making] - those which aid to one's flourishing or achieving of ultimate values is the good, whether [again, within context] short-term or long-term...

Post 206

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, thanks for explaining my position. You are certainly correct that what I meant by "justify" was to "give a good reason for" -- to "rationally support." 

You wrote,
In terms of the semantic debate, I understand where Bill is coming from, but disagree. He thinks rights denote an obligation, and so in contexts where there cannot be an obligation (these emergency situations), they must not be "rights".
That's correct. All it means to say that I have a right against your stealing my wallet is (a) that you ought not to steal it, and (b) that if you do, then I am morally justified in using force against you to reclaim it. If it were not the case that you ought to refrain from stealing my wallet, then it would make no sense to say that I had "a right" against your stealing it. The latter statement would simply be incoherent and meaningless.
This assumes that moral "principles" tell you that you must do something, and the moral "principles" just don't apply in some contexts. We went around and around on that topic. My belief, as I stated above, is that principles provide guidance by providing knowledge of likely consequences of our actions. They're epistemological tools. And so I don't have the problem that my principles disappear in certain contexts. They're just as valid in emergencies as elsewhere.
Right, I understand that that's your position. Where I part company is that in order for a principle to provide guidance, it must specify those contexts in which it does and does not apply. If the principle is "Don't initiate force when it is against your self-interest," then in order to provide guidance beyond simply the injunction not to act against your self-interest, it has to tell you the conditions under which it is against your self-interest to initiate force and the conditions under which it isn't. If it just says, "Don't initiate force when it's against your self-interest," then it provides no more guidance than a principle which simply says, "Don't act against your self-interest."

That's the crux of my disagreement with you, Joe. As you noted, we went round and round on this before. So, I'm not sure if we can resolve our differences. We seemed to have reached an impasse.
But if you think that principles do tell you what you must do, and do denote obligations, you only have two choices. Do what Bill does, and say the rights simply evaporate in those contexts. In this case, he is just arguing that the term doesn't apply, not that suddenly it's perfectly okay to go on a murdering spree.
I wouldn't say that they simply "evaporate" in those contexts. I would say that they don't exist in those contexts to begin with -- that with respect to the self-interested aggressor and his victim, the principle of rights doesn't cover their context.
The other option is to insist that even in emergency situations where respecting rights would be against your actual self-interest, you should follow them anyway. This puts so-called "principles" ahead of self-interest. It makes the tools more important than the ends to which they're supposed to serve.

I disagree with both of these options, and I think they share the same fundamental flaw. They try to make moral principles into moral rules. Once this error is committed, you're stuck with two undesirable positions. If I had to pick, I'd go with Bill's, because his position means discarding the moral rules when they don't apply and resorting to self-interest.
My position is not that the moral rules (or principles) should be "discarded" in emergency situations, but that they don't cover those situations, to begin with.

I hope this brings a little more clarity to my position, and explains my differences with Joe on this issue.

- Bill


(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/23, 1:05pm)


Post 207

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed wrote,
Okay, Bill.

I think I see what you mean. You seem to be saying that ultimate values aren't moral. That they just are -- and that morality is that kind of thing that either improves or frustrates our achievement of ultimate value(s).

Is that right?
Yes. :-)

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 208

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 4:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Ayn Rand argues that a fully free government properly has a monopoly on the use of force."

The use of RETALIATORY force. Self-defense is not retaliation.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 209

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 4:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I don't want to live in a country where every irrational screwball, like Zantonavitch, has a handgun."

You arm yourself for self-defense because JUST ONE irrational screwball with a WEAPON (not necessarily a handgun) is the threat that you perceive.

Post 210

Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to a study of North Carolina workplaces, businesses that allowed guns were 6.8 times more likely to have a worker killed than workplaces that banned all weapons.
 
"Concealed Weapon Laws Make Security Practitioners Worried"
Security Management (09/08) ; Harwood, Matthew
 Security experts are concerned that over 30 states have passed laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons, according to a report released by the ASIS International Foundation. Five states have even specifically made it illegal for employers and property owners to ban people from bringing concealed weapons onto their property, including parking lots. Security experts worry that these laws will result in an increase of co-worker violence. Studies show that allowing guns to be carried in the workplace increases the chances that an employee will be killed by gunshot. According to a study of North Carolina workplaces, businesses that allowed guns were 6.8 times more likely to have a worker killed than workplaces that banned all weapons. Experts advise security professionals to reduce the likelihood of violence by implementing weapons bans if legal in their state, performing threat assessments and developing employee violence prevention policies.



Post 211

Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And just what are these work places? Is it possible that kindergardens ban handguns and bars don't? Post hoc, propter hoc? What is the point of quoting such a study when all it does is confirm a pre-existing conclusion? There was a recent study that linked diabetes and heart disease to plastic baby bottles. Since heart disease and type II diabetes are diseases of affluence, is it any wonder that people whose parents could afford plastic bottles, when most people used glass, have higher rates of these diseases of the West? You are not that stupid, Michael. Do you think we are?

Post 212

Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matt Barrow asserted: "Self-defense is not retaliation."

I think that you need to prove that.  In one of my crim classes, there was a long argument between "everyone" (actually just some people) and the instructor when it was laid out in fact that if you detect an intruder in your home, your first option under law is to flee.  Killing the intruder is not permitted (in Michigan) unless you can show that you had no other choice.  Texas has different laws -- and different jurors...  But the point is that self-defense (so-called) is (or can be) retaliation. 

It is also a known fact in criminology that one of the reasons that young males are so often "victims" of violent crime is that the perpetrator becomes the object of his intended victim.  Furthermore, this often occurs, not in the immediacy of the moment, but after the engagement is broken off and would therefore be retaliation as we would understand it.  While that might seem clear in metaphysical terms -- before; during; after -- the reality is more complicated.

So, I think you need to show the validity of your claim.  I agree prima facie with the distinction.  I just have no ready-made answers and I thought that since the claim is yours, you might.


Post 213

Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TK " Post hoc, propter hoc? What is the point of quoting such a study when all it does is confirm a pre-existing conclusion? "
Well, Ted, the report runs 40 pages, so you are either a very fast reader or else you are relying on your gift of insight. 

I agree with you that the nature of the workplace has a lot to do with it.  I worked for two guard companies where our clients were mortgage bankers and we never had to break up a fight. 

On the other hand, there are places where that happens more oftent than "never."  So, if there is a "culture of violence" then obviously, the presence of handguns will lead to homicides.  In point of fact, the southern states have a "culture of violence" perhaps synonymous with their "culture of honor" also seen among Sicilians, Albanians, and others. 

For the case of Albania, see Vengeance is Mine by Fatos Tarifa.

Vengeance is Mine: Justice Albanian Style

 Honor being what it may, the fact remains, Ted, that if the ASIS (American Society for Industrial Security) report is flawed, it will take more than an intellectual short-cut to dismiss it... unless, as you note, you are confirming your own pre-existing conclusion.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 214

Monday, October 6, 2008 - 2:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael E. Marotta: Matt Barrow asserted: "Self-defense is not retaliation."

I think that you need to prove that.
--------------------------
The words mean what they mean.

Self-Defense means to repel an attack; retaliation means to go after the attack post facto.
--------------------------------
Michael E. Marotta: In one of my crim classes, there was a long argument between "everyone" (actually just some people) and the instructor when it was laid out in fact that if you detect an intruder in your home, your first option under law is to flee.
------------------------
And what the hell does that have to do with it? Some psychotic law in some idiotic state proves nothing, either.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 215

Monday, October 6, 2008 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Matt,

In distinguishing self-defense from retaliation, you wrote, "Self-Defense means to repel an attack; retaliation means to go after the attack post facto."

Rand uses these terms interchangeably in order to distinguish force that is initiated from force that is a justified response to it. So repelling an attack is a justified response to an act of aggression, and so is going after the aggressor ex post facto. Retaliation is self-defense just as much as repelling an attack is, because it punishes the aggressor and deters or prevents future acts of aggression. Using the terms in this way, one could say that in retaliating against Al-Qaida, the U.S. was defending itself.

- Bill

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0


User ID Password or create a free account.