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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, March 1, 2014 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Baby In The Woods

 

Foreword

 

This is a follow-up thread that expands upon the comments section of Altruism Against Freedom, originally posted on Rebirth of Reason (RoR) by Joseph Rowlands on February 6, 2006. In light of the heated nature of those comments, this thread is not intended as a personal attack against any of the participants, but it is intended to clarify the discussion and provide a deeper analysis of the principles involved from an individual-liberties framework.

 

Some might object that this thread would be more appropriately posted as a comment in the original Altruism Against Freedom comments section. I would disagree for these reasons:

  • At the time of this writing, the original thread is over eight years old, and most of the participants, including Michael Stuart Kelly (MSK) - whose ideas will be a central focus of this thread - are no longer active commenters on RoR. It would be unfair to reopen what has essentially become a closed thread, over many years of inactivity, as if the original commenters were still present. A similar principle in law is the granting a new trial when too much time has elapsed or circumstances surrounding the original trial have substantially changed.
  • In addition, the exclusive focus of this thread will be the baby in the woods hypothetical that arose in comments, rather than the Altruism Against Freedom article itself. This thread will introduce new principles and perspectives beyond the original comments section, using the baby in the woods hypothetical only as a starting point.

The Original Hypothetical

 

The following are the facts of the original hypothetical:

 

A baby is alone in the woods, starving and with nobody to care for him or her. The baby is able to eat adult food. Person A has a surplus of food and comes across the baby. Person A decides not to share any food with the baby, and watches the baby die. Person B comes across Person A and the baby and learns what has happened. Person B flies into a rage and uses violence against Person A for not feeding the baby.

 

Cleaned-Up Hypothetical

 

The original facts are not a clean hypothetical because they needlessly introduce the subjects of heat-of-passion mental states and vengeance into a discussion that all parties agreed is really about how “necessity” (or emergency) situations interact with property rights. Therefore, I will be using a modified version of the original facts as follows:

 

[...] Person A decides not to share any food with the baby, and watches the baby starving. Person B comes across Person A and the baby, learns what is happening, and through violence forces Person A to feed the baby.

 

Side Note to the Reader:

 

MSK has characterized the RoR commenters as claiming Person A's actions to be “morally correct” or “OK.” The commenters corrected MSK on this point in the original thread, clarifying that the actions of both Person A and Person B were immoral. Despite this correction, MSK continues to mischaracterize the RoR commenters as recently as yesterday on Objectivist Living (see here). This history is noted only to avoid confusion over what arguments were actually made by the participants.

 

Analysis of the Hypothetical

 

Ethics has been colloquially described as how one acts when nobody else is watching. In other words, the actor pursues an ethical action regardless of whether or not they are likely to be caught or punished. Ethical principles can be personally held or shared and encouraged within a community. Ethics are distinct from legality, although there may be overlap.

 

A common ethical principle that Objectivists and libertarians hold is the “non-aggression principle,” sometimes called the “non-initiation of force principle.” Ayn Rand notably endorsed the non-aggression principle and argued that liberty was a precondition for virtuous conduct. One commonly used definition of “force” in the philosophical context is violence, the threat of violence, or fraud, all of which deny another individual control over his or her own life.

 

The central question from the hypothetical is whether it is morally correct for Person B to force Person A to give food so the baby might live. Since Person A did not use force against either the baby or Person B (mere inaction cannot be considered force), Person B was the initiator of force against Person A in the hypothetical. Therefore, a strict adherence to the non-aggression principle would hold that Person B acted immorally.

 

Though not entirely clear on the subject, MSK seemed to generally support the non-aggression principle while also arguing that certain scenarios – “emergencies” - called for its temporary suspension out of necessity in order to save a life. This argument is consistent with the legal defense of “necessity,” which in certain extraordinary situations can justify appropriating another person's property in order to avoid a greater harm. MSK has made similar statements on Objectivist Living regarding his support of heroes who “break the rules” in order to vanquish their foes.

 

After further researching the question, it doesn't appear that “necessity” is a valid basis for suspending the non-aggression principle within the traditional framework of Objectivist ethics. Therefore, Person B could be said to be acting immorally by redistributing the food by force. It's important to note, however, that there are degrees of morality and immorality within most ethics systems. This particular scenario was concocted in order to be as heart-wrenching and extreme as possible, and therefore, although Person B's violence was immoral, the extreme circumstances mitigate the conduct to the extent where the violence is as close to being justified as an immoral action can be. An additional consideration is that no human being can reasonably be expected to act morally in every situation, so Person B would not necessarily be a bad person for this single transgression.

 

The Danger

 

The danger of presenting Person B's violent redistribution of resources as moral should be obvious to any advocate for individual liberties and limited government. As many RoR commenters pointed out in the original thread, it's difficult, if not impossible, to explain why violence would be moral in this case to prevent one death, but systemic violence would be immoral to prevent many millions of deaths across the country. It is further difficult, if not impossible, to explain why death should be the only exception in utilitarian calculus, rather than expanding the exception to the prevention of any serious (or non-serious) greater harm.

 

In light of this danger, the most reasonable and consistent position for an Objectivist to take (in my opinion) is that Person B's violence was unethical, but at the same time understandable on an emotional basis and mitigated by the extreme circumstances. Not using violence would be a very difficult choice for any person filling Person B's shoes, but we wouldn't need ethics to guide us if decisions were always easy.

 

(Edited by Robert Baratheon on 3/01, 8:38pm)



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, March 1, 2014 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I strongly object to any cross postings from other forums and urge all members of RoR not to engage in this. I had hoped that Robert, whatever his name is, would have created this thread as a new philosophical topic without reference to anything that has transpired. 

His agenda is not our agenda.

 

Sam



Post 2

Saturday, March 1, 2014 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sam - Your comment makes little sense in light of the actual scope of my topic (we can't reference anything on other threads or forums??) I would appreciate it if you contributed something to my discussions instead of just being a critic and detractor.



Post 3

Saturday, March 1, 2014 - 11:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ethics has been colloquially described as how one acts when nobody else is watching. In other words, the actor pursues an ethical action regardless of whether or not they are likely to be caught or punished.

Invalid or useless definition of ethics.  Ethics is a system of ideas about what kinds of actions one should take in various contexts in order to maximize one's goal attainment.  Given a person's goals and what kind of friends and enemies they have, with risk versus reward calculations, likelyness of being caught or punished is part of the risk calculation... and it definately is a part of ethics.


With the premise that a person accepts NOIF as a rule that they must obey, "getting caught or punished" simply doesn't happen because you don't initiate force.  Many people don't accept NOIF.  Or they do accept NOIF, but only with a subset of humans.  Or maybe not even humans, maybe the only uphold NOIF with some particular endangered species.  So for all of these people, ethics does reguard whether or not they are likely to be caught or punished.



Post 4

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 5:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean - I don't think the definition is "useless" or "invalid." That's too harsh. It's just what I said - a colloquial description. It may not be the best definition for every circumstance, but it gets across a helpful idea, which is that ethics goes deeper than fear or compliance. You use a more formal definition, but it's also more vague and detached (e.g., "should"?, and what about situations where ethics dictate putting one's goals aside?). The colloquial definition is only an attempt to move ethics into the everyday context and make more sense of it. Maybe it's best considered a supplementary concept.

 

(Edited by Robert Baratheon on 3/02, 6:36am)



Post 5

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The problem is that the definition you are using completely divorces the individual's goals from his choices.  Traditionally this results in rule based ethics rather than individual goal based.  It has no measure of how good nor how bad a particular choice is, rule based ethics can only conclude whether a particular action breaks a rule.  Hence good then = never breaking the rule, and bad = breaking the rule.  Such definitions and resulting valuations of "good" and "bad" are useless for a person's morality as a system used to weigh and select actions.

 

That being said, generally respecting NIOF is in one's self interest, and its rare when you need to break it so respecting NIOF generally works as a helpful guide in what one should not do... but not as a guide of what one should do, a huge part of morality that traditionally hadn't been commonly recognized.  So I agree with you that NOIF does have utility...  but NOIF is derived from goal + identity of actor & context.  That definition of morality is technically invalid and in my mind does more harm than good.

 

One should violate NOIF if walking in woods, gets lost, almost starves to death, finds private orchard, owner not in sight but no trespassing sign in sight, but tresspass and steal apple to survive anyways.  Not to say that one shouldn't then not reimburse the owner, nor not to say that the gov shouldn't force you to reimburse (should & should).



Post 6

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If an ethical system dictates that you put your goals aside in order to accomplish someone elses goal instead... then such an ethical system should be thrown out.



Post 7

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean - You make a lot of sweeping statements I don't agree with (although I appreciate you making them). For example, I don't see why rule-based ethics or a natural-rights framework "completely divorces the individual's goals from his choices." Most people pursue their goals within a context of ethical rules or boundaries on their choices - that's kind of the whole point. If an individual pursues personal goals at all costs, that individual could be described as amoral, immoral, or moral, depending on what code is being applied and who is making the judgment. I also disagree with this statement: "It has no measure of how good nor how bad a particular choice is, rule based ethics can only conclude whether a particular action breaks a rule." As I pointed out, most rule-based ethical codes do allow for degrees of morality and immoraliy, recognizing that some violations are more bad than others. Also, I don't see any reason why rule-based ethical codes cannot allow for exceptions (most codes have exceptions).

 

 



Post 8

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"If an ethical system dictates that you put your goals aside in order to accomplish someone elses goal instead... then such an ethical system should be thrown out."

 

This is a judgment from your particular ethics framework. The definition was of ethical frameworks generally, including those that differ from yours. Also, I didn't say the goals were sacrificed for someone else's. The goals could be set aside, temporarily or permanently, for any number of other reasons. For example, if I'm driving on the highway with the goal of getting to my destination quickly and a turtle is in the road, I might stop and move it out of the road rather than driving over it. I don't think Objectivists would say this is unethical behavior.

 

(Edited by Robert Baratheon on 3/02, 7:28am)



Post 9

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The rule based ethical system that we accept for practically all contexts is NOIF, which doesn't say how bad something is, and doesn't say anything about what is good.  The Christian ethical system where all disobedience of "God's" rules equally damn one to death/hell (depending on the sect).

 

But sure, I concede, a rule based ethical system could say one thing is worse than another.  But the two most prominent rule based ethics: NOIF and Christianity do not.

 

I think we understand each other and are nitpicking at this point.



Post 10

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I'll just push back a bit then. I think the non-agression principle implies degrees and most adherents understand it that way. I.e., if force is bad, then more force is worse, less force is better, et cetera. Your thinking is a lot more rigid than mine, which is fine.



Post 11

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
  • At the time of this writing, the original thread is over eight years old, and most of the participants, including Michael Stuart Kelly (MSK) - whose ideas will be a central focus of this thread - are no longer active commenters on RoR.
    So what?  
  • It would be unfair to reopen what has essentially become a closed thread, over many years of inactivity, as if the original commenters were still present. A similar principle in law is the granting a new trial when too much time has elapsed or circumstances surrounding the original trial have substantially changed.
    Why?  Actually that isn't even true. All new evidence is still gathered into the same old case file.  Trials don't just go away. They have a real end, and until they do, everything stays in in the same case file. Forever.  Having several trials over the same issue with the same litigants in the different rooms of the same court only facilitates confusion, not a verdict. 
  • Threads never close on this site. They're open forever, in case you weren't aware. Making up rules (or statuses) about them makes you look like a controlling noob. 

Sam, I completely agree with you.  This isn't a new subject, Robert. It isn't even a new take on an old subject. It's an old subject and should stay in the old thread.  It's perfectly fine for you to even make your new introduction to the old thread, but for Galt's sake, don't introduce old shit like it's new shit because you have an issue with the age of a thread. That's your problem.



Post 12

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Teresa,  Maybe you are upset about something else?  I think "Robert" is still trying to publicly blow off some steam...  but I don't really feel like stirring up animosity with him.



Post 13

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Teresa - I never said the old thread went away - in fact I linked to it. There are absolutely new trials, sometimes with a new judge and venue. And there are often multiple trials resulting from the same events. I already pointed out that most of the participants are long gone.

 

Your argument that it's the same issue is rather subjective, isn't it? I introduced a modified hypothetical and new arguments, and my post was longer than a regular comment. If I create an Obama thread, does that mean nobody can ever create another and all Obama-related comments have to go in it? One Benghazi thread for all time? Where do you draw the line?

 

Also, I don't want this discussion to be as broad as the original thread or to be about the original article at all. I want it to be just on the subtopic - and a modified subtopic at that. Too bad? I can't change the scope of that discussion? We're forever bound by that which came before us?

 

Now would you like to contribute any content, or did you enter this thread just to curse about a minor procedural issue? (I really do mean that as an invitation - please, jump in.)

 

(Edited by Robert Baratheon on 3/02, 3:29pm)



Post 14

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Who do you think this person really is, Dean?  Why would they need to blow off steam? 

 

 



Post 15

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Teresa, I don't know.

 

"Robert", How would you like to introduce yourself?  Tell us about you.  What kind of work do you do?  What makes you happy?  Who are some of your heroes?



Post 16

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yeah, I got it. 



Post 17

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean - I'm an attorney who as worked as a prosecutor and counsel for two federal agencies and briefly the white house. I enjoy trivia, chess, and other games. I'm a libertarian and objectivist who enjoys discussing political and "real-world" philosophy topics. Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are two of my personal heroes. I think what the liberty movement has been doing hasn't been working lately, so I am interested in new and alternative strategies to countering (or surviving) progressivism and its spread throughout our society.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, March 2, 2014 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Can't be Michael Moeller, He argues better.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.