Hostages

In the movie, The Usual Suspects, enemies of druglord Keyser Soze seize his family. He comes home to find his wife raped and his children with knives at their throats. Soze opens fire. The little girl's throat is cut, if I recall correctly, but that is inconsequential, because he shoots his wife and kids, too. He leaves one bad guy alive (wounded, slightly, perhaps) to go back and tell the bad guy bosses that no one blackmails Keyser Soze.

Is this the Objectivist solution to a hostage crisis?

I believe that the solution to this puzzle goes way back before the movie started. I also believe that others here would argue that the wife and kids were killed by the kidnappers, not by Soze -- or do I misunderstand that?

Post 1

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 3:03pm

Michael: You ask an understandable question given how I've seen some Objectivists deal with the principle of self-defense. Another example is Objectivists who say that we should nuke all Arab countries because that gives the lowest risk of American lives lost.

It is true that in principle, it's not the rescuer who's initiating force if he happens to kill a hostage during a rescue, it's the hostage taker who does. However there's another quite relevant factor here besides the basic principle governing the scenario: the value hierarchy of the rescuer.

His value hierarchy includes the hostages somewhere, and that governs the risks he's willing to take on in order to get them out safely. If he values them highly, then he'll take more risk. If he's more competent and has a better plan for rescue, he can reduce the risk. The whole calculation is an inductive, creative activity, not a simplistic application of the idea that it's the hostage taker who initiated force. Indeed, the guy who runs in shooting without attempting this is a monster. I'm not sure what to call the person who uses Objectivism to rationalize this monstrous behavior, but it's certainly a perversion of Objectivism.

Similarly, it's probably true that the least risk to American forces comes in if we simply nuke our enemies. But civilized people are not numb to the death of innocents, i.e., innocent life fits somewhere in our value hierarchies, and if there's a reasonable amount of risk one can take to secure their safety, it's rightly what we do - even if we might in principle have the moral right to nuke, and might even opt for that if the risks of other approaches are too great.

Post 2

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 3:10pm

Mike, that's horribly gruesome -- and wrong. I wouldn't endorse that at all. The point of "minimizing loss" in such a situation doesn't seem to have been a part of the killer's calculus; it was simply to make some sort of point to the hostage takers about what a tough guy he is.

It tells me he couldn't have valued his "loved ones" all that much.

No, in the situation as you describe it, he killed them, not the kidnappers. Since he was armed, he had a bargaining chip. One value-preserving scenario would have been to negotiate to free at least some members of his family, in exchange for his dropping the weapon. Or he could have escaped, and (if he was indeed a powerful drug lord), played "turnabout" and done the same thing to the kidnappers -- then traded hostages. Something like that.

But to just shoot everybody...well, not exactly my notion of "The Value-Seeking Personality."

The example of indiscriminately nuking Arab countries that house terrorists is indeed an apt analogy, and I'm frankly appalled that Leonard Peikoff, Ron Pisaturo and others prominently associated with Objectivism ever could have endorsed such an indiscriminate use of force against captors and captives alike. This, from self-proclaimed advocates of a "pro-life" philosophy?

Where innocent lives are at stake and other options are available, we have a moral responsibility to at least try to explore them. That's why the police send in hostage negotiators and rescue teams, but don't simply blow up the buildings holding captives and captors. And most of the time, such negotiations work: the kidnapper is caught and nobody gets killed.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/14, 3:20pm)

Post 3

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 3:29pm

Shayne, that was a wonderful post. Your focusing in the 'hostage crises scenario' on the the value hierarchy of the rescuer, is the essential - but often overlooked component.

Sanction coming your way.

Would you please expand on this theme, specifically, by drawing a *few* examples of where the lines would be drawn between the different levels within that hierarchy. Since there is a usually some common familiarity with WWII, perhaps analogies from that conflict would be the simplist and most recognizable. Besides, the hostage scenario when discussed, is rarely discussed in the context of arguing individual moral actions when faced with crime (in this there is a great amount of agreement), but as the entry point to discussions on the morality of war; and what consitutes the most moral method of fighting one when fought by a democratic nation against a dictatorship.

George

Post 4

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 3:50pm

George, I agree. I've had heated exchanges with Shayne Wissler on a number of issues, but that was a very sensible analysis and I just sent him a sanction vote, too.

Post 5

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 8:15pm

In Brazil, there is a saying, "engolir um sapo," which means swallow a frog. It is used to denote a situation where you accept a duty or condition of something you normally would not do or accept - generally unpleasant.

I have just witnessed Michael M post a short post that is strictly to the point. And then Shayne give a very intelligent post to it that I not only agree with, but it made me think - and all without a pot shot by anybody.

Dayamm!

It is now my duty to my own values to sanction them both.

I must say, however, that my view is that in a horrible situation like what Michael posted, all morality goes out the window. No time for much of it in a shootout like that.

ahem... guuulp

(burp)

Michael

(ribbit)

Post 6

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 2:02am

Shayne, Robert,

Both your posts are very much to the point, and right. I've sent my sanctions your way already.

Robert,

In view of Shayne's point, I've come to the realization that all our disagreements on Solo so far were based on close agreement in ethics - and different hierarchies of value. Of course I do my best to optimize my hierarchy of values according to what is right and good for me.

Post 7

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 5:30am

Michael, I believe in the Usual Suspects (one of my favorites by the way), Soze realizes that his wife and kids are already dead inside because of their horrific ordeal - the wife has been raped in front of her children. There is another movie in which the hostage taker holds a gun to the head of a woman as he retreats. The cop shoots the hostage in the leg, making her too heavy to carry.

Shayne is quite right in his discussion of the hierarchy of values that is involved.

Post 8

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 6:34am

"But civilized people are not numb to the death of innocents, i.e., innocent life fits somewhere in our value hierarchies."

Shayne, thank you for identfying this. And thank you for your post in its entirety.

I'd also like to thank Robert and George for so honestly saying, "This is right. Period."

And Adam, that's a very interesting observation. Thanks for sharing it.

Jason

Edited to put the quote in - well - quotes.

(Edited by Jason Dixon on 4/15, 6:34am)

(Edited by Jason Dixon on 4/15, 8:01am)

Post 9

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 7:58am

Under the emotional impact of a different diet, I forgot to sanction Robert on another very insightful post.

There...

Corrected.

(burp...)

Michael

Post 10

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:22am

FYI, last night I added a much more detailed development of my thoughts on this topic, as Post #49 over on the "Getting Rights Right" thread. You might want to comment there.

Post 11

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 2:55pm