Evaluating Initiation of Force in Emergency Situations

Michael M: I didn't, as you know, make any direct or indirect comment on how you live. (I suspect Ed would go there, if you've got the itch.) Do you want to make a substantive response to what I, in fact, did say?

I would say I agree with you that emergency situations don't escape rules of moral conduct, except I'm anxious not to buy into your view that life itself is an emergency situation.

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/21, 1:04pm)

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/21, 1:05pm)

Post 21

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 1:35pm

Mindy,

Michael M: I didn't, as you know, make any direct or indirect comment on how you live. (I suspect Ed would go there, if you've got the itch.)

I request that you refrain from throwing me under a (real or imagined) bus like that. I am one of the participants in this thread writing solely about what Mike's words meant -- and specifically not about how Mike lives.

Let me be real clear about this. I'm not asking that you give me the benefit of the doubt -- as I focus on Mike's words, not his life. All I'm asking is that -- even if you don't personally give me the benefit of the doubt (for the reason just mentioned) -- that you would refrain from the potential slander of writing these things about me. It's kind of like what Dean said (in post 16) to Mike, only not as strong.

Ed

Post 22

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 1:37pm

Exactly - life consists of risk-taking, but that as such is not emergency existing... and my inclination is that morality holds, period...

Post 23

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 1:55pm

Actually, I did. You have a fundamental misconception of the difference between an emergency and a "lifeboat" scenario. It is a mark of my opinion of your intelligence, given I have gleaned all I needed to know about it based on the goals and understanding I deduce from your posts. I found nothing at all there to alter any understanding of what you have said.

"If you ask me, you are making a mistake by asking me -- or anyone."

Asking questions is a mistake. unstated goal = promotion of ignorance

"I was amused at how eager Kurt, Dean, Ed and Ryan were willing to answer the question."

The above individuals are fools for answering a question in the spirit of discussion and community, and the question itself is a joke. unstated goal = promotion of ignorance. promotion of anger. sowing division.

"Mindy & Robert -- As I explained here, existence is a lifeboat situation."

Existence is a lifeboat situation. unstated understanding and goal = fear

"In the essay EofE Rand does close with the statement that the rational course of action is to bring the emergency to a resolution with yourself alive and well -- but every day is like that, whether hunting and gathering or designing data spiders. It is a matter of degree, not of kind."

Life is either a pre-emergency or an emergency. unstated understanding understanding and goal = Man is not a heroic being, but doomed in a malevolent universe. Fear

"The problem wih a lifeboat emergency is not what you do, but what the other (irrational) beings are going to do."

Speaks for itself. Totally distorted understanding of emergencies in general and lifeboat scenarios in particular. The problem with a lifeboat emergency is the emergency.

"My goal would be make sure that I am not the one eaten or thrown overboard because that is the likely outcome when collectivists feel threatened -- and they are moved by undefined feelings, not reasons."

All other people are collectivists. They will be spooked when they feel threatened. Not that the statement is regarding subjective feeling of a presumed ignorant and collective mass of people, you don't state that they ARE threatened. A lifeboat scenario involves actual threat and actual reasons such as "one of us is going to die". You seem to be implying that a reasonable person would never conclude that in any situation. unstated understanding = ignorance of reality, blanking out, ignorance of people.

"So, in a lifeboat, I would use my interpersonal charms to take charge or to support those in charge -- flight attendant, for instance, by default. The point is that you (by you I mean me) are responsible for your own outcome."

Again, poor understanding. A lifeboat scenario involves necessary death by its nature, thats what makes it rare and horrible. You can't be a "people person" out of it. unstated understanding = ignorance of the nature of a lifeboat scenario and emergencies in general

"If anyone can show in any way that there is any circumstance in reality where existence is assured, we can all head to that Garden of Eden."

Previously discussed as totally irrelevant.

"The universe is not hostile. Reality is not anti-life. But neither is it invested in you. That is your responsibility."

A direct contradiction of your earlier statement "existence is a lifeboat situation". By its nature such a situation is hostile to life. Also avoiding the question out of ignorance or blank out. Your life is your responsibility. Theirs is their own. A lifeboat scenario is one in which your responsibility is in direct conflict with theirs, with no possible mediating factors. "How do you act?" is the question.

"As I read this it sounds to me that the request is for the thinking out and thoughtful solutions of others (in the plural), in the absence of an offer of similar --albeit admittedly unsatisfactory -- work of one's own. It reminded me of the scene where Peter Keating asks Howard Roark whether or not he (Keating) should go to the Ecole Beaux Arts. In support of that, I point to the fact that the paragraph opened with a comparison of opinions of other experts, but lacking any reasons from them or any evaluation of either their arguments or their conclusions. If Christopher Parker had asserted anything, balanced the problem, compared or contrasted anything, that would have been fine."

unstated goal = insult Christopher Parker for asking a question (on the Q&A board no less).

"Again, I point out that the responses came from people (myself included) who consider themselves expert enough to venture unqualified opinions. That's pretty scary. I am a parent. I have been responsible for the actions of another person. I don't recommend it lightly. As a security guard, I have been responsible for others in times of emergencies. I have entered spaces first to make sure that they are safe for others to enter later. I have confronted groups of drunks -- and not resorted to physical force or threats or arguments but only charm and wit and thereby gained compliance to maintain social order. As a pilot, routinely place myself in a situation seven to ten times more dangerous than being in an automobile -- yet it is all manageable. That is much of what it means to me to be human, to use my brain, my education, my training and reason, to meet a difficult and rewarding challenge. Life is like that. If you think that you can avoid risk by ignoring it, you are blanking out. If I mentioned "operating room deaths" you would probably think of the patient. In fact, there is added risk to the workers.In the days of ether anesthetic, doctors and nurses were killed by explosion."

None of the situations you mention are emergencies, much less lifeboat type emergencies. Such a scenario is not a calculated risk nor is it a difficult challenge which is satisfying to overcome. Rousing drunks with a smile and people skills is not an emergency either. Walking into a dark room is not an emergency. Even searching a known terrorist for bombs is not an emergency (I've done it.) Not to mention that to equate venturing an opinion to a grown man with a question to parenting is insulting to everyone invovlved. unstated understanding = ignorance of emergencies in any form.

So as far as I can tell your take on the human condition, emergencies, and morality involves the promotion of a lot of ignorance, fear, blanking out, obvious contradiction, and a very low opinion of man. All that candy coated with liberal doses of insult and condescension. No thanks, Michael. I think I'll follow Dean's wise example and bow out of the discussion at this point.

PS - Thank you for the lovely compliment, Mindy.

PPS - Christopher, I note that you haven't returned since the original post. I hope this exchange hasn't soured it for you. I would like to think you are gaining value from the answers given by all, and I know I gain by thinking through my position. Please keep it up if you're so inclined.

Post 24

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 2:01pm

Ed, You've displayed over and over again a penchant for addressing people's motivation for what they have said. I seem to remember a very recent example about an "emotional ejaculation," and a request for Steve Wolfer, and someone else, I think it was, to allow you to psychologize them? My comment was approriate, fair, objective, and warranted. I imagine most found it funny, too.

Post 25

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 9:57pm

Mindy,

I'll take that as a "no" then (i.e., that you won't have the decency to honor my request).

Ed

Post 26

Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 10:00pm

Ryan,

Your post 23 was impressive. Great communication and analysis.

Remind me never to get on your bad side.

:-)

Ed

Post 27

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 11:18am

I suggest, Ed, you do something about implying I've been indecent.

Post 28

Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 1:16pm

Fine, Mindy. Here is a refined response:

I'll take that as a "no" then -- i.e., that you won't respect my request to leave such talk of me out of your posts.

I can live with that restatement. Please make it real clear whether you can or not.

Ed

Post 29

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 3:14pm

Hey guys.
I have been unable to get to a computer for quite a while, but I'm back now. I don't know how often I will be able to post to this thread in the near future, but I will try to make it more frequent.
I guess you could say that I have kept going back and forth on the issue of whether it can be moral to inititiate force against others if and when it becomes neccessary for many years now. I have thought many times that you could intepret supposed Objectvist authors (authors who claim, at least, to be adherents of Ayn Rand's philosphy) to mean by their writings either one of the answers to the issue.
I must admit that I want to believe that one is morally obligated to do whatever is in one's long-term self-interest no matter what kind of situation it is, but the problem I see with this stance seems to me to be more of a political one than an ethical one.
If there can be an authentic conflict of interests between individuals in emergency situations, then the question arises of how to deal with parties who's interests can conflict in such a scenario. For example, if someone stole money from someone because he was homeless and needed food etc... to meet his immediate needs, then after he was taken to court by the victim, should the judge rule in favor of the victim or of the accused. Both parties seem to have a right to do what is neccessary to protect their own rational self-interests, but you cannot defend one of these parties without harming the other.
Things are further complicated for me when I think about if I myself had to, say, commit a serious crime because of an emergency situation, and ended up as a result on death row for it. If I were in such a predicament (for example, after holding someone up for money and having to shoot him because he wouldn't give it to me "willingly"), and if I ended up on death row for such a crime, then what would be my interest in living in a society in which I had to pay for my crime.
I know that it may sound rediculous to those of you who are very interested in Objectivism, but i wonder if it might be better to be a dictator than to have to live in a society that could punish you for doing what is in your best interest;) Not that I have the intelligence or ambitious drive neccessarry to become a dictator,... nor am I certain that that would be the way to solve the problem, but I honestly wonder. ****submits to customary thousand lashes**** ;)

Post 30

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 4:22pm

Just on the surface it seems that some of the definitions you are using seem a little off. The concept of NIOF as I understand it is that the only situation (barring anomalous "lifeboats") where use of force could be a necessity is when force has been initiated on you.

The scenarios that you are providing are very close to impossible lifeboat type situations or based on skewed assumptions.

"For example, if someone stole money from someone because he was homeless and needed food etc... to meet his immediate needs, then after he was taken to court by the victim, should the judge rule in favor of the victim or of the accused. Both parties seem to have a right to do what is neccessary to protect their own rational self-interests, but you cannot defend one of these parties without harming the other."

Assuming the huge amount of food waste in our society, combined with ready availability of water and cheap food, it is virtually impossible for the above scenario to happen. To subjectively treat the rights violator as equivalent to the rights violated (thief and victim) is to acknowledge a total breakdown of morality. The only place I've ever read about that level of breakdown being acknowledged in Objectivism is in "lifeboat". What the above "homeless" is really stating is that despite abundant and cheap food with the potential to find work to support a higher standard of living , he chooses to violate the victim's rights to get what he WANTS. Essentially the shortcut to better food (not the basics of what he NEEDS to survive) is through other's rights.

"Things are further complicated for me when I think about if I myself had to, say, commit a serious crime because of an emergency situation, and ended up as a result on death row for it. If I were in such a predicament (for example, after holding someone up for money and having to shoot him because he wouldn't give it to me "willingly"), and if I ended up on death row for such a crime, then what would be my interest in living in a society in which I had to pay for my crime."

Again, the scenario is so crazy as to barely warrant comment. You live in a society where sustenance can be had for a dollar a day or less, and you're standing there with an item worth hundreds of dollars (a gun), and you HAVE to kill someone. What possible emergency could cause this? Are you looking for a philosophy for living on earth or in SAW 2?

The last bit seems like you're talking about finding a morality of immorality. Me-ism or whim-ism might be a good name. Its impossible to seize the rights of others without denying your own rights. You're basically asking why would it not be ok to live a contradiction if it makes you "happy". How many dictators do you know that die "happy" (the few that die natural deaths). Many actors live in a near constant hedonist state, but the closest ones to it seem to be the most unhappy. The answer, I think, is that living a contradiction can't possibly be in your long term self-interest.

Post 31

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 5:43pm

Try this scenario out, Ryan: you find out you need, say, a liver transplant to live. You happen to know that a certain, hated relative would be a candidate. You have friends with the resources to obtain his liver, and who are willing to kill him and get it for you. You have a willing transplant surgeon, etc. I don't ask whether you would go to these lengths, but whether you think it is moral to do so.
(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/23, 8:29pm)

Post 32

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 7:16pm

Christopher Parker,

There is a HUGE difference between what is moral for an individual to do and what the court of law should do. The court of law shouldn't care what a person's self interest was for making sure the perpetrator repays the victim for damaged property. I don't want to talk about the value of a persons life to be paid after murder at the moment. After the court makes sure the victim is reimbursed, in some cases its necessary to put constraints on the perpetrator's freedoms to protect society from future repetitions of the crime. This can be determined by things like answering the questions "How many times has the perpetrator done this before?" "What was the perpetrator's motivation, and will he have that motivation in the future?" "Is the perpetrator insane or mentally irresponsible?"

For example, if someone stole money from someone because he was homeless and needed food etc... to meet his immediate needs, then after he was taken to court by the victim, should the judge rule in favor of the victim or of the accused. Both parties seem to have a right to do what is necessary to protect their own rational self-interests, but you cannot defend one of these parties without harming the other.

Court rules in favor of the victim, ordering the perpetrator to repay the victim for the value of the stolen property plus pay the court for all court fees (excluding the victim's privately paid for attorney if he chose to have one, victim is paid standard public attorney fee for reimbursement by perpetrator). Negative rights don't change even if its in a person's self interest to initiate force against another and infringe on the other's negative rights. Of course in this case the perpetrator probably didn't steal enough money that the victim would probably settle out of court.

I don't think the proper constraints on a perpetrator using a gun as threat in a robbery is death, or even life in prison. I think most states have up to 6 years, which seems about right.

Post 33

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 8:27pm

So you would be content to risk that person's threatening people with a gun, perhaps using that gun, every six years or so? I think you're way too generous.

Post 34

Monday, March 23, 2009 - 9:29pm

Using the gun is attempted murder, a different class of crime. If the person repeats without ever actually doing any productive work, then I wouldn't mind the person being killed. In jail I think criminals should be required to work to pay for their continual imprisonment expenses... if that was practical. I donno I'm not an expert in jail economics.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/23, 9:44pm)

Post 35

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 6:32am

Chris, Mindy - don't think any of those scenarios are justified. The emergency has to be due to say force majeure - not your inability to be productive. It is not justified to kill someone who is not threatening you with extreme force, so you will have to find another way to get the organ. If we had a free market instead of a communist organ system it would not be an issue.

Have you guys seen this story?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7017711&page=1

I know that Objectivism supports one's right to life (or to end it), but realize much of this movement is designed for other people to make that decision FOR you. That is part of the universal healthcare push. It will actually be what I would like to begin calling: "Universal Deathcare"

Or, how do we minimize healthcare costs by managing the death of the less productive... for the collective good, of course...

Post 36

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 3:14pm

Yes, Kurt, a reasonable worry, I'd say. Expand that to managing the death of the less desirable, uncooperative, not right-thinking, as defined by the powers that be, who happen to have any convenient health concern!
I had an experience with hospice when my mom died of ovarian cancer. I came into her room one time, she was semi-comatose at that point, to hear some two-bit social worker telling her in soothing terms that it was all right for her to die.
I was close to violence at that. At least I could get her out of there, and not allow her to return. But also, I had to baby-sit the hospice people after that. (Another hospice worker stole money from us.) There are good and bad people involved, of course. I am in favor of hospice, but supervision would seem to be extremely important.
Ask yourself, what does "increased productivity" mean to a hospice worker?

Post 37

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 3:56pm

Mindy, Without being in the situation, I can't say what I'd do. I'm certain that it is within my ability to rationalize the decision to kill in that situation, but I would like to think I would manage to retain my values and sense of life at the end stages of life.
I think Mindy is quite correct, hospice attracts all types, and there are some weird ones out there.
As to the whole universal healthcare thing, I think you would see a drastic reduction in healthcare costs if we could move away from the current socialist system. Not just for the obvious reason of market forces working properly but for the mass die off that would occur. I'm not pro-death, but you wouldn't believe the number of people out there who have made wildly destructive decisions and receive life sustaining care with no intention of ever paying for it or even altering their choices.

Post 38

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 5:27pm

Call me soft, but your statement about the financially desirable "die-off" gave me chills, Ryan. I don't want anybody to die from lack of at least basic medical treatment. That's a personal statement, though, I would not endorse any government action to achieve that aim.

While I'm shrugging off the "creeps:" your statement, Dean, that if a person repeated their crime without doing any productive work you would favor their being put to death is right up there with defining the erosion of sandstone as a process of thought! It isn't the wild logic of it that makes my skin crawl, though. Do you really hold human life in such low regard?

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/24, 6:31pm)

Post 39

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 7:44pm