Evaluating Initiation of Force in Emergency Situations

Hi John,

I might've misinterpreted Bill, but that's how I understood him.

Aside, this could be fun to discuss, but I'd argue that rights *do* exist when you are on a desert island, just as they exist when you find yourself completely alone. They don't flit into and out of existence depending on whether you are around other people. That is, there are still actions optimally conducive to furthering your life, wherever you are. What changes in a social context is the need to proclaim these rights.

Jordan

Post 121

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 3:56pm

Joe,

You said, "The abstraction 'man's life' is not the goal or the purpose. It is a cognitive tool that allows us to more clearly see what kind of life we should live.

I agree with that, but I would go further and say that 'man's life' is the conceptual genetic root of morality - of the part of morality that is our standard. And when some crazy lifeboat scenario creates a situation where our standard conflicts with our goal, that which follows in that scenario is not a part of morality - we can't claim to be acting morally when we are faced with either abandoning the standard or the purpose. The practice of morality requires a purpose and a standard. We both agree that the purpose must be the individual's own life and happiness. We are seeing the standard differently in some ways, and I'll try to flesh that out.
----------------------------------

You said, "We're not living our lives so that we can be compatible with "that which is proper to man". That's not the purpose."

I agree with that, but I'd quibble just a little and say that we are living our lives to be compatible with that which is proper to man, NOT as our purpose, but as the means for fulfilling our purpose. For example, I am living my life to be compatible with the health requirements proper to man (proper nutrition, exercise, etc.) but my purpose is enjoyment of my physical health. Those who might get caught up a health fad or obsession or misunderstand this purpose, might end up with the measuring of the vitamins, or the doing of the exercise or any subservience to universal health rules as a purpose in itself - that would be wrong. Notice that I can't talk intelligibly about my physical health without some universal standards to frame my particulars.
----------------------------------

You said, "You could imagine that we start with this abstraction 'that which is proper to man'... , and we are simply judging whether our own lives are compatible with it. It would be like picking an arbitrary set of values, declaring them 'good', and judging whether people conformed to it."

There is a difference between a standard, and that which it is applied to. The fact that the standards are values in themselves and have a hierarchy in themselves doesn't change that. For example, we would agree that honesty is a virtue, that it is a value, and that it is a standard that could be applied in various circumstances. That said, we might apply it as a standard when we are choosing how to word a particular statement - rejecting some ways of wording for falling short of the standard. Because we judged "honesty" to be a virtue at some point in our lives we use it as our standard. Now if we are faced with some unusual context, where it seems like honesty would conflict with our self-interest (like a mugger asking if we have any money on us), we need to examine our purpose (keeping our money) and the standard of being honest, and determine if it applies (it doesn't because of the muggers gun takes away choice which is part of the conditions of existence morality requires). Here's a different example. Say we were being asked by a lending institution if we had enough income to meet their requirements for a loan, and we thought those requirements were too high, and we believed we could pay back the loan. Are we moral in following what seems to be our self-interest and lying, or does morality require following our standard which is being honest and foregoing a loan that seems to be in our self-interest? You mentioned that these generic, abstract, universal rules were like a rule of thumb - helpful in most cases, but not the source or the heart of our purpose. I'd say, yes, they are handy and helpful, but they also need to be adhered to unless they don't logically apply to the context or they have some error we hadn't seen before. If they do apply and we still hold them as true, then we can't ignore them without tossing morality itself under the bus.
-----------------------------------

You said, "How do we know if an action is more optimal than another? Yes, we need a standard. Your own life is not technically a standard. A standard is a means of measurement. You need a way to measure the degree to which an action benefits or hurts you. Survival is that standard. We can measure whether an action increases our ability to survive, or decreases it. But it's not survival in some abstract sense. It's your own survival that matters. Does this action further your life or not, and to what extent? Does this other action benefit your life more or less than the first one?"

This is the heart of our disagreement. Yes, we need to measure alternatives. Yes, we need a standard. Yes, our own life is not that standard. Yes, a standard is a means of measurement. Yes, you need to measure the degree to which an action benefits or hurts you. No, survival is not that standard.

Our purpose INCLUDES survival, and survival is critical since all else depends upon it. But it isn't the end of our purpose, just the beginning. Also, it is not a standard since it does not give us a tool to compare alternatives. I can take this money sitting out on the store's counter and no one will know I took it. Is my ability to survive increased or decreased? We don't know how to compare that in a meaningful context without reference to values that we hold in an abstract form - those universal values we obtain and maintain as part of our "...cognitive tool that allows us to more clearly see what kind of life we should live..." - the standard is universal and abstract and needs to be to provide us with the means of an objective measurement of the specific, concrete, individual circumstances, possible actions, and consequences beyond just the superficial surface results (I'd have more money if I take this and get away with it). We are always moving from the general to the specific and the foundation, the base, that which gives morality a structure that works for all men is that abstract part that is the standard. But our use of it requires that we integrate it into the specific choices available to us. The purpose remains our life, our happiness, but the tool and the generic form of our goal is in that statement how men ought to live. The product of our specific value judgments is the goal of the specific actions of ours that will bring that kind of happiness to us as an individual, in a specific way.
--------------------------------

You said, "...our goal should be to further our own life, not to achieve a moral status."

I agree. And as you pointed out, there are rational, selfish reasons to gain and keep some moral status in the eyes of others, but it is very minor and related to facilitating relationships of sorts. One's purpose should always be personal net gain of some sort, but the standard will always be rooted in the abstract values of a life proper to man. I say "rooted" because in the end we are choosing between two or more concrete alternatives - do I do x or do I do y. Is this car better for me than that one. But there is a foundation that is always implicit in should/ought/good/better/etc. that goes back to those abstract values. It is for that reason, that we can not reason accurately if we ever discard that as the standard, even though we are comparing two automobiles and choosing between them - our unique life and it's unique circumstances never grow so unique as to leap out of the realm of what is proper to man or our conditions of existence and that is where the foundation of morality rests. It may not look like it on the face of a choice, a choice that appears to be dealing with nothing but a very concrete issue of material self-interest, but if we ever deny that foundation, we are no longer logically connected to the dimension of should/ought/good/better/etc. - those words no longer have any more meaning than "property" or "theft" in Proudhon's "property is theft" statement if we acted as if it was true. That example of a stolen concept is in the realm of metaphysics to the degree that it is using "is" to predicate of the subject. When we say "is better" to predicate of a subject we need that underlying moral foundation. "Better", how? Better mileage. Mileage is better why? It saves me money? Money is better, why? ... all the way back to "life as proper to man".
--------------------------------

I like that you broke personal morality away from judging other men for the purpose of discussion... I'll address that in a later post.

Post 122

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 4:22pm

Bill,

Someone pointed out to me that in post 82, where you said, "If you are morally justified...which you would be if your survival requires it", you were begging the question. When you say that one is morally justified to take any actions that their survival required, well, that is the whole issue under discussion, and you are assuming it in order to prove it.

Post 123

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 5:21pm

Jordan:

Aside, this could be fun to discuss, but I'd argue that rights *do* exist when you are on a desert island, just as they exist when you find yourself completely alone. They don't flit into and out of existence depending on whether you are around other people. That is, there are still actions optimally conducive to furthering your life, wherever you are. What changes in a social context is the need to proclaim these rights.

The deserted on an island alone example I gave was just a means of illustrating what rights are not, they are not a set of actions one follows when they are alone in a vacuum. Rights are not positive but instead say what one man cannot do to another, they are rules for man qua man, that is they only exist in social contexts. Rights for example do not tell you that you need to grow food, only that someone else can't prevent you from growing food if you so choose. If you were alone on a deserted island with no one around you, talking as if you had rights on this island is meaningless. There is no one there to coerce you so why bother applying "rights" to such a situation? It's like trying to set up your own government on a deserted island, who would you be governing? There would be no need for any kind of political structure, no reason to have any recognition of rights. It would be non-sensical to say you need rights on a deserted island so that other men do not coerce you, and it especially makes no sense to say you need rights to prevent yourself from coercing yourself. If no one is there to stop you from doing whatever you want, there is no necessity for rights in this context.

That being said, you seem to be saying that rights exist no matter what the context by saying they exist "where ever you are" and I would presume you would add "no matter what the circumstance". Again, this is simply an intrincist view of rights. Rights are moral principles in a social context, they are invented by man so that they can follow some easy guidelines to live optimally among other men. Rights do not exist in the fabric of space/time, they are not handed down by God, nor do they exist independently of the social interactions of man.

While your rights do not go away if you are alone in your house, I would presume they do not go away because by virtue of you existing in your house, your right to privacy and your right to the disposal of your own property makes it possible for you to be alone in your house. In this context you aren't really alone, there are people that live down the street from you that if they didn't recognize you had any rights could come to your house and forcibly drag you out of it. The deserted island example was just to show that no one could to do this to you, because you are alone on an island.

Post 124

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 6:12pm

Steve,

A very quick response. You said:

Our purpose INCLUDES survival, and survival is critical since all else depends upon it. But it isn't the end of our purpose, just the beginning.

We need to be clear on the difference between a standard and a purpose here. Survival is not the purpose. We're not hoping to simply stay alive. But a standard is not suppose to be the purpose. It's supposed to provide the means of measuring. So when I say survival is the standard, don't believe I mean purpose.

It appears you can't see how survival can act as a standard. I think it can. It allows you to measure your options by how capable you are at surviving.

Given a choice between living paycheck to paycheck or having a large nest-egg, which gives you the most capability of survival? You may survive in both situations, but not as readily. If there is an unexpected and undesirable event, like layoffs in your company, only one of these gives you the capability of surviving.

The same approach could work for knowledge. Someone who has the minimal amount of knowledge to live his life in normal circumstances and to do his job adequately does not have the same survival capability as someone who has increased depth and is capable of dealing with unexpected situations.

Differences in wealth also can be measured as being more capable of survival, or less. Same with ability to focus your thoughts, or the willpower to do undesirable tasks, or the creativity to solve new problems. Same with contentment. A man who is happier with his life is able to focus on value generation instead of fighting himself to get anything done. Visibility. Romance. Art. Entertainment. Sex. Physical fitness. All values can be seen as supplementing your survival capability.

And more importantly, survival provides a method of measuring unalike things as well. What's more important? Romance or financial independence? If we imagine them as simply abstract values, both compatible with life qua man, we couldn't make a trade-off. But when we see that the need to eat is more important than the need for romance in terms of survival, we can actually trade them off.

What other approach is there?

You could have abstract values, such as "romance" and "productivity", and if you're pursuing one, you're "moral". But how do you trade them off? How do you decide one is more important than the other? One answer is that you have a "value hierarchy" that determines the priority of each. But if you decide romance is lower than productivity, shouldn't we always discard romance for more wealth generation? Of course not. Abstract values can't really be used to measure the relative costs or benefits. To make proper trade-offs, you need to see which of these values actually benefits you the most. And that requires a standard. Abstract values aren't a standard. They're just a cognitive tool. They don't provide a method of measuring between the values.

By the way, have you read this article of mine? It's rough, but explores my own position about the function of each of these moral tools.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Rough_Draft_Functions_of_morality.shtml

"Life qua man" or any of the synonyms are really a method of identifying human needs. Each abstract value identifies a human need (although they are usually organized by referring to the things that satisfy the need). But they're abstractions. They can't tell you the marginal value. They can't tell you whether you have enough productive capability that you should spend the next bit of your value-pursuing energy on more productive capability, or romance, or entertainment, or food. You need a method of measuring them based on your own context at that particular moment. You can't deal with abstractions, since your life is not an abstraction and your current needs are not the same as the abstract needs.

If you still disagree, what might help is if you do a detailed description of a choice someone might need to make. Like should a guy spend his weekend working on a project at work, or spending time with his girlfriend. Both are acceptable given abstract values, and to that extent both are optional. But a standard of value should allow a means of actually comparing them.

Post 125

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 7:12pm

Steve wrote,

Someone pointed out to me that in post 82, where you said, "If you are morally justified...which you would be if your survival requires it", you were begging the question. When you say that one is morally justified to take any actions that their survival required, well, that is the whole issue under discussion, and you are assuming it in order to prove it.

The assumption was that your survival is in your self-interest -- that your life is worth living, worth sustaining. I hope that you won't accuse me of begging the question, if I state that you should do what's in your self-interest.

You also stated,

Our purpose INCLUDES survival, and survival is critical since all else depends upon it. But it isn't the end of our purpose, just the beginning.

By survival, I meant a life worth living, which it almost always is, short of being in a state of unbearable pain due to end-stage cancer or the like. Obviously, our highest moral purpose is our own happiness, but happiness is the consequence of a successful state of life. By the same token, pain and suffering are a consequence of injury to the organism. A toothache is undesirable not only because it hurts, but also because it signals a breakdown in an important part of one's digestive anatomy. The pain from a broken leg is undesirable not only because it feels bad, but also because it reflects a physical impairment. By "survival," therefore, I meant optimal survival, not a diseased and terminal state of existence. It is in that sense that survival (and its concomitant, happiness) is one's highest purpose. Of course, achieving that purpose requires that one live in a way that is proper to man's life qua man.

- Bill

Post 126

Friday, April 3, 2009 - 11:18pm

Hi John,

A quick disclaimer: This is a theory of natural/moral rights. I've gravitated away from this theory, but nonetheless, I find it the most tenable under Objectivism

Rights do entail a positive. "[F]or every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive�of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice," Rand writes. Of course,�with that positive is a correlative�negative obligation of others not to coerce you.�But the positive is primary. (And we're talking about moral rights here, under Objectivism --�not legal rights, just so there's no confusion.)

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man�s nature for his proper survival," Rand writes. Aren't there conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival, even if there's no one else around, even�when�stuck on that desert island?
". . .[T]he right�to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action�which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life," Rand writes. Again, aren't there actions required by the nature of a rational being, even if there's no one else around, even if when stuck on that desert island?

I figured you'd call the view intrinsicist, but that's wrong. The view holds rights as relational, as a bridge primarily between�between a moral agent's life�and the conditions (and concomitant actions) optimally conducive for further his life. Here's Rand's basic example: "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind." (Italics mine.)��So long as there's some action optimally conducive to furthering the moral agent's life, a right exists.� What is optimal is subject to change; there's nothin' intrinsic about it.

To be sure, I do not mean to short-change the function of rights in society, but I'd say that social function is secondary.�It is because rights exist in the first place that we can live in harmony with one another, that we can figure out who is allowed to do what and what not.

Ok. This thread is already pretty thick with other discussions. Let's start a new thread if you and others�would like to continue. Or I could try posting an article because I've actually hashed out this theory quite a bit in threads and forums past. What say you?

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 4/04, 9:13am)

Post 127

Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 7:43am

Ok. This thread is already pretty thick with other discussions. Let's start a new thread if you and others would like to continue.

Sure. You can find it here.

Post 128

Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 12:21pm

Jordan quoted Rand, "Rights are conditions of existence required by man�s nature for his proper survival," and asked, "Aren't there conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival, even if there's no one else around, even when stuck on that desert island?"

Sure, but that doesn't mean that there are rights on a desert island. To say that rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival is not to say that every such condition is therefore a right. A human being is an animal, but not every animal is a human being. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context.

Jordan also quoted Rand, "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind." (Italics mine.), and added, "So long as there's some action optimally conducive to furthering the moral agent's life, a right exists."

Not true. You're dropping context, Jordan. Rand's point was that since it is right for man to use his mind, it is wrong for others to interfere with his acting on his judgment and that he therefore has "a right" to such action. She was not saying that a right exists every time there's an action conducive to furthering one's life. Again, there are no rights on a desert island, even though there are actions on a desert island conducive to furthering one's life.

- Bill

Post 129

Sunday, April 5, 2009 - 2:55pm

Bill,

If you restate your points in the other thread, I'll respond to them there.

Jordan

Post 130

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 12:23pm

William,
I was wondering whether you know if any Objectivists have either commented explicitly on, or else implied a position on the following: If rights only apply under certain conditions (specifically where there is no objective conflict of interests between parties), then should the government intervene to protect anyone whenever someone uses force against someone because of an authentic conflict of interests? For example, if I steal food because I will die if I do not do so, then can the government itself properly take action to protect my victim from me? (I am not asking whether the victim himself can do so, as the answer to this is obvious to me; I am asking only what the government should be able to do in response to such a situation.)
In connection with all this, I have noticed that, in OPAR, Peikoff said that the government has as its proper purpose to protect individual rights; would this not mean that the government has no business, according to Objectivism, in intervening when rights do not apply? And yet, some Objectivists say elsewhere that the government's proper task is to protect people from those who initiate force against others. I guess that you could intiate force against others though, in certain rare circumstances, without violating rights.
However, I not only want to know what the Objectivist position is on this issue (if there is one); I also would like to know what you yourself think about it if you should either disagree wtih Objectivists on this issue, or else if you have an opinion on the issue, but do not know of one for Objectivists in general.
Also, I want you to know that I have enjoyed watching you respond to messages written by people on this thread and the one related to it. You truly seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders.

Post 131

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 4:58pm

Christopher, you wrote,

I was wondering whether you know if any Objectivists have either commented explicitly on, or else implied a position on the following: If rights only apply under certain conditions (specifically where there is no objective conflict of interests between parties), then should the government intervene to protect anyone whenever someone uses force against someone because of an authentic conflict of interests? For example, if I steal food because I will die if I do not do so, then can the government itself properly take action to protect my victim from me? (I am not asking whether the victim himself can do so, as the answer to this is obvious to me; I am asking only what the government should be able to do in response to such a situation.)

Well, I've argued that the government can and should act to protect the victim, but that it should also evaluate your act of theft with respect to the extenuating circumstances and adjust any penalty accordingly.

In connection with all this, I have noticed that, in OPAR, Peikoff said that the government has as its proper purpose to protect individual rights; would this not mean that the government has no business, according to Objectivism, in intervening when rights do not apply?

I don't think so. The victim's legal rights would still apply. The purpose of the government is to protect individuals from the initiation of force, and the purpose of the law is to codify that principle into a body of legal rights. So, even if the victim did not have a right against your intervening (because of your emergency condition, according to which you would no longer be obligated to abstain from interfering), he would still be justified in trying to protect himself from your interference, a goal in which the government would be justified in assisting him, since again the purpose of the government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force.

And yet, some Objectivists say elsewhere that the government's proper task is to protect people from those who initiate force against others. I guess that you could intiate force against others though, in certain rare circumstances, without violating rights.

Correct, but only in the sense that your victim would not have a right against your interference, because that would imply an obligation on your part to abstain from interfering, an obligation which in that emergency situation you would not be bound by.

However, I not only want to know what the Objectivist position is on this issue (if there is one); I also would like to know what you yourself think about it if you should either disagree wtih Objectivists on this issue, or else if you have an opinion on the issue, but do not know of one for Objectivists in general.

Right, I do have an opinion, as you can see, but don't know of any prominent Objectivist who has addressed this issue in any kind of detail.

Also, I want you to know that I have enjoyed watching you respond to messages written by people on this thread and the one related to it. You truly seem to have a pretty good head on your shoulders.

Thanks, Christopher, and I also appreciate your probing and challenging questions!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/08, 5:39pm)

Post 132

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 6:59pm

It has been some time since reading it, but perhaps Smith said some things on the matter in her Moral Rights and Political Freedoms book?

Post 133

Thursday, April 9, 2009 - 10:18am

William,
First of all, thank you for telling me you appreciate my probing and challenging questions. :)
In response to my question about whether the government should intervene in the type of circumstances we have been disscussing, you said that the victim's legal rights would still apply. I am guessing that by "legal rights" you mean the rights to seek proper government redress for what has been done to oneself? Please let me know what you mean by that term.
As for myself, I do not see how either party in such a conflict could be said to have rights against the other party, at least not rights to action which would objectively interfere with the other parties self-interest. Given my view of rights as being freedoms which cannot be morally infringed, I do not see how someone can have a right to do something which others ought to try to interfere with, given their own objective self-interests.
Aside from this disagreement between you and me, however, I do think that the government ought to intefere in instances like those we have been disscussing (a view which, I think, you seem to share with me.) I also agree with you that they should try to protect the victim while at the same time taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances involved for the perpetrator involved. If only they had done this for Jean Val Jean!! (I don't think I'm spelling the character's name right, but I meant to spell the name of the central character of Les Miserables.)
Thank you, by the way, for responding to me.

Post 134

Thursday, April 9, 2009 - 11:06pm

Christopher wrote,

In response to my question about whether the government should intervene in the type of circumstances we have been disscussing, you said that the victim's legal rights would still apply. I am guessing that by "legal rights" you mean the rights to seek proper government redress for what has been done to oneself? Please let me know what you mean by that term.

Yes. By "legal rights," I simply mean that the initiation of force should be against the law, even if it is done by someone in an emergency in order to save his own life. In that case, you would have a genuine conflict of interest between the victim and the perpetrator, so it would be in the interest of either party to defend himself against the other. What should be the government's role in this? Should it simply take no action against either party? No, not if it's empowered to protect its citizens against the initiation of force. It should come to the aid of the victim.

As for myself, I do not see how either party in such a conflict could be said to have rights against the other party, at least not rights to action which would objectively interfere with the other parties self-interest. Given my view of rights as being freedoms which cannot be morally infringed, I do not see how someone can have a right to do something which others ought to try to interfere with, given their own objective self-interests.

Correct, he doesn't have rights against the other party's initiation of force, since that would imply that the other party ought not to initiate it even if it were necessary to save his own life, which, of course, is false. But the government would nevertheless be justified in prosecuting the perpetrator for violating the law.

- Bill

Post 135

Friday, April 10, 2009 - 2:01pm