quote:This occurrence illustrates the issue which any subculture experiences when their values clash with those of others. Accusations of intolerance, arrogance, bigotry and so on.
And some of those accusatiions are right on.
quote:The challenge of a multicultural democracy is in finding ways of allowing this while at the same time balancing with the sensibilities of a larger group.
No, the challenge put to a multicultural democracy is to know what parts of a subculture are morally defensible, and what parts should be publically derided.
______
Jeni,
It did imply that God's dislike of homosexuals is so potent that their children can't be suffered at this school. It's elevating the sexual preference of the girl's parents to a deal breaker. What if the parents had been a man and a woman, but had had a recent abortion? Or what if the father were just indicted for some heinous white collar crime? What about a sexual offense? Would the school kick the girl out then? I hope not, and really, I don't think that they would. But yet, this, of all possible sins of the parents, warrants retribution to the girl met out by the school because it's just too dysfunctional.
posted
Irami- why are the pariahs of your moral code more odious than those off a different moral code?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And some of those accusatiions are right on.
But from the point of view of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be practiced in their subculture, your declarations of the supremacy of inclusion and diversity are high-handed and arrogant, in the exact same way that you believe that their exclusion is high-handed and arrogant. When moral codes clash who gets to be the final arbiter?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I have keener insight and wisdom-- at a deeper level-- than Nazies, terrorists, clansmen, and possibly the administrators of this school.
I'm not mad-- at this point-- for the administrators for thinking that homosexuality is wrong. I am mad at them for elevating it to such a wrong that this girl is asked to leave the school for this particular wrong perpetrated by her parents.
If the parents were caught abusing the girl's younger sibling, I wonder if they would ask the girl to leave?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The problem you are having is that you seem to consider compassion to be moral. starLisa seems not to. Given that, her arguements are perfectly consistent.
You mistake me, boots. There is a difference between an act that is morally positive/good, and something that can morally be required of someone. Those are entirely different things.
Benevolence is a good thing. Forcing others to be benevolent whether they want to or not is a bad thing. Does that make it a little more clear?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try this example: You have a herd of milk cows. You have done everything well and are very prosperous, hence you have all the milk you need and even end up throwing some of it away. Now, one day you find a baby on your property. You don't coerce it, as a matter of fact, you don't do anything to it at all. The baby dies.
Moral or not?
I don't know. What did you do when it happened?
The fact is that context matters. In most cases, however, I'd say that it is a morally positive/good thing to save the baby. A very good thing, in fact. Are you obligated to do so? I'm not sure why the fact that it's a baby should matter.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It did imply that God's dislike of homosexuals is so potent their children can't be suffered at this school. It's elevating the status the girl's parents to a deal breaker. What if the parents had be an man and a woman, but had had a recent abortion? Or what if the father were just indicted for some heinous white collar crime? What about a sexual offense? Would the school kick the girl out then? I hope not, and really, I don't think that they would. But yet, this, of all possible sins of the parents, warrants retribution to the girl met out by the school because it's just too dysfunctional.
First, an abortion is a one time event, it's not a lifestyle. I happen to know a man who was indicted for a white collar crime and went to federal prison. He was a well known, dedicated member of our church. He repented to all of us, and offers his testimony of wrong doing if asked. These are poor choices a person might make.
Let's make this personal, shall we? I used to have an open marriage, where I slept with men other than my husband. If I were to go back to that lifestyle (assuming my current husband approved and stayed married to me), I would fully expect to come under the censure of both my church and my son's school as living a lifestyle incompatible with my Christian testimony. If I continued, I could reasonably assume that my son might be dismissed from the school, especially considering that this is his first year there.
The difference is unrepentant sin. If you believe that homosexual sex is a sin, then a long standing homosexual couple is in unrepentant sin, and therefore teaching by example a lesson incompatible with the philosophies the school espouses. It's not about hate, it's about loving enough to say that what is going on is wrong and that they could not support it as an institution.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeni, it is, as I said, a theological difference. I couldn’t teach my (hypothetical) children what I consider to be core Christian values by sending them to an exclusive school. Other Christians consider different values than I do to be “core.” For them, such a school may fit with their theology. For me, it would not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Benevolence is a good thing. Forcing others to be benevolent whether they want to or not is a bad thing.
I suppose this raises a question. Assume someone leaves a baby on your back stoop; no one else sees it, since you have a fence.
You do nothing, stepping over the baby when necessary to get in and out of your home, and the baby eventually dies.
Are you guilty of any crime? Should you be?
I refer you to my previous post in which I differentiated between things that are morally good or bad, and things that may legitimately be forced on people.
Taking a rifle up to a high tower and starting to shoot at people is bad, and it is legitimate to force someone not to do that.
Walking by someone starving without helping can be morally bad in certain cases, but it isn't legitimate to force you to help.
Helping is not the same as refraining from harming. Harming is not the same thing as refraining from helping.
It's legitimate to force someone not to harm someone else. It is not legitimate to force someone to help someone else.
Someone who does what you describe is a pig. And a moral leper. At least in any normal situation I can think of. But I'm not sure I could justify punishing someone who did that other than by voluntarily ostracizing him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Someone who does what you describe is a pig. And a moral leper. At least in any normal situation I can think of. But I'm not sure I could justify punishing someone who did that other than by voluntarily ostracizing him.
But why not? At what point does disinterest/self-interest become so damaging to society that it is considered nearly as bad as murder?
For example, teachers and child care specialists are required by law to report mysterious bruises. Should they be? If not, and if more children are then abused successfully as a consequence, has this "freedom" not harmed society?
If someone can legally step over someone else's starving body -- a baby or not -- at what point does a society say, "Okay, that's enough. You -- or these other designated agents of society -- have to help this person?"
Or is it indeed more moral to let someone die unwilling in misery than to force someone unwilling to help them live?
------
Consider that story from about a year back of the young woman who hit a pedestrian with her car, impaling him on her windshield, and then drove home and locked the car in her garage for a few days while he died -- screaming all the while for help. Is she only guilty of manslaughter, or did at some point her negligence actually cross the line into murder?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Hence, it doesn't matter how morally bad a person's selfish behavior is - he is still entitled to do it without government-imposed punishment if it is within his rights as a human being or citizen.
After all, to a great many Americans, one of the greatest moral harms you can do is turn someone away from God or lead them to eternal damnation - greater perhaps than even murder. Nevertheless, since it is within our agreed-upon rights to practice differing religions or no religion at all, this harm should never be enforced by legislation, no matter how harmful it truly is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: At what point does disinterest/self-interest become so damaging to society that it is considered nearly as bad as murder?
There's no such thing as society.
Suppose you and I are walking down the street, and we see a rich man and a poor man. Would it be acceptable for us to pull a gun on the rich man, force him to give us money, and then give that money to the poor man?
After all, there are two of us, and only one of him. Majority rules, right?
Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
I contend there is no magic number. I say it never happens. I say that persuasion is moral, and coercion is immoral. And that the only reason people prefer coercion is the immature urge for immediate gratification. Coercion, after all, is far more efficient. In the shurt term.
You are assuming an entity called society that possesses perogatives that the individuals within it do not possess, and I say that's bunk. If one person isn't entitled to rob Peter to pay Paul, then neither are a million people.
If all the do-gooders who are so eager to force people to help other people would devote half that energy to helping other people, the world would be a far better place. And the reason they don't is simple. It's envy and resentment. It's "misery loves company". It's a childish attitude of "If I have to help, then by God I'm going to make everyone else help."
There's a piece of a newspaper in my bathroom right now. In that, there's an article that honestly turned my stomach. It referred to "the social contract that recognizes... the link between success and the society that makes it possible".
There's no such social contract. We are not cells in a great organism. We all live for our own purposes. To the extent that we come together for a joint purpose, it's by choice.
Majority rule is a good way (not the only way, but possibly the best way) to decide between two legitimate alternatives. It will never be a justification for a majority to coerce a minority.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Consider that story from about a year back of the young woman who hit a pedestrian with her car, impaling him on her windshield, and then drove home and locked the car in her garage for a few days while he died -- screaming all the while for help. Is she only guilty of manslaughter, or did at some point her negligence actually cross the line into murder?
I forgot to mention this, but it's separate from the rest of your post, so I'm glad to answer it separately.
She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself. Every inch she drove after that was intentional harm. Not negligence, but attempted homicide. Not just murder, but premeditated murder.
She didn't lock the car in her garage. She locked him in her garage. Had she gotten home and then helped him, she still would have been guilty of attempted homicide.
I think that all cases of "vehicular manslaughter [sic] while under the influence", btw, should be treated as murder. I know that this woman was apparently not drunk or stoned, but too much law is actually there to exempt people from responsibility for their own actions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if it is within his rights as a human being or citizen.
It would seem that legislating those rights is legislating morality, Tres.
There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
See, this is what I don't get about you. On one hand, you say there's no such thing as society; on the other hand, you say a state of war can exist, even undeclared, between individuals acting as agents of a larger state, even if that state does not formally exist.
Clearly at some point the "state which does not formally exist" coalesces into something, right? Why is that point any less arbitrary than the point at which a society is born?
quote: She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself.
I submit that, in occasionally less tangible and immediate ways, many individuals take away the ability of other individuals to help themselves all the time, and one of the functions of law is to help those who have that ability taken from them.
Keep in mind that I'm a borderline libertarian, myself; I teeter on that edge pretty easily. But what keeps me from leaping over that line without reservation is the domination of the Libertarian Party by null-moral Objectivists and gun-nut conspiracy theorists, both of whom suffer from a strange kind of bias that, in the extreme, posits that violence (read: coercion) is ultimately the only form of real currency.
--------
quote: There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
The only difference between a right that exists and a right that doesn't exist is a piece of paper saying so. Far more than "society," rights are a convenient fiction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Says who? Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics.
*whisper* Irami, Lisa's an Objectivist. She's one of those people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or maybe three or for people aren't enough to be considered a "society". What is the magic number then, Tom? Is it 100? Is it 100?
At what point do we get some critical mass of people who suddenly morph into a separate entity that is entitled to force that rich man to give us his money so that we can give it to that poor man?
See, this is what I don't get about you. On one hand, you say there's no such thing as society; on the other hand, you say a state of war can exist, even undeclared, between individuals acting as agents of a larger state, even if that state does not formally exist.
You don't get it. That's true. There is a difference between responding to a threat as though it comes from a single source and saying that it is a single source.
There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Clearly at some point the "state which does not formally exist" coalesces into something, right? Why is that point any less arbitrary than the point at which a society is born?
False premise; false conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:She hit him. Intentionally or not, she hit him. At that point, he was no longer free. She had taken away his ability to help himself.
I submit that, in occasionally less tangible and immediate ways, many individuals take away the ability of other individuals to help themselves all the time, and one of the functions of law is to help those who have that ability taken from them.
You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
There's a reason why we talk about the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and not a right "to be happy". There's no guarantee of success. There are other people out there who are far more innovative and productive than I am. They are entitled to their successes.
The issue is justice; not fairness. Fairness is a cheat. Is it fair that I'm better at writing than my partner? Is it fair that my brother is better at focusing than me? Is it fair that I can't play the piano, while there are virtuosos out there?
We're all born differently, and we all live different lives. And some suck and some are great and some are just... lives. And if you find it appropriate to help someone, go ahead and do it. More often than not, you won't regret it. But forcing people... that's bad.
I generally give a buck to panhandlers in the Loop. Not always, but sometimes. If they're smoking, they don't need my money. I skip them.
One day, this guy is standing there looking fairly disreputable, and saying softly, "Help the homeless". So I give him a dollar. And he says, "Would you be willing to take a resume?"
Now how the hell about that? Here's this inner city guy, living at the Y, and I look at his resume, and he's been taking courses in computers and paralegal training. He's got a paralegal certificate, too. So I take his resume home and fix it up for him to make it look more presentable, and I e-mail it back to him. And carry a hardcopy with in case I run into him, which I do.
I've been homeless and unemployed. It sucks. But I never felt that anyone owed me help.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Keep in mind that I'm a borderline libertarian, myself; I teeter on that edge pretty easily. But what keeps me from leaping over that line without reservation is the domination of the Libertarian Party by null-moral Objectivists and gun-nut conspiracy theorists, both of whom suffer from a strange kind of bias that, in the extreme, posits that violence (read: coercion) is ultimately the only form of real currency.
Funny how you can accuse people who are opposed to coercion of coercion. I think they call that transference. Or the "I'm rubber, you're glue" syndrome.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist.
The only difference between a right that exists and a right that doesn't exist is a piece of paper saying so. Far more than "society," rights are a convenient fiction.
You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government is not charged with legislating right and wrong, or good and bad. It should not be enforcing morality by law.
Says who? Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
From your mouth to God's ears.
Some of those things are good things. And there are a lot of people who are in favor of them. They just don't have any right to force others to join in.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics.
*whisper* Irami, Lisa's an Objectivist. She's one of those people.
Post-Objectivist, really. I have a lot of disagreements with the Objectivist focus on things as opposed to people. They give lip service to benevolence as a virtue, but it certainly doesn't seem that they take it seriously.
You should read David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, what is the justification for the government becoming involved in enforcing contractual obligations between consenting parties? Why should my resources be used to ensure that someone else can receive their contractual benefits?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because if this is the case, I'm sure that there are some people who want their tax dollars back for every program from public education to FEMA, because all of those programs are about morality, not to mention museums and all of those expensive military funerals and ceremonies, and the Olympics. If the government isn't concerned with character, then we can cut all of that pretense out and run the country on the cheap.
The government is charged with acting morally - but not legislating morality, a.k.a. forcing individuals to act morally too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
So one of the conditions that DOES form a "society" is the decision of a group to attack another group? We can dismiss speaking of a group as a collection of individuals -- or treating them that way -- once they attack people?
Under what other circumstances would you say that we can deal with people as groups?
quote: You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
Do you believe that the only way to take something away from someone involves force or coercion? That if nothing is coerced, nothing can be lost?
quote: You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Similarly, if it doesn't exist, insisting that it does doesn't magically make it real. The reason Jefferson had to enumerate a list of rights in the Declaration of Independence was precisely because people are not self-evidently endowed with any rights; if it were self-evident, you wouldn't have to mention them. No one has an inherent right to anything beyond that which they can grab for themselves. We manufacture and imagine rights that we would like people to have, and then call them "rights" to make them sound more important than "privileges." That doesn't make them any more real on a cosmic scale, though.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: starLisa, what is the justification for the government becoming involved in enforcing contractual obligations between consenting parties? Why should my resources be used to ensure that someone else can receive their contractual benefits?
Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
You've made too big a leap here. Even if I grant the conclusory statement that the sole justification of government is as you state it, enforcing contracts doesn't automatically follow from that.
If someone fails to deliver the contractual benefits to the other party, the government could adopt a "too bad" attitude. If the deprived party attempts to use force to take those benefits, the government could stop him from doing so. There is no requirement that the government use its coercive power (and our taxpayer resources) to guarantee the contractually agreed on distribution of resources.
quote:The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
Again, the government can ban private enforcement without providing enforcement of contractual disputes. It could ban all forms of violence, punishing parties who seek private enforcement.
quote:If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
But why should the government care about how the disputes are resolved? Why should force be used to protect only those private rights that you have recognized? What is the principle of exclusion for other rights?
quote:And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Why? Parties enter into contracts precisely because both parties will receive benefits from it. People don't voluntarily enter into a contract because they want obligations. They enter into them because they believe they will receive benefits.
Negotiation is the allocation of the contractual surplus (that value which exists only if the contract is executed) between the parties. If there is no contractual surplus, perfectly informed, rational parties will not enter into the contract.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There shouldn't be war. If a group of people attack, we aren't responsible for treating them as individuals.
So one of the conditions that DOES form a "society" is the decision of a group to attack another group?
No. Consider light. Is it made up of particles or waves? The fact is, we can treat light as though it is made up of particles, rather than waves, in certain contexts. And we can treat light as though it is made up of waves, rather than particles, in other contexts.
Neither of those is a determination that light is made up of waves or of particles.
This is actually one of the major flaws in Objectivism, and the primary cause of Objectivist Personality Disorder. Rand wrote that you can't fault a cloud for raining on you or a dog for biting you, but you can fault a person for behaving irrationally. You can fault a person for not understanding that coercion is wrong, even though that person may have grown up being indoctrinated with that idea.
Why? Because human beings are capable of overcoming their training. So if they don't, they're culpable. Back in the 60s, she and her group of groupies used to accuse people of "social metaphysics", by which they meant treating people as forces of nature. They were okay with someone not jumping off a building, because gravity is a given. But they weren't okay at all with people working within the system, because that implied a kind of acceptance of bad premises.
It was sick. A kind of McCarthyism. It ate her movement up from within. And it was all because she couldn't comprehend that in some cases, even though people have free will and can choose to make better choices and have better premises, sometimes it's necessary to treat them as though they are givens. And not insist that either they change or be labeled "evil".
And you're making the same mistake here. Try to grasp the difference between "is" and "as though".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Under what other circumstances would you say that we can deal with people as groups?
When they define themselves as external. When someone stands up in court and says, "I don't recognize your authority to try me, because you aren't my government", they are, by their own choice, setting themselves as outside parties. At that point, if they say they've acted as part of a group, and that group agrees with this externalization, it can be treated as though it is an entity.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it. Not giving something does not equate to taking something away.
Do you believe that the only way to take something away from someone involves force or coercion?
Your wording is vague. I can give something away freely. But the term "take" implies that it's against my will. If so, it involves force and/or coercion. By definition.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That if nothing is coerced, nothing can be lost?
Of course not. I bought a lottery thing this morning. That's $2 down the drain. No coercion, but I lost $2. Of course, I didn't really "lose" it. I exchanged it freely for the chance to win $50K a year for life. Perhaps it was a bad choice on my part, but I'm entitled to be stupid.
Other than that, yes. Without coercion, nothing can be taken away from someone against their will, unless they've willingly agreed (by entering into a contract) to forfeit that thing.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it.
Similarly, if it doesn't exist, insisting that it does doesn't magically make it real. The reason Jefferson had to enumerate a list of rights in the Declaration of Independence was precisely because people are not self-evidently endowed with any rights; if it were self-evident, you wouldn't have to mention them.
It is self-evidence to any sane and moral person that grabbing a baby and stepping on it is immoral. But there are people who lack morality and/or sanity. They need to be informed of their error. That's how things change.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No one has an inherent right to anything beyond that which they can grab for themselves.
The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: We manufacture and imagine rights that we would like people to have, and then call them "rights" to make them sound more important than "privileges." That doesn't make them any more real on a cosmic scale, though.
quote:Good question. Think it through. The question even goes beyond that. Why, if someone steals from me, can't I just hire someone to go and take it back? Private police and all that.
You've made too big a leap here. Even if I grant the conclusory statement that the sole justification of government is as you state it, enforcing contracts doesn't automatically follow from that.
If someone fails to deliver the contractual benefits to the other party, the government could adopt a "too bad" attitude.
Not legitimately. That's stealing. As soon as I am entitled to something by the terms of a contract, freely entered into by all parties, it belongs to me. Withholding it is theft. No different than sneaking into my home and pillaging.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the deprived party attempts to use force to take those benefits, the government could stop him from doing so.
Right. Because in civilization, we agree to delegate that right to the government. Otherwise it isn't civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is no requirement that the government use its coercive power (and our taxpayer resources) to guarantee the contractually agreed on distribution of resources.
The government is indeed required to prevent theft and to rectify it once it's happened.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to. Otherwise, my private cops and your private cops get to shoot it out. That's anarchy, and it's essentially a barbaric situation where those who want to coerce others can do so by strength of arms.
Again, the government can ban private enforcement without providing enforcement of contractual disputes.
"We could do that. But it would be wrong."
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It could ban all forms of violence, punishing parties who seek private enforcement.
And it should do just that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If everyone could be relied upon to respect the rights of others, we wouldn't need government to take that role. But people aren't perfect.
Also, people can have legitimate differences of opinions. How can these get resolved without violence? By mediation. Whose mediation? Again, there needs to be an objective body to fulfill that role.
But why should the government care about how the disputes are resolved?
Because theft is an abrogation of the rights of one party at the hands of another.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why should force be used to protect only those private rights that you have recognized? What is the principle of exclusion for other rights?
I'll skip the questions you're asking which are based on false premises. I hope you don't mind. After all, I've essentially answered them already.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And I have to object to your use of the meaningless phrase "contractual benefits". If two (or more) parties enter freely into a contract, they each have a responsibility to carry out their obligations in that contract, and are entitled to see that the other party or parties do as well. "Benefits" is a bad term for that.
Why? Parties enter into contracts precisely because both parties will receive benefits from it.
Benefits implies a lack of entitlement. The basic definition of a right is what I'm entitled to demand of someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People don't voluntarily enter into a contract because they want obligations. They enter into them because they believe they will receive benefits.
No. They enter into a contract because they are willing to make that exchange. If you offer me a book in exchange for $7, and I accept, and you give me the book, and I don't give you the $7, I've stolen from you. I agreed to be obligated to give you $7 when you give me that book. I reneged. I stole. The government needs to stop me from doing that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Negotiation is the allocation of the contractual surplus (that value which exists only if the contract is executed) between the parties. If there is no contractual surplus, perfectly informed, rational parties will not enter into the contract.
Then don't enter into the contract. If you do, you are obligated to abide by it by your free choice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not legitimately. That's stealing. As soon as I am entitled to something by the terms of a contract, freely entered into by all parties, it belongs to me. Withholding it is theft. No different than sneaking into my home and pillaging.
Sure. Now let's look at some realistic hypotheticals. Few actual cases deal with person A payng and person B not delivering at all. It involves disputes about the meaning of terms that are ambiguous, or about occurances not expressly dealt with in the contract. An enormous amount of resources are spent creating default enforcement rules and adjudicating them. I know why I support this, but none of my reasons are acceptable in the framework you have presented for justifying government action.
quote:I'll skip the questions you're asking which are based on false premises. I hope you don't mind. After all, I've essentially answered them already.
I do mind. If you simply want to state, "This is the truth," then put out a manifesto. If you want to discuss your beliefs, which I'm assuming you do based on your posting of this on a discussion board, then discuss them.
And no, you haven't answered the question. You've states that only these rights are worthy of enforcement. You have not articulated a reason for why a particular right belongs on that list or doesn't.
quote:Benefits implies a lack of entitlement. The basic definition of a right is what I'm entitled to demand of someone else.
You have an enforceable, legal right to the benefits of the deal. They are distinct concepts and conflating them makes the discussion muddled.
quote:No. They enter into a contract because they are willing to make that exchange.
And they are willing to make that exchange because they obtain benefit from doing so.
quote:If you offer me a book in exchange for $7, and I accept, and you give me the book, and I don't give you the $7, I've stolen from you. I agreed to be obligated to give you $7 when you give me that book. I reneged. I stole. The government needs to stop me from doing that.
Again, most contractual litigation involves situations that can't be summed up in 5 sentences with an obvious "right" outcome.
quote:Then don't enter into the contract. If you do, you are obligated to abide by it by your free choice.
So you agree with me that people enter into contracts because they will benefit? I haven't once advocated people reneging on their promises, so why do you respond this way?
You keep saying government shouldn't enforce morality. But you keep advocating government actions to prevent wrongdoing. Which is it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Topping for two reasons: a) I want to be able to find it tomorrow when I have time for this thread b) Hoping other participants will continue the discussion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem you are having is that you seem to consider compassion to be moral. starLisa seems not to. Given that, her arguements are perfectly consistent.
I think the greater problem is that we appear to have different definitions of coercion.
quote:It comes down to "having reason to believe". A person's beliefs do not grant him rights. If someone makes no provisions for himself because he's learned to rely on being taken care of by others, he's going to be in for a rude awakening.
And I'm honestly tired of the "most would argue". Who cares what most would do? If you argue it, then have the courage to say that you do. Don't just attribute it to others. A view gains nothing in the way of solidity merely because many people hold it.
In a quasi-democratic society, it is of the utmost importance what "most would do". And I rather resent the allegation of lack of courage. Continuing to press an opinion in these forums in the face of opposition requires a measure courage, whether you dislike my terms or not.
Certain basic beliefs are necessary for society to function, and for an individual to function. If I "have reason to believe" that my house won't be stormed by armed invaders, I can sleep at night and go on about my day. Otherwise, I'm never going to do anything other than patrol my house with a rifle. That's not an effective way for an individual or a member of a society to function.
It isn't "expecting others to take care of me" to expect that I can go to a supermarket and buy food, that the currency I've been issued will have value when I do so and that there will be food in stock when I go to do so. But that could change in a moment. I could probably live on the food I have stored at my home for a time. I could probably survive on the contents of my garden for a time. I might be able to rig some simple ways to trap or hunt game, though in my area, I suspect I would get extremely tired of living on squirrels and the occasional wayward housepet. Living as we do may have compromised our ability to survive without that infrastructure, but it also makes life as a society with our level of population possible. We "believe" that our basic infrastructures will continue to function, and as such, we continue to support them, and they do continue to function, by and large.
Stealing, or looting, or hoarding from what is collectively available in a time of need is more harmful to the other members of the group suffering that need than it is beneficial to the individual thief/looter/hoarder. I would define that as immoral. But it does not implicitly use force or threat against any member of that group, and so it is not coercion.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
Well put.
I'll further argue that Tom's(and my) view is horribly unfashionable and not supported by the last 250 years of western political dogma.
The pervading story in our world is that everyone has a right to everything, including all material "property," but living in that world is a nervous anxious mess, so give over our rights to the government, that is, The government oversees my relinquishing my right to the car parked in front of Tom's house and Tom lays down his right to the bike in front of mine. The imminent threat of retribution by the government for any trespasses is the power that allows me to trust that Tom won't steal the bike, and allows Tom to trust that I won't take that car.
But when the government fails as a enforcer, all bets are off and we relapse into a war of all against all. Most people would point to the looting in New Orleans as an example.
I'm not compelled by this conception of rights, but it does latently hold sway in the vast majority of our political discourse, and it's one of our legal foundations-- a logical extension of our English cultural heritage-- and a reason why contracts are such a big darn deal in America, because contracts express the laying down of ones rights.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What people think has no effect on what is, though"
Well, no, this is demonstratably wrong. What people think OFTEN has an effect on what is. For example, the people of germany felt that the treaty of versailles was crushingly unfair. Thus, it was crushingly unfair, because they responded to it as if it were. Even if from an objective standpoint the treaty were fair, the fact that millions of people did not perceive it that way means it is, in fact, not fair.
More fundamentally, I refer you to the shroedinger's cat thought experiment. A wave function does not collapse until it is observed, so perception, which informs thought, has a large effect on reality.
"Originally posted by Sterling: If the tree example fails, it's largely because the situation is too hypothetical and vague. But consider disputes about fishing waters, areas which are shared by many nations with different needs and goals. To those who fish on a subsistence basis, those who over-fish those areas and deplete the long-term population unquestionably do wrong, with no inherent coersion.
Says who?"
Well, says Sterling for starters. More importantly, you didn't address why you think he's wrong.
"A person's beliefs do not grant him rights."
This is true. But when a group of people gather together, and say "We will protect these rights," even if what they are protecting are not "fundamentally" rights, then that group of people have turned their beliefs into what are, functionally, rights... protected areas where people can perform as they choose without undo danger of interference.
"The fact is that context matters. In most cases, however, I'd say that it is a morally positive/good thing to save the baby. A very good thing, in fact. Are you obligated to do so?"
Well, yes. You seem to assert that the right to life is an objective right. That means that you have a duty to protect the life of others, when possible. Failure to do so means you've failed to uphold on objective right. If you're not obligated to do so, then the right to life can't be construed as an objective right.
"There's no such thing as society."
This is objectively false. At a very simple level, a society is any group of people that live under the jurisdiction of a government. Beyond that, its false to imply that my actions have no effect on people whom I am not directly performing the action on. Take, for example, a person X living in a very nice neighborhood. All his neighbors have well maintained properties. Mr. X puts old pickup trucks up on blocks in his yard, does not mow the lawn, the paint on his house is peeling, and he feeds the crows. The value of the neighbors property will drop. And yet, Mr. X is doing nothing to those properties. The interactions implicit in a group of people living near each other create a web of effects that can be considered to create a society.
"If all the do-gooders who are so eager to force people to help other people would devote half that energy to helping other people, the world would be a far better place. And the reason they don't is simple. It's envy and resentment. It's "misery loves company". It's a childish attitude of "If I have to help, then by God I'm going to make everyone else help.""
So nice of you to attribute false motives to people you clearly don't understand.
"There's a piece of a newspaper in my bathroom right now. In that, there's an article that honestly turned my stomach. It referred to "the social contract that recognizes... the link between success and the society that makes it possible".
There's no such social contract. We are not cells in a great organism. We all live for our own purposes. To the extent that we come together for a joint purpose, it's by choice."
There IS a social contract recognizing the inherent link between success and the society upon which success is built. No one is successful independant of the people around him. What we do with that recognition of fact is a different matter, but by electing representatives that have chosen to write laws that implicitly state that its not possible to be successful without others, and therefore we owe something to others for allowing us to be successful, and then operating within the jurisdiction of those laws, we acknowledge that there is, indeed, a social contract.
To some extent, we are cells in a great organism. Especially economically. An economy doesn't work without mutually beneficial interactions.
"There's a difference between recognizing rights that already exist and asserting rights which do not exist."
Except how do we know which rights exist, and which do not? There's no evidence anywhere that there's even such a real thing as a "right," let alone evidence that certain things are rights and certain things are not, and that we can know which ones are or are not. And if we assert that we can rationally know what is a right and what is not, we have to be prepared to acknowledge that rational thought does not necessarily lead two people to the same place, so we need to be prepared to defend our assertion of what is a right and what is not with rational arguments that can be persuassive to people with differing ideas of what is and is not a right.
"You can submit that, but it doesn't have any strength. You can't take away something from someone unless that someone already has it."
Not necessarily true, especially under a doctrine of rights.
"Funny how you can accuse people who are opposed to coercion of coercion. I think they call that transference. Or the "I'm rubber, you're glue" syndrome."
Ignoring obvious coercions does not make those coercions go away.
"You can squeeze your eyes (and mind) shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La la la!" to keep from seeing or hearing something, but it still exists despite your efforts to not perceive it."
Likewise, you can blindly assert something exists, and shout "la la la" at people saying the opposite, but that doesn't make it exist.
"The answer is that the sole justification for government at all is to have an objective body that will carry out those tasks. That we delegate our right to retaliatory coercion to."
Well, no. THere are lots of justifications for government. This happens to be the only one you accept. Doesn't necessarily make it so. If we assert a right to life, property, and pursuit of happiness, it follows very rationally that governments job might be to PROTECT those rights... not just retaliate coercively. Protection can involve prevention, or even pre-emption. Not always, but it can.
"The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate."
So, again, how do you determine what an inherent right is? How do you distinguish it from simply an asserted right?
"Nope. You're quite wrong."
You're quite wrong here. Historically speaking, there's never been a situation in which rights are protected unless people form together to protect rights that the group of people decide need protecting.
I guess thats all for now
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The words of a barbarian. A thug who thinks that might makes right. I'm going to assume that you're neither, and that you're playing devil's advocate.
No. I believe there are no inherent human rights. I believe that we as a people -- as a society -- have resolved to pretend that certain rights exist, and have come together to enforce the recognition of those rights. But there's nothing in nature that suggests that any one individual is truly entitled to anything.
So whoever has the biggest mob gets to decide what's right and wrong. What's good and bad.
That's an incredibly sad way of looking at the world. But it does serve as an excellent justification for those who think they know better than everyone else what's good for them
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It comes down to "having reason to believe". A person's beliefs do not grant him rights. If someone makes no provisions for himself because he's learned to rely on being taken care of by others, he's going to be in for a rude awakening.
And I'm honestly tired of the "most would argue". Who cares what most would do? If you argue it, then have the courage to say that you do. Don't just attribute it to others. A view gains nothing in the way of solidity merely because many people hold it.
In a quasi-democratic society, it is of the utmost importance what "most would do". And I rather resent the allegation of lack of courage. Continuing to press an opinion in these forums in the face of opposition requires a measure courage, whether you dislike my terms or not.
Democracy is a way of allowing people to choose between valid choices. If it permits people to choose between all choices, including vicious and immoral ones, it may technically be a democracy, but the fact that it has now become a tyranny trumps that.
And I didn't make a general comment about your courage. I said, and I repeat, that if you think something is the case, say that you think it's the case. I consider it cowardly to hide all of your assertions behind, "Most people say". What most people say does not determine what is. Or there'd be places in the US where pi is equal to three.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Certain basic beliefs are necessary for society to function, and for an individual to function. If I "have reason to believe" that my house won't be stormed by armed invaders, I can sleep at night and go on about my day.
That can be achieved equally well by having a society that merely prevents anyone from initiating force against anyone else. It doesn't have to come from one group of people saying, "Okay, who thinks that letting houses being stormed by armed invaders is okay? Hands? Hmm... looks like armed invaders storming houses is going to be against the rules, because the majority says so."
But if I'm accustomed to being able to run my convenience store in the neighborhood, I shouldn't have a right to try and use government coercion to keep big stores out. I can try to convince people, but ultimately, the fact that I'm accustomed to being able to do business doesn't grant me the right to do so. It only grants me the right to attempt to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Otherwise, I'm never going to do anything other than patrol my house with a rifle. That's not an effective way for an individual or a member of a society to function.
You're describing anarchy. I believe I've been more than clear that I advocate no such thing, and that allowing anyone to initiate violence against anyone else is always an violation of the victim's rights.
And since honest and good people can disagree on what constitutes initiating violence ("He started it!" "No, he did!"), we need government to be responsible for prevention of such acts and retribution where deemed necessary.
But no government -- ever, under any circumstances -- can have rights that do not belong, fundamentally, to the people. Because people is all we have. People make governments. Governments are there to serve people. People can't get around the basic immorality of mugging someone for "a good cause" by creating a government and asserting that it has the legitimate power to do that.
Sure, people can do that. If I have a gun and you don't, I can force you to lick my boots. But that doesn't make it right.
And to go back to one of the early examples I used, if you and I are walking down the street and see a rich man and a poor man, we are not entitled to mug the rich man and give his money to the poor man. Not even part of it. We can ask. We can cajole. We can engage in any non-coercive act of persuasion that we want. But coercion crosses the line. And the four people in this example don't gain or lose any basic rights or restrictions just because they are 4 million instead.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It isn't "expecting others to take care of me" to expect that I can go to a supermarket and buy food,
You can go to a supermarket and buy food if there is a supermarket. Ifthere is food in it. If the food is for sale, and you have the price and the proprietors have not qualified their offer of food for sale in a way that would exclude you.
They used to have signs on public beaches in this country as recently as the 1940s that said, "No Jews or dogs". That's foul. And on a public beach, it is, and should be, illegal. But on a private beach? It's just foul.
I'm gay, Sterling. And I'm Jewish. And I'm a woman. Any three of those characteristics, or combinations of them, are sufficient for some people to want to discriminate against me. I can tell you right now that there are people on this forum, nice people in most other ways, who would do their level best to have me fired from a teaching position, regardless of how good a teacher I might be.
So don't think I'm a straight white chick who is living high on the hog, and saying, "I got mine, so screw yourself." I'm not even sure how we're going to be able to survive financially to the end of the year. We may lose our house.
But I would never, ever, not in a billion years, not for the welfare of myself, my partner, nor even our five year old daughter, dream of suggesting that anyone else has an "obligation" to help us out. I'll ask. I have no pride issues on that count. If it gets bad enough, I'll certainly ask for help, wherever I think I can get it. But I'll ask. Because that's all I have the right to do.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Stealing, or looting, or hoarding from what is collectively available in a time of need is more harmful to the other members of the group suffering that need than it is beneficial to the individual thief/looter/hoarder. I would define that as immoral. But it does not implicitly use force or threat against any member of that group, and so it is not coercion.
It is coercion, because it is stealing from the owners of that food (or supplies or whatnot). Maybe they'd be willing to give the contents of their food to the needy in an emergency situation like that. Maybe they'd do it gratis, and maybe they'd do it in hopes of eventually being compensated by others. But they weren't given the choice. People decided that their need trumped morality.
Don't get me wrong. I've thought long and hard about the "John Q" type of quandary. What if there was a medicine that was needed by someone I loved, and all of my legitimate attempts to raise enough money to get it fell through? Would I steal in order to get that money? Would I steal the medicine itself at gunpoint?
I honestly don't know. Maybe, in extremis, I would do something like that. But after the fact, I would acknowledge freely that what I had done was wrong. And I would do my utmost to make amends. I certainly wouldn't try to justify it.
You don't like being accused of cowardice. Well, I'm telling you that we live in a society of cowards. A society in which most people who find themselves needing (in their minds) to do something wrong have to find a way to justify the act. A society full of people who can't say, "I did wrong. In the same situation, maybe I'd do wrong again. But I recognize that it was wrong, and I'm willing to pay the price. I was willing to pay it at the time I decided to do it."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "What people think has no effect on what is, though"
Well, no, this is demonstratably wrong. What people think OFTEN has an effect on what is. For example, the people of germany felt that the treaty of versailles was crushingly unfair. Thus, it was crushingly unfair, because they responded to it as if it were.
No. It was not unfair because they thought it was. What they thought doesn't enter into it.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Even if from an objective standpoint the treaty were fair, the fact that millions of people did not perceive it that way means it is, in fact, not fair.
Yes, the fact is that a lot of people thought it was unfair. That did not make it unfair. You can think that you can flap your arms and fly, and try jumping off the top of the Sears Tower on that theory, but that theory will only last until you hit the pavement. That's a bad theory.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: More fundamentally, I refer you to the shroedinger's cat thought experiment. A wave function does not collapse until it is observed, so perception, which informs thought, has a large effect on reality.
It's a thought experiment. One which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore bad science.
It may be true. The multiple-world hypothesis may be the correct explanation. But:
(a) At this point, it cannot be proven; (b) It's irrelevant to the question
That idea that an observer collapses the wave function doesn't mean that what the observer wants has any effect on the wave function.
Meanwhile, back in non-fiction...
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Originally posted by Sterling: If the tree example fails, it's largely because the situation is too hypothetical and vague. But consider disputes about fishing waters, areas which are shared by many nations with different needs and goals. To those who fish on a subsistence basis, those who over-fish those areas and deplete the long-term population unquestionably do wrong, with no inherent coersion.
Says who?"
Well, says Sterling for starters.
This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (whatever it may be), "Says who" doesn't indicate a request to know who makes such a claim. It indicates a request to know on what basis such a claim is made. Admittedly, the connotation of the question is a poor fit for the words used, but then, so is "You're pulling my leg."
Incidentally, that last phrase means, "You're not being serious." You don't have to thank me.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: More importantly, you didn't address why you think he's wrong.
So let me understand this. He makes a bald assertion. No attempt whatsoever to defend it, and I make an equally bald assertion that his assertion is wrong... and I have to address why I think he's wrong? I mean, never mind the fact that I've boiled what I've been saying down into a small number of very easy-to-understand principles, and that anyone who has been paying attention already knows why I think he's wrong. The more important point is that he hasn't given anything to be refuted. Just an assertion.
"I assert that the Great Red Spot on Jupiter is made of ketchup." But I don't, because that'd be dumb.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "A person's beliefs do not grant him rights."
This is true. But when a group of people gather together, and say "We will protect these rights," even if what they are protecting are not "fundamentally" rights, then that group of people have turned their beliefs into what are, functionally, rights... protected areas where people can perform as they choose without undo danger of interference.
And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The fact is that context matters. In most cases, however, I'd say that it is a morally positive/good thing to save the baby. A very good thing, in fact. Are you obligated to do so?"
Well, yes. You seem to assert that the right to life is an objective right.
"Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough. It is the fundamental and basic right that all other rights are mere derivatives of. I own my life, so anyone who tries to take my life, or any part of it, without my permission, is violating my rights. If you enslave me, you violate my right to use my own life. That's where the right of liberty comes from (even if the full import of what they were saying had escaped the notice of the US founders).
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: That means that you have a duty to protect the life of others, when possible.
No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever. This time, rather than just say, "You're wrong", which will only encourage you to come back and tell me I have to justify my statement (which you might do, despite the fact that you failed to justify yours), I'll explain it to you.
I have a "duty" not to harm others. I do not have a "duty" to help others.
Now, I find that it is more often than not in my interest to help others. I like the kind of world in which people help other people. And for me to refrain from ever helping others would be completely irrational. It would either imply that I see myself as being above everyone else, which I don't, or that I'm acting against myself. Which is what crazy people do.
In my personal opinion, it makes tons of sense for me to help others. But I'm not obligated to.
Furthermore, consider what the belief that coercing help is okay has done. When I help someone; when anyone helps someone else, there is a positive effect not only on the recipient, but on the giver. It isn't better to give than to receive; that's inherently silly. But helping others can have a very beneficial effect on the person doing it (just as harming others can have a detrimental effect on the one doing it).
When you rob people of the chance to help voluntarily... well, it's like never letting your kid make a mistake. You wind up with a kid who isn't capable of coping with his own mistakes.
So we have a society now full of people who think they need big daddy government to help them with everything. A stagnant and decadent society, not unlike that of Rome in its later days. A society full of credit addicts who know that bankruptcy is always a last option available to them. A society full of people who honestly don't consider themselves responsible for their bad choices.
Suing fast food restaurants for causing obesity, God help us. People who aren't bright enough to keep from holding a cup of steaming hot coffee between their sweatsuit clad legs while driving winning millions of dollars.
You've all probably seen the comical e-mails going around with lists of dumb warning labels. Here's a site full of them. Well, I'll tell you something, Paul. A society in which people have to be told that lubricant jelly isn't the kind you make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches out of is a society of dolts. Or of children.
And that's what forcing people to "help" has done for us. It's infantilized a generation of people with the highest technology in the history of mankind. Does that make you feel comfortable? It scares the hell out of me.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "There's no such thing as society."
This is objectively false. At a very simple level, a society is any group of people that live under the jurisdiction of a government.
People make governments. They don't fall from the sky like manna.
Sure, I'll concede that the term "society" could be used, validly, for what you describe. So long as it is absolutely voluntary and that its members have the right to leave whenever they want.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're using "society" as it's been used in this thread, and as it's used far too frequently elsewhere. I'm referring to "society" as some entity which is somehow entitled to engage in actions that none of its constituent members ever had. No such thing exists.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Beyond that, its false to imply that my actions have no effect on people whom I am not directly performing the action on. Take, for example, a person X living in a very nice neighborhood. All his neighbors have well maintained properties. Mr. X puts old pickup trucks up on blocks in his yard, does not mow the lawn, the paint on his house is peeling, and he feeds the crows. The value of the neighbors property will drop. And yet, Mr. X is doing nothing to those properties.
That sucks for his neighbors. Except of course that their property tax will probably drop because of it, but what the heck. Let's say it sucks. So long as it stays within his own property, you can try to convince him not to do that, but you don't have any right to prevent him.
Now, if you can show that his slovenliness has an actual likelihood of breeding disease or otherwise harming you... that's another story. If you can show that it already has harmed you, that's yet another one. If the smell is disgusting, you're well within your rights to demand that he act to keep the smell within his property. Rights cut both ways. His right to be a pig ends where your nose starts.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The interactions implicit in a group of people living near each other create a web of effects that can be considered to create a society.
They do not create legitimacy for immoral actions, such as forcing people to act the way you want them to. So long as they don't hit you, steal from you, defraud you... they have the right to be bastards.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "There's a piece of a newspaper in my bathroom right now. In that, there's an article that honestly turned my stomach. It referred to "the social contract that recognizes... the link between success and the society that makes it possible".
There's no such social contract. We are not cells in a great organism. We all live for our own purposes. To the extent that we come together for a joint purpose, it's by choice."
There IS a social contract recognizing the inherent link between success and the society upon which success is built. No one is successful independant of the people around him.
There can be no contract imposed upon people without their consent. Contracts are inherently agreed to by all parties. Otherwise they aren't contracts. They're bullying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No. It was not unfair because they thought it was. What they thought doesn't enter into it."
"Yes, the fact is that a lot of people thought it was unfair. That did not make it unfair. You can think that you can flap your arms and fly, and try jumping off the top of the Sears Tower on that theory, but that theory will only last until you hit the pavement. That's a bad theory."
Fairness has a lot to do with how people react to something that effects them. If I do not perceive an action to be right, or just, and act accordingly, then whoever performed that action isn't acting "fairly" because perception is central to fairness. Just as perception is central to justice, love, hate, and a lot of other words... and situations. Perception causes reality, in a lot of cases. THe reality of WWII was caused, to a large degree, by the perception of an unfair versailles. All that matters, for human interaction, is the perception of fairness... not whether some totally objective observer says its fair or not, unless that totally objective observer also has the perceived authority to say that its fair and should be obeyed, and expresses his views.
"It's a thought experiment. One which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated. It is unfalsifiable, and therefore bad science.
It may be true. The multiple-world hypothesis may be the correct explanation. But:
(a) At this point, it cannot be proven; (b) It's irrelevant to the question
That idea that an observer collapses the wave function doesn't mean that what the observer wants has any effect on the wave function."
There's a lot fundamentally wrong with this statement, but most important to the discussion at hand is that it IS relevant. You're denying that reality and perception of reality are necessarily related. This is false...especially when talking about rights and similar abstracts. What we perceive is what we turn into reality. As in the Versailles example, how we live our lives is determined by what we perceive. Whether or not that conforms with some "abstract" reality is totally irrelevant to what we do with our lives. In specific relation to "rights," if we act as if certain things are rights, then they become as real in our lives as any rights that you say are objective.
"This may come as a shock to you, Paul, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (whatever it may be), "Says who" doesn't indicate a request to know who makes such a claim."
This may come as a shock to you, Lisa, but though I'm not sure how they do these things in your native tongue (Whatever it may be) a response to the question "Says who," with the reminder of who said it, post-ceded by the statement that one didn't address the statement made, is a gentle reminder that someone in fact said it, and the statement has gone unrefuted. Sterling made a statement that a specific action causes harm, and there is no coercion. You didn't address that, you just dismissed it with a snotty "says who." There's unquestionably harm if a group of people are deprived of their means of livlihood, and there is no coercion if there is no interaction.
"So let me understand this. He makes a bald assertion."
An assertion with background, so that the premises can be challenged, and conclusions, so the logic can be examined. You dismissed a non-bald assertion. He showed how harm is done, and showed how their is no coercion.
Or do you want a step by step analysis of how someone being deprived of their livlihood through a non-interactive process is harmful and non-coercive?
" But I don't, because that'd be dumb."
Just as it is dumb to assert there is no harm when someone is deprived of their livlihood? Just as it is dumb to assert there is coercion when two people do not interact?
"And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible."
I disagree. I can think of literally millions of "pseudo-rights" that do not infringe on the "real rights" of someone else, if I engage in them.
I have the right to wear a chicken, obtained by my own economic activity, on my head. This right alone provides millions of permutations that do not infringe upon anyone elses rights. If society chooses to protect that right, there is no infringement on your rights, or anyone elses.
See how this works? Someone makes a statement, and you provide a logical explanation or counter example as to why that statement is wrong. Unlike, for example "says who?"
"Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough."
YEs, seem to, because you seem to have no compunctions about violating this right in certain circumstances. A "right" trumps everything, other then defence of one's own rights... this includes trumping the right to pro-active defence of one's rights, because you can't assume someone will violate your rights without violating their rights.
"No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever."
Here comes the justification: If someone really has an objective right to something, then that right trumps everything except defence of our own rights. Thats what a "right" means. It means its all-important. It doesn't mean "Something to cherish when convienient." Someone else's right to life, since you say its the foundamental and basic right from which all other rights spring, trumps your right to (insert anything that is not immediate protection of your life).
Further, with ANY benefit comes responsibility. IT doesn't matter what that benefit is, whether it be a priveledge, or right, or protection. The right to life implies the duty to use that life wisely.
Here's the point: Compelling people to protect the right to life of others, under the doctrine you propose where there is nothing other then people, is coercion to protect the fundamental right to life which provides the foundation of your right to be free from coercion. If you don't protect life, then you aren't protecting your right to be free from coercion, because you allow the underpinings of that freedom from coercion to be destroyed, and in order to protect your right to be free from coercion, as well as their own right to be free from coercion plus their right to life, (a right which trumps your freedom from coercion, for as you say, the right to life is the fundamental right from which others are derived)people have the duty to coerce you so there is no further coercion or violation of the right to life.
Your explanation of why you don't have a duty to help others is, frankly, extremely weak, and has logic holes one can float a battleship through... since the only logic there is a slippery slope.
"People make governments. They don't fall from the sky like manna."
Yup, but once a government is formed, anyone living under that jurisdiction is part of the society formed by the creation of that government.
" I'm referring to "society" as some entity which is somehow entitled to engage in actions that none of its constituent members ever had. No such thing exists."
Except that conceding the point about society and government defeats that argument. Governments have the freedom to engage in activities others do not (as you've actually pointed out) by putting the sole use of retalitory coercion in its hands. People don't have the right to retaliatory coercion to begin with... only the right to protect from further violations, which is not always coercion.
"So long as it stays within his own property, you can try to convince him not to do that, but you don't have any right to prevent him."
I didn't say that I do. I said, rather, that his actions have effects beyond the things he acts on. And I am positing that such a thing is an example of how societies are formed.
"There can be no contract imposed upon people without their consent."
Sometimes, however, consent is "I still live here."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People who aren't bright enough to keep from holding a cup of steaming hot coffee between their sweatsuit clad legs while driving winning millions of dollars.
Are you referring to a case that actually occurred, or is this rhetorical hyperbole?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
3rd degree burns in McDonald's coffee suit. Apparently McDonald's had been warned by medical burn experts and had settled 700 prior claims before that woman sued them after they refused to pay $20,000 when she was given 3rd degree burns (and needed skin grafts) after having McD's coffee spill on her. If I recall correctly, she was a passenger in the car. Not driving.
edit: sorry CT, I didn't see your post until after I posted. You're correct, I'm assuming that is the case being discussed. It has come up before and the same facts have been used to show how it is not a good example of bad tort law. I agree, when the facts are presented, that case does not fit the argument.
I posted the link to bankruptcy facts for the same reason. The detailed facts of the bankruptcy issue are far less supportive of the argument about "personal responsibility" than most people who use that argument assume.
Edited to add: Ah, Bob, I was assuming the actual details of that case were well-known. Perhaps they are not. Regardless, it is always good to review it, just as to review your information on the events preceding most bankruptcies.
posted
The pain meds are making things a teensy bit fuzzy, so I'm going to just address a couple of things. Deus volent, I'll get to the rest after Shabbat some time.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Or do you want a step by step analysis of how someone being deprived of their livlihood through a non-interactive process is harmful and non-coercive?
No one is entitled to a livelihood. They're only entitled to strive for one.
A right, by definition, means something that I can require from others. If I'm not entitled to require it from others, it's not a right. It's at most a gift.
I am entitled to require that you not bop me on the nose. I am entitled to require that you not steal my shoes. I am entitled to try and make a living. I am not entitled to make a living.
Pursuit of happiness is not the same thing as happiness. FDR created this monstrosity called an economic bill of rights [sic] which, God help us, even labeled recreation a "right".
So yeah, the people who lived in New Orleans could play King Canute all day and insist that they had a right not to be flooded, but they really didn't. They had a right to deal with the reality as best they could. They had a right to ask for help. But no amount of voting and screaming is going to make someone entitled to something that isn't theirs.
Say I'm a doctor and my livelihood requires sick people to treat. What do I do if no one is sick? Infect them?
It's just the most nutty thing in the world to say that someone is entitled to stick with a job and have that job protected from reality.
In the case that you gave, people may be losing something that they want. They aren't losing something that they're entitled to. It's sad, but to coerce some people in order to grant others what they want? That's called stealing.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And that's precisely what I'm objecting to. Because by definition, there is no pseudo-right you can grant anyone except by violating the real rights of someone else. It is impossible."
I disagree. I can think of literally millions of "pseudo-rights" that do not infringe on the "real rights" of someone else, if I engage in them.
I have the right to wear a chicken, obtained by my own economic activity, on my head.
If you choose to enumerate every conceivable use of personal liberty as a separate right, you're completely off the wall.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This right alone provides millions of permutations that do not infringe upon anyone elses rights. If society chooses to protect that right, there is no infringement on your rights, or anyone elses.
When you say "protect", what do you mean? If you mean protect the chicken wearer from people who want to rip the chicken off his head, sure. If you mean force someone to hire him when his wearing of a chicken on his head is repulsive to the employer, you're dead wrong. Because then you're infringing on the rights of the employer. If you mean expropriating my earnings to pay for this guy's chicken, why is he more deserving of a chicken he doesn't own than I am of what I do own?
I repeat, you cannot name a single thing that contradicts what I said. Invent a right that doesn't already exist (and being a subset of something that exists means it's covered), and you have to violate someone else's rights.
You have the right to anything you want -- and I mean anything you want -- so long as you don't initiate violence against someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Seem to"? Then I haven't been clear enough."
YEs, seem to, because you seem to have no compunctions about violating this right in certain circumstances. A "right" trumps everything, other then defence of one's own rights... this includes trumping the right to pro-active defence of one's rights, because you can't assume someone will violate your rights without violating their rights.
If someone shoots a gun at me, I'm not required to wait until the bullet hits me. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from an initiation of violence on the part of another. In normal situations, we delegate that right to the government, for the reasons I stated earlier. Because if everyone engages in retaliatory violence on their own, subjectivity rules, and civilization is gone.
We can delegate our innate rights to the government. We can't give it rights that we don't have.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "No, Paul. That doesn't follow at all. You just made a grand leap without any justification whatsoever."
Here comes the justification: If someone really has an objective right to something, then that right trumps everything except defence of our own rights. Thats what a "right" means. It means its all-important. It doesn't mean "Something to cherish when convienient." Someone else's right to life, since you say its the foundamental and basic right from which all other rights spring, trumps your right to (insert anything that is not immediate protection of your life).
No. They have a right to insist that I not harm them. They have a right to insist that I not take their life. They do not have any right to call on me to preserve them. They can ask, but they can't demand. They have no ownership of me that would entitle them to do so.
If the only way I can save my life is to steal from someone, that doesn't give me any right to steal from them. Because while the right to life is the fundamental right, that doesn't imply any obligation on others.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Further, with ANY benefit comes responsibility.
I believe that should be "with great power comes great responsibility". And that's a bloody comic book.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: IT doesn't matter what that benefit is, whether it be a priveledge, or right, or protection. The right to life implies the duty to use that life wisely.
Crap. I have the right to jump off a cliff if I so desire. It's my life. The only legitimate judge of how I can best use that life is me.
(And yeah, I'm leaving out God for the moment, because ultimately, He owns us, and that trumps everything.)
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Here's the point: Compelling people to protect the right to life of others, under the doctrine you propose where there is nothing other then people, is coercion to protect the fundamental right to life which provides the foundation of your right to be free from coercion.
You misunderstood. Refraining from harm is not the same as helping. Refraining from help is not the same as harming. I owe nothing to anyone other than to leave them alone, unless I have freely taken such an obligation on myself.
Remainder of repetitive redundancy snipped. If you want, just copy what I wrote above and paste it, because it's the same answer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A right, by definition, means something that I can require from others. If I'm not entitled to require it from others, it's not a right. It's at most a gift.
And why, exactly, are you "entitled" to receive being left alone from others? Exactly what is it that elevates this particular thing (being left alone) over everything else that could be required of another?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democracy is a way of allowing people to choose between valid choices. If it permits people to choose between all choices, including vicious and immoral ones, it may technically be a democracy, but the fact that it has now become a tyranny trumps that.
I think we're arguing from differing views of what constitutes morality, and what constitutes coercion. The problem of the "tyranny of the majority" is always with us, and probably always will be. I think Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government- except for all the other ones."
But society _does_ choose to define morality, and we can only hope (and in a democracy, do our best to bring about) that those who do the defining are doing so on the basis of both careful intellectual consideration and introspective consideration of their conscience, if such a thing exists.
quote:And I didn't make a general comment about your courage. I said, and I repeat, that if you think something is the case, say that you think it's the case. I consider it cowardly to hide all of your assertions behind, "Most people say". What most people say does not determine what is. Or there'd be places in the US where pi is equal to three.
And I got repeatedly criticized by a composition teacher in high school for stating things in the form "I think" or "I feel". I'm stating the facts as I know them, and as I believe most people perceive them; no, that doesn't inherently make me, or them, correct. If you have a problem with my phrasing, you're welcome to fight it out with my old comp teacher.
quote:That can be achieved equally well by having a society that merely prevents anyone from initiating force against anyone else. It doesn't have to come from one group of people saying, "Okay, who thinks that letting houses being stormed by armed invaders is okay? Hands? Hmm... looks like armed invaders storming houses is going to be against the rules, because the majority says so."
And do you intend to acheive this society by democracy? Or by coercion? If you have a third option, I'd love to hear it.
quote:But if I'm accustomed to being able to run my convenience store in the neighborhood, I shouldn't have a right to try and use government coercion to keep big stores out. I can try to convince people, but ultimately, the fact that I'm accustomed to being able to do business doesn't grant me the right to do so. It only grants me the right to attempt to do so.
I would disagree, but I think it's a matter of defining coercion once again. If a community decides that it doesn't want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood, they may attempt to use the law in their area to prevent that store from coming in, or they might attempt to buy part of the property the potential store would build upon, or they might try to change the laws to prevent stores matching that description from fitting into the zone restrictions in their neighborhood. Any one of those might be described as "government coercion." But then, I would argue that selling below cost to drive out your competition is also coercion.
quote:You're describing anarchy. I believe I've been more than clear that I advocate no such thing, and that allowing anyone to initiate violence against anyone else is always an violation of the victim's rights.
Sadly, what I'm describing is neighborhoods that I know and people that I knew. I'm saying that we make certain assumptions in order to function as a society, and that some of those assumptions make us less capable of surviving as individuals if the infrastructure of that society is abuptly removed from us. And I'm saying that _since_ we make these compromises to our own security in order to make society function, our society _does_ have some responsibility to make certain our lives remain livable in the face of those compromises.
quote:And since honest and good people can disagree on what constitutes initiating violence ("He started it!" "No, he did!"), we need government to be responsible for prevention of such acts and retribution where deemed necessary.
But no government -- ever, under any circumstances -- can have rights that do not belong, fundamentally, to the people. Because people is all we have. People make governments. Governments are there to serve people. People can't get around the basic immorality of mugging someone for "a good cause" by creating a government and asserting that it has the legitimate power to do that.
Sure, people can do that. If I have a gun and you don't, I can force you to lick my boots. But that doesn't make it right.
With you so far.
quote: And to go back to one of the early examples I used, if you and I are walking down the street and see a rich man and a poor man, we are not entitled to mug the rich man and give his money to the poor man. Not even part of it. We can ask. We can cajole. We can engage in any non-coercive act of persuasion that we want. But coercion crosses the line. And the four people in this example don't gain or lose any basic rights or restrictions just because they are 4 million instead.
...And I suspect that here we part company. Because some people consider taxes equivalent to mugging the four million people.
How did that rich man get rich? How does he remain rich? Does he keep his money in a bank? Is that bank insured by the government? Does his business use public ports and roads? Does he rely on a communications system that is upheld by the public? Did he get a public education, and does he expect those who work for him to have a certain level of skill because of a public education? Does a public immunization program keep his workers working rather than at home sick, or caring for sick family?
There are countless things that an individual cannot do that a society can. Some would consider redistributing money so that these things can be achieved amounts to a massive mugging. I would say they probably allow the rich man to retain his wealth, and probably made it possible in the first place.
So I might just suggest to the rich man that a few pennies for the poor man might insure that A)he gets something to eat, B)he doesn't cough up tuberculosis on him as he walks down the street, and C) it would be cheaper than paying for an armed guard to insure the significantly larger number of poor people _don't_ in fact mug him and take his money. I might even use the word "obligation", and gently suggest that, whether or not it's moral per se, it's one more small part of keeping together the society that makes his wealth possible. Maybe that's coercion. I don't think it's immoral.
quote:You can go to a supermarket and buy food if there is a supermarket. Ifthere is food in it. If the food is for sale, and you have the price and the proprietors have not qualified their offer of food for sale in a way that would exclude you.
They used to have signs on public beaches in this country as recently as the 1940s that said, "No Jews or dogs". That's foul. And on a public beach, it is, and should be, illegal. But on a private beach? It's just foul.
I'm gay, Sterling. And I'm Jewish. And I'm a woman. Any three of those characteristics, or combinations of them, are sufficient for some people to want to discriminate against me. I can tell you right now that there are people on this forum, nice people in most other ways, who would do their level best to have me fired from a teaching position, regardless of how good a teacher I might be.
So don't think I'm a straight white chick who is living high on the hog, and saying, "I got mine, so screw yourself." I'm not even sure how we're going to be able to survive financially to the end of the year. We may lose our house.
But I would never, ever, not in a billion years, not for the welfare of myself, my partner, nor even our five year old daughter, dream of suggesting that anyone else has an "obligation" to help us out. I'll ask. I have no pride issues on that count. If it gets bad enough, I'll certainly ask for help, wherever I think I can get it. But I'll ask. Because that's all I have the right to do.
I'm aware you're not a "straight white chick", StarLisa. And I _am_ a straight white guy. Yet I _would_ accept, and even advocate, legal means that protected "someone like you" from discrimination, even if it meant lessening the accesses and freedoms of "someone like me."
If we get down to a certain level, the only one with any rights _or_ freedoms is the person with the largest stick. Both civilization and morality demand more. Civilization does, and morality should, dictate that a person has more worth than the stick they wield, whether that stick is physical force or financial clout or a horde of fanatical followers (which might provide either of the above.)
_Is_ it immoral, to curtail freedoms if failing to do so impedes others' basic survival? That seems to be a decision we make on a case-by-case basis, in the real world.
quote:It is coercion, because it is stealing from the owners of that food (or supplies or whatnot). Maybe they'd be willing to give the contents of their food to the needy in an emergency situation like that. Maybe they'd do it gratis, and maybe they'd do it in hopes of eventually being compensated by others. But they weren't given the choice. People decided that their need trumped morality.
Don't get me wrong. I've thought long and hard about the "John Q" type of quandary. What if there was a medicine that was needed by someone I loved, and all of my legitimate attempts to raise enough money to get it fell through? Would I steal in order to get that money? Would I steal the medicine itself at gunpoint?
I honestly don't know. Maybe, in extremis, I would do something like that. But after the fact, I would acknowledge freely that what I had done was wrong. And I would do my utmost to make amends. I certainly wouldn't try to justify it.
You don't like being accused of cowardice. Well, I'm telling you that we live in a society of cowards. A society in which most people who find themselves needing (in their minds) to do something wrong have to find a way to justify the act. A society full of people who can't say, "I did wrong. In the same situation, maybe I'd do wrong again. But I recognize that it was wrong, and I'm willing to pay the price. I was willing to pay it at the time I decided to do it."
Not a big believer in situational ethics, I see. I guess I can respect that. But for me, there are cases where I would accept that I would have to do what some people thought was wrong- maybe even what I thought was wrong- in order to prevent a greater wrong, and I would accept the cost to me. And there are other cases where despite what others might think, I would argue to my last breath that what I did was _not_ wrong under the circumstances.
I guess the situation of those who survived Hurricane Katrina is much on my mind: I wouldn't give a damn about stealing a loaf of bread to feed my family, if the alternative were that that bread was going to spoil on the shelf or be destroyed by rising floodwaters, for example, but that wouldn't make it any less stealing: it wasn't mine, it belonged to someone else, and I took it. But I wouldn't think that immoral.
Now, if there were a dozen loaves of bread on this hypothetical shelf, and I said "I'll take them all with me, because I don't know how long I'll be here", knowing that others would starve because of what I had failed to leave for them, that would be immoral to me.
In some ways, I suppose what I'd advocate is closer to the Kantian model: I can only endorse the action if I'd endorse others doing the same in the same situation. I just don't accept a hard-and-fast "coercion as the source of all evil" doctrine. Starving in the midst of plenty seems to me the greater ill, and such can exist without coercion (unless, again, we're using very different definitions of coercion. Argh!)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
