Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Stealing to live Justified According to Objectivists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

As a libertarian who is not an objectivist I can say that I think the Objectivist philosophy overall does a good job in justifying itself and being consistent. There are however a few possible holes I can see when it comes to the non-initiation of force. Take this scenario for instance. A person is in a desert and is dying. His only option to survive is to steal food or water from a camp owned by a man. The amount stolen would not kill the tent owner but would only be sufficient for the man to live. How do Objectivists reconcile holding life as the highest value with the principle of non-initiation of force? Since liberty comes from life and life is thus held higher than liberty wouldn't the life of the dying individual have to be considered more important than the liberty of the individual with the tent? How would Objectivists respond to such a claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book Alaska, the author describe caches of food placed out on the tundra's. The food was available should one get caught in a life-threatening snowstorm. The expected price for consumption was simply replenish the stock. The penalty for not doing so and being discovered was the same fate that the man who laid the stockpile faced should he have to rely on that stockpile and it not be there, having been consumed and not replenished. (The book simply stated death as the penalty, not necessarily by starvation and/or hypothermia.)

Have you run across Miss Rand's The Ethics of Emergencies yet? This is an excerpt from the Lexicon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Objectivism does not "justify" itself; it is what it is and one can accept it or not.

Second, philosophy does not deal with such emergency ethics questions. Thus, acting as one must to save his life in such a situation is not a moral issue. That would not mean that one life is more valuable than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say life is held higher than liberty, not when political rights are exactly meant to be a portion of what makes for a good life and an individual's flourishing. This all changes when you are far from the context political rights are based on, or ethics for that matter. Dying in the desert is by no means any context ethics is based on. Notice your wording: dying. Ethics is for living. You're talking about a person who, presumably by an accident, is lost in the desert. It's some extreme situation. So, it would qualify as an emergency situation, where any moral judgement just doesn't apply. All things considered, if life is truly a motivator, yes, doing -anything- to survive is more important; it'd be stupid to refrain from even murdering the other guy if it'd let you survive. Still, this is far outside any normal condition, far outside the long-term flourishing context - it's more like an effort to normalize the situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Could you expand on your thinking here? Perhaps give an example situation?

Given the context, I mean to say that the standard of action here can't be a long-term outlook of flourishing if you find yourself in a situation where you are quite literally dying. Doing the right thing isn't about fitting some absolutist ideal apart from our actual lives, it's meant to serve your own well-being and life. Now, it's interesting to me to ask what certain people would do to survive, who may go as far as to murder if, say, the other guy refused to offer food and theft was not feasible. That question isn't quite in the realm of ethics, that is, it's an amoral consideration by egoist standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Could you expand on your thinking here? Perhaps give an example situation?

Maybe this will also help our anarchocapitalist OP, but it is true that Rand held to a theory of "emergency ethics." That is, since  morality is justified in terms of survival and flourishing, if you are in a state such as that survival is impossible, then morality as principles to guide survival, doesn't apply, or applies only in a limited fashion such as to get back to a normal state.

There are of course criticisms of this view, and there are differing interpretations among Rand scholars themselves. Some scholars like Tibor Machan and Roderick Long hold the NAP to be a component of interpersonal ethics, such that we have a reason, as individuals to make the NAP a constituent aspect of our flourishing. Others like Rasmussen and Den Uyl hold, and interpret Rand to hold, the NAP as a component of a social system and is value neutral or "meta normative" in that it only applies to the organization of a social system. It is in everyone's self interest to live in a society where such a principle is upheld, but outside of society and in an extreme survival scenario, the NAP is either diminished or ceases to be applicable altogether.

Regardless of which interpretation is correct I think there is passages supporting both, but as all things with Rand, the NAP is finite and limited, and is not to be taken as an out of context absolute.

As an example, Rand herself was asked I think in one of the Ford Hall Forum sessions during a Q and A about a real world lifeboat scenario. Would she kill a person to save herself, if it had to be one or the other? If I recall her response was something along the lines of "If it were to save myself I don't think I could bring myself to kill someone." This goes to support the view that she would hold the NAP as a constituent of her own flourishing. But then she goes on to say that "if it were my husband at stake, on the other hand, I suppose I would kill 500 people." (Hopefully I'm getting this quote right.) This supports the latter view, if survival was impossible for either the 500 people or her husband, then the NAP ceases to have value with respect to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2016 at 7:32 AM, Eiuol said:

All things considered, if life is truly a motivator, yes, doing -anything- to survive is more important; it'd be stupid to refrain from even murdering the other guy if it'd let you survive.

If I were in a situation where I judged that I had to murder my wife to allow myself to survive, I wouldn't choose to do it. You would describe that as "stupid," but to me, I would look upon "survival" thereafter as a continual punishment. So no thanks to that.

I know that as Objectivists, we sometimes say that there are no ethics in emergency situations, or "lifeboats," but I'm not 100% certain on that point. I believe you're suggesting a kind of ethics above, for instance--a survival ethics (because "flourishing" is momentarily unavailable). But in the interest of restoring "normalcy," I suspect that my guide to action might depend more strongly upon the quality of life I should expect when that normalcy is achieved, according to the means I employ to achieve it. And I do not rate my chances for an acceptable "quality of life" very highly, if I have murdered the woman I love most. I don't think I could live with myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what love is about.

Rand was stating a personal preference, not a philosophical point. Such emergency situations are outside the purview of morality because there are no rational choices available.

Edited by TLD
Clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DonAthos said:

If I were in a situation where I judged that I had to murder my wife to allow myself to survive, I wouldn't choose to do it. You would describe that as "stupid," but to me, I would look upon "survival" thereafter as a continual punishment. So no thanks to that.

It's an interesting discussion, to talk about what you would do in an emergency situation. Why would you see it was continual punishment to see survival through murder (emphasizing again the lifeboat situation)? Life, after all, is adaptable after the fact, and can be made just as glorious before. If whatever bizarre turn of events happens such that a dear person to me was killed by my hands so that I could live, I'd accept it. Later on, I'd be sad probably, and I'd also honor them. To be sure, life would not be the same. The important point would be a desire to be alive, to seek all that is possible, even after tragedy.

This isn't an alternative morality for emergencies. I'm saying there is literally no valid moral judgment in an emergency situation. There is no valid way to ask "what is in my rational self-interest" after obliterating the context used for establishing moral concepts in the first place! Imagine that, somehow, you were happily living life, then a nuclear bomb just went off and Russian soldiers swarm the streets in hazmat suits. Quite literally, a natural state of affairs has been obliterated. As a result, I can't say if you're morally good or bad for killing loved ones.

What I suspect would happen is people take actions with respect to their sense of life. Or attempt to make it all into a moral question. There are many possibilities. None would be open to moral judgment, though. Aesthetic judgement, as in a judgement of what's important, would be possible.  That you say you'd be bothered about or worried about an unbearable quality of life later after murdering a guy in the desert reflects a different sense of life than me.

Of course, how someone finds themselves in a lifeboat situation is still up for moral evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been interesting to me that ethics don't belong in a lifeboat but morality does belong on a desert isle.  Of course the lifeboat implies a struggle to survive amongst others who don't exist on the isle, so I suppose the comparison is something like social (ethics) vs individual (moral) behavior, meaning apples vs an orange.  But I think the issue is primarily one of doing, "whatever it takes" vs "whatever is proper" in both situations.

If I do whatever it takes to survive a lifeboat and arrive at a desert isle, am I really going from an amoral situation to a moral one?  It suggests a kind of ethical amorality that can only be resolved by claiming ethics don't apply under duress.  I'm inclined to believe that ethics in a lifeboat are as necessary as morality on a desert isle because the individual struggling to survive in both cases is choosing selfishly and (as the original DA suggests) desiring the ability to live with themselves afterwards.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be an over-simplification.
I consider ethics as what it takes as an individual to live, where between two or more people, I tend to consider it more as politics.

Note how so many lifeboat cases come down to: Ok, I know it's not ok to kill under normal conditions, but what if I'm under such-and-such a condition . . . or the context of the OP, ok, I know it's wrong to steal under normal condistion, but what if . . .

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

It has been interesting to me that ethics don't belong in a lifeboat but morality does belong on a desert isle.  Of course the lifeboat implies a struggle to survive amongst others who don't exist on the isle, so I suppose the comparison is something like social (ethics) vs individual (moral) behavior, meaning apples vs an orange.  But I think the issue is primarily one of doing, "whatever it takes" vs "whatever is proper" in both situations.

If I do whatever it takes to survive a lifeboat and arrive at a desert isle, am I really going from an amoral situation to a moral one?  It suggests a kind of ethical amorality that can only be resolved by claiming ethics don't apply under duress.  I'm inclined to believe that ethics in a lifeboat are as necessary as morality on a desert isle because the individual struggling to survive in both cases is choosing selfishly and (as the original DA suggests) desiring the ability to live with themselves afterwards.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on you prior comment, “emergency situations are outside the purview of morality because there are no rational choices available”, I supposed that you were generally in agreement with other Objectivists that doing whatever it takes becomes acceptable when no rational (moral) outcome is possible.  At least that has been my experience on many occasions in this forum when the subject of lifeboats arises.

 My argument with this particular Objectivist premise is that I believe morality is as important in lifeboats as on desert isles, and particularly more so because it is at those times while under duress that what we really believe in can save or sink us.  Look at it this way, in lieu of a rational solution will you simply give yourself over to blind instinct?  Perhaps so, but then how are you instinctively inclined to react??

 At those moments, I believe that rather than not thinking, we rely on a kind of muscle memory to react in a manner we are accustomed to, e.g., a thief will steal, a killer will kill, and a thoughtful and moral person will hesitate from committing the kind of aggression they have not repeatedly practiced in normal (less stressful) times, and arrive at an unexpected but nonetheless moral outcome given the circumstances.

 I don’t find this line of reasoning at odds with Objectivism per se, just more consistent with the line of reasoning that allows for moral action on desert isles.  However I am also often reminded to mention that I'm not an Objectivist per se...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your distinction is pointless. But, the thread isn't about if there's a point to a distinction between ethics and morality. I won't be using your distinction, so when I refer to morality, it's just whatever is in your long-term self-interest.

Your replies so far suggests you say that long-term self-interest is based on your survival first, where sinking or swimming is our gauge of good or bad, and then measuring the quality of your swimming informs whether survival mattered. I'm not treating it that way. Long-term self-interest is based on flourishing in the first place, as opposed to quality of surviving. Flourishing is determined by living as an onward, upward trend. Having chosen life already, morality is understood as maintaining and cultivating that state. Figuring this out takes induction, and also being able to identify the nature of reality, all from examining living people and our own actions. You don't figure it out by asking "what makes my heart beat, and what is it like for it to keep beating?"

My premise is that a lifeboat situation is one where you've left the context of living. Your little boat has switched course to the river Styx, taking you to the Underworld. The Titanic is sinking, and you're there with it. You're slowly freezing to death. All your moral principles cease to apply, as they were built for living and flourishing. I'm not saying, like TLD, that there are no rational choices. I'm saying a "rational choice" is incoherent. You can't talk about what is -moral- if your basis for answering moral questions don't apply. Even rationality is based upon what makes for flourishing. You wouldn't be moral OR immoral for killing someone.

That isn't to say you wouldn't be thinking, it's just that morality makes as much sense as asking what god's will is. You're effectively dying in the situation. What you'd do is probably whatever is important to your sense of life, which is formed as distinct from one's moral code. I'd say a person wary of aggression in a lifeboat scenario is too worried about guilt and tragedy, and perhaps someone who gives up on life a bit too easily. I'm not saying you -are- that way, it's just to me I've seen no example of how stealing is -still- immoral in a lifeboat situation. At least, nothing besides "I'd feel the tragedy later". Fine, but that's not a reply based on morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DA: Morality can't be as important...if in fact it is irrelevant in "lifeboats". If you hold objectivist principles, our moral code simply can't apply in such situations. There is no "muscle memory" that we are "accustomed to" - that's ridiculous. If you refrain from aggression, you would sacrifice yourself.

But if you hold subjectivist principles where feelings trump reason, then anything goes. Yes, your line of reasoning is at odds with Obj.ism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What DA means, I think, is that when placed in a lifeboat situation, people will act according to habits they develop, the sort of person they are. This makes sense, and I agree for the most part. It's not like people will suddenly start to act randomly. Besides, you framed your reply as a moral one, as in you are implying it is immoral or irrational to sacrifice yourself in that context. The idea is that "right or wrong" becomes impossible to judge. Just as morality is inapplicable to a person who chooses death, morality is inapplicable to people who are essentially dying. It's not due to being a moral hazard (damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Principles and seeking values both become automatized in time. This automatization is habituation. This is how people are able to act without going through complete arguments and every point of reasoning each time. I explained already why morality is irrelevant to the dying, though. I'd prefer you address that than just saying no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...