Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oakes

Regulars
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oakes

  1. Why do the negative obligations trump the positive ones? The central goal of our government is (should be) to protect its citizens. If a foreign government forces their negative obligation to prevent them from doing that, it is that foreign government that should be blamed when civilians start dying. What I meant was, the government has a positive obligation to its citizens. Private citizens may enter into obligations via contract, but they do so under the legal oversight of the government. They don't have the liberty to violate each others rights in fulfillment of those contracts. Again you misunderstand me. Morality can apply when an individual's life is threatened; it can't apply when the only way for the individual to end the threat is to kill other innocents. If I am on that island, looking longingly at the other person with the last piece of food in his hand, how is morality supposed to sort out the situation? Is it supposed to instruct me to voluntarily die? Is that proper instruction from a code that seeks to tell me how to live? In such a situation, we are lowered to animals, and thus morality cannot guide us. We are left to fight over the grapefruit to the death. The situation is different when a nation must choose between killing enemy civilians or sending its own troops to die. In such a case, the proper course of action is for the government to fulfill its central goal: to protect its citizens. Again I will say what I said to Eric: Since this isn’t the first time I’ve stated this, I’ll make this the last time.
  2. No. I'm saying that people can take statements literally, drawing ridiculous conclusions in the process. It is possible to find out the intended meaning, but that requires some knowledge about her philosophy (that she's not an anarchist, for starters). What a softball! Because the government is limited to protecting individual rights.
  3. Again you are looking at it in a vacuum, and ignoring the circumstances. Governments are fundamentally different from individuals in that they have a positive obligation (to protect their citizens). If an enemy government forces the alternative between neglecting its duty and killing enemy civilians, one cannot properly call the latter an initiation of force. Since this isn’t the first time I’ve stated this, I’ll make this the last time. There are only so many ways you can repeat yourself. The analogy is not correct in its structure, because (as I say above) governments have a positive obligation, while private citizens only have negative ones. The reason morality cannot account for it is not because of its scale; it is because it is a zero-sum situation between individuals. If in reality the only choices are an individual’s death or the death of another innocent person(s), morality can say nothing. There is, however, a clear moral answer to whether or not a government can perform such an action in an enemy nation. The moral answer is that it has a positive obligation to protect its citizens. You misread me. I said that morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible. When your choices are initiating force or death, life as a human being becomes impossible. I never said morality requires a perfect world, only a world where moral choices are possible.
  4. What do you mean it isn't essential? In foreign wars, the bystanders are civilians of a negligent government; in domestic situations, the bystanders are your own citizens. That difference has important implications. Morality does not apply to this situation, and the fact that you brought up such an awkward hypothetical shows just how much altruism has perverted the field of morality. You are essentially asking, if you were on a deserted island with one other person, and the only food you could find was in his hands, would it be moral to steal it from him and eat it, or should you let yourself starve? Morality can only apply to situations where life as a human being is possible.
  5. My guess is that Miss Rand was taking for granted that her readers were not anarchists. Perhaps she didn't forsee an internet age when Libertarians would come on Objectivist message boards and unceasingly draw meanings from her words that she didn't intend. Who knows.
  6. In the context of Hiroshima, America was not initiating force. The American government had to choose between doing its duty (protecting Americans), and fulfilling the obligation of not harming innocents. Such an unreconcilable dilemma was created by the Japanese government. Thus in that context, they were the initiators, and we were the retaliators. In the context of government police in a domestic situation, everyone falls under its jurisdiction, thus the way to protect its citizens is not to end the threat quickest, but to end it with fewest casualties. In the context of private security (or private individuals in general), they may only retaliate against immediate emergencies, and leave the rest to the government. Thus private security may not shoot into a crowd in response to a perceived threat, because that is not an immediate emergency.
  7. I do not know exactly what she meant by that statement, but I do know that she was not an anarchist. Either this is just trivial semantics, or she said that statement in exclusion to the obvious necessities of government. If "privately owned" means owned by anyone other than the government, the answer should be obvious.
  8. Are you even reading my posts? As far as I can tell, Inspector's comparison between the government and security guards was only to demonstrate that both have a specific duty towards specific people. Take the analogy for what it is, and don't skew it. The principles don't change; the context does. When you analyze situations like this in a vacuum, the context is what gets lost.
  9. There is no question that a rational government will own property: court houses, police stations/cars, military bases, etc. To expect it to lease these things from private corporations is ridiculous. Currency will be privately operated.
  10. As far as I can tell, Inspector's comparison between the government and security guards was only to demonstrate that both have a specific duty towards specific people. You have now stretched that comparison and, amazingly, applied the same principles used by government against aggressor nations to private security guards against aggressor citizens. This is remarkable considering that I already addressed this ridiculous comparison. So let's restate what I said in a basic equation: foreign != domestic. Our government has a moral right (and obligation) to protect its citizens, implying (a.) it must end a foreign threat as quickly as possible, and (b.) that it must end domestic threats with a minimum civilian loss of life. Two different situations, same goal.
  11. Why is it that people persist in trying to discount Objectivist foreign policy by bringing up analogies dealing in domestic situations? Why would one presume that a government, charged with protecting its own citizens, would apply the same principles in war as in crime-fighting? Of course the government cannot blow up a city block in order to kill a serial rapist on the run. That would be violating its established duty: to protect its citizens' rights.
  12. This is the heart of your "whim" accusation. The implication you draw completely strips away any concern for the end: America's self-defense. That is the goal and the standard of value for any action we may take against aggressor nations; nothing else is justified. And you, too, fail to comment on what other options were available. Other than a land invasion (which any reasonable person would recognize as more costly in lives), what other options were there?
  13. I want a reference for that statement. Who actually advocates that we should be able to choose at our whim what force to direct at the aggressor? There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical. A victim nation has both the moral right and the practical necessity to direct whatever force it needs to end the threat while taking minimal losses. This is about as repulsive as I can stand for one night. Not only are you saying that I, not the enemy who started the war, condone any resulting deaths, but you also imply that our troops should be sent to die instead because they are “willing” soldiers. As long as you believe the former (that America is morally responsible for the innocent deaths incurred in her self-defense), you will always believe the latter (that her troops should be lowered to the level of sacrificial animals to avoid of such deaths).
  14. This is overused sarcasm. It didn't have a point to begin with, but now it's just getting annoying.
  15. I already put this ridiculous deduction to rest. In case you didn't read what I said, here it is again: It certainly doesn't give our government the liberty to kill Americans and declare that someone else was responsible for it. The end goal of our government should always be to protect the individual rights of Americans.
  16. It is the duty of the American government to protect the individual rights of American citizens. I agree with this, but in the case of American innocents, they are only the Emperor's liability if they were directly killed by the Japanese. It certainly doesn't give our government the liberty to kill Americans and declare that someone else was responsible for it. The end goal of our government should always be to protect the individual rights of Americans. Exactly how many Americans suffered from the effects of a hydrogen bomb exploding seven thousand miles away?
  17. Read Moose's statement again. The blood of the innocent was on the Emperor's hands, meaning that it was the Japanese government that was initiating force on the 6th and 9th of August. To suggest that America was morally responsible for those deaths, when she was engaging in self-defense (and her only alternative was to sacrifice thousands of her own troops), is a terrible example of blame-the-victim. Too many amateurs (myself included) have taken one of Ayn Rand's quotes and applied it literally and without context. Taking into consideration the circumstances, the ARI position follows that rule you quoted to the letter.
  18. Well, if you ask me whether Hiroshima was moral, or how I think the military should be funded, those are philosophical questions, and as an Objectivist, I take the Objectivist stance on them (Hiroshima was moral; the military should be funded from voluntary sources). On technical issues like military strategy, Objectivism has no stance, so that last paragraph of my post was personal opinion.
  19. I'm not sure what valjean meant by "hiring national defense out to private corporations," but Objectivism is opposed to any form of anarchism. The government may contract corporations to provide for the military - it does that now, like when it contracts Lockheed Martin to build F-22s. But a completely privatized military brings up the very problems you mentioned. Same goes for private police and courts. Objectivism, because it is a philosophy, only outlines broad ethical principles for how a military should be run (as you can see in the links I gave you). Specifics, such as whether or not we should do away with different branches, belongs to military experts. But if you want me to throw in my $.02, I am a follower of John Boyd when it comes to military strategy/technology. He advocated lightness and agility on every level, from military hardware all the way to force structure. The force structure idea to me was most interesting, because it consisted of eliminating the Army/Navy/AF/MC distinction in favor of an "Evolutionary Force," which I explain in greater detail here (halfway down that post).
  20. kilgoretrout, I have never met you before, but the above quote leads me to believe that you are a libertarian. Frankly, I don't care if you advocate a "non-interventionist" foreign policy, but I find it extremely dishonest and insulting that you chose to regurgitate it in a thread asking for the Objectivist viewpoint. To the maker of this thread, I recommend you do two things: (1) Read Leonard Peikoff's article End States Who Sponsor Terrorism. Also, read the various Op-Eds on foreign policy from the Ayn Rand Institute. Here is a direct link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag..._foreign_policy (2) Buy The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest by Peter Schwartz at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. You can find that and other Objectivist works on foreign policy and terrorism by following this link: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/products.asp?dept=48
  21. This seems to be a pretty broad definition of "murder," because as I said, if it is murder even when consentual, euthanasia is murder. The reason I think you cannot enslave yourself, but you can have someone else kill you is that in the latter case, you are not alienating any of your rights, but rather, you are practicing them. I see an analogy with the right to property: When you dispose of a bunch of your valuables, you aren't alienating your right to property, you are practicing it. If on the other hand you broadly declare that you no longer have the right to property (and thus anyone can steal what they want from you), that would indeed be alienating your right to property. At the same time, you have to realize the validity and importance of principles. To view principles as too abstract and simplistic, and to prefer instead to approach ethical issues in a disintegrated fashion based on scientific particulars, would be a mistake.
  22. That's understandable. It's a fine article and I have no objections to it. But I'd choose an Objectivist's critique of social security over a libertarian's any day
  23. I don't understand why a death match is any different in principle than euthanasia. Could you explain? I agree with this completely, for the same reason I oppose legalizing consentual slavery: You cannot waive your own rights. The difference with death matches is you consent to the specific thing that is going to happen to you. Broadly agreeing to not have rights anymore is not legitimate because you aren't consenting to the specific actions that may happen to you in the future.
  24. I agree with this. Mr. Boortz can criticize the socialism of the left all he wants; it doesn't cover the obvious fact that Republicans have abandoned the free market in favor of a religious agenda. Nevertheless, if we agree that the only antidote is cultural (philosophical) change, it is only the major parties that have any incentive to adapt to such a change should it ever happen, because they are dependent on widespread acceptance. For that reason, I think our only hope for success is the rise of Secular Republicans.
  25. I won't try to speak for Felipe, but I think the problem lies in semantics. When you kill yourself, or have someone euthanize you, you aren't "waiving" your right to life -- you are practicing it (rationally or not). "Waiving" specifically designates you creating a contract that strips yourself of your right to life, so that anyone from that point on (for the rest of your life) can do whatever they want to you.
×
×
  • Create New...