Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Would you shoot?

Rate this topic


Mammon
 Share

Recommended Posts

You are looked in a room with a gun, and a man who says he doesn't accept individual rights. Would you shoot him and kill him, or try to convince him otherwise? He has the key to getting out as well.

Lets put a twist on it and say you can only get out of room if you have his hand print and yours placed on a keypad at the same time.

(I know all the problems with hypotheticals so, please don't bring them up, that's not the point of this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the life-boat scenarios?

Aren't the day to day actions of an individual the real way to see what philosophy he holds, and how stringently he holds it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason to believe that the man who doesnt accept individual rights would wish to stay locked in the room?

Or for that matter want to harm you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are looked in a room with a gun, and a man who says he doesn't accept individual rights. Would you shoot him and kill him, or try to convince him otherwise? He has the key to getting out as well. Lets put a twist on it and say you can only get out of room if you have his hand print and yours placed on a keypad at the same time.

Those aren't the only options.

On the assumption that you have no prior-standing obligation to get something done in there (such as it being in some secure facility and it's your job along with him to fix something before it goes kaboom or releases some nasty bug under research into the outside world), first, just ask him to let you out if you know he has the key. If he wont let you out then he is committing an actual crime (I'm presuming a western country). Do what you need to in order to get out, starting with the least aggressive methods first, then escalating as quickly as the context necessitates (this includes consideration of potential outside help). Even if he doesn't accept individual rights that doesn't necessarily mean he wont obey the law as it presently stands - in the same manner, we obey many regulatory laws even though we don't recognise their validity. So, unless he himself gets seriously threatening (itself another crime), I don't see it getting as far as actually killing him - at most, a pistol-whipping to get the key off him and the ability to drag his hand where required. Then call the police as soon as you're out.

What's the current event this is supposed to be an analogy for?

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all the life-boat scenarios?

Aren't the day to day actions of an individual the real way to see what philosophy he holds, and how stringently he holds it?

Well, you'd think that would be correct.

But we are using "life-boat scenarios" for more complicated matters so I figured this was the correct way of communicate issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the current event this is supposed to be an analogy for?

JJM

The point is, we deal with people on a daily basis that don't respect individual rights or accept them as a valid.We don't call for their destruction when they vote in a regime that takes away our own rights. However, if they live on the other side of the world and do the same thing... then it's somehow acceptable to end their lives in a nuclear holocaust.

The standard I see presented in any case for war is that "They don't respect individual rights!" When is it okay to destory this person because of it?

I see this bizarre standard also applied to debating with people. If they don't respect individual rights, they aren't worth your time. Yet, some people are. It's basically, who ever opposes the Republicans or America, can't be expected to grasp the concept.

In every thread or discussion on the subject, I get this almost unaminous answer of "converting" Republicans or some vague notion of "freedom-loving-people"... yet people who are Democrats or "liberals" are viewed as sub-human retarded creatures incapable of reason. It's the same for Muslims.

Why are these people designated as being impervious to reason by Objectivists? And in the Muslims case, why is it fine to destroy them? If it's because they don't respect rights... or because they have a government that doesn't? Because the same could be said for us in a way.

It's a critical question -- when does not respect individual rights become an issue of concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a critical question -- when does not respect individual rights become an issue of concern?

Mostly it doesn't. It's only when someone actually violates individual rights that they become a concern. We not only deal with the Muslim type, we deal with the American type also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mammon-- You are misunderstanding the issue. It's not whether or not other people or governments accept the use of force intellectually-- rather it is are they actively acting on that premise, i.e., are they intiating or theatening the use of (which is an initiation of force, since the act of force is the actual act of "force") force against you or your nation? When they do the above the only proper and moral way to deal with this initiation of force is with overwhelming force, anything less is sacrificial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I guess we can assume you meant that in addition he really likes it in the room or something so won't help you open the door? In that case no I don't think you are justified in threatening him with a gun, at least not until you begin to starve to death. You have about 3 weeks before you starve that you can reason with him... and really if he wants to stay in the room so bad there might be a good cause for it that you should talk over (ie. maybe there are velociraptors outside).

As for the analogy there is a difference between someone who professes not to care about individual rights and a country that actively violates individual rights such as Iran. A government that actively violates individual rights is an inversion of a proper form of government and as such is illegitamite, so can be overthrown by any free country if it is seen as in her best interest to do so. In common usage when it is said "X person doesn't respect individual rights" it means he votes for universal health care, shoplifts, etc., whereas when it is said "X country doesn't respect individual rights" it means that there are torture chambers and death camps... so although I see what you were trying to get at your analogy fails.

And no, I see neo-con Republicans, new-left Democrats, and pro-Caliphate Muslims as all equally retarded... with maybe a slight bias towards the Islamofacists since those other two groups havn't tried to bomb anyone I know lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is it okay to destory this person because of it? When does not respecting individual rights become an issue of concern?

When you are positive that he can't be rehabilitated, and continues to pose himself as a threat to you. When it potentially threatens your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...