Bush's Justification

[Charlotte Corday]

Redundant?

So, do you believe that rights are in fact intrinsic, meaning that they exist within the individual human being itself, regardless of that human being's moral and political context?

A better word choice would be “innate” or “natural.” Man’s rights are entailed by his nature, and exist irrespective of his political context. For example, no one would deny that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a prisoner in the Soviet gulag. Yet his imprisonment, however brutal, did not alienate him from his natural right to self-ownership and to trade and exchange ideas with others. From Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights”: “The Declaration of Independence stated that men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kin--a rational being--that cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.” If rights were exclusively the creatures of “political context,” then we could not say that campaign finance laws violate our right to free speech or that a ban on assault rights violates our right to self-defense. We would have no moral basis for demanding that government leave us alone.

[Charlotte Corday]

Children are not valid targets of war; if we could isolate them from the rest of the population, it would be wrong to kill them. However, as collateral damage, the same rule applies: The government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths.

This is simply a blank check for mass slaughter. If the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths,” then the opposing government is utterly free to commit any outrage: poison water supplies, blow up hospitals, kill people in neutral countries. Any and every horror can be shifted to the other government. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to Rand’s moral-political code: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

QUOTE(Oakes)

Civilians of nations we are at war with.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

So was it proper for Andrew Jackson kill or engage in the ethnic cleansing of certain ethnic populations in the Southeastern U.S.?

Oates:  *Civilians of nations we are at war with -- assuming, of course, that the war is ethically justified (i.e. retaliatory).

Finally, we’re getting someplace. In Post #85 you wrote, “Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.” So now we can come back to my earlier point: “If he cannot take the life of an innocent as a private citizen, then he cannot take the life of an innocent as a president.”

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

It is hardly a lifeboat situation, inasmuch as there is a clear alternative that permits the actor to remain unscathed: don’t drop the mega-ton bomb.

Oates:  But there's a clear alternative that permits the police sniper to remain unscathed as well: don't shoot the potential bomb-detonator. Assuming you meant "clear alternative that permits innocents to remain unscathed," let's put it this way: When fighting an enemy government, solely targeting the tip of the iceberg while ignoring the massive segment underneath that keeps it afloat could easily result in the deaths of many more of your own soldiers than need be.

But one person’s needs do not represent a valid claim on the life or property of another. As Rand said in “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

If that is the case, then all U.S. citizens deserve to die for the death of Randy Weaver’s wife. Do you think you should die for Mrs. Weaver?

This isn't a lifeboat situation. This, again, shows your inability to distinguish the judicial process from war.

What judicial process are you talking about? There was no judicial process: no judge, no jury, no defense. Vicki Weaver was murdered in cold blood by a tax-paid thug. As for making distinctions between a “judicial process” and “war,” you will have to demonstrate why moral law should be suspended or applied selectively in wartime.

You also made this mistake in your debate with MisterSwig: "I cannot imagine anyone seriously suggesting that victims of muggers and pickpockets be jailed for giving aid to criminals." This isn't a lifeboat situation either.

Your point is obscure. Swig was had said in Post #93 that if a “criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group.” By that logic, people who hand over their wallets to armed robbers are supporting those robbers and therefore should be punished.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Great. Then, force may not be initiated against those who themselves have not initiated force? In that case, “enemy” populations are let off.

Oates:  I've already made the argument that they are initiating force, in the same way that the bomb-detonator and drafted soldier are.

How are Iranian children initiating force?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

So should we assume that ALL soldiers’ families are guilty of moral support? How does that follow? Now what method do you pursue to find a discovery?

You're right that there is no way to be sure about this, but it doesn't matter; paying taxes is enough to make them a valid target. Actually, even if they don't pay taxes, having a job or doing anything at all that keeps the country moving makes them a valid target.

What percentage of tax revenue in Iran is contributed by children under the age of 15?

[Oakes]

This is simply a blank check for mass slaughter. If the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths,” then the opposing government is utterly free to commit any outrage: poison water supplies, blow up hospitals, kill people in neutral countries. Any and every horror can be shifted to the other government. This, of course, is in complete contradiction to Rand’s moral-political code: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

Not true; the argument of responsibility for casualties only works when innocents (children & others who do not support the state) die as collateral damage. If you could isolate them from the rest of the population, you could not use this argument to justify killing them.

I'll answer everything else later...I've got to go.

[Charlotte Corday]

Oakes: Not true; the argument of responsibility for casualties only works when innocents (children & others who do not support the state) die as collateral damage. If you could isolate them from the rest of the population, you could not use this argument to justify killing them.

The discussion has been about wiping out whole populations. Mister Swig said, "If we need to wipe out enemy populations in order to avoid American casualties, then that is what we need to do." The debate is not over accidents but targeting an entire society.

More importantly, how does the concept of collateral damage exempt one from moral responsibility? If, as Ayn Rand says, "the individual rights of [a slave country's] citizens remain valid," then a resident of Tehran who is a slave and not a master may not be attacked, either as an intended target or as an "accidental" victim. Suppose my company is demolishing a hotel in Las Vegas. Something goes wrong and the explosion causes a nearby building to collapse and people die. The fact that I did not intend to cause those deaths does not immunize me from moral or legal responsibility.

[Colonel Rebel]

something funny came to mind when i read the title of this thread.

if the real reasons why Bush went to war are not what he said were his reasons...then to take that approach would mean that A is not-A. Right? Wrong? let me know.....

[unskinned]

"This is simply a blank check for mass slaughter. If the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths,” then the opposing government is utterly free to commit any outrage: poison water supplies, blow up hospitals, kill people in neutral countries."

No, the evil government is in the wrong. They are the initiators and are not even morally justified in living. They don't have the right to life. That is the whole point. The only people who have the right to kill innocents by accident are the retaliators and only when that is the best way to destroy the rightless government, as is sadly often the case.

[Charlotte Corday]

"This is simply a blank check for mass slaughter. If the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths,” then the opposing government is utterly free to commit any outrage: poison water supplies, blow up hospitals, kill people in neutral countries."

No, the evil government is in the wrong.  They are the initiators and are not even morally justified in living.  They don't have the right to life.  That is the whole point.  The only people who have the right to kill innocents by accident are the retaliators and only when that is the best way to destroy the rightless government, as is sadly often the case.

I'm willing to grant that one government may be the primary aggressor. What I reject is the notion that the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths.” There are all sorts of heinous and unnecessary actions that could be committed in the name of national defense. We cannot say that anything and everything we do in response to aggression is legitimate. For example, suppose the U.S. is invaded. May the government revive the draft and then blame military slavery on the invaders? Of course not. Ayn Rand made it clear that retaliatory force may be used only against the initiators of force.

[MisterSwig]

Swig was had said in Post #93 that if a “criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group.”  By that logic, people who hand over their wallets to armed robbers are supporting those robbers and therefore should be punished. 

What kind of logic is that? Was my statement so confusing that you thought I meant the criminal forced the group to support him?

[Oakes]

The discussion has been about wiping out whole populations. Mister Swig said, "If we need to wipe out enemy populations in order to avoid American casualties, then that is what we need to do." The debate is not over accidents but targeting an entire society.

Right; the debate is over targeting populations to accomplish exactly what Mister Swig said: avoiding American casualties. The reason why targeting populations accomplishes this is because the enemy government is weakened morally and financially. There will never be a situation where intentionally killing a child, who contributes no moral or financial support, would ever help avoid American casualties.

Suppose my company is demolishing a hotel in Las Vegas. Something goes wrong and the explosion causes a nearby building to collapse and people die. The fact that I did not intend to cause those deaths does not immunize me from moral or legal responsibility.

Again, you are making examples that aren't at all lifeboat situations. The analogy Onkar Ghate gave is far more appropriate: "if in self-defense you shoot a hit man about to kill you, and also strike the innocent bystander the hit man was deliberately using as a shield, moral responsibility for the bystander's death lies with the hit man not you."

Now for your previous post:

Finally, we’re getting someplace. In Post #85 you wrote, “Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.” So now we can come back to my earlier point: “If he cannot take the life of an innocent as a private citizen, then he cannot take the life of an innocent as a president.”

Good, and the president wouldn't be taking the life of an innocent. He would be targeting people initiating force by contributing morally and financially to an aggressor government.

But one person’s needs do not represent a valid claim on the life or property of another. As Rand said in “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

I'm not using the need of the soldiers to validate killing civilians. As you should know, I'm arguing that the civilians have no rights when they morally or financially contribute to their government, and as a side note, ignoring them could easily result in the deaths of more of our soldiers than need be.

What judicial process are you talking about? There was no judicial process: no judge, no jury, no defense. Vicki Weaver was murdered in cold blood by a tax-paid thug. As for making distinctions between a “judicial process” and “war,” you will have to demonstrate why moral law should be suspended or applied selectively in wartime.

What I meant was, there is no chance you could convict the U.S. population of initiating force because they weren't responsible for Weaver's murder; such would be the obvious find of the judicial system. In war, the taxpaying, job-holding civilians wouldn't be found responsible under a judicial system either; but war is a lifeboat situation in which they are valid targets anyway.

War (and lifeboat situations in general) must be separated from the judicial process, but that doesn't mean moral law doesn't apply to both; it does. Killing those forced to support aggressor governments in your own defense is moral.

Your point is obscure. Swig was had said in Post #93 that if a “criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group.” By that logic, people who hand over their wallets to armed robbers are supporting those robbers and therefore should be punished.

In the case of a crime evaluated by the judicial system, only those who willingly supported the criminal will be punished -- because the judicial system only punishes those responsible. In the case of war, a lifeboat situation, even those who are forced to support a criminal government will be killed -- because lifeboat situations require you to kill even those who aren't responsible.

How are Iranian children initiating force?

. . .

What percentage of tax revenue in Iran is contributed by children under the age of 15?

Collateral damage.

[Thoyd Loki]

I'm willing to grant that one government may be the primary aggressor. What I reject is the notion that the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths.”  There are all sorts of heinous and unnecessary actions that could be committed in the name of national defense.  We cannot say that anything and everything we do in response to aggression is legitimate.  For example, suppose the U.S. is invaded.  May the government revive the draft and then blame military slavery on the invaders?  Of course not.  Ayn Rand made it clear that retaliatory force may be used only against the initiators of force.

You're willing to grant that one government may be the primary aggressor, eh? Like Hitler's Germany against Czechoslovakia and Poland? Like Japan against China and America? Like Napolean's France? Like Rome wiping out Carthage, and the Arabs likewise? Like Islamist Iran against America? Russia against most of Europe? Yeah, usually it is a single aggressor against a total innocent.

Your example falls short. We are talking about the other country and not the people of the attacked country. And no the draft is not an option.

I say give war a chance. Give the mass bombings of aggressor nations a chance. Let's go back to real war where the losers faced utter devastation and utter submission in brutal hands. I even think that a country that attacks us in justice should lose all sovereinty forever. You attack, you'll be utterly devastated and will become a piece of property. You may think I'm grandstanding and being belicose, but I think that is the only way to peace. That, and a free society, of course.

[Charlotte Corday]

What kind of logic is that? Was my statement so confusing that you thought I meant the criminal forced the group to support him?

If you meant that the U.S. may take action only against an aggressor government and those who voluntarily support it, then we are in full agreement. However, we'll somehow have to reconcile this with your statement in Post #95: "If you pay taxes, then you materially support the government which is oppressing you, whether you like it or not. You may have little choice in this matter. You may even spiritually oppose the government. Yet, you are still a part of the life force of this nation."

[Oakes]

If you meant that the U.S. may take action only against an aggressor government and those who voluntarily support it, then we are in full agreement. However, we'll somehow have to reconcile this with your statement in Post #95: "If you pay taxes, then you materially support the government which is oppressing you, whether you like it or not. You may have little choice in this matter. You may even spiritually oppose the government. Yet, you are still a part of the life force of this nation."

You're both right, you're just talking about different contexts. In the context of the judicial system, Swig is right that forced accomplices shouldn't be punished. In the context of war (and other lifeboat scenerios), forced supporters of aggressor governments are valid targets.

[MisterSwig]

If rights were exclusively the creatures of “political context,” then we could not say that campaign finance laws violate our right to free speech or that a ban on assault rights violates our right to self-defense.  We would have no moral basis for demanding that government leave us alone.

Who ever implied that rights were "exclusively the creatures of 'political context'"? Are you arguing with an imaginary foe or something?

I mentioned both moral and political contexts. I guess you missed that part of my statement which you quoted.

I believe you are actually the one who's evading the moral context here. Nobody has a right to exist in a manner which prevents me from living freely or justly retaliating against people who initiate force against me and/or anyone under my protection.

Forget about governments for a minute.

Let's imagine that two families are shipwrecked on a desert island. The Smith family lives on one side of the island, and the Brown family lives on the other. One day the Brown family's 25-year old son sneaks into the Smith's home, is seen savagely killing the Smith's baby girl, and escapes. Just for good measure, let's say that the killer drops his wallet at the crime scene.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are devastated, and they confront Mr. and Mrs. Brown about the incident, demanding that the Brown's son be executed for his crime.

Mr. Brown absolutely refuses to give up his son and tells the Smiths to get lost or else. In fact, he brandishes a long knife, and the Smiths are forced to leave.

From that day forward the murderous Brown son is never seen leaving the house. He is always in the company of his armed father or brothers. His mother and sisters are there, too, cooking him meals and cleaning his laundry.

Mr. Smith burns for revenge and, at the same time, is deathly afraid for his family's safety. He lives in fear that his wife or himself will be the next victim of the murderer currently sheltered and protected in the Brown family house.

One day, Mr. Smith, who has expert knowledge of chemicals, manages to make a deadly poison. He formulates a plan for revenge and waits for his opportunity. He manages to secretly poison the Brown's water supply, and in four days the entire Brown family is dead. The father, the mother, the brothers, and the sisters. All dead, including the murderer.

Now, was Mr. Smith in the right when he killed the entire Brown family, in order to punish the murderer and ensure the future safety of his own family?

Do you think that Mr. Smith should have risked his life by either suicidally rushing the armed Brown family or suicidally waiting for the murderer to kill again?

Should Mr. Smith have lived in fear for his life while he waited for some unknown opportunity or technology to arise that would enable him to kill only the murderer?

If you side with Mr. Smith, then you side with our right to kill "innocents" when doing so is necessary to ensure the protection of our own right to life. In an emergency situation like Mr. Smith's or the war with Islamic totalitarians, it comes down to my innocent life or someone else's. And faced with that choice, I choose my own life.

I'll be damned if I lend support to the idea of sacrificing myself or my countrymen for the sake of "innocent" Iranians, including their children and unborn fetuses.

[Charlotte Corday]

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

The discussion has been about wiping out whole populations. Mister Swig said, "If we need to wipe out enemy populations in order to avoid American casualties, then that is what we need to do." The debate is not over accidents but targeting an entire society.

Oakes: Right; the debate is over targeting populations to accomplish exactly what Mister Swig said: avoiding American casualties. The reason why targeting populations accomplishes this is because the enemy government is weakened morally and financially. There will never be a situation where intentionally killing a child, who contributes no moral or financial support, would ever help avoid American casualties.

If the population as a whole is targeted, there can be no “collateral damage” in the “enemy population.” If the entire population is the “enemy” i.e, the target, then any kill within that target must be considered a “successful” hit. Therefore, given the supposed premise that attacking whole populations is legitimate, there is NO such thing as “collateral damage.”

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Suppose my company is demolishing a hotel in Las Vegas. Something goes wrong and the explosion causes a nearby building to collapse and people die. The fact that I did not intend to cause those deaths does not immunize me from moral or legal responsibility.

Oakes: Again, you are making examples that aren't at all lifeboat situations.

You say they are not lifeboat situations? We agree. Involuntary manslaughter and wrongful death cases are tried in courts every day of the court calendar.

The analogy Onkar Ghate gave is far more appropriate: "if in self-defense you shoot a hit man about to kill you, and also strike the innocent bystander the hit man was deliberately using as a shield, moral responsibility for the bystander's death lies with the hit man not you."

Fine. I won’t send you to prison if you shoot through a human shield that someone is hiding behind while shooting at you. However, this hardly justifies incinerating whole cities or whole populations as someone in this thread has suggested.

QUOTE(Oakes)

*Civilians of nations we are at war with -- assuming, of course, that the war is ethically justified (i.e. retaliatory).

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday) Finally, we’re getting someplace. In Post #85 you wrote, “Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.” So now we can come back to my earlier point: “If he cannot take the life of an innocent as a private citizen, then he cannot take the life of an innocent as a president.”

Good, and the president wouldn't be taking the life of an innocent. He would be targeting people initiating force by contributing morally and financially to an aggressor government.

Let’s review:

I said, “If he cannot take the life of an innocent as a private citizen, then he cannot take the life of an innocent as a president.”

You said in Post #85: “Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.”

I asked you, “What people are you referring to?”

Your reply in Post #91: “Civilians of nations we are at war with.”

Since you did not make any exception for people who contribute nothing to the government or even those who actively oppose it, you are subscribing to the collectivist notion that every single person in a country may be punished for the crimes of a criminal gang in government. That means that neither the infant in a crib in Dresden nor a member of the underground anti-Nazi White Rose movement was innocent and deserved the same punishment as the Fuehrer hiding in his Berlin bunker. Now what incentive would an opponent of a dictator have to act against him if he knew that, despite his efforts, he would be judged guilty by the conquering army?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

QUOTE(Oakes)

But there's a clear alternative that permits the police sniper to remain unscathed as well: don't shoot the potential bomb-detonator. Assuming you meant "clear alternative that permits innocents to remain unscathed," let's put it this way: When fighting an enemy government, solely targeting the tip of the iceberg while ignoring the massive segment underneath that keeps it afloat could easily result in the deaths of many more of your own soldiers than need be.

Corday: But one person’s needs do not represent a valid claim on the life or property of another. As Rand said in “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

Oakes: I'm not using the need of the soldiers to validate killing civilians. As you should know, I'm arguing that the civilians have no rights when they morally or financially contribute to their government, and as a side note, ignoring them could easily result in the deaths of more of our soldiers than need be.

If “civilians have no rights when they morally or financially contribute to their government,” then it would not follow that we should deny rights to those civilians who do NOT morally or financially contribute to their government (children, for example) nor to those who work actively to bring down the government (the National Movement of Iranian Resistance, for example). Ergo, “civilians of nations we are at war with” is not a monolithic block that can be accorded a one-size-fits-all treatment.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

What judicial process are you talking about? There was no judicial process: no judge, no jury, no defense. Vicki Weaver was murdered in cold blood by a tax-paid thug. As for making distinctions between a “judicial process” and “war,” you will have to demonstrate why moral law should be suspended or applied selectively in wartime.

Oakes: What I meant was, there is no chance you could convict the U.S. population of initiating force because they weren't responsible for Weaver's murder; such would be the obvious find of the judicial system. In war, the taxpaying, job-holding civilians wouldn't be found responsible under a judicial system either; but war is a lifeboat situation in which they are valid targets anyway.

Non-sequitur. There is no reason to conclude that people who are victims of a criminal regime should be punished for the actions of that criminal regime. The fact that there is “no chance” of convicting the U.S. population of Vicki Weaver’s murder is completely irrelevant to the moral issue being discussed here. If you wish to defend punishing “the taxpaying, job-holding civilians” of an aggressive nation as legitimate targets, then you will also have to show why taxpayers in the United States should not be similarly punished as contributors to U.S. government aggression. Just consider the immoral, unconstitutional War on Drugs, War on Capitalism, War on Free Trade, War on Gun Owners, War on Free Speech, War on Income Concealers.

War (and lifeboat situations in general) must be separated from the judicial process, but that doesn't mean moral law doesn't apply to both; it does. Killing those forced to support aggressor governments in your own defense is moral.

Therefore, if there is a large income earner in my community who enables (by involuntarily) contributing to my local government in its wealth redistribution schemes, I may morally kill him, as ending his life is a performance of your precept that “Killing those forced to support aggressor governments in your own defense is moral.”

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Your point is obscure. Swig was had said in Post #93 that if a “criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group.” By that logic, people who hand over their wallets to armed robbers are supporting those robbers and therefore should be punished.

Oakes: In the case of a crime evaluated by the judicial system, only those who willingly supported the criminal will be punished -- because the judicial system only punishes those responsible. In the case of war, a lifeboat situation, even those who are forced to support a criminal government will be killed -- because lifeboat situations require you to kill even those who aren't responsible.

How does this follow? What ethical principle sets those who perform the initiation of force in war apart from those who perform it in a “civil” society? Why would it be proper in one case but not in the other?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

How are Iranian children initiating force?

. . .

What percentage of tax revenue in Iran is contributed by children under the age of 15?

Oakes: Collateral damage.

If the population as a whole is targeted, there can be no “collateral damage” in the “enemy population.” If the entire population is the “enemy” i.e, the target, then any kill within that target must be considered a “successful” hit. Therefore, given the supposed premise that attacking whole populations is legitimate, there is NO such thing as “collateral damage.”

[Charlotte Corday]

Who ever implied that rights were "exclusively the creatures of 'political context'"? Are you arguing with an imaginary foe or something? I mentioned both moral and political contexts.

No, I was merely answering your question. In Post #100 you wrote, “So, do you believe that rights are in fact intrinsic, meaning that they exist within the individual human being itself, regardless of that human being's moral and political context?” My response stressed that rights do in fact exist independently of any social/political context. As for moral context, rights are explicitly a "moral concept" (Rand's phrase), based on man’s nature (or identity) as a rational being. I presumed that it was self-evident that one cannot remove a moral concept from a moral context.

I believe you are actually the one who's evading the moral context here. Nobody has a right to exist in a manner which prevents me from living freely or justly retaliating against people who initiate force against me and/or anyone under my protection.

“Justly retaliating” must necessarily exclude initiating force against a person who has not himself initiated force. As Rand said in “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

Forget about governments for a minute.

Let's imagine that two families are shipwrecked on a desert island. The Smith family lives on one side of the island, and the Brown family lives on the other. One day the Brown family's 25-year old son sneaks into the Smith's home, is seen savagely killing the Smith's baby girl, and escapes. Just for good measure, let's say that the killer drops his wallet at the crime scene.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are devastated, and they confront Mr. and Mrs. Brown about the incident, demanding that the Brown's son be executed for his crime.

Mr. Brown absolutely refuses to give up his son and tells the Smiths to get lost or else. In fact, he brandishes a long knife, and the Smiths are forced to leave.

From that day forward the murderous Brown son is never seen leaving the house. He is always in the company of his armed father or brothers. His mother and sisters are there, too, cooking him meals and cleaning his laundry.

Mr. Smith burns for revenge and, at the same time, is deathly afraid for his family's safety. He lives in fear that his wife or himself will be the next victim of the murderer currently sheltered and protected in the Brown family house.

One day, Mr. Smith, who has expert knowledge of chemicals, manages to make a deadly poison. He formulates a plan for revenge and waits for his opportunity. He manages to secretly poison the Brown's water supply, and in four days the entire Brown family is dead. The father, the mother, the brothers, and the sisters. All dead, including the murderer.

Now, was Mr. Smith in the right when he killed the entire Brown family, in order to punish the murderer and ensure the future safety of his own family?

Do you think that Mr. Smith should have risked his life by either suicidally rushing the armed Brown family or suicidally waiting for the murderer to kill again?

Should Mr. Smith have lived in fear for his life while he waited for some unknown opportunity or technology to arise that would enable him to kill only the murderer?

Desert islands are a common mutation on the old lifeboat setting. Smith cannot morally poison non-murderers for the same reason the Brown and Goldman families cannot morally poison the water supply of Brentwood, CA in attempt to bring death to the murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The fact that Smith finds it difficult to get a clean shot at the Brown son, does not entail the forfeiting of the lives of non-murderers in the Brown family. “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

If you side with Mr. Smith, then you side with our right to kill "innocents" when doing so is necessary to ensure the protection of our own right to life. In an emergency situation like Mr. Smith's or the war with Islamic totalitarians, it comes down to my innocent life or someone else's. And faced with that choice, I choose my own life.

I'll be damned if I lend support to the idea of sacrificing myself or my countrymen for the sake of "innocent" Iranians, including their children and unborn fetuses.

Orwell satirically had his Stalinist pigs in Animal Farm declare, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." A neat variation on this would be: all human have rights but some humans have more rights than others.

[MisterSwig]

My response stressed that rights do in fact exist independently of any social/political context.

Ayn Rand quotes from Man's Rights that clearly disagree with your view:

"'Rights' are a moral concept--the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others--the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

"The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system[.]"

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."

“Justly retaliating” must necessarily exclude initiating force against a person who has not himself initiated force. As Rand said in “Collectivized ‘Rights,’” “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

You don't even understand Ayn Rand's quote, yet you try to use it to defend your arbitrary assertion. Once a conqueror has conquered a slave pen, then he does not have the right to violate the rights of "innocent" people by setting up another dictatorship. That was the thrust of Ayn Rand's argument.

Have we conquered our enemy yet? No.

You fail to understand that war is an emergency situation, which requires emergency action. And Ayn Rand has clearly argued why killing "innocents" during war is justifiable. It's your life or theirs.

To this day you evade Ayn Rand's argument. Why don't you quote from her comments on killing "innocents" in war and deal with them? Your efforts to show a contradiction in Ayn Rand's philosophy have miserably failed. I, and others, have repeatedly shown you how you are not understanding Objectivism. And you repeatedly ignore our arguments, attempting to hide behind a thick layer of Ayn Rand quotes which themselves, when seen in context, prove you wrong.

Desert islands are a common mutation on the old lifeboat setting.  Smith cannot morally poison non-murderers for the same reason the Brown and Goldman families cannot morally poison the water supply of Brentwood, CA in attempt to bring death to the murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

First, we live in an organized society where we have relinquished our right to retaliation to the government. And second, Brentwood wasn't protecting O.J. from the judicial process. They, in fact, brought him to trial.

Your attempt at analogy is silly.

The fact that Smith finds it difficult to get a clean shot at the Brown son, does not entail the forfeiting of the lives of non-murderers in the Brown family.

Did I say Mr. Smith had a gun (or other "shooting" weapon)? No, I didn't. There are no guns on the island. Mr. Smith's ability to retaliate is severely limited. That is the whole point.

When you are in an emergency situation, you have to act fast. And sometimes your best or only option is to risk killing "innocents" in order to put down the threat to your life. The graver the threat, the more "innocents" that might have to die in order for your life to be protected.

[MisterSwig]

Fine.  I won’t send you to prison if you shoot through a human shield that someone is hiding behind while shooting at you.  However, this hardly justifies incinerating whole cities or whole populations as someone in this thread has suggested.

Yes it does justify it, because if that is what it takes to end the state of war without losing American lives, then that is what it takes. Period.

As far as I'm concerned, you lost this debate just now when you, as seen in the above quote, conceded that there are emergency situations where killing an "innocent" person is justifiable. This fundamentally contradicts the premise on which you have been debating for several posts now, which was that killing "innocents" is always wrong.

Have you done a flip-flop on us?

[Oakes]

If the population as a whole is targeted, there can be no “collateral damage” in the “enemy population.” If the entire population is the “enemy” i.e, the target, then any kill within that target must be considered a “successful” hit. Therefore, given the supposed premise that attacking whole populations is legitimate, there is NO such thing as “collateral damage.”

You're fusing two different concepts: "target" and "enemy". In an urban location, there is no way, militarily, to destroy worthy targets apart from non-worthy ones. The aggressor government who forced us into this dilemma is the one responsible for those deaths.

You say they are not lifeboat situations? We agree. Involuntary manslaughter and wrongful death cases are tried in courts every day of the court calendar.

Right, and none of those killings were conducted in an effort to save the lives of innocents. That is what separates them from lifeboat situations.

Fine. I won’t send you to prison if you shoot through a human shield that someone is hiding behind while shooting at you. However, this hardly justifies incinerating whole cities or whole populations as someone in this thread has suggested.

In both cases, someone is being forced to be an accessory in your own murder.

Your reply in Post #91: “Civilians of nations we are at war with.”

Since you did not make any exception for people who contribute nothing to the government or even those who actively oppose it, you are subscribing to the collectivist notion that every single person in a country may be punished for the crimes of a criminal gang in government. . . . Now what incentive would an opponent of a dictator have to act against him if he knew that, despite his efforts, he would be judged guilty by the conquering army?

"Punished"? "Judged guilty"? Was the police sniper "punishing" the man forced to detonate a bomb? Was the American soldier "punishing" the drafted soldier forced to fire at him? No. For the umpteenth time, war is not an act of judicial prosecution. Besides those lending moral support, civilians who are killed for the sins of their government are not being held morally responsible, or being "judged guilty" of anything.

If “civilians have no rights when they morally or financially contribute to their government,” then it would not follow that we should deny rights to those civilians who do NOT morally or financially contribute to their government (children, for example) nor to those who work actively to bring down the government (the National Movement of Iranian Resistance, for example). Ergo, “civilians of nations we are at war with” is not a monolithic block that can be accorded a one-size-fits-all treatment.

You've yet to convince me that we are denying their rights.

. . . If you wish to defend punishing “the taxpaying, job-holding civilians” of an aggressive nation as legitimate targets, then you will also have to show why taxpayers in the United States should not be similarly punished as contributors to U.S. government aggression. Just consider the immoral, unconstitutional War on Drugs, War on Capitalism, War on Free Trade, War on Gun Owners, War on Free Speech, War on Income Concealers.

First of all, except in extreme emergencies (like Onkar Ghates' example), the government has a monopoly on using force. Secondly, as unjust as these U.S. government "Wars" are, they aren't lifeboat situations calling for you to pick up arms and revolt.

How does this follow? What ethical principle sets those who perform the initiation of force in war apart from those who perform it in a “civil” society? Why would it be proper in one case but not in the other?

I might point out, you are the one who first used the term "lifeboat situation"; it was in response to my scenerio of a man forced to detonate a bomb on a populous. If you recognized the difference then, why don't you now?

BTW, where the crime is committed is not what dictates whether it is a lifeboat situation. Onkar Ghates' example could be committed on the streets of LA.

[Charlotte Corday]

Ayn Rand quotes from Man's Rights that clearly disagree with your view:

"'Rights' are a moral concept--the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others--the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

"The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system[.]"

"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."

In fact, none of these quotations contradict the idea that rights are inalienable, i.e. exist independently of the will of the ruler or majority of a society. In “Man’s Rights,” Rand says, “. . . some assert that rights are a gift of God--others that rights are a gift of society. But in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.” She goes on to quote approvingly Jefferson’s idea of inalienable rights in the Declaration. Now given the fact that man’s nature exists independently of the will of the majority or the dictates of government, we do not say man’s rights depend on or are subordinate to what is going on in a particular society. Take the case of Solzhenitsyn. Rand and Jefferson would both say that when he was a political prisoner in the Soviet Union, his rights were violated. They would not say he had no rights.

First, we live in an organized society where we have relinquished our right to retaliation to the government.

What government did your Mr. Smith relinquish his right of retaliation to?

And second, Brentwood wasn't protecting O.J. from the judicial process. They, in fact, brought him to trial.

And what did you say Daughter Brown did to protect Son Brown from the judicial process?

Your analogy is silly.

Funny. I had the same reaction to your little Survivor Island story.

Did I say Mr. Smith had a gun (or other "shooting" weapon)? No, I didn't. There are no guns on the island. Mr. Smith's ability to retaliate is severely limited. That is the whole point.

The term “clean shot” was metaphorical. There are such things as sling-shots and bows. But I’m prepared to hear you tell me there are also no rocks or wood on the island and that the Smiths are caught in some sort of pre-Stone Age technology time warp. But no matter. The fact that Smith has limited options in no way diminishes Daughter Brown’s right to continue living.

When you are in an emergency situation, you have to act fast. And sometimes your best or only option is to risk killing "innocents" in order to put down the threat to your life. The graver the threat, the more "innocents" that might have to die in order for your life to be protected.

The concept of individuals rights cannot be applied in a limited and one-sided fashion. Otherwise it would not be an ethical principle at all. We cannot say that in pursuit of vengeance you have a right to snuff out some innocent person’s life and not also say that the avengers of the innocent person have a right to snuff out you in return.

Yes it does justify it, because if that is what it takes to end the state of war without losing American lives, then that is what it takes. Period.

If war justifies whatever “it takes” to win, then there can be no limit on the actions of government. It can institute military slavery, commandeer the economy, build concentration camps, exterminate “risk” populations, anything “it takes.”

As far as I'm concerned, you lost this debate just now when you, as seen in the above quote, conceded that there are emergency situations where killing an "innocent" person is justifiable. This fundamentally contradicts the premise on which you have been debating for several posts now, which was that killing "innocents" is always wrong.

Have you done a flip-flop on us?

Never said killing an innocent person is justifiable. More importantly, I made it clear early in this discussion that moral systems cannot be built on lifeboat scenarios.

[MisterSwig]

Never said killing an innocent person is justifiable.

Then what did you mean by this:

Fine. I won’t send you to prison if you shoot through a human shield that someone is hiding behind while shooting at you.

Why wouldn't you send him to prison? Didn't he kill an innocent? And isn't that unjustifiable?

If killing an innocent person is never justifiable, then why wouldn't you jail someone who does it?

Are you making law according to your whim?

[Charlotte Corday]

Oakes: You're fusing two different concepts: "target" and "enemy". In an urban location, there is no way, militarily, to destroy worthy targets apart from non-worthy ones.

Sure there is a way. You don’t drop bombs that destroy whole cities. In any case, whatever problem you’re having in conducting your war is totally irrelevant to the sanctity of a person’s life and property. Individual rights are not suspended merely because someone has difficulty responding to an act of aggression. A person’s right to his person and property exists no matter what your problems happen to be.

The aggressor government who forced us into this dilemma is the one responsible for those deaths.

We’ve been through this already. You cannot morally shift responsibility for any and every hideous action. For example, if invaded could the U.S. government revive the draft and blame military slavery on the aggressor nation? The answer is no.

Oakes: Right, and none of those killings were conducted in an effort to save the lives of innocents. That is what separates them from lifeboat situations.

The nobility of one’s motives does not earn one authority to snuff out lives. Someone in the blast area of a nuclear device does not lose his right to life and property because the one dropping the bomb has high motives. The rights of A are not conditional on B’s objectives.

Oakes: In both cases, someone is being forced to be an accessory in your own murder.

Nobody in Hiroshima was shooting or hiding behind human shields on the day it was bombed.

Oakes: "Punished"? "Judged guilty"? Was the police sniper "punishing" the man forced to detonate a bomb? Was the American soldier "punishing" the drafted soldier forced to fire at him?

In Post #109 you wrote, “. . . the president wouldn't be taking the life of an innocent. He would be targeting people initiating force by contributing morally and financially to an aggressor government.” Well, if you do not consider these people innocent, why shouldn’t they be punished?

No. For the umpteenth time, war is not an act of judicial prosecution.

That distinction is irrelevant to the question of rights. You have not demonstrated how declaring a state of war empowers one to violate or suspend the rights of others.

Besides those lending moral support, civilians who are killed for the sins of their government are not being held morally responsible, or being "judged guilty" of anything.

If you do not judge them as guilty why did you say in Post #109 that they were not innocent?

Oakes: You've yet to convince me that we are denying their rights.

So it is legitimate for me to go around dropping bombs on anyone unless someone first convinces me that one of my intended targets is innocent?

Oakes: First of all, except in extreme emergencies (like Onkar Ghates' example), the government has a monopoly on using force. Secondly, as unjust as these U.S. government "Wars" are, they aren't lifeboat situations calling for you to pick up arms and revolt.

Who gets to decide whether or not it’s a lifeboat situation, the person dropping the bombs or the person being bombed?

I might point out, you are the one who first used the term "lifeboat situation"; it was in response to my scenerio of a man forced to detonate a bomb on a populous. If you recognized the difference then, why don't you now?

All I said is that I would not send you to jail in the situation described. I did not say you should be exonerated of all ethical/legal responsibility.

BTW, where the crime is committed is not what dictates whether it is a lifeboat situation. Onkar Ghates' example could be committed on the streets of LA.

And the “the taxpaying, job-holding civilians” of an aggressive nation can live in LA too.

Edited October 9, 2004 by MisterSwig

[Charlotte Corday]

Then what did you mean by this:

Why wouldn't you send him to prison? Didn't he kill an innocent? And isn't that unjustifiable?

If killing an innocent person is never justifiable, then why wouldn't you jail someone who does it?

If a contractor builds a bridge with inferior materials, it may collapse and he could be held liable for the deaths of innocent people. Although he wouldn't go to jail, he might be assessed a large financial judgment. The case Oakes cited is complex: we do not know all of the factors involved or the possible options other than killing an innocent person. In fact, if certain information was revealed there might be an argument for sentencing the killer to death. In any case, it offers no reason for overturning Rand's point in “Collectivized ‘Rights'”: “A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.”

Are you making law according to your whim?

Neither my whim nor anyone else's should have authority to suspend the rights of an innocent person.

[MisterSwig]

The case Oakes cited is complex:  we do not know all of the factors involved or the possible options other than killing an innocent person.  In fact, if certain information was revealed there might be an argument for sentencing the killer to death.

You are completely evading the issue--once again. You seem to think that appealing to the arbitrary ("certain information") is a valid way of responding to the fact that in some emergency situations it is right to kill "innocents" to save your own life.

I've seen your type before, Charlotte. You're called Libertarians.

You like to shout about rights and quote Ayn Rand, but you have no real knowledge of what rights are or where they come from. And when you are finally proven wrong, rather than take a step back and start thinking, you blindly leap into the realm of the arbitrary and mumble to yourself about "certain information."

If only you had "certain information," there's no doubt that you would prove Ayn Rand wrong. Ah, yes, that "certain information" that is going to prove that killing "innocents" is never the right thing to do--even in an emergency situation where you are forced to shoot through a human shield in order to defend your life against a mad hostage-taking murderer.

Your MO on this board is quite clear, Charlotte. You defend Rothbard and the Libertarian Party on other threads, and on this thread you attempt to distort Ayn Rand's moral and political philosophy to fit your Libertarian view of rights and killing of "innocents" in war. You show little interest in understanding Objectivism. Your main goal is to convince people that Ayn Rand's essays support your mixed-up view of the world.