Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush's Justification

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In Post #62 you [MisterSwig] wrote, “I suggest that you do a search and read the threads on that subject, before continuing with your idea that Hiroshima and 9/11 were morally equivalent acts.”

In fact, I said no such thing.

Yes you did.

There is no moral difference between bombing innocent people in Hiroshima and bombing innocent people in the World Trade Center.

Morally equivalent = No moral difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Charlotte Corday,Oct 1 2004, 09:10 PM]No, killing 155,000 innocents is far worse than killing 3,000 innocents.  So, I do not say they are morally equivalent.  However there is no moral difference in theory between targetting innocents in New York and targetting nnocents in Japan.

I agree. But we weren't targeting innocents - and they were. That is also the difference between the Palestinian terrorists and the typical Israeli response (which sometimes involves the killing of innocents but is primarily directed at the terrorist leadership).

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything less than the immediate return of stolen property to the victim is unjust.

But again, this is the moral judgement. How are you going to get that immediate return of stolen property other than by campaigning against government waste and the welfare state?

Good. If it is coercive, then it is immoral. If it is immoral, it should stop. Any other position is an endorsement of the ends justifying the means.

But you're protesting the whole package, including the very moral things like cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists.

I don’t condemn every act, just the immoral acts. Since taxation is theft, I condemn it.

But you do condemn every act of our government. You've protested war on the premise that it is funded by coercive sources. That reasoning can be applied to anything and everything the government does.

If a private citizen steals or commits murder, he has initiated force and must be held responsible. If a member of government steals or commits murder, he too has initiated force and must be held responsible. Holding elective office does not exempt one from moral law.

I haven't conceeded that it is murder. Is a person still innocent if his tax dollars go to funding an aggressor government? Is he innocent if he contributes any spiritual support to the soldiers on the front line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But we weren't targeting innocents - and they were. . .

Not true. Targeting civilian centers was explicit Allied policy in both the European and Pacific Theatres in World War II. Sir Arthur Harris, commander of the RAF, made it clear that civilian targets were as legitimate as military targets: "The primary objective of your operations should now be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers." (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR20.4/Forbes.html) In this view, killing civilians 1) deprived the enemy of workers in the munitions plants, 2) diverted enemy resources to tending to the masses of dead and wounded, and 3) produced general terror in the enemy population. In Dresden alone (a city with little military value and one overflowing with refugees from the advancing Red Army), the 135,000 killed by fire-bombings was twice the number of people killed in all of Britain by German air attacks.

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. Major General Curtis LeMay had conducted a campaign aimed specifically at destroying Japanese population centers (as separate from military targets). Toward that end, U.S. B-29's burned out “16 square miles of Tokyo, destroying 267,000 buildings, killing more than 100,000 men, women, and children, injuring one million, and leaving another million homeless.” (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR20.4/Forbes.html) Rather than being incidental casualties, civilian residential areas in Tokyo were primary targets. (LeMay’s assistant at the time, Robert McNamara, discusses the intentional bombing of Japanese civilians in last year’s documentary The Fog of War.) There has been a half century-long debate over the military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Needless to say, virtually every Japanese city had some value to the war effort. Yet, regardless of what actual military installations were neutralized by the atomic blast, the weapons used were far in excess of what was needed if military targets alone were the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Anything less than the immediate return of stolen property to the victim is unjust.

But again, this is the moral judgement.

Yes. And if it is the correct moral judgment, then we must embrace it regardless of whether it is easy or difficult to implement in today’s world. For example, in 1820, there was little likelihood that all the Southern slaves would be set free. Yet, regardless of the difficulty of bringing about that morally necessary change, if we accept the morality of individualism, we would still have to say that even in 1820, every slave should have been freed immediately.

How are you going to get that immediate return of stolen property other than by campaigning against government waste and the welfare state?

First of all I should point out that due to current tax law, some citizens, including a few very wealthy ones, pay little or no income tax. But more importantly, how we achieve justice is entirely a separate question from what justice is. Justice in 1820 demanded that every man, woman and child in bondage be emancipated immediately. We would hardly say that our endorsement of freeing all the slaves must await conversion of the South to a voluntary labor/wage system.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Good. If it is coercive, then it is immoral. If it is immoral, it should stop. Any other position is an endorsement of the ends justifying the means.

Oates:  But you're protesting the whole package, including the very moral things like cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists.

Then you are not paying attention. I made it clear early in this thread that Dubya could do as he wished as long as he did it with his own money. For the sake of argument, I stipulated that his war policies were correct. But what I would not allow is the proposition that he somehow had a right to stolen funds in order to conduct the war. Unless one accepts the argument for situational morality, taking a citizen’s property is always wrong even if the thief does it for a supposed “greater good.”

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

I don’t condemn every act, just the immoral acts. Since taxation is theft, I condemn it.

Oates:   But you do condemn every act of our government. You've protested war on the premise that it is funded by coercive sources. That reasoning can be applied to anything and everything the government does.

No. (See above.) The Statue of Liberty is the property of the National Park Service but its restoration was made possible entirely by voluntary contributions.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

If a private citizen steals or commits murder, he has initiated force and must be held responsible. If a member of government steals or commits murder, he too has initiated force and must be held responsible. Holding elective office does not exempt one from moral law.

I haven't conceeded that it is murder.

Ayn Rand wrote, “A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group or lose the rights which he does possess.” (“Collectivized ‘Rights’”) Therefore, by joining the administration of a government, a man does acquire the right to do something that he could not have done as a private citizen. 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.

Is a person still innocent if his tax dollars go to funding an aggressor government?

Yes, for the same reason that you are not guilty of murder if someone breaks into your locked house, steals your shotgun and kills a bank teller with it.

Is he innocent if he contributes any spiritual support to the soldiers on the front line?

I have no idea what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a half century-long debate over the military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Needless to say, virtually every Japanese city had some value to the war effort.  Yet, regardless of what actual military installations were neutralized by the atomic blast, the weapons used were far in excess of what was needed if military targets alone were the objective.

Military targets weren't the issue in the A-bombing of Japan. The issue was to send a warning to Japan that we had the capability of annihilating them totally and the will to do so. The objective was to bring them to surrender quickly, and thus to avoid the necessity of an invasion where the casualities to American soldiers would have been enormous. We had by that point effectively destroyed their military capability. All that was left was their fanatical willingness to fight to the death. We had to do something to shake that conviction and to completely break their will.

As for the bombing of German cities, we didn't have the capabilities of precision bombing which we do today. Also, the Allied casualities were enormous in these bombing runs. Given that mix, that we might have decided simply to inflict as much as damage as we possibly could was a perfectly legitimate military strategy. We weren't targeting civilians for the sheer sake of targeting civilians - in contrast to the Germans who were rounding up and slaughtering entire populations.

In both instances, we were sending the message that we prepared to use overwhelming force, to wreck their countries, and kill millions of them if necessary to end their aggression.

In the end we demolished and completely subdued them. Having demanded unconditional surrender, the occupation of both countries proceeded with relatively little incident. We were then able to impose our will upon them and insist that they embrace free institutions and abandon their military ambitions. One can't fail to note that both countries subsequently experienced economic explosions and have been extremely well-behaved ever since.

Would that we were taking the same approach in the MidEast instead of the chronic appeasement which has infected and undercut virtually every step we've taken to date.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military targets weren't the issue in the A-bombing of Japan. The issue was to send a warning to Japan that we had the capability of annihilating them totally and the will to do so. The objective was to bring them to surrender quickly, and thus to avoid the necessity of an invasion where the casualities to American soldiers would have been enormous. We had by that point effectively destroyed their military capability. All that was left was their fanatical willingness to fight to the death. We had to do something to shake that conviction and to completely break their will.

Nothing in the above paragraph supports your contention in Post #78 that "we weren't targeting innocents." Indeed, if, as you say, "The issue was to send a warning to Japan that we had the capability of annihilating them totally," it seems you now agree that we were very much engaged in the practice of targeting civilians -- including those too young, too old and too weak to be considered anything other than innocent.

As for the bombing of German cities, we didn't have the capabilities of precision bombing which we do today. Also, the Allied casualities were enormous in these bombing runs. Given that mix, that we might have decided simply to inflict as much as damage as we possibly could was a perfectly legitimate military strategy. We weren't targeting civilians for the sheer sake of targeting civilians - in contrast to the Germans who were rounding up and slaughtering entire populations.

No one has stated that we were targeting civilians for the sheer sake of targeting civilians. Let's review: earlier in the thread, I said, “there is no moral difference in theory between targetting innocents in New York and targetting innocents in Japan.” Your rejoinder was "we weren't targeting innocents." And that is simply untrue. The stated policies of RAF commander Sir Arthur Harris and other British officials make it clear that the destruction of great masses of people (including innocents) was precisely the Allied objective: "In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in 58 towns of over 100,000 inhabitants. If even half our bombs were dropped on . . . these 58 towns the great majority of these inhabitants (about one third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home. Investigation seems to show that having one’s home demolished is most damaging to morale . . . there seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people." (Advice given to the British government in 1942 by Lord Cherwell, a senior scientific adviser. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing.htm) Left unstated is the grim fact that those tens of thousands who happened to be inside their homes when they were bombed would be left with neither life nor morale.

In both instances, we were sending the message that we prepared to use overwhelming force, to wreck their countries, and kill millions of them if necessary to end their aggression.

Yes. Accordingly, the U.S. under Roosevelt and Truman did indeed target civilian populations which inevitably included large numbers of innocents.

In the end we demolished and completely subdued them. Having demanded unconditional surrender, the occupation of both countries proceeded with relatively little incident. We were then able to impose our will upon them . . .

Interesting but irrelevant to the point you raised in Post #78.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, killing 155,000 innocents is far worse than killing 3,000 innocents.  So, I do not say they are morally equivalent.  However there is no moral difference in theory between targetting innocents in New York and targetting nnocents in Japan.

Charlotte, do you believe "innocent" people have intrinsic worth? Why would the mere number of "innocents" killed matter unless they have intrinsic worth?

The value of a person is objective--as is all values. The notion that people have value to you regardless of who they are is not part of Objectivism. 155,000 Japanese during WWII were of no value to us compared to the American lives that would have been lost trying to invade Japan.

That is a cold hard fact that you should become acquainted with.

You fundamentally do not understand the Objectivist theory of values. You take Ayn Rand's words out of context and attempt to manipulate them to agree with your confused view of the world.

Rights are not intrinsic. Those who live under a dictatorship cannot claim any rights and must be prepared to suffer the same fate as their dictatorship or do what they can to fight for freedom. It is not our job to protect the lives of people under a foreign dictatorship. If our self-defense requires that we eliminate enemy populations, then we have every right to do that. Other people's (especially the enemy's) lives are not intrinsically valuable to us.

Rights are recognized and protected by free societies. They are not God-given. They are man-recognized. If you are a so-called "innocent" living under a dictatorship at war, then don't count on anyone to recognize your rights, because dictatorships survive by using force and because in war rights are out the window. War is about force. War is where you decide that you are no longer going to recognize any rights of your enemy. You are going to kill your enemy until you decide that he is no longer a threat to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And if it is the correct moral judgment, then we must embrace it regardless of whether it is easy or difficult to implement in today’s world.

And I agree with your moral judgement. In 1820, I would have said every slave should be set free immediately. Today, I do say every tax dollar should be returned to their owners. Your problem is the way you are trying to get it done: by denouncing everything the government does that is funded by coerced dollars.

But more importantly, how we achieve justice is entirely a separate question from what justice is. Justice in 1820 demanded that every man, woman and child in bondage be emancipated immediately. We would hardly say that our endorsement of freeing all the slaves must await conversion of the South to a voluntary labor/wage system.

Correct, and I don't hold back my endorsement of freeing taxpayers. But I am diametrically opposed to the way you're trying to achieve such justice.

Then you are not paying attention. I made it clear early in this thread that Dubya could do as he wished as long as he did it with his own money.

In that case, every word I said was correct. You condemn every government act, including cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists. Don't divert attention by bringing up insignificant exceptions, like the Statue of Liberty, that aren't financed by tax dollars.

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.

Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.

Yes, for the same reason that you are not guilty of murder if someone breaks into your locked house, steals your shotgun and kills a bank teller with it.

In that case your view of retaliatory force is misguided; it is not an act of judicial prosecution. When a man is forced to press a button that will detonate a bomb, police snipers have a right to shoot him beforehand, not because he is guilty of wrongdoing, but because pressing the button will result in the death of other innocent people. When a man is drafted into the enemy's army against his will, American soldiers have the right to fill him with lead, not because he is guilty of wrongdoing, but because his existence threatens the lives of the Americans.

So, of course the owner of the shotgun used in a bank homicide will not be found guilty in the court of law. That is far different than the government using retaliatory force against enemy civilians to stop them from fueling a war machine.

I have no idea what you mean.

By "spiritual support" I mean moral support. The families of enemy soldiers would almost always be guilty of this much. When it comes to support, the usual mind-body categories come about: You can support someone physically (with dollars, weapons, etc) or mentally (with loving phone calls, patriotic flag-waving, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is all the pussyfooting around about "civilian targets", "innocents"? There is nothing wrong with wiping out civilains of an aggressor nation. I think it should be explicit American policy: "You shoot at us, you won't even be in the history books." That, for any lightfoots out there, is a recipe for peace.

The moral fault lies with the aggressing government, the pain of the populace is the same as if their own government had committed it with its own hand (which, more often than not, it already participates in). It is the government of Japan that caused the bombs over their own people's heads, the same with Germany, the same with any terror-sponsoring state now.

Innocents? By their government's own admission that is irrelevent, as their rights are irrelevent. An aggressor nation treats its own citizens rightlessly, attacks another populace, and the attacked nation is supposed to respect the "rights" of the rightless of the aggressor? Thus, putting it and its own people in further peril? Nothing but the morality of altruism would make such a convolution of logic possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte, do you believe "innocent" people have intrinsic worth? Why would the mere number of "innocents" killed matter unless they have intrinsic worth?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayu Rand defends “man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest.” Nothing in that essay mentions man’s right to exist being suspended in war.

The value of a person is objective--as is all values. The notion that people have value to you regardless of who they are is not part of Objectivism. 155,000 Japanese during WWII were of no value to us compared to the American lives that would have been lost trying to invade Japan.

But an individual’s rights are not dependent on the values of another. I would not say that Mister Swig loses his right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, merely because he is not valuable to me. In “The Textbook of Americanism,” Ayn Rand wrote, “Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.”

That is a cold hard fact that you should become acquainted with.

You fundamentally do not understand the Objectivist theory of values. You take Ayn Rand's words out of context and attempt to manipulate them to agree with your confused view of the world.

I’d like to see some evidence that Objectivism holds that one man’s right to life is subordinate to another man’s values.

Rights are not intrinsic. Those who live under a dictatorship cannot claim any rights and must be prepared to suffer the same fate as their dictatorship or do what they can to fight for freedom.

But this does not follow. Rand wrote, "There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life." Nothing in “The Ojectivist Ethics” says anything about A losing his rights if B behaves badly. And if, as you claim, “Those who live under a dictatorship cannot claim any rights,” then we cannot morally condemn Stalin or Hitler. After all, they cannot have violated anyone’s rights if no one living under their rule can claim any rights.

It is not our job to protect the lives of people under a foreign dictatorship. If our self-defense requires that we eliminate enemy populations, then we have every right to do that. Other people's (especially the enemy's) lives are not intrinsically valuable to us.

Again, you’ll have to show that a person’s rights are dependent on another’s values. This claim has not been demonstrated.

Rights are recognized and protected by free societies. They are not God-given. They are man-recognized.

So if my society does not “man-recognize” my right to keep 100% of my income and to own an assault rifle, then I have no such rights? This sounds like legal positivism, not Objectivism.

If you are a so-called "innocent" living under a dictatorship at war, then don't count on anyone to recognize your rights, because dictatorships survive by using force and because in war rights are out the window. War is about force. War is where you decide that you are no longer going to recognize any rights of your enemy. You are going to kill your enemy until you decide that he is no longer a threat to you.

Well, if “rights are out the window” in wartime, why do Objectivists oppose the draft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Yes. And if it is the correct moral judgment, then we must embrace it regardless of whether it is easy or difficult to implement in today’s world.

Oakes:  And I agree with your moral judgement. In 1820, I would have said every slave should be set free immediately. Today, I do say every tax dollar should be returned to their owners. Your problem is the way you are trying to get it done: by denouncing everything the government does that is funded by coerced dollars.

How can it be immoral to coerce tax money from a person but not immoral not to give it back? If your position is that the government should not have to return money to its looted citizens, then you are saying that it has a right to the money. Which is equivalent to saying it has a right to steal in the first place.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

But more importantly, how we achieve justice is entirely a separate question from what justice is. Justice in 1820 demanded that every man, woman and child in bondage be emancipated immediately. We would hardly say that our endorsement of freeing all the slaves must await conversion of the South to a voluntary labor/wage system.

Oakes:  Correct, and I don't hold back my endorsement of freeing taxpayers. But I am diametrically opposed to the way you're trying to achieve such justice.

If we say that a man (in this case a government employee) may not morally take property that rightfully belongs to another, then what moral law would permit the violator of another’s property rights to keep what he has stolen? If we say no man has the right to steal but that some thieves should not have to return what is stolen, then we are maintaining a contradiction.

QUOTE(Oakes)

But you're protesting the whole package, including the very moral things like cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Then you are not paying attention. I made it clear early in this thread that Dubya could do as he wished as long as he did it with his own money.

Oakes:  In that case, every word I said was correct. You condemn every government act, including cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists. Don't divert attention by bringing up insignificant exceptions, like the Statue of Liberty, that aren't financed by tax dollars.

You said I condemned every government act, but now when I bring up a government act that I agree with, you tell me not to bring it up. Now if it is your position that any action that is voluntarily financed is ipso facto a non-governmental act, then it follows that once we have 100% voluntary financing of public services, there would be no government. Is that your position?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

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.

Oakes:  Again, we haven't agreed yet that these people are innocent.

What people are you referring to? Any and all people killed by government officials or just some particular ones?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Yes, for the same reason that you are not guilty of murder if someone breaks into your locked house, steals your shotgun and kills a bank teller with it.

Oakes:  In that case your view of retaliatory force is misguided; it is not an act of judicial prosecution.

What are you talking about? If someone breaks into your locked house, steals your shotgun and kills a bank teller with it, there is only one person morally liable for murder: the man who stole the gun and pulled the trigger. Explain how there can be any other moral resolution to the crime. Explain how holding anyone other than the thief/gunman responsible is the correct “view of retaliatory force.”

Oakes:  When a man is forced to press a button that will detonate a bomb, police snipers have a right to shoot him beforehand, not because he is guilty of wrongdoing, but because pressing the button will result in the death of other innocent people.

This is a lifeboat situation. We don’t construct moral systems on the basis of extraordinary emergency cases.

Oakes:  When a man is drafted into the enemy's army against his will, American soldiers have the right to fill him with lead, not because he is guilty of wrongdoing, but because his existence threatens the lives of the Americans.

He is guilty of wrong-doing if he initiates force. Saving one's own neck ("just following orders") does not entitle one to take the life of another. People who are drafted should turn the guns on their slave masters.

So, of course the owner of the shotgun used in a bank homicide will not be found guilty in the court of law. That is far different than the government using retaliatory force against enemy civilians to stop them from fueling a war machine.

It is no different. Citizen A is not responsible for the immoral acts of Citizen B, even if B should hold the office of president. If we citizens are responsible for the immoral acts of “our” government, then you and I should be fined or jailed for “our” government’s persecution of Martha Stewart.

QUOTE

Is he innocent if he contributes any spiritual support to the soldiers on the front line?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

I have no idea what you mean.

Oakes:  By "spiritual support" I mean moral support. The families of enemy soldiers would almost always be guilty of this much. When it comes to support, the usual mind-body categories come about: You can support someone physically (with dollars, weapons, etc) or mentally (with loving phone calls, patriotic flag-waving, etc).

So the family of a bank robber or rapist should go to prison along with him for giving him “moral support”? Sounds like totalitarianism to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

What are you talking about? If someone breaks into your locked house, steals your shotgun and kills a bank teller with it, there is only one person morally liable for murder:  the man who stole the gun and pulled the trigger.

...

I am trying to understand your view of rights. If, in a capitalist society, a man robs a bank, does he have rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to understand your view of rights. If, in a capitalist society, a man robs a bank, does he have rights?

One forfeits rights to the degree that he violates the rights of another. Example: if A robs a bank, A has no rightful possession of the money he has taken. At a minimum, justice requires that A surrender to the bank's owners the exact amount taken. Furthermore, by initiating force, A also loses some rights to the property of his own that he had before the robbery and, possibly, to his freedom if he cannot make proper restitution; A must compensate the bank in full for whatever inconvenience was incurred (damages, judicial/security costs, lost interest, lost trade, etc.). So, to answer your question, the bank robber loses certain rights but not all rights. We would not say the bank robber has a right to his car -- if the bank must take possession of the car in order to be compensated for losses incurred due to the robbery. Nor would we say that the robber loses his right to his life, for execution would exceed the restitution that the bank could rightfully claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your position is that the government should not have to return money to its looted citizens, then you are saying that it has a right to the money.

. . .

If we say no man has the right to steal but that some thieves should not have to return what is stolen, then we are maintaining a contradiction.

I can tell we're not getting anywhere here. I've already underscored the fact that I think the government is wrong to steal and should return stolen property immediately, but recognizing the primacy of existence, I know my thoughts cannot change reality. So I've decided, back in the real world, that one strategy would be more successful than another in getting the desired conclusion. That strategy is to compartmentalize the government's actions, and give it credit where it's due. It is not a contradiction when you are praising only one compartmentalized action (the war itself) while criticizing another one (the way it was funded).

You said I condemned every government act, but now when I bring up a government act that I agree with, you tell me not to bring it up. Now if it is your position that any action that is voluntarily financed is ipso facto a non-governmental act, then it follows that once we have 100% voluntary financing of public services, there would be no government. Is that your position?

This is just getting ridiculous. I told you not to bring it up because it is completely, unequivocally, 100% irrelevent. I reveal the fact that you condemn every bit of good in the American system of government, and you waste a day's post pointing out that I flew right over the few exceptions where they aren't coercively financed. So I'll try this again, making sure to dot every i and cross every t so your compiler won't misunderstand me:

You condemn every coercively-funded government act, including cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists.

What people are you referring to? Any and all people killed by government officials or just some particular ones?

Civilians of nations we are at war with.

Explain how holding anyone other than the thief/gunman responsible is the correct “view of retaliatory force.”

There was some confusion here: By "retaliatory force" I did not include the judicial process, which is technically retaliatory force but not in the sense I was talking about. Your assessment of your own example is right: Only the gunman is responsible. Your assessment of killing civilians, however, is wrong, because it is what you would call a "lifeboat situation."

This is a lifeboat situation. We don’t construct moral systems on the basis of extraordinary emergency cases.

. . .

He is guilty of wrong-doing if he initiates force. Saving one's own neck ("just following orders") does not entitle one to take the life of another. People who are drafted should turn the guns on their slave masters.

A man about to detonate a bomb is about to initiate force just like a drafted soldier; how do you distinguish the two? Assuming the drafted soldier is followed by armed guards making sure he remains loyal, how is that any different than a man forced at gunpoint to press a button?

Both are cases of people forced against their will to be an accessory in an innocent person's death, just like enemy civilians who must pay taxes to their government. In all three cases they deserve the same thing: death.

It is no different. Citizen A is not responsible for the immoral acts of Citizen B, even if B should hold the office of president. If we citizens are responsible for the immoral acts of “our” government, then you and I should be fined or jailed for “our” government’s persecution of Martha Stewart.

Again you confuse the difference between judicial/moral judgement, and emergency response. Nobody said the drafted soldier or the potential bomb-detonater are "responsible" for the immoral acts of their captors; neither the court of law nor my own moral judgement would find them so. But they must be killed anyway, in defense of the lives of those targeted.

So the family of a bank robber or rapist should go to prison along with him for giving him “moral support”? Sounds like totalitarianism to me.

Now you're just context-butchering. The family of the common criminal normally doesn't even know of the crime beforehand, much less ever has or ever will support it. The same cannot be said of the family of the common soldier, whose son, they think, is out to do a moral duty to his country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

If your position is that the government should not have to return money to its looted citizens, then you are saying that it has a right to the money.

. . .

If we say no man has the right to steal but that some thieves should not have to return what is stolen, then we are maintaining a contradiction.

Oakes: I can tell we're not getting anywhere here. I've already underscored the fact that I think the government is wrong to steal and should return stolen property immediately, but recognizing the primacy of existence, I know my thoughts cannot change reality. So I've decided, back in the real world, that one strategy would be more successful than another in getting the desired conclusion. That strategy is to compartmentalize the government's actions, and give it credit where it's due. It is not a contradiction when you are praising only one compartmentalized action (the war itself) while criticizing another one (the way it was funded).

But I have already shown my willingness to give government credit where credit is due by, temporarily, granting that Dubya’s war strategy was the correct one. Still, if we are to compartmentalize, as you recommend (and with which I fully agree), then it must follow that even while we endorse Bush’s actions we must abhor his use of coerced funds to achieve those ends. Otherwise we would have to countenance the vileness of ends justifying means. Therefore, it is appropriate to say, Dubya may pursue his Noble Crusade but, morally, only with the money he has voluntarily raised.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

You said I condemned every government act, but now when I bring up a government act that I agree with, you tell me not to bring it up. Now if it is your position that any action that is voluntarily financed is ipso facto a non-governmental act, then it follows that once we have 100% voluntary financing of public services, there would be no government. Is that your position?

Oakes: This is just getting ridiculous. I told you not to bring it up because it is completely, unequivocally, 100% irrelevent. I reveal the fact that you condemn every bit of good in the American system of government, and you waste a day's post pointing out that I flew right over the few exceptions where they aren't coercively financed. So I'll try this again, making sure to dot every i and cross every t so your compiler won't misunderstand me:

You condemn every coercively-funded government act, including cops catching robbers and soldiers killing terrorists.

In fact, not. I refer you to your statement above that strategically it is best “to compartmentalize the government's actions, and give it credit where it's due.” Now, if you are capable of making distinctions between one governmental action and another, why must you presume such a distinction is beyond the capacity of anyone else?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

What people are you referring to? Any and all people killed by government officials or just some particular ones?

Civilians of nations we are at war with.

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

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

Explain how holding anyone other than the thief/gunman responsible is the correct “view of retaliatory force.”

Oakes: There was some confusion here: By "retaliatory force" I did not include the judicial process, which is technically retaliatory force but not in the sense I was talking about. Your assessment of your own example is right: Only the gunman is responsible. Your assessment of killing civilians, however, is wrong, because it is what you would call a "lifeboat situation."

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.

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

This is a lifeboat situation. We don’t construct moral systems on the basis of extraordinary emergency cases.

. . .

He is guilty of wrong-doing if he initiates force. Saving one's own neck ("just following orders") does not entitle one to take the life of another. People who are drafted should turn the guns on their slave masters.

A man about to detonate a bomb is about to initiate force just like a drafted soldier; how do you distinguish the two? Assuming the drafted soldier is followed by armed guards making sure he remains loyal, how is that any different than a man forced at gunpoint to press a button?

Oakes: Both are cases of people forced against their will to be an accessory in an innocent person's death, just like enemy civilians who must pay taxes to their government. In all three cases they deserve the same thing: death.

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?

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

It is no different. Citizen A is not responsible for the immoral acts of Citizen B, even if B should hold the office of president. If we citizens are responsible for the immoral acts of “our” government, then you and I should be fined or jailed for “our” government’s persecution of Martha Stewart.

Oakes: Again you confuse the difference between judicial/moral judgement, and emergency response. Nobody said the drafted soldier or the potential bomb-detonater are "responsible" for the immoral acts of their captors; neither the court of law nor my own moral judgement would find them so. But they must be killed anyway, in defense of the lives of those targeted.

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

QUOTE(Charlotte Corday)

So the family of a bank robber or rapist should go to prison along with him for giving him “moral support”? Sounds like totalitarianism to me.

Oakes: Now you're just context-butchering. The family of the common criminal normally doesn't even know of the crime beforehand, much less ever has or ever will support it. The same cannot be said of the family of the common soldier, whose son, they think, is out to do a moral duty to his country.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayu Rand defends “man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest.”  Nothing in that essay mentions man’s right to exist being suspended in war.

That essay is about ethics and barely touches the idea of rights. If you want a decent understanding of Ayn Rand's view of rights, then read her essays entitled Man's Rights and Collectivized "Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

In any case, I don't believe you have addressed the following quote from The Objectivist Ethics:

"No man--or group or society or government--has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man."

Even in this essay on ethics, Ayn Rand indicates that there are at least four levels at which force can be initiated: man (individual), group, society, and government.

If a single man is entirely responsible for a crime, then you punish that man alone. However, if that criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group. And if that criminal and gang are supported by a society, then you punish the goddamn society. And if that thug society creates a government and calls itself a nation, well then you light a fire under that country and incinerate your enemy.

No single man or nation has the right to violate our rights.

When the government of Iran sponsors terrorism against us, it is the people of Iran sponsoring terrorism against us, and we have a right to attack that nation as a body of people, as a society which supports and enables our enemies.

If you insist that we spare "innocent" Iranian civilians because they have "rights" (sparing them at the expense of our own lives), that view fails to keep the context of rights in mind. Rights are a moral principle based on self-interest and they exist in a society that is not based on the use of force. A nation which explicitly adopts altruism and force as its means of existence has effectively removed itself from the realm of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That essay is about ethics and barely touches the idea of rights. If you want a decent understanding of Ayn Rand's view of rights, then read her essays entitled Man's Rights and Collectivized "Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

In any case, I don't believe you have addressed the following quote from The Objectivist Ethics:

"No man--or group or society or government--has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man."

Even in this essay on ethics, Ayn Rand indicates that there are at least four levels at which force can be initiated: man (individual), group, society, and government.

If a single man is entirely responsible for a crime, then you punish that man alone. However, if that criminal is supported by a group, then you punish the group. And if that criminal and gang are supported by a society, then you punish the goddamn society. And if that thug society creates a government and calls itself a nation, well then you light a fire under that country and incinerate your enemy.

Let me point out that I am a member of this “society,” but in no way am I responsible for the criminal actions of “my” government. I did not “support” the IRS’s immoral theft of my income or that of other producers; I did not “support” the Fed’s corruption of our medium of exchange through inflation; I did not “support” trade restrictions and other interventions into a free economy. I am one of the victims of force, not one of the initiators. And this victim has never given her trespassers sanction.

No single man or nation has the right to violate our rights.

When the government of Iran sponsors terrorism against us, it is the people of Iran sponsoring terrorism against us, and we have a right to attack that nation as a body of people, as a society which supports and enables our enemies.

This is the fallacy of the hasty generalization. As Ayn Rand put it, “There is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals.” It is simply not true that the entire “people” of Iran support the current regime there. There have been a number of heroic opponents of the dictatorship, such as Dr. Shapur Bakhtiar and his followers, who have in many cases lost their lives by calling for more freedom. Therefore, we have no more right to attack the entire people of Iran than we would to blow up a federal building for the perceived crimes of some bureaucrats.

If you insist that we spare "innocent" Iranian civilians because they have "rights" (sparing them at the expense of our own lives), that view fails to keep the context of rights in mind. Rights are a moral principle based on self-interest and they exist in a society that is not based on the use of force.

No, as Rand demonstrates in “The Objectivist Ethics” and “Man’s Rights,” rights are based on man’s nature. Thus your rights are derived from the essential fact that you are a rational human being. Your rights are inalienable and not derived from any other person’s values or self-interest.

A nation which explicitly adopts altruism and force as its means of existence has effectively removed itself from the realm of rights.

The U.S. government has long operated on the principles of altruism and force. Yet I do not regard my own rights are forfeit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me point out that I am a member of this “society,” but in no way am I responsible for the criminal actions of “my” government.  I did not “support” the IRS’s immoral theft of my income or that of other producers; I did not “support” the Fed’s corruption of our medium of exchange through inflation; I did not “support” trade restrictions and other interventions into a free economy.  I am one of the victims of force, not one of the initiators.  And this victim has never given her trespassers sanction.

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. And, therefore, as Ayn Rand said, you should be especially concerned about politics and at the same time be prepared to suffer for the sins of your government.

That is the general point.

Now if you live in Iran and go underground, if you cut off all support, spiritual and financial, from your government, then you must still be prepared to suffer for the sins of Iran, because the Iranian government rules over the land in which you are hiding, and all of Iran is a proper target to its victims.

If you value your life, you will get as far away as possible from the heart of Iran. Certainly, you will try your best to avoid population centers. You will make your innocence and location known to the victims of Iran and ask for mercy during their retaliation. You will beg the world to help you escape or defeat Iran.

In Iraq, the Kurds made their opposition to Saddam well-known. We spared them. In Iran, there is student resistance, and we should do what we can to make sure they are safe when we retaliate. But in no way should we spare their lives at the expense of our own. War can be considered an emergency situation. We are fighting for our lives, and we must do what is necessary to save ourselves. If we need to wipe out enemy populations in order to avoid American casualties, then that is what we need to do. The alleged "innocence" of a life does not trump our own emergency self-defense.

Terrorists are being grown under the protection of the Iranian nation, and we need to attack that nation with resolve and overwhelming force to save ourselves.

Charlotte, do you expect us to sacrifice American lives going door-to-door in Tehran searching for the bad guys? Do you see the cost of such a policy in Iraq? Do you think it's a good idea to waste our entire volunteer military marching through the Arab streets of the world shouting, "Anyone seen a terrorist?"

We have already suffered twenty thousand casualties (killed and wounded) in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many young men and women are you prepared to sacrifice in Iran?

Do you still believe that killing 155,000 Japanese in WW2 is worse than killing 3,000 Americans in 9/11? Why do you think that? Does a human life have intrinsic value to you, and therefore the context of that life is irrelevant, making the death toll all that matters ethically? I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions without using an Ayn Rand quote to cover your evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, as Rand demonstrates in “The Objectivist Ethics” and “Man’s Rights,” rights are based on man’s nature.  Thus your rights are derived from the essential fact that you are a rational human being.  Your rights are inalienable and not derived from any other person’s values or self-interest.

How are you using the term "inalienable"? Please define your usage.

By the way, the source of rights, as Ayn Rand wrote, is "the law of identity." Not, as you say, "the essential fact that you are a rational human being." But I don't expect you to understand why that is and how it relates to us being rational animals. Perhaps you glossed over that portion of the essay. You still have not reached the metaphysical understanding of rights and values.

You are also now misrepresenting my position by implying that it is my view that rights are derived from other people's values and self-interest. I never said that. What I did say was that other people may not be of value to you. In fact, other people may be a disvalue to you.

It is actually you who believes that rights are derived from other people's values or self-interest. You have not proven that people have intrinsic values and rights. And you certainly have not shown (or understood) how values and rights are objective. So the only reason why someone could have a right to their own life, on your position, is that you alone value them and want them to have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ayn Rand has a wonderful line in Atlas Shrugged: “It was like blaming the victim of a hold-up for corrupting the integrity of a thug.” I cannot imagine anyone seriously suggesting that victims of muggers and pickpockets be jailed for giving aid to criminals. But that would be no more absurd than holding the citizen/slave responsible for the aggressive actions of his ruler.

And, therefore, as Ayn Rand said, you should be especially concerned about politics and at the same time be prepared to suffer for the sins of your government.

What about the one million children under the age of sixteen who died in the Holocaust? Were they remiss in not being prepared to “suffer for the sins” of government?

Now if you live in Iran and go underground, if you cut off all support, spiritual and financial, from your government, then you must still be prepared to suffer for the sins of Iran, because the Iranian government rules over the land in which you are hiding, and all of Iran is a proper target to its victims.

The whole of Iran is no more a proper target for retaliation than are the patrons and tellers of a bank who happen to be on the scene during a robbery. There is nothing ambiguous about the following statement: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use” (Rand’s emphasis). Twenty-eight percent of Iran’s population is under the age of 15. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) Now unless it can be shown that those infants and children are engaging in the lethal initiation of force, then they clearly are not appropriate targets for lethal force.

If you value your life, you will get as far away as possible from the heart of Iran. Certainly, you will try your best to avoid population centers. You will make your innocence and location known to the victims of Iran and ask for mercy during their retaliation. You will beg the world to help you escape or defeat Iran.

This is something that every Iranian kid should obviously know.

In Iraq, the Kurds made their opposition to Saddam well-known. We spared them. In Iran, there is student resistance, and we should do what we can to make sure they are safe when we retaliate. But in no way should we spare their lives at the expense of our own. War can be considered an emergency situation. We are fighting for our lives, and we must do what is necessary to save ourselves. If we need to wipe out enemy populations in order to avoid American casualties, then that is what we need to do. The alleged "innocence" of a life does not trump our own emergency self-defense.

Then consistency demands that “The Objectivist Ethics” be revised to reflect the right of U.S. generals to kill Iranian babies.

Charlotte, do you expect us to sacrifice American lives going door-to-door in Tehran searching for the bad guys? Do you see the cost of such a policy in Iraq? Do you think it's a good idea to waste our entire volunteer military marching through the Arab streets of the world shouting, "Anyone seen a terrorist?"

Fallacy of false dilemma.

We have already suffered twenty thousand casualties (killed and wounded) in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many young men and women are you prepared to sacrifice in Iran?

Like Ayn Rand, I do not believe in sacrifice, period.

Do you still believe that killing 155,000 Japanese in WW2 is worse than killing 3,000 Americans in 9/11? Why do you think that?

Yes, because the number of rights violations was 51 times greater.

Does a human life have intrinsic value to you, and therefore the context of that life is irrelevant, making the death toll all that matters ethically? I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions without using an Ayn Rand quote to cover your evasion.

My intrinsic evaluation of a human life is completely irrelevant to the existence of individual rights. If I were the world’s worst misanthrope and wished death on the entire human race, the prohibition against initiating force would have no less logical validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you using the term "inalienable"? Please define your usage.

That which one cannot be alienated from or deprived of. Founding Father George Mason ably described the concept: "All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

By the way, the source of rights, as Ayn Rand wrote, is "the law of identity." Not, as you say, "the essential fact that you are a rational human being."

There is no contradiction in saying that the source of man’s rights is the law of identity and man’s nature as a rational being. From Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights”:: “But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.” From Atlas Shrugged: “The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A--and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.”

But I don't expect you to understand why that is and how it relates to us being rational animals.

If you don’t expect me to understand a point, why don't you save yourself the trouble of making it?

Perhaps you glossed over that portion of the essay. You still have not reached the metaphysical understanding of rights and values.

Unproven assertion.

You are also now misrepresenting my position by implying that it is my view that rights are derived from other people's values and self-interest. I never said that. What I did say was that other people may not be of value to you. In fact, other people may be a disvalue to you.

Fine, but the value or non-value of people is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not one possesses certain rights.

It is actually you who believes that rights are derived from other people's values or self-interest.

My position is that rights are not derived from other people's values or self-interest. Feel free to prove otherwise.

You have not proven that people have intrinsic values and rights.

The proof for rights is found in “The Objectivist Ethics.” There is no mention of “intrinsic” rights in that essay. Perhaps because “intrinsic” rights is a rather redundant phrase.

And you certainly have not shown (or understood) how values and rights are objective. So the only reason why someone could have a right to their own life, on your position, is that you alone value them and want them to have rights.

Nope. I have already referred to the appropriate passages in Rand’s work that lay the foundation for objective rights. And I reiterate a distinction I made earlier: If I were the world’s worst misanthrope and wished death on the entire human race, the prohibition against initiating force would have no less logical validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof for rights is found in “The Objectivist Ethics.”  There is no mention of  “intrinsic” rights in that essay.  Perhaps because “intrinsic” rights is a rather redundant phrase.

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?

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...