Emergency Situations And Selfishness

[RationalBiker]

As I have thought more on this matter, another consequence arises from the position that it's moral (or okay) to initiate force (or violate another's rights) if one could conceiveable suffer no value loss in doing so. First a couple of quotes from TVOS, Chapter 12 - Man's Rights (my "snips" in bold);

"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.

(snip)

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

(snip)

To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man's rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

Note that she refers to "moral law". What she means by all this is simply laws need to exist to protect inidividual rights if we are to live in a "free" society. Each person's freedom to act must be limited in some fashion so that it does not prevent another person's freedom to act. These laws shouldn't be just any laws, they should be laws that are objectively based on 1) immoral actions that 2) violate the individual rights of other people. This obviously excludes the passing of laws that may involve immoral behavior but that otherwise do not violate any body else's rights. It also excludes the passage of laws that involve moral behavior regardless of whether they violate another person's individual rights. In other words, if my actions are moral, no law should exist to prevent me from engaging in such action. To go with that, remember that the law doesn't exist solely to make the act immoral because now it has created a potential consequence to those "stupid enough" to get caught. That doesn't satisfy the requirements from a proper law.

The person that holds that it is moral to violate the rights of another person as long as they can get away with it brings about two consequences in this line of reasoning; 1) they deny the concept of rights (which has probably been said before) and; 2) they negate the justification for having laws against violating other people's rights to begin with. In other words, they are upholding a position that no law should exist to prevent them from doing whatever they want.

I tried to communicate this as well as I could, but it seems clumsy to me so feel free to ask for clarification or offer refutation and I will try to clarify if I can.

Edited June 24, 2006 by RationalCop

[aleph_0]

I have seen a lot of people here hint or directly imply that taking the bread would not be morally blame-worthy, but I want to be clear about it. People here are arguing that it is neither right nor wrong to take the bread, and it is neither right nor wrong to refuse the bread. (Or, to choose a better scenario used elsewhere, a boat is going down in artic water, people evacuate to a lifeboat but there aren't enought seats for everybody and one person must drown. The choice comes down to the final two people on the boat, and by that time 9/10ths of the boat has submerged [there's no rational option but the lifeboat]. Here, it is neither right nor wrong to kill the other person in order to get on the lifeboat, and it is neither right nor wrong to refuse to fight--correct?)

[Robert J. Kolker]

Yes-but these situations are not, in essence, a part of life. As Stephen said,

Google <medical triage>. Yes, things like this happen every day.

Bob Kolker

[RationalBiker]

Google <medical triage>. Yes, things like this happen every day.

Bob Kolker

So how often have you been involved in medical triage where you were forced to violate someone's rights in order to survive? Does this happen to you daily?

[Robert J. Kolker]

So how often have you been involved in medical triage where you were forced to violate someone's rights in order to survive? Does this happen to you daily?

Not to me personally, but triage is a frequent situation handled by medical managers. And the decision of the triage chief can mean doom for one person and a chance of life for another.

Bob Kolker

[RationalBiker]

Not to me personally, but triage is a frequent situation handled by medical managers. And the decision of the triage chief can mean doom for one person and a chance of life for another.

Yes, but he's not seeking to violatet anyone's rights. On the contrary, he is seeking the best way he can to save as many people as he can given the constraint that it's impossible to care for all the patients. You are not countering anything that was said previously with this example (if that was your intent).

[DavidOdden]

Google <medical triage>. Yes, things like this happen every day.

If you'll re-read his comment, the situations under discussion are lifeboat scenarii, which is a type of emergency, but not the same as "any emergency". Unlike the lifeboat, triage doesn't involve rights violations, where my continued existence and your continued existence are metaphysically contradictory.

[aleph_0]

So um... about the praise and blame...

[Robert J. Kolker]

If you'll re-read his comment, the situations under discussion are lifeboat scenarii, which is a type of emergency, but not the same as "any emergency". Unlike the lifeboat, triage doesn't involve rights violations, where my continued existence and your continued existence are metaphysically contradictory.

In a medical situation where there is only enough medicine (or some other resource) to save one you have a -factual- contradiction to the state where both can survive. Before kidney machines became so cheap, that was the way it was for deciding who gets to use the kidney machine. Now they are cheap and everyone (just about) can be accommodated. Facts are so damned pesky! They do not give a damn about principles.

In an emergency scenario such as the sinking of Titanic, the issue was not metaphysical but factual. There simply were not enough lifeboats for everyone. Someone had to freeze or drown given the situation as it was. In principle (and now in fact) large passenger carrying ships have enough lifeboats for all aboard and life drill is mandatory, but such was not the case with Titanic. Apparently the builders and owners were beguiled by their own overblown hyperbole. Unsinkable indeed! Any ship made of iron and steel can sink. Iron and steel are heavier than water and that is a -fact-.

Best line in the movie: "God, Himself, could not sink this ship!"

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

In a medical situation where there is only enough medicine (or some other resource) to save one you have a -factual- contradiction to the state where both can survive. Before kidney machines became so cheap, that was the way it was for deciding who gets to use the kidney machine. Now they are cheap and everyone (just about) can be accommodated. Facts are so damned pesky! They do not give a damn about principles.

Bob, by now you should understand what the lifeboat scenario is about. It's not about kidney machine technology or or medical emergencies or whether boats sink. It's about a philosophical issue, a moral principle. The purpose of this forum is, especially, to discuss particular philosophical principles. The principle that's involved in the lifeboat story has to do with whether a man who lives morally (not initiating force against others, not expecting others to be sacrificial animals that he will live off of) might nevertheless use force against another person in certain utterly abnormal circumstances, in order to save his own life. That means, if there is not enough food and water to survive in the lifeboat, would he let himself die rather than save his life by e.g. ejecting his boat-mate?

[RationalBiker]

Facts are so damned pesky! They do not give a damn about principles.

They also apparently don't give a damn if they don't understand the topic that's being discussed and condemn themselves to irrelevancy.

Additionally, the gaping error of these two sentences is in suggesting that principles are thwarted by facts when in actuality it is facts that determine the principles involved ("is/ought").

[JMeganSnow]

In a medical situation where there is only enough medicine (or some other resource) to save one you have a -factual- contradiction to the state where both can survive.

You also missed the fact that "metaphysical" and "factual", in this context, are virtually identical. On this board "metaphysical" means "of or pertaining to the nature of reality". A "metaphysical emergency" is thus one that is happening right now in reality, as opposed to a "theoretical emergency" or an "emotional emergency" or a "mental emergency".

Please, please familiarize yourself with the forum "language" and the forum rules before posting weird semi-coherent statements like this.