Violation of Rights

[freestyle]

Do you think its in your self interest to have your own rights secure?

If Yes

Securing your own rights by violating others is just as possible as having your cake and eating it too.

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you're certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

A few replies in this thread make the argument that it is not in your overall best interest to initiate force upon another. This can't be the definitive answer on whether or not violating someone else's rights is immoral or not since there are (albeit rare) instances in life where that answer does not apply.

[Lucio]

I have just finished reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" and it is a great read and has turned me on to Objectivism even more.

But, I have been confused in one area. Ayn Rand logically makes it clear that an organism's primary concerns should be selfish and it's actions should therefore be furthering it's ultimate value: life. This fact is substantiated very logically. But, she also states that a human's violation of another human's right is morally impermissible. She simply says that that is so but does not substantiate the claim (as far as I can recall). So, my question is logically how can a human not violate another's rights? Defining this fact is critical to the difference between Objectivism and Subjectivism. Furthermore, where in "The Virtue of Selfishness" does she prove this thesis?

To make it clear, I don't think rights should be violated but as of yet it has been more of a feeling that I have had than something I feel I can truly substantiate logically. To add, I agree it shouldn't happen for the simple fact that I don't want my rights violated but how should this be a universal moral?

You have two options in this case for your moral (and legal) code:

a ) You can initiate force at your will,

b ) you cannot.

If you live in a society and you want to enhance your ultimate value: life, it is in your best interest that the moral (and legal) code dictates (and enforces) b ).

If the moral (and legal) code is a ), then you have a thousands enemies, and you're in a state of "warre of every man against every man"

"In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/254050.html

So the answer is "you should not violate other people's rights because it is contrary to your self-interest"

You can steal an apple, and go unpunished, but, if your moral code is objectivism, you'll despise the kind of person who steals, so, the damage to your self esteem is bigger than the benefit of a stolen apple.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Lucio

[avgleandt]

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you're certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

If you concede that it is in your best interest to secure your own rights( a = b ), and you concede that securing your own rights is not possible by violating others( b does not equal c). Then how can you claim that in any situation violating somones rights is in your best interest? How can you claim that c = a? Eating your cake and having it too is not possible in every case. Do you have an example in mind?

Objectivism holds that to act against your best interest is irrational and thus immoral. Since violating someones rights can never be in your best interest as I shown above, then violating someones rights can never be rational or moral.

Edited January 6, 2010 by avgleandt

[Amaroq]

I think what the op may be looking for is a purely selfish reason to respect the rights of others. The most purely selfish thing I can think of is an argument Peikoff used in one of his radio shows.

Let's say you've got an exquisite violin. Would you be better off using it as a hammer, or using it for its intended purpose, which is to make beautiful music?

The same can be said of other human beings. Would you be better off using other humans as slaves to your needs, or using them for what they're meant to be: Rational, volitional beings who can benefit you through trade and intellectual interaction? Humans are the only beings we know of with rational minds. If you violate the rights of other humans, you're basically using the violin as a hammer when you could be using it to make music.

[Tyco]

I think what the op may be looking for is a purely selfish reason to respect the rights of others. The most purely selfish thing I can think of is an argument Peikoff used in one of his radio shows.

Let's say you've got an exquisite violin. Would you be better off using it as a hammer, or using it for its intended purpose, which is to make beautiful music?

The same can be said of other human beings. Would you be better off using other humans as slaves to your needs, or using them for what they're meant to be: Rational, volitional beings who can benefit you through trade and intellectual interaction? Humans are the only beings we know of with rational minds. If you violate the rights of other humans, you're basically using the violin as a hammer when you could be using it to make music.

I think there are two somewhat separate questions here.

1. Why should we not initiate force against others?

2. Why should we not violate the rights of others?

Peikoff's example answers perfectly the first question. The second question may involve or allude to the first, but it introduces the new concept of rights: that is, a principle that defines and sanctions mans actions in society. So why must we uphold this political entity of rights universally? I've presented a logical argument above but I think we're forgetting to mention an important Galtism:

"When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all."

Essentially, you should not violate anyone's rights because in doing so you'll be violating your own rights.

[philosopher]

True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you're certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past. There's no such thing as 100% sure of no repercussions.

[Lucio]

I think there are two somewhat separate questions here.

1. Why should we not initiate force against others?

2. Why should we not violate the rights of others?

Peikoff's example answers perfectly the first question. The second question may involve or allude to the first, but it introduces the new concept of rights: that is, a principle that defines and sanctions mans actions in society. So why must we uphold this political entity of rights universally? I've presented a logical argument above but I think we're forgetting to mention an important Galtism:

"When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all."

Essentially, you should not violate anyone's rights because in doing so you'll be violating your own rights.

I was equating "initiation of force" to "violate rights".

Is there any way to violate rights (obj.rights) without "initiation of force"? (including fraud in "initiation of force")

Quoting AR:

"Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 108

IMHO Peikoff's example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you're Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

The thread was intitiated looking for a logical self-interest answer why not violate other's rights to benefit yourself. IMHO Hobbes explanation do.

Also, with all due respect, the "Galtism" taken out of context, it's nonsense.

"When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all."

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

"When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare."

[khaight]

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past.

I'd put the point slightly differently. We act on principle because principles are our only means of projecting the future consequences of our present actions. We can't perceive the future; we have to grasp it using concepts.

[Grames]

Also, with all due respect, the "Galtism" taken out of context, it's nonsense.

"When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all."

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

"When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare."

That is why it is invalid to drop context. In this case, ignoring the meaning of the words used in the original construction is not a valid mode of thinking. Even the most ironclad syllogism can be rendered into gibberish if you substitute random words for the original terms. All words and sentences are mystical if you ignore the particular referents of the words and the relationships among them highlighted by the sentence.

[Tyco]

I was equating "initiation of force" to "violate rights".

Is there any way to violate rights (obj.rights) without "initiation of force"? (including fraud in "initiation of force")

Quoting AR:

"Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 108

You cannot violate rights without initiating force. BUT, you can initiate force without violating rights. The rights need to exist, as a political/social/governmental sanction, in order to be violated. If they don't exist, however, initiation of force is still illogical for the reason Peikoff gave.

IMHO Peikoff's example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you're Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

The thread was intitiated looking for a logical self-interest answer why not violate other's rights to benefit yourself. IMHO Hobbes explanation do.

Well let's say there's a man who hates you and would never trade with you. You want something he has. The only way you can get it is by using force. No violin playing. How is it not to your benefit to use force here?

Possible answers:

1. You'll go to hell. But there is no such thing.

2. You'll lose the respect of society. But what if there is no other society.

3. You'll feel guilty. But what if you're incapable of that emotion. Or you forget (like dude in Memento)

4. You'll have harmed another human. But your morality is not based on altruism.

5. You'll have denied the autonomy of another individual, and thus lowered yourself to that status of brute/beast.

Hmm it's a tough one alright. I suppose when trading with someone you logically must accept their freedom to say "no" (unlike the thief in the example I just gave), otherwise it's not really trading. So therefore we can say: by contradicting the principle of trading, we do not simply lose the potential trade of one person, we undermine the fundamental benefit of being human. Which is obviously not in our self-interest.

Also, with all due respect, the "Galtism" taken out of context, it's nonsense.

"When they violate the rights of one, they violate the rights of all."

It sound a little mystical to me. For me: When they do A, they do A, not B. Because B<>A. A=A.

The construction of the phrase sounds mystical to me. Using the same construction you can say:

"When they leave a person without healthcare, they leave us all without healthcare."

But healthcare and rights are not equivalent concepts here. An equivalent would be more like

"When they deny that 2 + 2 = 4, they deny the entire science of mathematics."

or

"When they insult one woman with a sexist remark, they insult the whole female species."

or

"When they do A, they damage B to target C, and since XY&Z also depend on B, they also target XY&Z."

Rights can only logically exist as universal and inalienable, otherwise they're just privileges. When you remove one person's rights, the universality and inalienability is lost.

[Amaroq]

IMHO Peikoff's example does not provide a logical complete answer. If you're Atila or Pol Pot you may find most useful a hammer than a violin.

You're not Atila or Pol Pot. You're a rationally selfish human being, not a barbarian. You have the intelligence to recognize the benefit of other rational beings to trade with or even to just socialize with. That gives you a selfish reason not to treat others as a barbarian would: You would lose the benefits of dealing with a free, willing, rational mind.

If someone else decides to be a barbarian, they have failed to recognize this, and it is no longer an issue of selfish reasons to respect rights, but of retaliatory force to stop a criminal.

[Lucio]

You cannot violate rights without initiating force. BUT, you can initiate force without violating rights. The rights need to exist, as a political/social/governmental sanction, in order to be violated. If they don't exist, however, initiation of force is still illogical for the reason Peikoff gave.

I'm lost. How can you initiate force against someone without violating [objectivistic] rigths?

But healthcare and rights are not equivalent concepts here. An equivalent would be more like

"When they deny that 2 + 2 = 4, they deny the entire science of mathematics."

True. Because of the nature of mathematics.

"When they insult one woman with a sexist remark, they insult the whole female species."

False. You're insulting just one woman. (But maybe calling females a "specie" will do. )

Example: "You belong to the kitchen". Can be a remark directed to a specific female

and does not imply all females belong to the kitchen.

But nevermind. I was too lazy to lookup the context of the Galt's phrase.

I'm sure it's a valid conclusion. My apologies for that.

[freestyle]

If you concede that it is in your best interest to secure your own rights( a = b ), and you concede that securing your own rights is not possible by violating others( b does not equal c). Then how can you claim that in any situation violating somones rights is in your best interest? How can you claim that c = a? Eating your cake and having it too is not possible in every case. Do you have an example in mind?

Objectivism holds that to act against your best interest is irrational and thus immoral. Since violating someones rights can never be in your best interest as I shown above, then violating someones rights can never be rational or moral.

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That's what we're discussing. Remember, I'm specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone's "best interest". Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

An example? Sure. How's this?:

I'm a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That's what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I'm a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

The reason we act on principle is precisely that we can not see the future, so we act based on what worked in the past. There's no such thing as 100% sure of no repercussions.

Well, we're just making a "judgement" on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I'll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I'm not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

[RationalBiker]

Remember, I'm specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone's "best interest".

So, you are specifically addressing "using force" as opposed to "initiating force"?

[Jake_Ellison]

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That's what we're discussing. Remember, I'm specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone's "best interest". Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

An example? Sure. How's this?:

I'm a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That's what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I'm a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

Beyond the obvious mistake, failing to distinguish between using force and initiating force, you are also assuming that the principle of non-initiation of force doesn't necessarily reflect reality. That would be an indictement of the principle, not of people who are refusing to live by it. The only reason to hold a principle is because it is in your best interest. Holding a principle just because Objectivism said so is wrong.

I disagree with you that initiation of force can be in one's best interest, and submit to you that your first example (the only one in which someone is supposedly leading a life of bliss by killing people), is pure fantasy, not reality. The principle reflects reality, your example does not. That's why people should go with the principle, not because "it's a principle".

Well, we're just making a "judgement" on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I'll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I'm not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

To have a principle that contradicts reality is immoral. To be uncritical of a "judgement" that directly contradicts such a principle si also immoral, because you are living with a contradiction at that point. It either is in your best interest to commit crimes, or it isn't.

Again, in my view, there is no rational judgment that will lead you to conclude that it's in your long term best interest to commit crimes. Also, I am yet to witness anyone using the number 99.9 in any way that reflects on reality, outside of a conversation about thousands of red and white balls in an urn, in Statistics class. I doubt there is any major crime that can be estimated to be 99.9% likely to not be punished.

[philosopher]

Well, we're just making a "judgement" on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I'll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I'm not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

But it's not just immoral it's irrational. Human perception (eyes, ears, nose) is of the present. The only way to know the future is through concepts, and concepts are abstract - they only tell you in principle what to do. So if you are not acting on principle it is not only immoral but irrational.

[avgleandt]

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That's what we're discussing. Remember, I'm specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone's "best interest". Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

Ic. But I am saying is that if you do not concede the second point, its basically an attempt to eat your cake and have it too. By the definition of what rights are, you cannot both violate them and secure them at the same time.

An example? Sure. How's this?:

I'm a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That's what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I'm a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

In both these examples you are not necessarily violating anyone's rights. Rights can only by violated by the initiation of force. Though both these jobs require the use of force, the use of force is not what violates rights, but the initiation of it. As a marine or assassin you could possibly be an American killing al-quada agents.

Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

I agree with you, but those principles are build on the morality of egoism, of rational self interest.

[freestyle]

So, you are specifically addressing "using force" as opposed to "initiating force"?

No, just an error. I should have used initiating there. Also, to clarify, I was stating that Objectivists CAN support the claim that it is "never" in one's best interest to initiate force for all normal life situations.

... you are also assuming that the principle of non-initiation of force doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

No, the hypothetical person (I was asked for an example) would make that claim. And the details and/or circumstances of when that claim could be made rationally would be, at best, extremely rare.

That would be an indictement of the principle, not of people who are refusing to live by it. The only reason to hold a principle is because it is in your best interest. Holding a principle just because Objectivism said so is wrong.

We're not really in disagreement, and I hesitated to give an example because I knew it would, necessarily, be a convoluted and abnormal occurrence of human life. I don't believe that initiating force to be in man's best interest. I would tell that assassin that his LIFE, his HAPPINESS is suffering whether he realizes it or not. He'll just tell me I'm wrong.

In any event though, I think you need to base the rationale on a code of conduct of a higher order than, "It is never in your best interest to initiate force...ever. Period". The contradiction of a moral code is immoral. The fundamental principle should not be subject to contradiction *ever*.

To have a principle that contradicts reality is immoral. To be uncritical of a "judgement" that directly contradicts such a principle [is] also immoral, because you are living with a contradiction at that point. It either is in your best interest to commit crimes, or it isn't.

Yes. So let me ask you. Is there a hierarchy of principles (code of conduct) here? Best interest "not to commit crimes" would seem to be a branch below best interest "to survive". Both necessitate the adherence to the fundamental principle of non-contradiction, but those two principles could potentially contradict.

Though my two examples were flawed, I cannot be 100% certain that no situation in *any* individual's life could arise where it is NEVER, rationally, in their own selfish best interest to initiate force.

Perhaps a real-life "lifeboat situation" is the most obvious way to illustrate why it is necessary to rely on more than the simple statement "It is NEVER in one's best interest to initiate force". A plane with two passengers is going down. There's only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it "immoral" to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

I'm not anything close to an expert on Objectivism but from my reading about lifeboat situations, I've never found those hypotheticals to stymie Objectivist reason. What happens here (I think, and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the situation changed and no violation of rights occurred. Therefore, the initiation of force did not violate any rights, and was not "immoral".

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes. So let me ask you. Is there a hierarchy of principles (code of conduct) here? Best interest "not to commit crimes" would seem to be a branch below best interest "to survive". Both necessitate the adherence to the fundamental principle of non-contradiction, but those two principles could potentially contradict.

I say they couldn't contradict, as long as they are applied in the contexts they are valid in-"don't commit crimes" is not valid outside the context of a Capitalist society, in non-emergency situations: I could care less for instance that it's illegal to smoke pot. But it is always valid within that context, so it's never in your best interest to commit a theft or a murder, as a normal course of action. The reason why the second principle is a derivative of the first one, and lower in the hierarchy, is because it merely expands on the first one, it explain how "acting in one's best interest" should be done, more specifically. You shouldn't copmmit crimes because it is in your best interest, and only for that reason. There is no other support for that principle, except the principle of self interest, applied to the facts of reality.

Now, if you want to get into those facts of reality, why exactly it is in your best interest to adhere to the principle "don't violate the rights of others" (which in a fully Capitalist society would simply mean "don't commit crimes"), there's a list, starting with what the Police will do, to loss of self-esteem, to what your actions do to society as a whole (society in which you're still supposed to live in), not to mention the absence of a rational principle to replace the one you just discarded, at least not as far as I know. I know some thiefs have "rules", but I'm yet to see any good ones.

Obviously, none of those things apply the same way for a real emrgency situation in which your choices are limited to immediate death or the initiation of force against others. This principle was never meant to be applied in such a context. Your previous example about a crime you can get away with that will help you retire was not such an example. This last one is. While I don't necessarily agree that yes it is moral to take the other guy's parachute no matter what, this particular principle of non-initiation of force is not applicable. You'll have to consider other things though, such as can you live with the consequences of doing that.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[philosopher]

A plane with two passengers is going down. There's only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it "immoral" to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

Objectivism can not tell you what to do in that situation. Rational philosophies build up their principles from looking at what repeatedly works in reality, but falling out of a plane without a parachute is something so out of the ordinary that principles worked out in everyday life just don't apply, so no guidance can be offered. Only someone who spent their entire life risking life and limb such as an adrenaline junkie or elite commando could come up with principles applicable to that situation.

[freestyle]

Objectivism can not tell you what to do in that situation. Rational philosophies build up their principles from looking at what repeatedly works in reality, but falling out of a plane without a parachute is something so out of the ordinary that principles worked out in everyday life just don't apply, so no guidance can be offered. Only someone who spent their entire life risking life and limb such as an adrenaline junkie or elite commando could come up with principles applicable to that situation.

I think Objectivism allows you to remain consistent even in that situation.

Initiation of force is wrong for a reason. It isn't just stated as so without rationale. Part of that reasoning includes that violating other's rights is wrong. In a situation like above, when it is about base survival, "rights" do not apply as they do in "ordinary" situations. The context changes, but it is still in your best interest to survive by your ability to reason.

[avgleandt]

Perhaps a real-life "lifeboat situation" is the most obvious way to illustrate why it is necessary to rely on more than the simple statement "It is NEVER in one's best interest to initiate force". A plane with two passengers is going down. There's only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it "immoral" to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

Objectivism doesn't hold the none-initiation force principle as a simple statement "It is never in one’s best inters to initiate force". This principle is derived from objectivist ethics of egoism, or rational self interest. Objectivist ethics is derived from objectivist epistemology which is derived from objectivist metaphysics. Here is a short example. Man survives by using his mind. This means he must be able to keep and dispose the products of his mind in order to survive. The only thing that can take this ability away from him is the initiation of force. Therefore initiation of force is anti man’s survival anti man’s life.

What all lifeboat situations including yours do is remove the possibility of production, it makes impossible for any of the life boaters to produce what they need to survive. In a lifeboat scenario man's mind is of no use. Lifeboat scenarios are a sneaky way to set up an artificial metaphysical reality were the definition of man is destroyed. So it basically asks, if man were not man, then would it be ethical for man to do action X?

But men do not live in metaphysical realities of life boats so objectivist ethics is not derived from those metaphysics, so I would have to agree with jake and philosopher that rights and other principles derived from normal metaphysics do not apply. In an emergency situation in which death is eminent the primary goal should be escape the danger and return to normal conditions. Whatever the man without the parachute chooses to do is the right thing. If he decides to die then that’s his choice. If he steals the parachute, he will have to live with that.

Edited January 8, 2010 by avgleandt