The Threat to America

[Harrison Danneskjold]

My primary question here is, What entitles us to having a greater share of the right to life over them?

 Non-issue.

 

Suppose person A chops off person B's arm one sunny day, thereby violating his individual rights.  Now we conceive of A's rights as being stripped by that act, because at that point it's okay for B to chop off A's arm.

Does this mean that A has no inalienable rights?

 

Consider the alternative: person A chops off B's arm and then B cannot legally do anything about it- because of A's rights.  Relate this to George Zimmerman and then follow it to its logical conclusion.

 

If anyone is to have any rights at all, then they CANNOT apply to criminals.  This is what Ayn Rand means when she says that all of the reasons which make the initiation of force unacceptable, make retaliatory force an absolute necessity.

 

It's a non-issue which really doesn't merit much more analysis than that.

 

 

Collateral damage is inevitable, but I think there's an ethical parallel between targeting terrorists and say, gang members.  It's unethical to carpet bomb a gang infested neighborhood and so how ethical is it to carpet bomb a terrorist infested village?

 Simple.

 

Men are fallible; nobody is omniscient and nobody can be required to be omniscient.

 

If we declare that the USA must wage war without a single innocent casualty then we are demanding our soldiers to practice omniscience- or else to surrender, for the sake of any hypothetical civilian.

See above; this amounts to a declaration that there is no such thing as 'rights'.

 

----------------------------------------------

It's not good to kill an innocent person and, whenever it is not absolutely necessary, it should not be done (and with regard to our troops, it isn't).

 

But accidents happen.  Rational selfishness entails that if someone is charging at you with a knife, you aren't obligated to ask them about their intentions or their underlying premises before you shoot.

From there the same principle applies, in exactly the same way, to the people on the battlefield who are defending us by proxy.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Devil's Advocate]

 Non-issue.

 

Suppose person A chops off person B's arm one sunny day, thereby violating his individual rights.  Now we conceive of A's rights as being stripped by that act, because at that point it's okay for B to chop off A's arm.

Does this mean that A has no inalienable rights?

 

Consider the alternative: person A chops off B's arm and then B cannot legally do anything about it- because of A's rights.  Relate this to George Zimmerman and then follow it to its logical conclusion.

 

If anyone is to have any rights at all, then they CANNOT apply to criminals.  This is what Ayn Rand means when she says that all of the reasons which make the initiation of force unacceptable, make retaliatory force an absolute necessity.

 

It's a non-issue which really doesn't merit much more analysis than that.

I beg to differ; and I find this to be the stumbling point for nearly every dispute over what a right to life is.

 

The definition proposed by the Founding Fathers and subsequently secured by our Constitution, promotes and protects an equal and inalienable right to life.  If your first step out of the gate is to redefine the terms equal and inalienable, then I respectfully suggest that you check your premises, or a dictionary.  An unequal distribution of rights implies justice in the form of a caste system, which then contradicts the terms fair and equitable as applied to justice.  And if this right can be alienated, who gets additional life by taking it?

 

If the foundation of all rights is the right to life, as Ayn Rand admits, how does an unequal and alienable right credibly support anything built upon it?   Is it not more rational to conclude that a right to life is either equal and inalienable, or useless as the foundation for any system of justice other than might makes right??  The problem with regard to crime is not that the right to life is equal and inalienable, but that presuming a transgression of this right requires pretending it either diminishes or ceases to exist.

 

Simple.

 

Men are fallible; nobody is omniscient and nobody can be required to be omniscient.

 

If we declare that the USA must wage war without a single innocent casualty then we are demanding our soldiers to practice omniscience- or else to surrender, for the sake of any hypothetical civilian.

See above; this amounts to a declaration that there is no such thing as 'rights'.

 

----------------------------------------------

It's not good to kill an innocent person and, whenever it is not absolutely necessary, it should not be done (and with regard to our troops, it isn't).

 

But accidents happen.  Rational selfishness entails that if someone is charging at you with a knife, you aren't obligated to ask them about their intentions or their underlying premises before you shoot.

From there the same principle applies, in exactly the same way, to the people on the battlefield who are defending us by proxy.

I fail to see how this responds to my statement which admits to the inevitability of collateral damage.  The only comment I can add here is that it's never absolutely necessary to kill an innocent person, but s**t happens.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

An unequal distribution of rights implies justice in the form of a caste system, which then contradicts the terms fair and equitable as applied to justice.  And if this right can be alienated, who gets additional life by taking it?

 An inequality of rights exists only when rights have been violated.  'Unequal distribution of rights' does imply some form of caste system, but only inasmuch as it implies a hereditary distribution.

The difference between sex and rape, between trade and theft, between murder and suicide, is consent.  Your rights, quite simply, symbolize the principle of your consent (your right to choose life over death being the most fundamental of these).

Someone who eats his cake today cannot bemoan its absence tomorrow, any more than a customer is robbed the price he pays- or a criminal the rights he loses.

 

If I asked you to kill me, because I truly wanted to die, then your compliance would not be murder.  One step further: to actually commit murder is to implicitly consent to your own death.

 

As for whom gets additional life by taking it from others. . . Only a figure of speech.

 

 

If the foundation of all rights is the right to life, as Ayn Rand admits, how does an unequal and alienable right credibly support anything built upon it?

 It is inalienable; violating the rights of others amounts to voluntarily accepting equal treatment.

 

Or have it criminally alienable, if you like; either concept describes the same thing.  Anyone who does not respect the rights of others will be treated in kind, because rights are a mutual thing.

 

 

The problem with regard to crime is not that the right to life is equal and inalienable, but that presuming a transgression of this right requires pretending it either diminishes or ceases to exist.

 What's the issue here?

Criminals lose their rights by virtue of their own actions.  We can phrase this any way you want but it all means the same thing: respect my rights or lose your own.

 

Might does not make right, but must be ruled by it.  Right must use might when it is necessary.  Rights, without any might whatsoever, would be figments dispelled by the first hooligan who decided to cause some trouble.

[Devil's Advocate]

What's the issue here?

Criminals lose their rights by virtue of their own actions.  We can phrase this any way you want but it all means the same thing: respect my rights or lose your own.

 

Might does not make right, but must be ruled by it.  Right must use might when it is necessary.  Rights, without any might whatsoever, would be figments dispelled by the first hooligan who decided to cause some trouble.

The issue is that a right to life, as a possession, cannot be differentiated from life, as a possession.  Birth (or conception, if you prefer) and death are the only logical events that mark the beginning and ending of ones life, and by extension, ones right to it.  Unless you can demonstrate how the possession of life and the right to it, can be transferred from one individual to another individual in any meaningful way, the issue is settled.

 

Of course having a right to life doesn't give transgressors immunity from retaliation; the right to life implies the right to defend ones life which in turn establishes the line between justifiable retaliation and unprovoked aggression.  What the transgressor loses is security in the form of public defense of his right to life.  I'll have to leave it at that for now...

 

Have a great 4th

Edited July 3, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tadmjones]

holycrap

[mdegges]

I don't understand your reasoning. You just listed a set of factors that you admit contribute to individuals making certain choices. But then you declare that that's irrelevant, and the responsibility for those choices rests solely with the last individual to make a wrong choice, right before the explosion. Everyone else is exempt.

Btw., I strongly disagree with the notion that your list is a realistic list of contributing factors to terrorism. Terrorism, in general, has nothing to do with the things on your list, and everything to do with religion and various collectivist political ideologies. So I'm just pointing out that you're at least acknowledging that there are factors aside from random people making random choices. And yet you declare that no one else is in any way responsible, but the person making the final choice right before the physical act of aggression. The logic of that eludes me.

 

I said earlier that "The question really comes down to this: Do people choose to do evil because of the facade (a certain philosophy, religious dogma, etc) or is the facade a sanction that gives people the freedom (or the moral go ahead) to do evil? In other words, is religion the catalyst for evil or just the excuse? I think it is a little of both" and "I agree that 'militant' Islam is evil and should be fought." So no, I don't think that "everyone else is exempt." (See my last paragraph for further explanation.)

 

I took many of those points (specifically: vengeance (ie: being emotionally impacted by a tragic death - a trigger event), wanting to be significant/ be a hero, environmental factors) from Arie Kruglanski's research. In short, he believes that: "...there are three basic components in the tendency of a person to become a suicide bomber or active terrorist. There’s the social element — being part of a group; the ideological element — a set of beliefs that condone violence for the sake of the group; and the emotional element, which triggers both the acceptance and personalization of the ideology. The ideology doesn’t need to be intricate or profound. There’s a grievance, a culprit responsible for the grievance and a method of regressing the grievance by violence."

 

From what I've read, ideology is not usually the primary motivation for becoming a terrorist. It can be for some people, sure, but there are usually other more personal and more important factors involved.

[mdegges]

Collateral damage is inevitable, but I think there's an ethical parallel between targeting terrorists and say, gang members.  It's unethical to carpet bomb a gang infested neighborhood and so how ethical is it to carpet bomb a terrorist infested village?  There are rules of engagement for any conflict and the apprehension of terrorists needn't be reduced to a life boat situation where anything goes.

 

Carpet bombing an entire village is unlikely to be the first plan of action, isn't it? I would think targeting specific buildings would be higher up on the to-do list.. In theory this parallel sounds nice, but I think the plan of action should depend on the dangerousness of the terrorists in question - nothing should be taken completely off the table.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mdegges

[Craig24]

The issue is that a right to life, as a possession, cannot be differentiated from life, as a possession.  Birth (or conception, if you prefer) and death are the only logical events that mark the beginning and ending of ones life, and by extension, ones right to it.  Unless you can demonstrate how the possession of life and the right to it, can be transferred from one individual to another individual in any meaningful way, the issue is settled.

 

Of course having a right to life doesn't give transgressors immunity from retaliation; the right to life implies the right to defend ones life which in turn establishes the line between justifiable retaliation and unprovoked aggression.  What the transgressor loses is security in the form of public defense of his right to life.  I'll have to leave it at that for now...

 

Have a great 4th

This sounds familiar to me.  Another thread on this forum addresses the issue of rights as inalienable (as universally and permanently possessed by all men at all times).  Even the convict has his rights (he is after all still a man even if he's a criminal).   I'll have to hunt for this thread. 

[softwareNerd]

This sounds familiar to me.  Another thread on this forum addresses the issue of rights as inalienable (as universally and permanently possessed by all men at all times).  Even the convict has his rights (he is after all still a man even if he's a criminal).   I'll have to hunt for this thread. 

I found this one, using the site-specific Google search at the bottom of the page.

[Nicky]

I said earlier that "The question really comes down to this: Do people choose to do evil because of the facade (a certain philosophy, religious dogma, etc) or is the facade a sanction that gives people the freedom (or the moral go ahead) to do evil? In other words, is religion the catalyst for evil or just the excuse? I think it is a little of both" and "I agree that 'militant' Islam is evil and should be fought." So no, I don't think that "everyone else is exempt." (See my last paragraph for further explanation.)

Yes, I know you said all those things. That's why I'm surprised that you then declared that only the final actors are responsible for acts of terror. That doesn't jive with all the other things you said. Militant Islam, and the people who spread it, are responsible for Islamic terror.

I took many of those points (specifically: vengeance (ie: being emotionally impacted by a tragic death - a trigger event), wanting to be significant/ be a hero, environmental factors) from Arie Kruglanski's research. In short, he believes that: "...there are three basic components in the tendency of a person to become a suicide bomber or active terrorist. There’s the social element — being part of a group; the ideological element — a set of beliefs that condone violence for the sake of the group; and the emotional element, which triggers both the acceptance and personalization of the ideology. The ideology doesn’t need to be intricate or profound. There’s a grievance, a culprit responsible for the grievance and a method of regressing the grievance by violence."

Sounds like:

a. He's describing militant Islam down to every little detail;

b. he is making it clear that such ideologies are the root cause of terrorism - without them, there would be no terrorism (by terrorism I mean strictly "mass murder to further a political goal"). As comedian Doug Stanhope put it, you never hear "200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the north" on the news, do you? There's a reason for that.

And it's not that all Atheists and Agnostics are fully rational and love each other. It's that even when they're not, they don't have evil priests and propagandists justifying the mass murder of people you disagree with or dislike.

So yeah, Arie Kruglanski makes a good point. Let's identify such poisonous ideologies, and hold the people who are infecting cultures and societies with them responsible for it, by all means at our disposal. Let's not pretend that these ideologies aren't at the root of terrorism.

And by "identify", I mean identify by name. Describing them, the way your quote there is doing, but being careful not to offend any actual subscribers to these ideologies by naming them, is not good enough. Clearly, militant Islam is the most popular, most murderous such ideology on the face of the Earth today.

[thenelli01]

Collateral damage is inevitable, but I think there's an ethical parallel between targeting terrorists and say, gang members.  It's unethical to carpet bomb a gang infested neighborhood and so how ethical is it to carpet bomb a terrorist infested village?  There are rules of engagement for any conflict and the apprehension of terrorists needn't be reduced to a life boat situation where anything goes.

 

A government's first concern is protecting the rights of its people, not the people of other countries. This is why domestic terrorists are treated differently than terrorists of foreign countries (and appropriately so) and why gang infested neighborhoods are not the same as terrorist infested neighborhoods. In wartime, the goal of the government is to complete its objective in the shortest time with the smallest number of American casualties possible. It becomes an us vs. them dichotomy. If its not people in that terrorist infested village being killed, it will be the people in our country getting killed. The moral responsibility for the deaths of the innocents being killed rests solely with the people and/or government that harbored the terrorists in the village. Of course context matters, and if we can avoid killing innocents, we should, but failing to take out the enemy in the shortest time puts our men, women, and children's lives at higher risk.

[Craig24]

I found this one, using the site-specific Google search at the bottom of the page.

 

Actually, this post on the thread "Broken units, broken men" is what I remember: #90

Ironically, it's a reply to you. 

[softwareNerd]

Actually, this post on the thread "Broken units, broken men" is what I remember: #90

Thanks for finding it.

Ironically, it's a reply to you.

Then I don't need to repeat myself here

[Nicky]

A government's first concern is protecting the rights of its people, not the people of other countries. This is why domestic terrorists are treated differently than terrorists of foreign countries (and appropriately so) and why gang infested neighborhoods are not the same as terrorist infested neighborhoods. In wartime, the goal of the government is to complete its objective in the shortest time with the smallest number of American casualties possible. It becomes an us vs. them dichotomy. If its not people in that terrorist infested village being killed, it will be the people in our country getting killed. The moral responsibility for the deaths of the innocents being killed rests solely with the people and/or government that harbored the terrorists in the village. Of course context matters, and if we can avoid killing innocents, we should, but failing to take out the enemy in the shortest time puts our men, women, and children's lives at higher risk.

I love when people suggest that we start arresting and trying terrorists in Northern Pakistan, Southern Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. I always just reply: go ahead, set up a Court, hand out some citations for the "criminals" to show up for their hearings. If you're still alive by the end of the week, the war should end right away, and the court proceedings should commence henceforth.

But, if you don't want to do it, then let's just let the US military handle this one the realistic way, shall we? Let's stop pretending that Northern Pakistan has the rule of law, and all it would take to defeat terrorists there is issuing arrest warrants or setting up trials.

[softwareNerd]

I love when people suggest that we start arresting and trying terrorists in Northern Pakistan,... ...

Did someone in this thread suggest this or something similar, or are you speaking more generally?

[Devil's Advocate]

Actually, this post on the thread "Broken units, broken men" is what I remember: #90

Ironically, it's a reply to you. 

Thanks for pointing to this link - yes, I agree with Grames on the issue of an inherent right to life and the legal security/prosecution of that right.

[Devil's Advocate]

@ mdegges & thenelli01,

 

My primary concern is the dismissal of a right to life for the convenience of prosecuting violations of it, which is what I'm attempting to address in post #79.  Whether or not the context of the violation is domestic or international, the individuals involved are primarily caught up in a violation of the right to life and a justifiable retaliation for that transgression.  The rules of engagement have consequences for those who transgress as well, resulting in the prosecution of war criminals and officers of the law who simply fire into the crowd to get at criminals concealed within.

 

I don't think we are in disagreement on this issue, so I'll simply state my position as, dismissing a right to life isn't a justifiable shortcut to prosecuting those who violate it, domestic or otherwise.

[softwareNerd]

From what I've read, ideology is not usually the primary motivation for becoming a terrorist. It can be for some people, sure, but there are usually other more personal and more important factors involved.

OTOH, could ideology makes all the difference between a suicide bomber and a war hero?

Or, more controversially, between a suicide bomber and a European priest helping poor kids in some remote African village?

The writer you quote says: "... there are three basic components in the tendency to become a suicide bomber..."

It sounds right; but, what if you step back from the specific, and generalize it? Repeat the same three tendencies, but apply it broadly, thus: most human beings want to be part of a group, they want feel their lives are meaningful, and they want to do what they think is right. Some will take these things more seriously. Some will act way outside establishment-accepted behavior from these motivations.

Looked at this way, the populations that produce terrorists are just like you and me when it comes to their human qualities and needs. The distinguishing factor is ideology.

[Devil's Advocate]

OTOH, could ideology makes all the difference between a suicide bomber and a war hero?

Or, more controversially, between a suicide bomber and a European priest helping poor kids in some remote African village?

The writer you quote says: "... there are three basic components in the tendency to become a suicide bomber..."

It sounds right; but, what if you step back from the specific, and generalize it? Repeat the same three tendencies, but apply it broadly, thus: most human beings want to be part of a group, they want feel their lives are meaningful, and they want to do what they think is right. Some will take these things more seriously. Some will act way outside establishment-accepted behavior from these motivations.

Looked at this way, the populations that produce terrorists are just like you and me when it comes to their human qualities and needs. The distinguishing factor is ideology.

Since our own population produces terrorists*, I have to question how reliable ideological affiliations are for presuming the guilt of individual members by population.  Parenting is also a distinguishing factor in terms of whether children ultimately adopt or reject the ideology they were raised in.  Should we hold parents accountable for the crimes of their (adult) children, or vice versa, based on ideological affiliations shared by seniority or a majority of family members??

 

My premise for limiting culpability to individuals is:

ideology promotes action > action requires actors > actors are individuals; not ideologies > individuals can (and do) choose to reject ideological goals

 

Until a individual is proven to voluntarily accept and act ideologically, the best we can do is suspect them of criminal intent; and that's a very slipery slope to presume guilt by.

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

Edited July 8, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Should we hold parents accountable for the crimes of their (adult) children, or vice versa, based on ideological affiliations shared by seniority or a majority of family members?

Causality versus responsibility, again.

Hunger is no more of a blank check on others' food than ideology is a blank check on others' lives.  Knowing why an individual acts is different from passing judgment on that action.

 

 

My premise for limiting culpability to individuals is:

ideology promotes action > action requires actors > actors are individuals; not ideologies > individuals can (and do) choose to reject ideological goals

 Which is absolutely correct for attributing guilt, and mostly wrong for attributing cause.

[Kate87]

Any philosophy can be turned into an evil one. Look at Christians who took Jesus's message of non-violence and spread it via force during the Crusades. Imagine a future Objectivist society which decided all non-laissez faire capitalist societies were a threat and so launches aggressive wars to purge social democracy from the world.

 

I only know one Muslim, and he definitely rejects terrorism and jihad etc. To say that he is in any way guilty for the act of others, or that he somehow enables them is ridiculous. That would be like saying Objectivists should take responsibility for the acts of the Tea Party because they both believe in small government. This would be ridiculous, Objectivism is different than the Tea Party just as moderate Islam is different from extreme Islam.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Kate87

[softwareNerd]

I only know one Muslim, and he definitely rejects terrorism and jihad etc.

Yes, of course. I have Muslim acquaintances and they better and more secular than any Pat Robertson fan. Quite a few Muslim scholars reject the notion that Islam calls for violent jihad, or for deception against non-Muslims outside the context in which Mohammed issues the call: basically a context of war.

Now, some people counter this by accusing such folk of not being true muslims. There's a point to that argument, but we would then clearly have to accuse almost all Christians of being non-Christian. But, that's a debate for theologian, not a political debate. What matters is what ideologies people actually create and follow. The threat is a certain brand of militant Islam.

[Nicky]

Any philosophy can be turned into an evil one. Look at Christians who took Jesus's message of non-violence and spread it via force during the Crusades.

Christianity is based on the Bible as a whole, not just Jesus's words. The Bible contains some contradictions, but in general it's pretty heavily tilted in favor of violence. That's true for the New Testament as well. In fact, the New Testament (specifically the Book of Revelation, which describes Jesus as a warlord who, in his second coming, will obliterate his enemies and achieve final "peace" as a result) is likely what the Crusades were modeled on.

So Christians didn't "turn" nonviolence into the Crusades. They just chose to take Jesus's crazy, violent side a little more seriously.

Imagine a future Objectivist society which decided all non-laissez faire capitalist societies were a threat and so launches aggressive wars to purge social democracy from the world.

I can't imagine that, because that wouldn't be an Objectivist society. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Objectivism squarely and consistently rejects the initiation of force, or war for the sake of anything but self defense, for that matter. There is nothing in Objectivism to support what you are describing.

I only know one Muslim, and he definitely rejects terrorism and jihad etc. To say that he is in any way guilty for the act of others, or that he somehow enables them is ridiculous.

Good thing no one said that. We should only hold Muslims who do support or make excuses for terrorism and jihad responsible for terror. Not people who reject them. Edited July 9, 2013 by Nicky

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Any philosophy can be turned into an evil one.

 Interesting.

 

Look at Christians who took Jesus's message of non-violence and spread it via force during the Crusades.

 Look at every scripture in which God condones and openly advocates (if not perpetrates) genocide, then take a closer look at those Crusades.  And just one or two other things.

 

Imagine a future Objectivist society which decided all non-laissez faire capitalist societies were a threat and so launches aggressive wars to purge social democracy from the world.

 That hypothetical contradicts itself; any Objectivist who decided such would by definition be non-Objectivist.  Have fun applying the same to any variety of mysticism.

 

Now ask yourself why your first comment merits further examination.

 

To say that he is in any way guilty for the act of others, or that he somehow enables them is ridiculous. That would be like saying Objectivists should take responsibility for the acts of the Tea Party because they both believe in small government. This would be ridiculous, Objectivism is different than the Tea Party just as moderate Islam is different from extreme Islam.

 The rest of this is entirely true. . . Except for the analogy that 'Objectivism is to the Tea Party as Moderate Islam is to Radical Islam'.

Again, reexamine your first comment.

 

Not all philosophies are equally true or equally good, for very definite reasons.  And if they were all equal then there would be no reason for this forum, or any such pursuit of truth.

[Craig24]

I only know one Muslim, and he definitely rejects terrorism and jihad etc. To say that he is in any way guilty for the act of others, or that he somehow enables them is ridiculous.

 

The charge is that Islam, the religion, is the cause of jihad (holy war) in whatever form it is taking.  Islamists kill infidels, heretics and apostates because that is what Islam teaches them to do.  No one here says that non-violent muslims are guilty of violence.