Is Stealing to live Justified According to Objectivists

[Devil's Advocate]

If you believe that a right to life depends on a right to property, then stealing to live is a contradiction.  Subsequent claims about amoral lifeboats are evasions of the truth, which remains that taking another person's property is an aggression against that person's life.  Nothing about saving your life diminishes the harm transferred to your victim's life in the short run, or your own in the long run.

The only justification for theft is restitution, meaning that "having" to steal implies an obligation to set things right.  You don't get to live without the moral consequences of how you got there.

[epistemologue]

7 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

If you believe that a right to life depends on a right to property, then stealing to live is a contradiction.  Subsequent claims about amoral lifeboats are evasions of the truth, which remains that taking another person's property is an aggression against that person's life.  Nothing about saving your life diminishes the harm transferred to your victim's life in the short run, or your own in the long run.

The only justification for theft is restitution, meaning that "having" to steal implies an obligation to set things right.  You don't get to live without the moral consequences of how you got there.

So you think it's morally justified to steal from someone as long as you pay them back according to some measure of the "fair" value of their property? Do you support eminent domain? Or does this only apply to "emergency" situations?

[Devil's Advocate]

I think restitution is the morally correct answer to the OP, as opposed to pretending a wrong doesn't exist because, "I didn't have a good choice."  The OP rules out negotiating with the owner of the tent prior to taking life sustaining goods, and we can imagine victims of Katrina in a similar situation.  It does not rule out negotiating restitution with the owner afterwards.  The willingness to the later action is what justifies the former necessity.

I do not support eminent domain as a means of forcing the sale of property.  And I don't accept no-win scenarios, as Kirk demonstrated with the Kobayashi Maru, which was essentially just another lifeboat scenario.

My position is that there is a moral solution for all scenarios.

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

15 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

HD, can you confirm?

Perfect. 

 

On 3/23/2016 at 2:31 PM, Eiuol said:

...so some moral choices are by nature non-rational? ... You'd be saying rationality is not always your means of survival, or that there are more means of survival than rationality. Or that some moral choices are just about emotivism (which Hume believed)...

On 3/23/2016 at 3:22 PM, Eiuol said:

This is a type of moral rule here, and a rational one at that.

On 3/24/2016 at 8:27 PM, Eiuol said:

I disagree with TLD, but I also disagree that some moral choices are non-rational (making rationally indeterminate decisions means rationality failed, therefore such decisions are non-rational). I'd say 1) rational decision-making in a strict sense isn't only for moral reasoning, 2) all proper moral choices are rational, 3) rational thought obeys rules, 4) rational moral rules require being in contexts where flourishing proceeds by induced rules.

 

Whatever action any animal performs is prompted by one of two things: desire or fear. When a rat eats a peanut, it does so because it sees some value in it ("value" being that which one acts to gain and/or keep). These drives are the perceptual extensions of pleasure and pain.

Pleasure and pain are extremely useful signals. They alert us to danger, they teach us what to avoid and what to pursue and they give us a viscerally automatic sort of purposefulness. However, there are times where they fail to reflect the actual requirements of our welfare.

For example: there was an experiment done, at one point, in which electrodes were implanted into the pleasure centers of the brains of several rats, who were then given access to a button which would activate them. They ended up pushing those buttons over and over, to the exclusion of sex, food, water, and ultimately life itself. They were given a short-circuit to infinite pleasure, with no risks and zero effort, which killed them.

Emotivism is a good thing. Indeed, emotions such as joy are what make our brief lives meaningful; they are the basis on which Egoism rests. However, while Emotivism is a very real part of Egoism, it is not the whole thing; a man driven by emotions, alone, would be susceptible to exactly the same pitfalls which killed the rats. 

 

Egoism essentially consists of Emotivism + Strategy. Hence "Rational Selfishness" - Reason would inform us that we can maximize the effectiveness of our ultra-electrode-orgies by taking periodic intermissions for things like food and water. At the end of the day we're still chasing our own pleasures, just like the rats (and that's OK!); our rational faculty simply allows us to do it better.

 

So there's nothing irrational or arational or even amoral about choosing to eat whatever you enjoy eating. Pleasure itself is "right" in every sense of the word.

 

---

 

I will point out that there seems to be a common misconception about Egoism, here: the assumption that it involves some list of rules and commandments, which one must obey in order to be "good", and that our rules just happen to be different from most peoples'.

 

I had made that very assumption, at one point (and brought it to this forum with me, when I first joined). I wasn't even aware of it: the idea that " morality" could mean anything else was simply foreign to me. To this day, I occasionally catch myself making that same mistake. 

When that happens, I reread "Duty versus Causality" and listen to this speech by Yaron Brook.

 

I would reccomend both to anyone who breathes Oxygen.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

5 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

I do not support eminent domain as a means of forcing the sale of property.  And I don't accept no-win scenarios, as Kirk demonstrated with the Kobayashi Maru, which was essentially just another lifeboat scenario.

My position is that there is a moral solution for all scenarios.

As is mine.

 

However, I believe that the immorality of stealing is contextual and that part of that context is -well- the expectation of still being alive, tomorrow morning.

It would be a contradiction to rob someone while demanding that they respect my property rights. Again, though, if I'm about to die then what do I need property for?

 

The dead make poor consumers.

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Harrison Danneskjold
Pronoun problems

[Eiuol]

Harrison, are you saying that you take back that there are some cases where rational answers -cannot- be determined but moral choices are still possible?

By the way, that's not Emotivism, this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

Emotional information is not what I objected to. I objected to methods besides rationality.

[Devil's Advocate]

8 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

... However, I believe that the immorality of stealing is contextual and that part of that context is -well- the expectation of still being alive, tomorrow morning.

It would be a contradiction to rob someone while demanding that they respect my property rights...

 

Exactly so , and that expectation is what allows us to step from an immoral lifeboat to a moral shore.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Harrison, are you saying that you take back that there are some cases where rational answers -cannot- be determined but moral choices are still possible?

Let's look at what I said:

On 3/23/2016 at 0:42 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So while nobody can ever know which flavor of Ice Cream to be the best for everybody, for all time and eternity, I know perfectly well which one is best for me.

 

I said there is no rational way to know which flavor of ice cream is best for all of mankind. I did not say there is a moral way to choose a flavor for all of mankind (which actually would be a Communist thing to say).

I said there is a moral way to choose a flavor of ice cream for myself. I did not say there isn't any rational way to make that choice - I thought its rationality was implicit (as SL so expertly observed) and I've subsequently outlined how "Reason" applies to such choices, explicitly.

 

I was not saying that there are moral choices which have no rational answer (which would be false). I was saying that some moral decisions are uniquely personal, and must be rationally determined by each individual.

 

If you'd like to call this a retraction then sure; I officially retract any statement or implication to the effect that Egoism doesn't necessarily include Reason.

 

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Emotional information is not what I objected to. I objected to methods besides rationality.

 

Please listen to the speech I linked to.

[Eiuol]

What you said wasn't clear. I get your point now, I agree. I don't see why you brought it up, or how it addressed the question it was aimed at.

[StrictlyLogical]

40 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If you'd like to call this a retraction then sure; I officially retract any statement or implication to the effect that Egoism doesn't necessarily include Reason.

HD, don't retract anything unless you actually meant something other than what you meant it to mean.

Even the MOST novice Objectivist knows that VALUES ARE OBJECTIVE and as such ARE CONTEXTUAL, and all that implies, so it was perfectly reasonable for you to assume your words would not be misunderstood.

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by StrictlyLogical

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It is difficult to fill a cup which is already full, Louie.

 

You've asked repeatedly for clarification, which several people have endeavored to provide you with, and yet you do not appear to see any need for clarification; you seem perfectly confident in your own interpretation (which is one of the worst possible interpretations) of what's been said.

 

If you'd like me to take back the offending idea then fine; it is a falsehood, anyway, and I have no compunctions about confessing my own errors - neither of logic nor of communication.

 

However, in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from asking questions which you don't want to have answered.

[Eiuol]

1 minute ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

You've asked repeatedly for clarification, which several people have endeavored to provide you with, and yet you do not appear to see any need for clarification

You clarified and I said I agree... You just didn't write your earlier post too well, your grammar was awkward. But I don't see how it addresses what you quoted from me originally.

[Devil's Advocate]

42 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It is difficult to fill a cup which is already full, Louie...

Is that your Avatar speaking?

On 3/24/2016 at 6:27 PM, Eiuol said:

I disagree with TLD, but I also disagree that some moral choices are non-rational (making rationally indeterminate decisions means rationality failed, therefore such decisions are non-rational). I'd say 1) rational decision-making in a strict sense isn't only for moral reasoning, 2) all proper moral choices are rational, 3) rational thought obeys rules, 4) rational moral rules require being in contexts where flourishing proceeds by induced rules

Rational morality isn't suspended during intermissions from flourishing, except by choice.

--

Edit:  As a fictional aside, Kirk exposed the Kobayashi Maru Test as a cheat because it presents a no-win scenario and invites you to choose your poison.  A similar cheat is presented in Ender's Game with The Giant's Drink that Andrew counters (as Kirk did) by refusing to accept a poisoned option.  Such scenarios require the subject to accept the corrupt moral premise that a proper test can be conducted by improper controls.

In a test delimited to cheating, the best cheater wins.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
cleanup

[Harrison Danneskjold]

16 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

HD, don't retract anything unless you actually meant something other than what you meant it to mean.

I know. As infuriating as it is, I come here to learn and/or teach about Truth, Virtue and Freedom; not to bicker over childish bull****. I go to Facebook for that. 

 

13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

But I don't see how it addresses what you quoted from me originally.

I'm sorry to hear it.

[Eiuol]

On 3/23/2016 at 1:42 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In choosing which flavor of Ice Cream to eat, which is the moral choice - Vanilla or Strawberry?

I think some clarification is in order about what I was asking SL. I was not asking or suggesting that there is a universal choice for The Flavor - that's intrinsicism.

It seems like you and SL interpret rules as universal moral rules, but rules just means there are right and wrong ways to make decisions. Principles are rules, too. Context-using rules. Anyone who claims that morality is objective would agree that there is a correct answer to all moral choices. For Objectivism, as you know, broadly speaking, rationality is the way to determine the correct answer. This answer may differ between individuals, but insofar as you use rational methods, you are following some rule. Context is why answers differ. Emotions are more information. Altogether, you use all this information to make a moral prescription, e.g. pick vanilla, anything else is wrong for you. You can also prescribe moral rules, e.g. "choose that which enhances flourishing".

If you can't prescribe a rule, you certainly can't apply one. So if Rand said moral rules can't be prescribed in a particular situation, then she's also saying there is no moral rule to apply to that situation. If -no one- could prescribe an answer, there is no rule to be found. It's a question about interpreting Rand.

[dream_weaver]

Are the descriptive laws of physics subject to interpretation or to be acquiesced only by an understanding gained by grasping the facts of reality?

When the laws of a nation are prescribed by men, are they done so by caprice, or held in check by descriptive facts that give rise to the principles used for guidance?

Did Miss Rand write in such a way as to require resorting to hermanutics as an epistemological tool?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It seems like you and SL interpret rules as universal moral rules...

That's unfortunate.

 

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Did Miss Rand write in such a way as to require resorting to hermanutics as an epistemological tool?

Google defines hermanutics as "the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts." So - kind of?

 

Rand chose every single word she wrote with a level of precision and unit-economy that one rarely finds in any other author (and never in daily conversation). Often times she packed multiple layers of meanings into a single sentence.

For example, when I first came across her definition that "value is that which one acts to gain and keep" I found it upsettingly uninformative. Sure, our goals are what we act for, but what should our goals be? A few weeks later I realized that she'd left those things out on purpose; separating the idea of "value" from any advice about good values or bad values allows us to reason about them more clearly. Several months later I realized that, in a way, she defined "value" almost as a verb; the other half of every purposeful action that has been or will ever be done. This prompted me to reexamine a passage about 'unfulfilled desires and purposeless actions' which also meant much more than it had seemed to, at first glance.

 

So I think it's usually worthwhile to seriously investigate what she meant by any given statement (although I don't know if that constitutes "hermanutics" or not).

Whether or not it's being done properly in this instance is another question.

[dream_weaver]

28 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So I think it's usually worthwhile to seriously investigate what she meant by any given statement (although I don't know if that constitutes "hermanutics" or not).

In one of her later non-fiction articles, she referred the audience back to Atlas Shrugged for a more in depth coverage of epistemology. I thought it strange, at first. Why not Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?

Fransisco was talking to James Taggert early in the novel about the price of admission to heaven, (whatever that is, she had added.)

Jim indicated the price of admission was virtue, to which Fransisco tied the increase of productivity of his mines, in order to afford the price of admission.

When Jim responded with "Any grafter can make money." she followed up with "James, you ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning."

 

Are exact meanings commensurable with interpretive meanings? Your development of your understanding what Rand meant by value is more in line with:

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Are the descriptive laws of physics morality subject to interpretation or to be acquiesced only by an understanding gained by grasping the facts of reality?

 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It seems like you and SL interpret rules as universal moral rules, but rules just means there are right and wrong ways to make decisions. ... You can prescribe moral rules, e.g. "choose that which enhances flourishing".

If you can't prescribe a rule, you certainly can't apply one. So if Rand said moral rules can't be prescribed in a particular situation, then she's also saying there is no moral rule to apply to that situation. If -no one- could prescribe an answer, there is no rule to be found. It's a question about interpreting Rand.

 

On 1/26/2016 at 0:12 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Her answer ... is that

"Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only -life- is the basis on which to establish a moral code..."

...

Note, Rand here does NOT say that it is impossible for a person in the situation to ACT in accordance with rational application of the standard of morality, only that the context does not admit of PRESCRIBED moral principles or codes... 

 

Let's work sideways (by analogy) from a slightly different but ubiquitous meaning.

 

What is a medical "prescription"?

 

3 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Are exact meanings commensurable with interpretive meanings?

OK; I see what you meant, now. No further objections. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Harrison Danneskjold
Response to DW

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What is a medical "prescription"?

A determination of what one ought to do in order to be healthy. It is done by application of rules where the answer often varies between individuals. The question is if moral prescriptions are possible in situations like the OP. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

A determination of what one ought to do in order to be healthy. It is done by application of rules where the answer often varies between individuals.

The point being that no individual can write their own prescriptions.

 

Google defines "to prescribe" as:

• recommend (a substance or action) as something beneficial
• state authoritatively or as a rule that (an action or procedure) should be carried out

Firstly, notice that both "recommend" and "state" are actions between (as opposed to within) individuals.

Secondly, notice that both "beneficial" and "should be" indicate evaluations.

Thirdly, notice the mention of authority (which is critical to its medical sense).

 

If I prescribe you to do something, I am not doing so as a piece of friendly advice; I mean it as an order.

This is what the word "prescribe" means.

 

This is why moral prescriptions are not possible when it comes to flavors of ice cream. This is what is wrong with your statement:

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If -no one- could prescribe an answer, there is no rule to be found.

And this is also why the answer to:

25 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The question is if moral prescriptions are possible in situations like the OP. 

remains negative.

 

---

 

Have I missed anything?

[Eiuol]

1) Even that definition doesn't state anything about -where- a prescription originates, e.g. myself, god, society, etc. Stating a procedure is a prescription. A self-stated procedure is authoritative if it is objective.

2) Rand's quote as shown in Epistemlogue's first post in here was talking about a context like dictatorship and probably isn't talking about denying universal intrinsic morality. She flat out says "In such a case, morality cannot say what to do." Taken together, it's safe to say Rand meant prescription as I do.

3) If I am misreading, as far as I see, then it has not been sufficiently answered if there are contexts where moral rules cannot be applied.  

 

[Devil's Advocate]

 

On 3/28/2016 at 5:04 PM, Eiuol said:

3) If I am misreading, as far as I see, then it has not been sufficiently answered if there are contexts where moral rules cannot be applied. 

A prescription that negates choice would be one context; and one that cheats IMO.  For morality to carry any weight there has to be immoral options, so the momentary absence of good choices (as in the OP) doesn't create a moral contradiction per se. 

Moral prescriptions cannot be enforced; that's the contradiction.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Devil's Advocate
clarification

[Eiuol]

On 1/19/2016 at 8:34 PM, epistemologue said:

Metaphysics does not change depending on what situation you are in. Just because you're not in a metaphysically normal situation doesn't mean metaphysics itself is any different, only the situation itself is abnormal. Your moral principles ultimately grounded in metaphysics do not change, they simply are applied to this particular situation.

You're right that just the situation is abnormal, not metaphysics. Metaphysically abnormal I was probably thinking of as radically different parameters to your life and your situation. Your moral principles don't change, sure, but it doesn't mean you are able to apply the principle to that situation. My idea is that your principles -cannot- be applied to certain radical situations, period. Your ability to make a moral choice has been denied or twisted. To choose to live requires being able to choose to live.

We're talking of situations where the "moral choice" is literally you're death in the same way grabbing a gun and shooting yourself causes you to die. To be sure, not all actions of survival are moral, but there are no moral actions that end your survival. Nor is a moral principle derived from situations like this. Why? Because "choosing to live" here is made impossible, there is no life to choose. The best you can do is act "as if", i.e. in some aesthetic or a "will to morality". Yet, there is no moral status when all there is is "as if".

If death is overcome, sure, you may have a point. But if you're trapped in the Andes, you still won't be able to do a mind upload or cryogenics. You're in the Andes! Nor do wireless mind uploads exist yet. Unless you expect retroactive revival for being such a good person at all times... If you want to double down on revival, there would still exist conditions that you'd be destroyed. The abnormal scenarios will still exist.

[Devil's Advocate]

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... Your moral principles don't change, sure, but it doesn't mean you are able to apply the principle to that situation. My idea is that your principles -cannot- be applied to certain radical situations, period. Your ability to make a moral choice has been denied or twisted. To choose to live requires being able to choose to live...

There's no contradiction here in the context of choosing to live by principle.

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... We're talking of situations where the "moral choice" is literally you're death in the same way grabbing a gun and shooting yourself causes you to die. To be sure, not all actions of survival are moral, but there are no moral actions that end your survival. Nor is a moral principle derived from situations like this. Why? Because "choosing to live" here is made impossible, there is no life to choose. The best you can do is act "as if", i.e. in some aesthetic or a "will to morality". Yet, there is no moral status when all there is is "as if"...

If you choose to live by principle and other persons or events beyond your control lead to your death, then someone/something else has the gun to your head, not you and certainly not by your choice.  It is the life you choose to live that defines your moral option, not the outcomes that cause you to die against your will.

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... If death is overcome, sure, you may have a point. But if you're trapped in the Andes, you still won't be able to do a mind upload or cryogenics. You're in the Andes! Nor do wireless mind uploads exist yet. Unless you expect retroactive revival for being such a good person at all times... If you want to double down on revival, there would still exist conditions that you'd be destroyed. The abnormal scenarios will still exist.

Overcoming death is not an option for mortal beings.  It is only how you choose to live the life available to you, in every situation presented to you, that is within your power to make moral choices about.  Risking death is not the same as choosing it.