Are there innocents within war?

[TomL]

Here's what makes us different despite the fact that our government does immoral things with our support:

In the United States, happiness and prosperity are possible. The same cannot be said for our enemies, can it? Is happiness and prosperity as we know it even possible in Iran as it now exists? Not a chance in hell.

Because it is still possible to be happy in this system, we are right to continue with it and try our best to improve it. For those living in and supporting a system in which happiness is not possible, they are not only immoral for actively supporting initiation of force but also for condemning themselves to a life in which happiness cannot occur.

You can't deserve prosperity and happiness and at the same time not deserve the bomb in your lap when they are both caused by the same action -- the action of supporting your nation.

[Hal]

.

To what extent to do you believe the restrictive immigration policies of most Western countries play a part in disatisfied Iranians not emigrating? Do you think that more would leave if countries like America had a more "open borders" approach?

[TomL]

To what extent to do you believe the restrictive immigration policies of most Western countries play a part in disatisfied Iranians not emigrating? Do you think that more would leave if countries like America had a more "open borders" approach?

Why don't they come to America? When deciding to leave Iran and seek the freedom of persuing happiness, why choose any nation over this one?

How dissatisified can one be because they were denied entry by a country like France? Hell, that might even be a blessing

[TomL]

But Inspector, do you feel that, even though you actively oppose this government, that you are guilty for the immorality it engages in?

Hopefully he feels that he must actively oppose certain actions of the government because he is responsible for them. There is no other reason for which there would be a need for him to act in opposition.

[AisA]

Hopefully he feels that he must actively oppose certain actions of the government because he is responsible for them.  There is no other reason for which there would be a need for him to act in opposition.

There is a distinction between accepting moral responsibility and acknowledging consequences.

I am not morally responsible for what the robbers do with the 40% of my income they take in taxes. However, I acknowledge that if they do something evil enough to invite retaliation, I will be a legitimate target of the retaliation because the government is financing its activities out of my pocket (and many others). In that case, I am a victim of my government, not the retaliator.

In addition, if I fail to oppose certain actions, they may well decide to take still more of my money. That is another powerful reason to oppose certain government actions.

Clearly, then, I need not "accept responsibility" for actions outside my control to care about and oppose those actions.

[TomL]

There is a distinction between accepting moral responsibility and acknowledging consequences.

No, there isn't. Consequences to your life which you accept are your responsibility.

The U.S. government makes it possible for you to be happy and prosperous, which is why you decide to participate in the system. But when you decide to participate in the system, you have to take the consequences from the whole system, not just the parts you agree with.

I'm not going to argue with you on this any further. My position should be abundantly clear.

[HaloNoble6]

It would appear, then, that in my child-hostage situation, that I am to be held morally responsible for the fact that one of my children are to die by my "choice". I don't accept this. I will acknowledge that my decision in this scenario will lead to consequences at the hands of the hostage-takers, but I don't accept the moral responsibility of those consequences.

Another example. Do you think Dagny felt morally guilty when Wyatt was in her office unloading the immorality of Taggert Transcontinental's position? She accepted the consequences by remaining silent and not saying she was actually on his side, but do you think she felt responsible for what Jim and his idiots did?

[TomL]

It would appear, then, that in my child-hostage situation, that I am to be held morally responsible for the fact that one of my children are to die by my "choice".  I don't accept this.

Sorry but I don't see the analogy. You're throwing out the definition of "nation", where it comes from, who gives it its authority. To be a fair comparison, you would first have had to give the hostage-taker his weapons, the locations of your children, and a map of you house to enable him to take them hostage. In that instance, how are you not responsible?

Another example.  Do you think Dagny felt morally guilty when Wyatt was in her office unloading the immorality of Taggert Transcontinental's position?  She accepted the consequences by remaining silent and not saying she was actually on his side, but do you think she felt responsible for what Jim and his idiots did?

I admit to not remembering that passage, but it seems at least possible. If Ayn Rand did not write that she did not feel partially responsible, then she may have. She may have felt she should have done more herself to prevent it. Even if not, I don't see how this is relevant, either. Taggert Transcontinental was not a nation.

[Inspector]

But Inspector, do you feel that, even though you actively oppose this government, that you are guilty for the immorality it engages in?

Hard to answer that the way that you have phrased it. Do I acknowledge my responsibility? Yes. Do I think that, having actively opposed this government, that I hold a net guilt? Are you asking that? Are you asking if I lose sleep at night? I don't: I intend to be a part of what changes the system.

Ah, but remember the context of the comment which started this: A person who, in an evil regime, chooses to do nothing at all. What of that person? It has been correctly said that such a man faces a "death by the state" or a "death by the state's enemies." Yes, this is quite an awful choice. This is the tragedy of the totalitarian state. But it would not be proper for a righteous nation to somehow blame itself for this choice and to sacrifice itself to try and remove it.

When faced with such a choice, would not a rational person choose to die opposing the state that is responsible, rather than doing nothing? Or, since death is inevitable upon remaining, what is the big deal in risking death to escape? If someone instead tries impossibly to remain alive WITHOUT escaping, why does the USA have to sacrifice its soldiers to accomodate this impossible wish?

The truth is that the majority of people in such regimes DO support the state. It is impossible for a minority to rule over a majority in the long run. And that minority must realize that they need to get the hell out of harm's way. If they FAIL to realize this, it's not our problem!

[Inspector]

Do you think Dagny felt morally guilty when Wyatt was in her office unloading the immorality of Taggert Transcontinental's position?  She accepted the consequences by remaining silent and not saying she was actually on his side, but do you think she felt responsible for what Jim and his idiots did?

Isn't that the whole point of Dagny's character? That she was so attached to her railroad that she would support her destroyers to keep it? And that this is a lesson she learned?

[AisA]

No, there isn't.  Consequences to your life which you accept are your responsibility. 

But I don’t accept those consequences. It is simply not in my power to escape them. That does not make them my moral responsibility.

I see no way that a rational morality can require one to die or become a parasite to remain moral.

[TomL]

I guess then you don't have reason to feel pride. Since you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation, you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation -- which result in your freedom to generate prosperity and happiness. How miserable for you.

If you claim such happiness but disclaim the responsibility that goes with it in making it possible, then you are a leech, living off the backs of those who carry the burden for you.

[HaloNoble6]

Sorry but I don't see the analogy.  You're throwing out the definition of "nation", where it comes from, who gives it its authority.

The analogy holds, but not in the way it seems like you're applying it. The hostage-takers aren't a single nation, they represent the earth, and the choice between which kid lives represents the choice between which nation I choose to live in. So, existing on this planet as it is, I have a choice between an array of gun holding governments, and regardless of which government I "choose" to live in, there will be some immoral consequence of this "choice." So, what I mean is, the choice between which kid lives represents the choice between which gun-pointing government to live in. The question still remains: am I going to be held morally responsible for the consequences of this "choice?"

[HaloNoble6]

Isn't that the whole point of Dagny's character? That she was so attached to her railroad that she would support her destroyers to keep it? And that this is a lesson she learned?

That's a different point, one I wasn't trying to make. We aren't anywhere near where the government was during Dagny's time (suspension of patents, no rule of law, etc.). The point I was trying to make, within the context of TT, was that while she accepted responsibility for amending Jim's idiocy, she did not ever feel guilty for what he did.

[HaloNoble6]

Hard to answer that the way that you have phrased it. Do I acknowledge my responsibility? Yes. Do I think that, having actively opposed this government, that I hold a net guilt? Are you asking that? Are you asking if I lose sleep at night? I don't: I intend to be a part of what changes the system.

And this is all that matters: you acknowledge and accept the consequences, but you don't feel moral guilt for the immoral acts of this nation, because you actively oppose it and intend to change things.

[AisA]

I guess then you don't have reason to feel pride. 

I am proud of my own achievements -- I cannot claim pride based on the achievements of others.

Since you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation, you aren't responsible for the actions of the nation -- which result in your freedom to generate prosperity and happiness.  How miserable for you.

I don't need to claim credit for the achievements of others to achieve happiness.

It is pure collectivism to attribute all of a group's actions -- good, bad, wonderful and despicable -- to all of the members of the group equally -- treating genius and moron, honest and dishonest, energetic and slothful, freedom-lovers and enslavers as equally deserving of praise or damnation, as equally entitled to pride or humiliation.

Howard Roark is not morally responsible for the great depression caused by the policies of Ellseworth Toohey.

If you claim such happiness but disclaim the responsibility that goes with it in making it possible, then you are a leech, living off the backs of those who carry the burden for you.

You are confused. Being a leach is precisely what you say I must do to avoid moral guilt for the government's improper actions.

Your premise is that any participation in the system instantly attaches a moral responsibility for all the actions of the system. You have not proven this. You cannot make it true just by asserting it, no matter how many insults you use it to justify.

The fact remains that your version of morality requires me to die or become a parasite to remain moral. I do not know why, under those conditions, anyone would care a whit about morality.

[TomL]

Making the best choice available to you does not obliterate the fact that the choice made contains evil as a component. Rationalize all you like for yourself, I shall care not. But when you spread this disease to others, it has a future impact on me and I will oppose you every way I can.

[HaloNoble6]

And what say you about morality when every choice involves evil? Suicide?

[Inspector]

And what say you about morality when every choice involves evil?  Suicide?

How would shrugging or moving to the caimen islands involve evil?

[HaloNoble6]

The Caimen Islands are tax-free? There is a Galt's Gulch somewhere? Anyway, indeed you are recommending suicide, because that is what living isolated by one's self, "living off of the land," would be. Do you see that you are holding suicide as your moral ideal?

[TomL]

The hostage-takers aren't a single nation, they represent the earth, and the choice between which kid lives represents the choice between which nation I choose to live in.  So, existing on this planet as it is, I have a choice between an array of gun holding governments, and regardless of which government I "choose" to live in, there will be some immoral consequence of this "choice."  So, what I mean is, the choice between which kid lives represents the choice between which gun-pointing government to live in.  The question still remains: am I going to be held morally responsible for the consequences of this "choice?"

This is both Nowism and MUPish. By "the earth" you mean both "the universe", and "the universe as it exists now".

What should be in place of "the earth" is "the governments currently existent in the world, which are man-made and can be changed". They are not metaphysically given, so you cannot treat them as such. The world isn't evil as matter of its existence. Just because the morally perfect option doesn't exist now doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the universe, as a possibility. You can choose it, you can work to bring it into existence.

If you are morally perfect for living in the U.S. and devoid of any guilt, why would you need to work to improve the government? What possible incentive could you have? You are already morally perfect, there is no need for further effort. No further gain can come to you by doing it.

[TomL]

And what say you about morality when every choice involves evil?  Suicide?

I say: Make the best available choice possible, and work to bring the perfect choice into existence. Refusing to accept any of the available choices can only be implemented in reality by one method: the suicide you inquire about.

If a man must commit suicide for even a tiny slice of evil, we should have all killed ourselves long ago. Again, good & evil are not binary light switches. I've done some evil things in my life, but overall I'm much better person than most of the population, and I'm working on the rest.

If I were morally perfect, I sure wouldn't be here talking to you people.

[HaloNoble6]

When did I ever say that the man-made is the metaphysically given?

The state of governments as it exists now, is what I meant. I'm arguing against the notion that one is evil for having to, at present, choose between governments that are holding guns to you. Sure this condition can and should be changed. And yes, if you do indeed act toward changing this, than you can live guilt free.

I'm sorry, but I have to feel guilty for a culture's immorality in order to strive to move the culture? Whether or not I have guilt is somehow a function of the culture I live in? And where in the Objectivist ethics does this come from?

[TomL]

How would shrugging or moving to the caimen islands involve evil?

Moving to the Caimen Islands would involve giving up a life of technological luxury, prosperity, and worldly happiness in exchange for something you can work to fix anyway without giving that all up. The U.S. is not a lost cause.

[HaloNoble6]

If a man must commit suicide for even a tiny slice of evil, we should have all killed ourselves long ago.  Again, good & evil are not binary light switches.  I've done some evil things in my life, but overall I'm much better person than most of the population, and I'm working on the rest.

But we're back to square one, how does morality continue to be applicable if the "choices" we have are between suicide and guns?