Do people have the right to be immoral?

[NewYorkRoark]

Assuming that right and wrong exist...

Which individual is most morally corrupt:

(For the sake of argument, we will say that taking a bribe is an immoral act - which I believe it is)

1. An individual taking a bribe.

2. An individual telling another individual that it's not alright to take a bribe (so to prevent it from occuring).

Edited December 12, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[DavidOdden]

How is there any moral corruptness whatsoever associated with making a correct moral judgment? (The answer is so obviously #1 that I don't understand what you are asking).

[NewYorkRoark]

How is there any moral corruptness whatsoever associated with making a correct moral judgment? (The answer is so obviously #1 that I don't understand what you are asking).

For the sake of clarity (see the fairly significant change to 2.):

1. An individual taking a bribe (We'll call this individual #1).

2. A friend steps in and somehow prevents #1 from taking the bribe (We'll call this individual #2).

Isn't it the individual right of #1 to do as he/she pleases? If the bribe doesn't affect #2, why should he/she become involved in the affairs of #1? #1 hasn't initiated force against #2 and isn't #2 initiating force against #1? The question, then, is physically initiating force against #1 (even if it's in the best interest of #1 - let's say that #2 knew he/she would be caught if #1 took the bribe) as (or more) morally corrupt as the actual act of taking the bribe?

[softwareNerd]

In your example: A crime is going to be committed. It does not affect you, but you have the ability to prevent it. (I assume there is no risk in trying to prevent the crime -- perhaps all you're doing is calling 911.)

Given that situation, are you asking: is it immoral to prevent the crime?

Well, what's your answer? And why?

Edited December 12, 2005 by softwareNerd

[NewYorkRoark]

I am asking that question. And also: is it as immoral? or more? or less? or are there different levels of moral corruption in Objectivism or is it either absolutely morrally corrupt or absolutely morally pure? As I am asking the question of Objectivists, I would prefer an answer first to my question, consider the response and then answer the question myself (if you wish - but I am not inclined to answer if I'm satisfied with the Objectivist response).

[Capitalism Forever]

It is important to distinguish between an action being rightful (meaning that you are acting within your rights) and moral (meaning that you are acting in accordance with ethical principles), and also between their respective opposites. Respecting the rights of other individuals is one out of many ethical principles.

The fact an action prevents a crime does most certainly not make that action immoral, nor does it make it unrightful. Moreover, if you are not causing (willfully or by negligence) greater harm to innocent individuals than the crime would have caused, then you are within your rights--the action is rightful. If the action is also consonant with every other ethical principle, then it is moral as well.

[Inspector]

I'm confused:

First you asking the question of the moral status of someone telling a friend not to take a bribe.

Then you say you are talking about someone calling the cops on "someone" to prevent their taking a bribe. You don't mention in this example whether they are a friend or not.

Are these two different questions? Did you mis-type the question the first time?

Reporting an illegal action to the police is certainly a rightful action. Why would you think that it was immoral? Why would it be immoral to prevent a crime?

[NewYorkRoark]

I'm confused:

First you asking the question of the moral status of someone telling a friend not to take a bribe.

Then you say you are talking about someone calling the cops on "someone" to prevent their taking a bribe. You don't mention in this example whether they are a friend or not.

Are these two different questions? Did you mis-type the question the first time?

Reporting an illegal action to the police is certainly a rightful action. Why would you think that it was immoral? Why would it be immoral to prevent a crime?

Ignore the first post. The second post was a clarification and an addition - a more concrete example of physical initiation (for better) upon another individual. I apologize for being unclear. However, I didn't have calling the cops in mind, nor did I say that. The bribe can be prevented a number of ways. Perhaps the friend locked him in the bathroom or what have you.

I guess another example of what I'm thinking is this:

Should I have the right to go as fast as I'd like on the highway? Is it immoral for me to go as fast as I'd like? Is it immoral to interfere with my speed, regardless of whether or not it's irrational? Is it unrightful to interfere? Is it only moral then, to interfere with my speed once I physically initiate force upon another individual (hit another individual's car)? What if instead of producing cars that were capable of speeds of 150mph, automobile manufacturers were only allowed to produce cars that were capable of speeds of 80mph? Would that be unrightful? Would that have moral worth?

It seems that the Objectivist response would say, "The government shouldn't regulate how fast cars can go. I can drive as fast as I'd like - so long as I don't physically harm anyone else. It is morally corrupt to punish the innocent." However, I'd like to think that there's some kind of moral gradient. I would say, "In a perfect world, the government wouldn't regulate how fast I can go, but in a perfect world, other individuals wouldn't risk my life for their desire to drive a speeding vehicle. I will sacrifice my innocence in this scenario, because it's not THAT much of a big deal. It's not THAT devastating to my individual rights. It's a small sacrifice that I'm willing to make for the general benefit of the public, and therefore, myself."

The fact an action prevents a crime does most certainly not make that action immoral, nor does it make it unrightful. Moreover, if you are not causing (willfully or by negligence) greater harm to innocent individuals than the crime would have caused, then you are within your rights--the action is rightful. If the action is also consonant with every other ethical principle, then it is moral as well.

This sounds rather Utilitarian (I presume it's not)... might you care to elaborate?

Edited December 12, 2005 by NewYorkRoark

[softwareNerd]

NewYorkRoark, This latest post seems to raise a third question. Not sure which one you want to focus on.

I am asking that question. ... . I am asking the question of Objectivists,...

I asked for your answer, because I assumed that you were someone trying the learn Objectivism. I thought it would be helpful to see where you have reached in your answer.

Your name would indicate that you've read the Fountainhead. Have you read any other Objectivist material? Not to put you on the spot or anything, just trying to understand what the best starting point would be.

As for your questions:

Preventing a crime is in one's interests (assuming we're speaking of a decent legal system). Now, if one were to be faced with a situation where one would endanger oneself in an attempt to prevent a crime, one has to weigh that danger. Also, if one does not really know that a crime is going to be committed, but only suspects it, that's different. However, if there is no such consideration, it would be immoral to simply stand aside and let a crime be committed. It is not practical to let criminals run free until the instant that they target you: that would be too late.

People were confused because you were asking: would it be immoral to prevent a crime! Where could you have got that idea from? (Hence my question above about your exposure to Objectivism).

Perhaps you're thinking that using force to stop a criminal would be immoral in Objectivism? If so, that's a mistaken idea.

[Capitalism Forever]

Should I have the right to go as fast as I'd like on the highway?

"Should" and "have the right" don't mix. You either have the right to do something, or you don't; it's a fact; there is nothing anyone can do to change it, so it does not make sense to ask whether you should have it. It's like asking, "Should the Sun come up in the East, or the West?"

Under full capitalism, all roads would be privately owned. The owner of each road has the right to set a speed limit (either himself or through an agent); if you exceed the speed limit, you are not within your rights, and the owner (or an agent of his) can rightfully stop you by force.

Is it immoral for me to go as fast as I'd like?

That depends on why you "like" the speed you like. If it is a rational choice (which will, among many other factors, take into account the speed limit set by the road's rightful owner), then it's moral. If it's a whim, it is not.

Now, the above assumes that the road has a rightful owner, which most roads today don't. The government has no right to extract money from you by force, use it to build most roads in the country, and dictate the speed you must drive at on those roads. You are not violating any rightful owner's rights by exceeding the speed limit set by the government.

However, if you endanger the lives of other drivers, you are violating their rights by doing that. And if you endanger your own life, you are acting self-destructively.

So, a rational and therefore moral choice of driving speed on a government road will take into account your own safety and the safety of others; the likelihood and severity of a punishment for exceeding the government limit; other relevant factors such as how much you are in a hurry etc.--but will not take into account the government limit other than with regard to the possible punishment.

What if instead of producing cars that were capable of speeds of 150mph, automobile manufacturers were only allowed to produce cars that were capable of speeds of 80mph? Would that be unrightful?

If by "allowed" you mean that the government would use force against them if they didn't comply, then it absolutely would be unrightful.

This sounds rather Utilitarian (I presume it's not)... might you care to elaborate?

The idea is that it is in your right to prevent or mitigate the consequences of a crime, but not in your right to add to them.

[Inspector]

I didn't have calling the cops in mind, nor did I say that.

My apologies. I actually read that in SoftwareNerd's post and mistook it for yours.

I guess another example of what I'm thinking is this:

Oy Vey! If you were looking to throw the issue into confusion, then you sure picked a good way to do it! The "speeding" thing is a bad example because it brings up a whole host of other issues that are unrelated to the point of your question. Capitalism Forever's answer illustrates this.

Why don't you focus on a clearly immoral and unrightful action instead: such as a mugger?

[DavidOdden]

2. A friend steps in and somehow prevents #1 from taking the bribe (We'll call this individual #2).

Okay, now you have to say how. For example, persuasion is good; violence is bad. BTW, I'm accepting your fiat about bribery being immoral for the sake of argument, but it is not necessarily immoral. I've had to bribe government employees four times (this always involves immigration officials in 4th world countries) and given the alternatives, bribery was the better option. I'll continue to play along with the "bribery is bad" assumption as long as you assume a particular context: a person bribing a government official in order to not perform a proper government function.

Isn't it the individual right of #1 to do as he/she pleases? If the bribe doesn't affect #2, why should he/she become involved in the affairs of #1?

To be concrete, let's suppose that the briber is paying an official to destroy damning evidence in the hands of the police that proves that he committed a crime. No, he does not have a right to destroy that evidence, or to hire or induce another person to destroy that evidence. More generally, you do not have the right to clandestinely subvert the government in the execution of its proper function.

#1 hasn't initiated force against #2 and isn't #2 initiating force against #1?

An analysis in terms of force isn't entirely relevant, unless you redefine "force" in some manner. Let's take perjury as an example: if you lie under oath, you have not "initiated force" except if you redefine force; but the government should have the power to punish a person who lies under oath. For the same reason, the government should have the power to punish people who attempt to corrupt the proper functioning of the government. Person #2 might be initiation force, by shooting or restraining a person who they believe will offer a bribe, and that would certainly be bad. If they turn the briber in to the police or publish the relevant evidence in the newspaper, it is not an initiation of force.

If we're comparing the case of a briber who has offered and given money to the evidence custodian to hand over the damning murder weapon (but he has not collected the evidence), and a second party shooting the briber to prevent him from picking up the weapon (assuming that he could also turn him in to the police), then it would be hard for me to clearly assign one party a more serious negative moral evaluation. It is comparable to asking "Which person is more morally evil: the one who murders 20 men or the one who murders 30 men" -- the answer is "Both".

[Inspector]

Person #2 might be initiation force, by shooting or restraining a person who they believe will offer a bribe, and that would certainly be bad.

This would not, I think, necessarily be an initiation of force. He could simply be performing a citizen's arrest, if he did it in the right way.

But how about we focus instead on an example of a clearly immoral and unrightful action, such as mugging, instead of an ambiguous action, such as a bribe?

[Hal]

Theres no reason why bribery is contextlessly immoral. If I lived in soviet russia I would have had no qualms about bribing an official if it helped me to leave the state. Similarly in our mixed economy, corporations cant really be faulted for bribing government officials to prevent them from passing regulations that would hurt them. Its the system that is to blame, not the people trying to survive.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Hal

[JMeganSnow]

Isn't that usually called "paying protection money" or "extortion money" rather than a "bribe?"

Assuming that right and wrong exist...

And, for the sake of argument, let's assume that purple toads practice voodoo at the center of the earth. How about you clarify whether such a thing as right or wrong can exist before you worry about specific applications?

Edited December 12, 2005 by JMeganSnow

[DavidOdden]

This would not, I think, necessarily be an initiation of force. He could simply be performing a citizen's arrest, if he did it in the right way.

Perhaps, but given the nature of the proposed act, it's hard to see how a "citizen's arrest" would apply. The question I have is whether and when a "citizen's arrest" should be allowed. If you grant the government the exclusive right to the use of force except in emergency contexts where you have to use force youself right now (the "there's no cop" context), the citizen's arrest is one statement of when such exceptional use of force is sanctioned. That kind of emergency power is applicable to the mugger, and could be applicable to the evidence guy who is about to destroy the evidence, but I just don't see what facts could necessitate a person taking the law into their own hands to prevent a person from offering a bribe.

But how about we focus instead on an example of a clearly immoral and unrightful action, such as mugging, instead of an ambiguous action, such as a bribe?

I don't understand what the purpose of the question was anyhow, for example was it essential that the two acts have a relationship between each other? I don't see that there's any significant difference in immorality between killing 20 and killing 30 people, so I can't see how you could conclude that one person is less immoral than the other. Perhaps I don't have a fine-grained enough scale.

Okay, here's an alternative proposal. Smith threatens to kill 10 people; Jones has it within his power to stop Smith in one of two ways. The first involves pulling the switch next to him, which shuts off the power but which will also kill 9 (10, or 11) different people. The second involves throwing a level across the room, which drops Smith through a trap door, harming no innocents (and at no risk to Jones). There are no issues of not knowing. Of course the option to let Jones get away with his act is there, but Jones feels that Smith must be stopped. It would be immoral for Jones to pull the power switch; so who is being more immoral and does it matter how many people are being killed? I don't see that it does.

[The Guru Kid]

Now, the above assumes that the road has a rightful owner, which most roads today don't. The government has no right to extract money from you by force, use it to build most roads in the country, and dictate the speed you must drive at on those roads. You are not violating any rightful owner's rights by exceeding the speed limit set by the government.

However, if you endanger the lives of other drivers, you are violating their rights by doing that. And if you endanger your own life, you are acting self-destructively.

So it's immoral to endanger others' lives?

So if i have guns in my house and there's a possibility that a thief will steal them and use them against someone, i'm endangering their lives and i shouldn't have guns?

If i'm an airplane pilot, i'm being immoral because i'm endangering people's lives because something might go wrong just as it would if i was speeding when i'm late for work.

Or an even more related example, there's always a chance of an accident even at low speeds. Does that mean i should stop driving altogether?

[DavidOdden]

So it's immoral to endanger others' lives?

Yes.

So if i have guns in my house and there's a possibility that a thief will steal them and use them against someone, i'm endangering their lives...

No.

You do understand the principle involved here, right?

[The Guru Kid]

Yes.No.

You do understand the principle involved here, right?

yes i understand how speeding in itself is wrong because it endangers your life and compared to your boss being angry at you for being late, driving safe is a better bet.

What i don't understand is the generalization that any activity that involves the potential loss of other human lives is immoral. I think my pilot example explains what my query on the matter is.

Or to give a real example:Backyard Cyclotron

p.s. I might be going off on a tangent here so if a moderator wishes, i could create a new thread.

Edited December 13, 2005 by The Guru Kid

[RationalBiker]

I think my pilot example explains what my query on the matter is.

The pilot example is not even analogous. The pilot (who has lengthy and consistent training and experience with considerable emphasis on safety) is providing a service to people, which they pay for and agree to, and in so doing accept the risk that comes with placing one's transportation in the hands of another. On the road, other drivers vary in their levels of training and experience, do not have explicit agreements with other drivers agreeing to provide as safe a service as they can, and many have little to no regard for safety. I would suggest these differences, among a multitude of others, bare out why air travel is statistically safer than automotive travel.

Folks haven't been talking about any possible slightest potential for risk to others, but rather demonstrable activity which reasonable creates a more direct higher probability of risk to others.

[The Guru Kid]

I understand the situation a little better now.

But i still think that changing your course of actions based upon the probability of danger to others--others being strangers who are of no value (except for potential value) to me--is immoral or at the very least amoral.

And if you are going with probability, at what probability should you change your actions: 20%?, 50%?

For example, say you were driving in a heavy duty truck or an SUV and you have enough safety devices to assure that in case of an accident you and your car would remain perfectly fine (obviously this is hypothetical and as you can see, i'm trying to remove all the potential risk to yourself involved in the process). Now say you were running late for a really important business meeting and you could lose millions if you didn't reach there on time.

Wouldn't it be moral for the person to go on the highway at 100 mph? Of course he's not trying to crash and he'll avoid other cars as much as possible.

[realitycheck44]

It seems that the Objectivist response would say, "The government shouldn't regulate how fast cars can go. I can drive as fast as I'd like - so long as I don't physically harm anyone else. It is morally corrupt to punish the innocent." However, I'd like to think that there's some kind of moral gradient. I would say, "In a perfect world, the government wouldn't regulate how fast I can go, but in a perfect world, other individuals wouldn't risk my life for their desire to drive a speeding vehicle. I will sacrifice my innocence in this scenario, because it's not THAT much of a big deal. It's not THAT devastating to my individual rights. It's a small sacrifice that I'm willing to make for the general benefit of the public, and therefore, myself."

This sounds rather Utilitarian (I presume it's not)... might you care to elaborate?

In a perfect world, roads would be privatized and thus the owner of the road would determine what speed is safe for travel. (Though I myself have some questions about this, but it deserves another thread. So don't bring up examples in an attempt to refute it here please. )

Zak

[RationalBiker]

But i still think that changing your course of actions based upon the probability of danger to others--others being strangers who are of no value (except for potential value) to me--is immoral or at the very least amoral.

Not hardly. I don't think you are considering your self-interests as a man who has to live in a social context. What you are essentially saying is, you can be negligent with respect to other people's right to life as long as they represents no specific value to you, and you are not posing a danger to yourself. The part of your self-interest that you are neglecting is the impact that such an attitude would have on you if all the other drivers out there drove with the same mentality and there were no "rules of the road".

Consider the environment in which you drive if virtually all the other drivers on the road had the same lack of regard for you as you do for them, no value, and there are no constraints to regulate traffic flow. Is this the environment you want to support? Do you have a value in not having someone careen into your car at 125 MPH because they don't want to be late for work? Is it not in your self-interest to have laws that regulate driving to some reasonable degree so that the millions of other people on the roads don't play bumper car with you all the time?

And if you are going with probability, at what probability should you change your actions: 20%?, 50%?

It's not probability in numbers so much as it should be an objective review of the geographical location in question. How much vehicular traffic is there? How many pedestrians? What are the road conditions? What's the visibility like? etc. etc. That's why it's reasonable to have different speed limits and different traffic control measures depending on the specific area.

For example...

While others might, I don't generally answer hypotheticals that are removed from reality. Your hypothetical does not reflect reality, so I don't see a benefit in considering it for guiding my behavior. Aside from that, I think you are again ignoring your interests as a man who has to live in a social context. I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to your driving skills, because I have some experience and knowledge of what happens to people who are "good drivers" driving down the highway at 100 MPH. Crashed and burned.... Let me tell, human beings smell horrible when they are on fire. $1,000,000 doesn't help severed heads. All roads can't realistically be the Autobahn.

[Capitalism Forever]

So it's immoral to endanger others' lives?

So if i have guns in my house and there's a possibility that a thief will steal them and use them against someone, i'm endangering their lives and i shouldn't have guns?

You are responsible for your actions. The thief is responsible for his actions.

If i'm an airplane pilot, i'm being immoral because i'm endangering people's lives because something might go wrong just as it would if i was speeding when i'm late for work.

It is immoral for a pilot to intentionally expose his passengers to more risk than flight conditions make necessary--which is the amount of risk they implicitly agree to take when purchasing an air ticket.

Or an even more related example, there's always a chance of an accident even at low speeds. Does that mean i should stop driving altogether?

Umm ... if your driving skills are such that there is literally always a chance of an accident while you drive--then yes, perhaps you should!

[The Guru Kid]

I think the whole altruism vs. benevolence thing got to me.

So as i understand it, a rational man would respect others' lives and their right to live but don't have the responsibility to make sure that they maintain it (which is what an altruist might say).