Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Not Reporting A Crime

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Just to be clear, what you're saying is that you didn't intend to make a claim about responsibility, you intended that statement to be about blame. Is that correct? It's an important distinction to make -- blame is not the same as responsibility -- yet they are often treated the same, to the point that it's easy to make mistakes.

Yes, the distinction is important, and I should have been more exact in my wording.

The one part of your argument that it does address is the point in post #45 is where you asserted, without any evidence to back it up, "Killing the baby is what Ayn Rand would do".
The evidence has been submitted -- and more than once: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." (Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum 1976)

Perhaps you meant "I bet that Ayn Rand would have killed the baby", though that doesn't square to well with her statement "I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger".

Which doesn't square with her Ford Hall Forum 1976 statement above.

Rand is conventionally taken to be the authoritative source on Objectivism.
Then I'll rely on the 1976 Ayn Rand as my authoritative source.

The duration of the event is irrelevant: it is the immediacy of the situation. In war, there are constant immediate threats -- attacks.

If immediacy is the criterion, then what could be of more immediate concern to a society than to move killers off the streets? If one witness stands between keeping a serial murderer in jail or releasing him to prey on more victims, then a subpoena could be as valuable as a bullet aimed at the heart of a holdup man.

Unless you are contending that the concept of "emergency" is invalid and therefore all ethics should be based on emergencies, I don't see the point in further pursuing questions about the ethics of emergencies, at least in this thread, which is about something entirely different.

If I wished to argue that all ethics should be based on emergencies (which I don't), I certainly wouldn't contend that the concept of "emergency" is invalid. And, by the way, I'm not the one who introduced emergencies into this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But if you can't even morally obligate someone to help out in such a situation (which is my understanding from the Objectivist ethics), then how do you justify making it legally obligatory? This just seems like a way to enforce altruistic behaviour. You are under no moral obligation to report what you see happening to a third party, and it is very strange to give the government the power to force you to do so in this case.

Defensive force does not require any altruism on the part of unwilling witnesses or bystanders. In Dr. Ghate's hypothetical case, when the person in jeopardy shoots through the baby to kill the holdup man, the shooter is not demanding any altruism from the unlucky baby; the shooter is simply defending himself in the only way that the aggressor has allowed. In the case of a subpoenaed witness, the force comes ultimately from the criminal's acts against others. If the only way to get to the criminal is through the witness, then the subpoena power is legitimate. Furthermore, if testimony is compelled, then it cannot be considered an act of altruism, because it is not chosen.

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they are two different contexts. One is an emergency situation in defense of one's own life where an immediate action is required to sustain that life versus non-emergency situation compelling a third person (not the victim or the suspect) to act by means of coercion. The policeman has CHOSEN to act as an intermediary of your rights by virtue of his job. He is compensated for his free choice to act. The witness HAS NOT freely chosen to act on your behalf, and in the current court situations IS NOT compensated for their time or actions. These situations are not comparable.

1. I would argue that the removal of a violent predator from society requires immediate action. How many more rapes and deaths must we endure? It is true that the witness has not chosen her role as the bearer of testimony against the predator. But for that matter the infant in Dr. Ghate's scenario did not choose his role as an avenue for the passage of the bullet into the holdup man's heart.

You proclaimed that you were an Objectivist earlier in the thread, and you claimed that as such you MUST follow what Objectivism says. Yet in this situation, you want to ignore a fundamental aspect of man's rights according to Objectivism. My rights impose NO obligations on my neighbor, nor his rights on me except in the negative, not to act to violate his rights.
2. If the only option one has for self preservation is to puncture an infant with a bullet aimed at the heart of a holdup man, then one is morally entitled to do so. The same holds for testimony that stands between jailing a killer and setting him free. It is an issue of self-defense.

However, you are asserting that if SOMEONE ELSE is going to violate or is violating another person's rights, I must act in a POSITIVE manner and do something about it, despite what Objectivism says about rights. Compelling testimony or making a phone call is a POSITIVE act of obligation you are coercing on one person based on the violated rights of another person. As long as I don't violate a person's rights, their rights have no hold or obligation over me to act in a positive manner, such as compelling me to make a phone call, testify in court, etc.

See points 1 and 2 above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the crime could be solved without using the witness that would be infinitely preferable, though. This may not always be the case, but as technology advances we might very well advance to the point where they can use other methods of proving that someone did it.

Your position sounds reasonable, if you properly define when they can use this, and when they cannot (to prevent abuse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that the witness has not chosen her role as the bearer of testimony against the predator.

Yes, if he/she is having to be compelled by force of law to testify, that would indicate he/she hasn't chosen.

I have demonstrated why your infant shooting analogy is not applicable. I'm not going to keep going over it again and again.

Suffice to say, you think that someone else's rights can impose a positive obligation on another person, despite what Objectivism has to say on man's rights. In that sense, your position differs from the Objectivist philosophy regarding man's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have demonstrated why your infant shooting analogy is not applicable. I'm not going to keep going over it again and again.

I have shown that the situations are practically identical in the fundamental issues involved.

Suffice to say, you think that someone else's rights can impose a positive obligation on another person, despite what Objectivism has to say on man's rights. In that sense, your position differs from the Objectivist philosophy regarding man's rights.

My position is consistent with what Ayn Rand has written: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have shown that the situations are practically identical in the fundamental issues involved.

You haven't shown that, but I'm not going to belabor the point any further.

My position is consistent with what Ayn Rand has written: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

That statement is addressing what YOU have to put up with, not with what you neighbor has to put up with on your behalf. Your position is inconsistent with the Objectivist position on man's rights. I've already quoted it twice so I'm sure quoting it again would be fruitless. You keep extrapolating what applies to one self to how it imposes an obligation on behalf of others. The quote I provided, which is a fundamental statement by Ayn Rand regarding man's rights, clearly refutes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to sum up your position, you think it's always wrong for the government to coerce someone to testify?

I think "always" is not the appropriate word because it takes my position and makes it acontextual. For instance, if a person has agreed to testify, and later decides not to or recants their testimony, or presents false testimony instead, then some legal sanction could be justified. This would essentially be similar to a "contract" to provide assistance. Agreeing to testify sets many people in motion working to bring the case to court.

The argument I would make from an Objectivist's point of view, as I understand it, would be that in many cases it would be morally repugnant not to testify or make that call if one was in a position to do so without endangering themselves, or incurring some noticeable loss to themselves. The morality of the issue and the legality of the issue are different things. I think an argument could be made that in many instances it would in fact be in their rational self-interest to make the phone call, to provide assistance, or to testify. However, this does not provide a sound basis for incurring government use of force to violate that witness' rights.

If you start from the position that we need to coerce people to cooperate with the government because "It would be very bad to let criminals go free in these situations", then I can think of many other situations where we can dispose of man's rights in order to make the streets safer. The problem is, making the streets safer is not synonomous with protecting man's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument I would make from an Objectivist's point of view, as I understand it, would be that in many cases it would be morally repugnant not to testify or make that call if one was in a position to do so without endangering themselves, or incurring some noticeable loss to themselves. The morality of the issue and the legality of the issue are different things. I think an argument could be made that in many instances it would in fact be in their rational self-interest to make the phone call, to provide assistance, or to testify. However, this does not provide a sound basis for incurring government use of force to violate that witness' rights.
Now that you've brought us back on track, I would like to concentrate on the issue of whether there is a sound basis for compelling testimony. As I have stated previously, I don't have a clearly formed view on this matter, so in order to reach clarity I intend to take a position that goes against the grain of what I feel is right (as a way of discovering what is right).

First, it would be a mistake to restrict this question to "testimony" in a narrow sense. Besides just providing testimony as to events, the courts can also force a person to provide physical objects under the person's control, e.g. account ledgers, videotapes, blood, fingerprints and anything else that you can subpoena. I emphasize that the question is not whether the courts do assert a right to require certain kinds of cooperation with the judicial process, but rather whether they should have that power. My amateur guess is that if the courts did not have the power to subpoena anything, then vast numbers of rights-violations could not be successfully prosecuted. A thief could, for example, successfully defend himself against charges of theft by simply refusing to allow police to violate his property rights to look for the stolen diamond. A swindler could get away with his fraud by simply refusing to allow his cooked books to be taken and used as evidence. OJ could get away with murder by simply refusing to produce the bloody glove (he could get away with murder in other ways as well, of course). I would say that if the government cannot compel producing evidence in such cases, then the law will have been significantly emasculated, to the point that the courts cannot fulfill their function.

You might object that there is a difference between compelling a rights-violating criminal to cough up evidence material to the meteing out of justice, versus compelling an innocent person to provide information in court, but from the legal point of view, there is no difference, because all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

Worse yet, if the government is only allowed to abrogate the rights of those who are proven guilty, then an accused thief may avoid justice simply by asserting his right to go about his business without any interference by the government -- perhaps the courts can conduct a trial in absentia, and hope that the accused has voluntarily posted his picture on the web so that witnesses can see who he theoretically is, and can say "That is the man I saw commit the murder", and perhaps a jury can be persuaded that the web-cam picture is a picture of the accused.

Well, I presume you see how ridiculous that would be. Now the question is, when may a rights-respecting government force people to do, in the pursuit of justice? Why would it ever be proper for the courts to require anything of a person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this a little bit like those arguments other people make that in an Objectivist society all poor people would die because no one would help them? Why do we assume that, when it is in everyone's actual interest to do so, individuals would consequently refuse to help? They are hurting their own situation immensely.

The only difference being that in that situation there aren't any rights being violated, but I am not sure if sketching doom scenarios makes a valid point here.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't shown that, but I'm not going to belabor the point any further.

Feel free to move on, but I have in fact shown that one may respond to an aggressor in self-defense even if the response means "hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

That statement is addressing what YOU have to put up with, not with what you neighbor has to put up with on your behalf.
I agree that my neighbor does not have to put up with aggression. If a thug kidnaps her, she should overpower him and kill him. But if she is not able to do so, and the thug uses her as a shield to come after me, then I have the right to shoot through her to kill the aggressor. Similarly, it is a legitimate right of self-defense to act upon a witness who is shielding a criminal by not speaking.

Your position is inconsistent with the Objectivist position on man's rights.

It is consistent with Ayn Rand's position that "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138

I've already quoted it twice so I'm sure quoting it again would be fruitless. You keep extrapolating what applies to one self to how it imposes an obligation on behalf of others. The quote I provided, which is a fundamental statement by Ayn Rand regarding man's rights, clearly refutes that.

Then obviously you disagree with Ayn Rand's position that one may may act in self-defense even if such action unavoidably hurts innocent parties,

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then obviously you disagree with Ayn Rand's position that one may may act in self-defense even if such action unavoidably hurts innocent parties,

No, what I obviously disagree with is that you have successfully drawn an analogy between those two different contexts. You have not, so my disagreement is with you, not Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we assume that, when it is in everyone's actual interest to do so, individuals would consequently refuse to help?
We aren't assuming that. What you say is true: sensible people pick up their phones and report assaults, robberies and accidents. With so many cell-phones, the 911 operators often get multiple calls about the same incident. So, you're right that this is not an important problem to which we need a solution any time soon. Even if we came to a conclusion, it would be in the context of a Capitalist system and might not be applicable to any existing nation. So, the conclusion itself is of little direct relevance today.

However, the method and reasoning and principles that underlie the conclusion are important. The most important of all is the method: because it is the most widely applicable to other contexts. Learning something about the method, and refining it, can help even if one finds oneself unable to decide on a particular conclusion in this one case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then I think it is not a valid assumption to make that if we do not compel witnesses there would be no help going on, and criminals would go free. So this is really not a very good argument against prohibiting the use of force against innocents in these situations.

I disagree with you, Daedalus, that the situations you described are similar. In the case of compelling a witness the crime has already happened, and your life at that point is no longer directly in danger. This is a very long way from someone directly threatening you, and forcing you to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what I obviously disagree with is that you have successfully drawn an analogy between those two different contexts. You have not, so my disagreement is with you, not Ayn Rand.

What I have done is to show that the right of self-defense is universal. It is not limited to bizarre cases of gunmen with babies on their chest. It extends to all areas of life -- including the courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we accept David's reasoning (which appears valid to me) the problem goes well beyond witnesses. The police would not even be able to arrest suspected criminals, conduct searches, etc. without first proving the suspect's guilt. Our current system, in which police only need probable cause to get arrest and search warrants, would violate individual rights. Our current system requires a limited violation of the rights of a few suspects in order to achieve the greater goal of justice for everyone. But I don't see how that sort of "rights tradeoff" would be allowable under an Objectivist political system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you, Daedalus, that the situations you described are similar. In the case of compelling a witness the crime has already happened, and your life at that point is no longer directly in danger. This is a very long way from someone directly threatening you, and forcing you to act.

What do you mean "no longer directly in danger"? Do you suppose there is no danger in releasing a serial killer back into society -- because a witness has refused to testify? Do you suppose there is no danger in not reporting a kidnapping, a shooting, a beating to the police? Violent acts are threats of the most immediate and direct kind. In response, the government must use all the force at its disposal -- even if it means "hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this a little bit like those arguments other people make that in an Objectivist society all poor people would die because no one would help them? Why do we assume that, when it is in everyone's actual interest to do so, individuals would consequently refuse to help?
Given where your post appears, and without benefit of an explicit referent to "this", I'm taking the liberty of assuming that this comment is directed at my immediately preceding argument. As a general rule, I don't like the "this is nothing like..." response when one person proposes an analogy -- but I feel the urge to use that counter-argument. Here is specifically how it's different.

First, my argument is not predicated on there being an Objectivist utopia, in fact it becomes irrelevant once an Objectivist utopia is reached (where all people respect rights and there is no crime). Second, there is a "facts of reality" difference: poor people do not die without government intervention (there is no evidence that government intervention prevents anyone from dying; there is pretty good evidence that bad governments cause people to die, see North Korea, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan...). In contrast (and this is one of those 'to the best of my knowledge' things, so if anyone know of contrary statistics I'm happy to year about it) most convictions for rights-violating crimes crucially depend on some involuntarily-provided evidence, such as fingerprints, accounting records, testimony of co-conspirators, etc. including the ability to point to the defendant and say "He is the killer". I'm not preaching a doom scenario, I'm pointing out that if you assume the "innocent until proven guilty" principle (as you must -- we should have a separate thread if there is a shred of doubt about the correctness of that), then the government can never perform its proper function if it is not allowed to use any amount of force against an innocent person. If people are uncharitable, civilization goes on even if a few people tragically starve to death; if we devolve to a anarcho-pacifist society, civilization will disintegrate.

Third, we are talking about the distinction between law and morality. The moral thing to do, usually, would be to report the crime (inchoate or fait accompli), and testify as to the events, but there are many cases where it would be immoral to do so -- you have to judge the factual context and determine whether testifying is a destruction of value. The law is entirely different -- it says that some acts are so wrong that force can be used to prevent you from doing it. Being uncharitable and being a rights-violator are quite different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, based on the above, it seems that the options are:

A: Government must be able to violate the rights of some people in order to protect the rights of others. This seems to blatantly violate Objectivist principles of individual rights.

B: Government would be unable to adequately protect rights due to inability to collect evidence. Society could devolve into semi-anarchy, with criminals operating with near-impunity and ordinary citizens relying mainly on their own resources for self-defense against criminals.

Edited by Godless Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, based on the above, it seems that the options are:

A: Government must be able to violate the rights of some people in order to protect the rights of others. This seems to blatantly violate Objectivist principles of individual rights.

Check your premises. Government is merely responding to criminal activity. Any rights violations that are incurred through the pursuit of justice are ultimately the fault of the predator, not the government. Just as the blame for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves, so the blame for inconveniencing witnesses lies with the rapist, the murderer or the holdup man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: Government must be able to violate the rights of some people in order to protect the rights of others. This seems to blatantly violate Objectivist principles of individual rights.
You're approaching this from the POV that you have an absolute right to do anything you want as long as you don't initiate force against others. The Objectivist theory of rights says that individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law: they are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. Man cannot exist qua man under conditions of anarchy, but anarchy is the consequence of holding a person's freedom of action to be an absolute. It would be blatantly un-Objectivist to hold that rights -- the conditions necessary to man's survivial qua man -- demand that man not be allowed to survive. Therefore, the right to freedom of action cannot be absolute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Yes, I am saying that "you have an absolute right to do anything you want as long as you don't initiate force against others." I believe that statement is consistent with Objectivist principles. I do not believe that would led to anarchy. (I thought about it a little and realized my previous post was overly pessimistic.) More likely we would have a society with near-total video surveilance, so that almost all crimes would be captured on video. The video could then be used in court without the need for intrusive evidence-gathering.

Check your premises. Government is merely responding to criminal activity. Any rights violations that are incurred through the pursuit of justice are ultimately the fault of the predator, not the government. Just as the blame for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves, so the blame for inconveniencing witnesses lies with the rapist, the murderer or the holdup man.

So its OK for government to violate rights as long as the ultimate blame falls on the criminal? It seems that reasoning could be used to justify taxation (to pay for police/courts/military) or even conscription (to provide the military with sufficient troops to repel an attack).

To both: I am not aware of anything in Ayn Rand's writing that says it is OK for government to violate rights under certain circumstances; her clear positions on taxation, the draft, etc, suggest exactly the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So its OK for government to violate rights as long as the ultimate blame falls on the criminal? It seems that reasoning could be used to justify taxation (to pay for police/courts/military) or even conscription (to provide the military with sufficient troops to repel an attack).

To both: I am not aware of anything in Ayn Rand's writing that says it is OK for government to violate rights under certain circumstances; her clear positions on taxation, the draft, etc, suggest exactly the opposite.

In fact, it is not the government that is the violator of a witness's rights but rather the criminal whose initial aggressive act made the government's response necessary. This is the very point Dr. Ghate made in regard to the holdup man with the baby strapped to his chest.

As to taxation and the draft, I explained before that Ayn Rand made it clear that those policies are never legitimate in a free society. Supporting compulsory financing of government or a slave army would automatically disqualify one as an Objectivist. On the other hand, Ayn Rand produced no strictures against subpoenas and other legal requirements to assist law enforcement authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...