Superheroes

[Bold Standard]

She thought it was morally just, but legally dangerous—because of the possibility of jury errors which could not be rectified after the death of the innocent man. She had no position on whether there should be a death penalty or not."

Well, even so-- if it's "dangerous" for a man to be sentenced to death after a jury finds him guilty, how much more legally dangerous is it for some vigilante to kill a guy without a trial? That was the point I was trying to make.

I think there is such a think as "Natural Justice," and that a brutal murderer deserves to die for his crimes. But the importance of due process, proof, objective law, and a central government holding a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, shouldn't be underestimated.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Bold Standard

[intellectualammo]

Hm! Yeah, that's what I remember reading, too...Maybe I'm not doing the search right....

I wager that what you may have read, was not written by her at all, but by someone else, and that this was written in the Objectivist Newsletter's Intellectual Ammunition Department under this question "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?" (which was answered by NB)(but she did publish it).

[RationalBiker]

I wager that what you may have read, was not written by her at all,

How much were you willing to wager?

According to "Ayn Rand Answers", her position was as I paraphrased. In a Fordham Hall lecture (The Moratorium on Brains) Ayn Rand said;

So I'm against capital punishment on epistemological, not moral, grounds. Morally, the act of deliberately taking another life is so monstrous that no one can atone for it. In that sense, even death is too small a punishment.

So while you are technically correct that she didn't write it, she did more than merely endorse any statement by NB, she said it herself. She preceeded the above quote with the previously mentioned reasoning about the possibility of killing innocent people.

[intellectualammo]

I think there is such a think as "Natural Justice,"

Okay, before you add on more terms like "Natural Justice"...??...I looked through my Lexicon and have not found anything on the death penalty either in it.

I did more searching and found this at the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Anyone listen to this?

And thank you for providing the information Rational Cop!!

Edited June 14, 2006 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

How much were you willing to wager?

According to "Ayn Rand Answers", her position was as I paraphrased. In a Fordham Hall lecture (The Moratorium on Brains) Ayn Rand said;

So while you are technically correct that she didn't write it, she did more than merely endorse any statement by NB, she said it herself. She preceeded the above quote with the previously mentioned reasoning about the possibility of killing innocent people.

So, then can we say that she gives it the moral stamp of approval and then sends it to the philosophy of law, to let it be determined if the proof is epistemologically/legally enough, thereby not taking a position on whether there should or shouldn't be a death penalty, until that criteria of proof is adequate enough? As NB said (in the Jan.1963 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter, p.3) it is a moral and also a legal issue. I actually had to go through my original Objectivist Newsletters to find this, since anyone who has the OR CD-ROM probably knows that nothing from NB is on it, as well as some others...But at the end he also says that "It should be noted that that the legal question of capital punishment is outside the sphere of philosophy proper; it is to be resolved by a special, separate discipline: the philosophy of law." Hmmm...I'm thinking that that has to do with why the ARI says that she has no position on whether there should be or shouldn't be a death penalty, it's now up to the legal side of it...

*edited for spelling

Edited June 14, 2006 by intellectualammo

[khaight]

Well, Rorshach's objectivism wasn't outright stated, it was implied through his journal writings and his complete rejection of the idea of "the greater good." His final statement of "Never compromise" (not going into why he says that for those who haven't read Watchmen but may wish to at some point) is the best example of his Objectivism.

I don't think you can conclude from this that Rorshach was an Objectivist. Objectivism isn't a grab bag of random statements, it's an integrated system of beliefs. Rorshach engaged in some behaviors (such as vigilante killing) that Objectivism rejects, and the statements he does make are hardly unique to Objectivism. (The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, for example, clearly and explicitly rejected the concept of the "greater good", and you can find all sorts of libertarian writers who reject compromise.)

It's also worth noting that, just as with people, a comic book character who claims to be an Objectivist may not actually be one. An example -- the mind-controlling Gorilla Grodd, a DC villain, apparently self-describes as an Objectivist. (In a recent episode of the animated cartoon "Justice League Unlimited" he gets into a fight with Lex Luthor, and partway through Lex insults him: "Idiot simian! Half-baked Objectivist!" I had to go back and watch that again because I couldn't believe my ears the first time though...) I don't really think that any character who kills innocent people and tries to turn the entire population of Earth into gorillas can be considered an Objectivist no matter what he claims to believe.

With respect to the original question of what an Objectivist with super powers would do, I think the right parallels are to military service and law enforcement. The traditional notion of a guy with his underwear on the outside leaping off rooftops as a hobby seems unlikely. Entering government service for pay or joining the police would be much more sensible if a super-powered Objectivist wanted to enforce justice against criminals.

I can't resist pointing out the character Savage Dragon, who (while not an Objectivist) did exactly that. This guy wakes up in a field with no memory of where he came from, and on discovering his powers proceeds to join the Chicago PD.

[Bold Standard]

Okay, before you add on more terms like "Natural Justice"...??...

That's a concept I got from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. I've actually never heard an Objectivist comment on or mention this, but it seems to me to be a valid concept. If anyone is more familiar with the Objectivist analyses of John Locke's political ideas, I'd be interested in learning whether prominent Objectivists agree with this principle or not.

My understanding of his position is that, since man is rational and is endowed with individual rights by nature, then if any man violates the rights of another, in a State of Nature (prior to the formation of a government) then anybody who is willing would be justified in retaliating against him. But in order to secure law and order, and to ensure that the innocent are not punished for crimes they did not commit, etc., objective laws need to be defined and retaliatory force has to be surrendered to a central government, who can alone act, according to a strict constitution and body of laws, etc, as an arbiter of justice.

I might be confusing some things, but that's what I got from my initial reading of his 2nd Treatise.

[RationalBiker]

My understanding of his position is that, since man is rational and is endowed with individual rights by nature, then if any man violates the rights of another, in a State of Nature (prior to the formation of a government) then anybody who is willing would be justified in retaliating against him. But in order to secure law and order, and to ensure that the innocent are not punished for crimes they did not commit, etc., objective laws need to be defined and retaliatory force has to be surrendered to a central government, who can alone act, according to a strict constitution and body of laws, etc, as an arbiter of justice..

So was he basically saying if there is no government then men can retaliate against those who would violate their rights? In contrast, did he believe that if there is a government in place with objective laws then men cannot retaliate at will? Does "natural law" take into account concepts such as "justice", "punishment in proportion to the crime", etc.? If all men were rational, perhaps that would be so, but we know that all men are not entirely rational, and many are quite the opposite.

Edited June 16, 2006 by RationalCop

[Bold Standard]

So was he basically saying if there is no government then men can retaliate against those who would violate their rights?

Not only their own rights-- but they are also justified in defending the rights of others.

And if any one in the state of nature may

punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that

state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or

jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that

law, every one must needs have a right to do.

In contrast, did he believe that if there is a government in place with objective laws then men cannot retaliate at will?

I think that's what he thought. (But I haven't actually finished reading all of it yet). But of course I know how it ends-- The Declaration of Independence...

Does "natural law" take into account concepts such as "justice", "punishment in proportion to the crime", etc.? If all men were rational, perhaps that would be so, but we know that all men are not entirely rational, and many are quite the opposite.

He talks about "law of nature" and also "natural justice." He does take into account that punishment should be in proportion to the crime (in the state of nature):

And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over

another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he

has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless

extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm

reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression,

which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two

are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is

that we call punishment.

Locke seems to agree that these laws of nature and justice, while arising by necessity from reality and human nature, are worthless without anyone to enforce them.

And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and

from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which

willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law

of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one

has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may

hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that

concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the

state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the

innocent and restrain offenders.

The thing that really amazes me about Locke's whole position here is that-- this "state of nature" is prior to any social contract. The "state of nature" is what Hobbes had described as a "war of all against all." But Locke is arguing that these principles of justice and individual rights are not arbitrary dictates of society or the state, but that they exist in nature. Of course, I really ought to finish it, and probably re-read it a few times before I make any further comments on it. But the clarity and insightfulness of some of his ideas have really surprised me. I can see why the Founding Fathers liked him so much. It is much better than his philosophical (epistemological/metaphysical) works that I've read.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Bold Standard]

Every offence,

that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be

also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a commonwealth: for

though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the

particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is

certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a

rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of

commonwealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be

understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following

contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part

of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are

founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and

interpreted.

[D'kian]

Going back to superheroes, I've been a fan of the various animated incarnations of Batman. I've never read a Batman comic book, however, so everything I say is based entirely on the various animated series, the animated movies (including the Justice League) and the latest live action movie.

What is Batman's motivation?

Explicitly, he is seeking revenge for the murder of his parents, which he witnessed as a young child. Is that a valid motive? Of course it is. One purpose of justice is retribution. Revenge can be anything from putting the perpetrator in jail, to killing him, to doing to him things worse than mere killing. Since Batman captures criminals alive, going to great lenghts to do so, and indeed has never killed a single suspect, we can safely conclude his idea of revenge is bringing people to justice. This is entirely valid.

Of course, only a single person, or a band of criminals (depending on the version of Batman), was responsible for his parents' murder. I don't recall if he caught them or not. In any case, he has pursued everyone else as well. So, is he projecting his parents' murderer(s) onto every criminal, or has he adopted a love of justice as a result of the one incident in his childhood?

I think the latter is the case. If for no other reason that he's not constantly thinking about his parents' deaths. And he's also a brilliant man of many talents (too many to be realistic, but the superhero is a fantastical being even when he has no superpowers) who depends above all in his reasoning mind to accomplish his task. I don't think he could be so methodically successful if all his motivation was one criminal incident transfered, or projected, onto every other criminal.

What do you think?

[Ragnar69]

Going back to superheroes, I've been a fan of the various animated incarnations of Batman...

What do you think?

I'm a huge fan of all things Bat-related, and I do think he displays many qualities of an objectivist. However, his unwillingness to kill is taken to irrational extremes at times. He has, on more than one occasion, saved the lives of many mass murderers, even from the police. Wouldn't it be immoral by objectivist standards to prevent the police from killing a known sociopath?

[OwenKellogg]

There's no reason that projecting his parent's murder on every villain wouldn't create a love for judgement, or that there's much of a difference between projecting that murder on every villain and not wanting a similar thing to happen to other people.

[Ragnar69]

I don't think you can conclude from this that Rorshach was an Objectivist. Objectivism isn't a grab bag of random statements, it's an integrated system of beliefs. Rorshach engaged in some behaviors (such as vigilante killing) that Objectivism rejects, and the statements he does make are hardly unique to Objectivism.

What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing? Doesn't the quote in my signature from "Atlas Shrugged" indicate that Rand believed killing is justified in certain circumstances?

That's why I think Wolverine is more of an Objectivist than Batman. He struggles to overcome his irrational emotions, he usually acts in his own self-interest (or in the interests of those few that he cares about), and he doesn't hesitate to kill those who deserve to be killed. He is also the self-proclaimed "best there is at what he does." All of these are objectivist principles.

[D'kian]

I'm a huge fan of all things Bat-related, and I do think he displays many qualities of an objectivist. However, his unwillingness to kill is taken to irrational extremes at times. He has, on more than one occasion, saved the lives of many mass murderers, even from the police. Wouldn't it be immoral by objectivist standards to prevent the police from killing a known sociopath?

No, it wouldn't be immoral.

In a society based on Objectivism, the police would not have the authority to execute criminals. Such authority is the province of the judicial branch of government.

While the police have the authority to use force, their objective is to aprehend the suspects. They can kill in self defense, and to prevent a criminal from killing someone else (exactly how SWAT team snipers do right now).

Therefore Batman is entirely in the right when he prevents an extralegal execution from taking place.

I do agree that risking his life to save a crimnal, which he does all the time as well, is not wise. depending on why he does it, it could even be called immoral. For example, if he wants to save the criminal so he may be brought to trial, in order to ahve the full extent of his evil exposed, then it's not immoral. It's still not wise, given how valuable Batman himself is, but he has a right to make such choices.

What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing? Doesn't the quote in my signature from "Atlas Shrugged" indicate that Rand believed killing is justified in certain circumstances?

In Atlas Shrugged, the government had fully become the enemy of rights. It was an evil entity dedicated to bleeding the country to feed itself.

Your quote si from the sequence when Dagny and co. free John Galt. At that point, there was no government agency who could or would help them. Not the Army, they were guarding Dr. Ferris' torture chambers. And I don't suppose the police would get involved, even if they wanted to. remember the various effects of the government's actions over the course fo the story.

Therefore decent people were left to their own devices if they wanted to protect their lives and property. The government had already initiated the use of force against Galt and everyone else. Dagny, Francisco, Hank and Ragnar had every moral right to use force against the government to get John out.

The only circumstance in which vigilante justice comes close to making moral sense, is when the government has broken down far enough that there is nothing else left to do, no legitimate authority left to turn to.

[Bold Standard]

Listen carefully... Either you let me in or I shoot you. You may try to shoot me first, if you can. You have that choice - and no other. Now decide.

That was not a vigilante killing. It was an act of war.

[LaszloWalrus]

Dagny's actions in that context were not a vigilante killing. She was trying to save John Galt, and therefore it was somewhat of an indirect use of self-defense; also, the government of a rational society is a far cry from the government in Atlas Shrugged.

[Ragnar69]

The government of Atlas Shrugged wasn't so much different than the U.S. government right now. The government in comic books is usually much worse than both.

If you can justify killing someone who simply refuses to make a decision - and that's really all it was, Dagny could have disabled the man easily without killing him - then how is killing someone who you know will get out of prison in a few years, or who might not get caught at all, and kill again any less moral? I'm not talking about killing a suspect, or someone who has made one bad mistake. I'm talking about someone who has no regard for life or property and murders at will. Since Objectivism doesn't hold to that "Then we'll be as bad as the killers" nonsense, how would it be immoral to kill such a person? It is an act of self defense for the killer's future victims. It's an either-or proposition. Either you kill the person now, or he will kill an innocent person later. Those are the choices. I think NOT killing such a person would be immoral.

Edited June 20, 2006 by Ragnar69

[D'kian]

The government of Atlas Shrugged wasn't so much different than the U.S. government right now.

Not even close. The current US government is mixed, yes, but that in AS wasn't mixed anymore. It was fully on the side of evil.

If you can justify killing someone who simply refuses to make a decision - and that's really all it was, Dagny could have disabled the man easily without killing him -

How?

Later on, Francisco shoots a guard in the hand and makes him loose his gun. That's an old Hollywood device that doesn't work well in real life. Dagny might have ordered the guard to put down his weapon and surrender. She did, in fact, tell him to get out of the way or she'd shoot. Since he wouldn't cooperate, she shot him. I see nothing wrong with it.

then how is killing someone who you know will get out of prison in a few years, or who might not get caught at all, and kill again any less moral?

That would describe a society where law enforcement has broken down and no longer protects the citizenry. In such extraordinary cases, all reasonable measures of self-defense are justified. In normal times, when law enforcement does its job of protection, such actions are not moral.

There can be ambiguities, of course. I refer you to the case of Bernard Goetz in New York City in the early 80s; he was dubbed at the time by the press as "the subway vigilante." I think he acted in self-defense, but he did so pre-emptively. At the time, crime was rampant in NYC, criminals were let off, if they got caught at all, with alarming regularity. Law enforcement wasn't exactly broken down, but it came close. Even then, Goetz did not shoot until he thought he was about to become a victim of robbery or worse. He dind't go around the subway shooting known or suspected felons at will.

[Ragnar69]

Later on, Francisco shoots a guard in the hand and makes him loose his gun. That's an old Hollywood device that doesn't work well in real life. Dagny might have ordered the guard to put down his weapon and surrender. She did, in fact, tell him to get out of the way or she'd shoot. Since he wouldn't cooperate, she shot him. I see nothing wrong with it.

She could have hit him over the head with her gun or shot to wound.

For the record, I see nothing wrong with killing him, either. I also see nothing wrong with vigilante killing when the police and justice system do not do their job properly.

That would describe a society where law enforcement has broken down and no longer protects the citizenry. In such extraordinary cases, all reasonable measures of self-defense are justified. In normal times, when law enforcement does its job of protection, such actions are not moral.

Agreed, but law enforcement does not do its job one hundred percent of the time. There is too much crime and too much bureaucracy.

There can be ambiguities, of course. I refer you to the case of Bernard Goetz in New York City in the early 80s; he was dubbed at the time by the press as "the subway vigilante." I think he acted in self-defense, but he did so pre-emptively. At the time, crime was rampant in NYC, criminals were let off, if they got caught at all, with alarming regularity. Law enforcement wasn't exactly broken down, but it came close. Even then, Goetz did not shoot until he thought he was about to become a victim of robbery or worse. He dind't go around the subway shooting known or suspected felons at will.

As a New Yorker, I think Bernie Goetz is a hero. I think we largely agree, except for a matter of degree.

[D'kian]

I also see nothing wrong with vigilante killing when the police and justice system do not do their job properly.

How exactly do you mean that?

Agreed, but law enforcement does not do its job one hundred percent of the time.

Again, what do you mean exactly?

No one is successfull 100% of the time, this includes the police and the courts. I don't think it's morally justifiable to kill a criminal because the justice system couldn't mannage to exact retribution legally.

There can be exceptions. The judge may be corrupt. The jury may be corrupt. But other than that, if for example a criminal walks because the prosecutor screwed up, or because the criminal had a very good attorney, you just ahve to learn to live with the result.

One problem with vigilantism is accountability. Courts are subject to review and trial records are open to anyone at all. If a court sentences you unjustly to death, there is a chance for an appeal (or many). What if a vigilante kills the wrong person, or even an innocent person he thought was guilty? More important, by what right does a vigilante get to decide whom he kills?

[Inspector]

She could have hit him over the head with her gun or shot to wound.

No, both would be unacceptable risks to her life. First, she is a woman and it would be rather stupid to risk a physical battle with him. Second, she wasn't a super-elite shot like Francisco was. Also, he may not have shot the fellow in the hand to save his life, but rather to intimidate the others into surrender by displaying just how good a shot he was. (I forget exactly how the scene went down, so someone may want to confirm that) You see that kind of thing in westerns, specifically, I'm thinking of the opening scenes of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

There's been a thread on that point already, as you might have guessed from the detail of my reply.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Inspector

[hunterrose]

...Goetz is again living in New York City and has run for both mayor (in 2001) and public advocate (in 2005.

I think [Goetz] acted in self-defense, but he did so pre-emptively.

Obviously this man needs to be holding out for the White House.

**Sweet link below!**

The themes of the [Goetz]incident play a large part in the mid 80's Spider-man story The Death of Jean DeWolff which also includes with a very similar incident.

The judge may be corrupt. The jury may be corrupt. But other than that, if for example a criminal walks because the prosecutor screwed up, or because the criminal had a very good attorney, you just have to learn to live with the result.

This brings up the question of what constitutes enough corruption or screwups to merit acting outside the legal system. E.g. at what exact point in AS would Dagny's actions have been justifiable? At the point the Strike began, their world didn't seem any worse than ours, and it might be hard to say exactly when things are bad enough to go Punisher.

I'm talking about someone who has no regard for life or property and murders at will... how would it be immoral to kill such a person? It is an act of self defense for the killer's future victims... I think NOT killing such a person would be immoral.

Pre-emptive defense usually isn't a hot idea. And IMO such a mindset is much less appealing when one's irrational neighbors act on their eco-terrorist and religious fundamentalist definitions of morality. Would it matter whether the irrational neighbors are better armed and trained than you?

[RationalBiker]

What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing?

Because it does. Ayn Rand is quite specific about why a proper government should have a monopoly on the use of force with the only exception being in emergency self-defense cases. It may be more helpful for you to learn this by reading what she wrote on this in her non-fiction articles regarding Man's Rights, The Nature of Government, etc. rather than trying to interpret what instances in her fiction writing may have meant.

By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their right of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force even in self-protection (except during those emergencies that require action at once, before the police can be summoned). If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential.(16)

If men did not delegate the task of self-defense to a central agency, every individual would have to live and work armed, ready to shoot any stranger who looked suspicious (and who in turn would be ready to shoot him)—or, much more likely, men would form packs to protect themselves from other, similar packs, and the result would be gang wars and mob rule. In either case, peaceful coexistence among men would be impossible.

And...

A society must remove the retaliatory use of force methodically from the realm of whim. Every aspect of such use must be defined in advance, validated, codified: under what conditions force can be employed, by whom, against whom, in what forms, to what extent. The nonarbitrary use of force requires, in Ayn Rand's words,

Both sections from OPAR, Chapter 10 - Government pgs.363-364.

At no point does she ever suggest that if a system is less the 100% just, then vigilante action is acceptable. If you want to say you have no problem with vigilantism, that's one thing, but it's wrong to suggest that it is acceptable in the Objecitivist philosophy.

[D'kian]

This brings up the question of what constitutes enough corruption or screwups to merit acting outside the legal system. E.g. at what exact point in AS would Dagny's actions have been justifiable? At the point the Strike began, their world didn't seem any worse than ours, and it might be hard to say exactly when things are bad enough to go Punisher.

The strike was not justified on grounds of criminal justice. Nor was the purpose of the strikers to use force in any way. Ragnar did, but he was the exception.

As for judicial corruption, any degree at all is wrong and should not be tolerated. However, there are differences between individual corruption and systemic corruption. Suppose one judge habitually imposes very light sentences on criminals. There are legal means available for seeking his removal from the bench. But if it is the whole system that tolerates crime, and is aided by one or two of the other brnaches of government, what recourse do you have then?