Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Moral sanctions

Rate this topic


Viking

Recommended Posts

There seems to be a lot of ethical questions that come down to the issue of moral sanctions.

For example,

If someone is getting mugged, and you are able to help them, it would be immoral to not help if doing so would mean that you are morally sanctioning the mugger.

If having sex with someone constitutes a moral sanction, it would be immoral to have sex with someone you disvalue.

It is immoral to buy stolen good if it is a moral sanction of the thief.

It would be immoral to use public services if it is a moral sanction.

If it is a moral sanction, it is immoral to sell something to someone you know they will use for no good.

etc

So, how do we when we are morally sanctioning something/someone evil? Is this explained in any book on Objectivism? At this point a lot of these types of ethical questions are hazy to me, because I just don't know what is required for something to be a moral sanction.

Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how do we when we are morally sanctioning something/someone evil?
We need a verb, Senator. If you mean "know", the essential components are (1) you understand the nature of the person / act and (2) you act in a way befitting the conclusion that the person / act is moral (or, if the conclusion is that the act is immoral, then moral condemnation is acting in the appropriate opposite way).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a verb, Senator. If you mean "know", the essential components are (1) you understand the nature of the person / act and (2) you act in a way befitting the conclusion that the person / act is moral (or, if the conclusion is that the act is immoral, then moral condemnation is acting in the appropriate opposite way).

Hmm, alright, that definition includes a wide range of actions. Trading, Inaction, laughing, using public services, etc.

So, once one has determined that an action would be morally sanctioning something evil, in what cases should one use that as sufficient reason to not proceed, and when should one proceed regardless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, once one has determined that an action would be morally sanctioning something evil, in what cases should one use that as sufficient reason to not proceed, and when should one proceed regardless?
Your question needs agents, as well as verbs. You should never be evil (because you can always be non-evil). You should not accept evil from others; but you must look at the nature of the evil, and other facts about the doer etc., and decide whether you are sacrificing (rational) value in acting against the evil. Self-sacrifice is evil, and you should never be evil (see point 1). Destroying a loved one because they are imperfect is evil (destruction of value); destroying a (former) loved one because they are in fact fundamentally evil is a virtue, though a short-term painful one. Destroying yourself because an evil person threatens you with a gun is evil, except when in fact life qua man is simply not possible because of that evil. This is what distinguishes the burdensome evil of MVA, the Vinmonopolet and your local skattehus, from the profoundly life-destroying evil of life in North Korea or Stalinist Russia. I can't imagine being in the situation where I conclude that death is preferable to morally sanctioning an evil regime, but I know that many people have the misfortune of being faced with that choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viking, By "moral sanction" do you mean: any act or inaction that willingly aids or abets the immorality of another?

To take one of your simpler examples first: why is it immoral to help a thief?

If one is convinced that thievery is wrong and impractical, if one is convinced that paying for a police force is practical and moral, then the same reasoning would apply if someone runs by and the police (who you assume to be "good guys") stop and ask: "which way did he go?" The same would apply when buying stolen goods: you're basically encouraging thievery and it's merely an accident that this particular thief is not selling goods that were stolen from you.

The non-sanctioning of evil is just one more concrete implementation of one's decision about what is evil and what is not.

Now, if the run-away thief comes to your gas station, puts a gun to your head and says he will shoot you unless you fill his car up, you are now confronted with a choice between two evils: helping the thief escape, and dying. Is it moral sanction if you fill the car with gas? Not according to my concept of "moral sanction".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question needs agents, as well as verbs. You should never be evil (because you can always be non-evil). You should not accept evil from others; but you must look at the nature of the evil, and other facts about the doer etc., and decide whether you are sacrificing (rational) value in acting against the evil. Self-sacrifice is evil, and you should never be evil (see point 1). Destroying a loved one because they are imperfect is evil (destruction of value); destroying a (former) loved one because they are in fact fundamentally evil is a virtue, though a short-term painful one. Destroying yourself because an evil person threatens you with a gun is evil, except when in fact life qua man is simply not possible because of that evil. This is what distinguishes the burdensome evil of MVA, the Vinmonopolet and your local skattehus, from the profoundly life-destroying evil of life in North Korea or Stalinist Russia. I can't imagine being in the situation where I conclude that death is preferable to morally sanctioning an evil regime, but I know that many people have the misfortune of being faced with that choice.

Ok, so let me see if I've understood this correctly. Sometimes, you may be sanctioning evil, but that shouldn't prevent you from doing it, if you get a rational value from it.

So, lets take trade, where both parties expect to gain. Lets say you happen to know that the merchant has stolen these goods, but since it is trade, and you would be sacrificing rational value by not trading, you shouldn't let that stop you, right? Or, would you say that this wouldn't be a rational value you are sacrificing, since it was obtained by force? (Same thing with the mugger case, would it not be rational to prefer your regular opportunity cost of a few minutes over saving someones wallet?)

And does the magnitude of the value you would be sacrificing matter? Because it seems in most cases, I could at least get some rational value by sanctioning evil. If so, does it just come down to ones own judgement, becoming almost subjective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viking, By "moral sanction" do you mean: any act or inaction that willingly aids or abets the immorality of another?

To take one of your simpler examples first: why is it immoral to help a thief?

If one is convinced that thievery is wrong and impractical, if one is convinced that paying for a police force is practical and moral, then the same reasoning would apply if someone runs by and the police (who you assume to be "good guys") stop and ask: "which way did he go?" The same would apply when buying stolen goods: you're basically encouraging thievery and it's merely an accident that this particular thief is not selling goods that were stolen from you.

The non-sanctioning of evil is just one more concrete implementation of one's decision about what is evil and what is not.

Now, if the run-away thief comes to your gas station, puts a gun to your head and says he will shoot you unless you fill his car up, you are now confronted with a choice between two evils: helping the thief escape, and dying. Is it moral sanction if you fill the car with gas? Not according to my concept of "moral sanction".

Thats an interesting definition, because this way, if an action or inaction on your part happens to aid an evildoer, then it is not a moral sanction, because aiding them was not your intent, it was not done "willingly." Is that a correct interpretation? That seems reasonable. I think this is what I thought of as a moral sanction before. I will have to think about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough; it was an off-the-cuff definition. Change "willingly" to "willingly and knowingly".

Remember this though: willingness and the knowledge are part of the basic assumptions we make when we are judging a person's morality. They aren't specific to sanction. We assume these two things, not just in deciding whether his sanction is moral, but in deciding whether any act he does is moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so let me see if I've understood this correctly. Sometimes, you may be sanctioning evil, but that shouldn't prevent you from doing it, if you get a rational value from it.

So, lets take trade, where both parties expect to gain. Lets say you happen to know that the merchant has stolen these goods, but since it is trade, and you would be sacrificing rational value by not trading, you shouldn't let that stop you, right?

No, I guess you haven't understood. You should not engage in the trade, and should do whatever you can to bring him to justice. But that doesn't not mean that you should destroy your life so that he can be brought to justice -- e.g. if he's a Mafia hood and the government is unwilling to protect you, or he is El Presidente's nephew, and the death squads will be after you if you talk. Let me see if I can explain it better in the morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving something your moral sanction is not the same thing as cooperating with something or even benefiting from something. To give something your moral sanction means to signal your approval of it -- with words or with actions.

For example, if a thief puts a gun to your head and demands that you fill his car with gas, you are not sanctioning him by doing so -- because he has a gun to your head. If, however, he withdraws the gun, and still acknowledges that he is a thief, and you still fill his car with gas rather than turning him in, then that's a moral sanction.

Similarly, sending your children to public school does not, of itself, give the government the benefit of your moral sanction, even if a more expensive private school is available. But if the issue comes up for a vote, and you vote for public roads and public schools -- or if you signal your approval of public schools in a discussion -- or if you allow your approval to be assumed in a context where it reasonably could be -- then that is a moral sanction.

In Atlas Shrugged (II/3 and II/4), Hank Rearden discovered that his enemies needed his permission in order to destroy him. Although they were capable of destroying him by force, doing so would have revealed to everyone what they really were. They needed to preserve the appearance that what they were doing was civilized. They even needed it psychologically, for themselves. They needed Rearden's moral sanction. That's why he was able to disarm them by refusing to grant that sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, sending your children to public school does not, of itself, give the government the benefit of your moral sanction, even if a more expensive private school is available.

You choose to send your children to public school, even though you do not approve of it. So is it okay to sent your children to a communist party funded school if it's also free? Is it okay to sell the car that you designed to someone that you know who scams people for a living? Basiclly I think it does require a person's moral sanction to sent their children to a public school, because you are not forced to do so, and you have choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, you may be sanctioning evil, but that shouldn't prevent you from doing it, if you get a rational value from it.
You seem to have understood that the real issue is, "what acts signal my approval / condemnation of evil?". The extreme cases, such as actually condemning or lauding an act, aren't in serious question. The question is, when should you not condemn evil? If you are a prisoner (i.e. citizen) in Zimbabwe and condemning evil will result in your execution, the confiscation of your property, your incarceration, or your mutilation by the thug squads, then there must be a rational basis for you to conclude that condemning the evil will result in an increase in value for you. (My guesstimation of the situation is that it would not, and that leaving as quickly as possible would be the best option. That may be impossible; in which case, keeping your head down and waiting for Mugabe to die might be more rational).

The nature of the evil is obviously important, because the standard for evaluating a choice is whether value is gained or destroyed by the choice. Violation of a man's rights is a particularly egregious evil, and you should do nothing to actively encourage rights violations. You should have nothing to do with murderers and thieves, and you should not buy stolen goods or, I would say, buy goods from a thief. Racism is also evil (take my word for it, and I hope to persuade you of this point later), but I would not conclude that you should boycott the local drug store if the owner is a racist. If my taking my business across the street would actually make a point, I would do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough; it was an off-the-cuff definition. Change "willingly" to "willingly and knowingly".

Remember this though: willingness and the knowledge are part of the basic assumptions we make when we are judging a person's morality. They aren't specific to sanction. We assume these two things, not just in deciding whether his sanction is moral, but in deciding whether any act he does is moral.

Hey, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't knocking your definition. And yeah, I know, I was using "intent", which includes both willingness and knowledge.

You seem to have understood that the real issue is, "what acts signal my approval / condemnation of evil?". The extreme cases, such as actually condemning or lauding an act, aren't in serious question. The question is, when should you not condemn evil? If you are a prisoner (i.e. citizen) in Zimbabwe and condemning evil will result in your execution, the confiscation of your property, your incarceration, or your mutilation by the thug squads, then there must be a rational basis for you to conclude that condemning the evil will result in an increase in value for you. (My guesstimation of the situation is that it would not, and that leaving as quickly as possible would be the best option. That may be impossible; in which case, keeping your head down and waiting for Mugabe to die might be more rational).

The nature of the evil is obviously important, because the standard for evaluating a choice is whether value is gained or destroyed by the choice. Violation of a man's rights is a particularly egregious evil, and you should do nothing to actively encourage rights violations. You should have nothing to do with murderers and thieves, and you should not buy stolen goods or, I would say, buy goods from a thief. Racism is also evil (take my word for it, and I hope to persuade you of this point later), but I would not conclude that you should boycott the local drug store if the owner is a racist. If my taking my business across the street would actually make a point, I would do it.

Thanks, that was helpful. I think I get it now.

One more thing, though. Since the nature of the evil matters, in what category would you put government services funded by taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, though. Since the nature of the evil matters, in what category would you put government services funded by taxes?

Depends on the service. If your house is burning down, you definitely want to call the fire department: you don't owe it to anyone to sacrifice your possessions in some inarticulate "protest" against a government-funded fire department.

I think Ayn Rand said somewhere (possibly in "A Question of Scholarships") that it's okay to use government services (or even work for the government) if it's an area where you could legitimately work anyway and, because of government interference, you don't have the option of going to a private concern. So if you want to fight fires (or have your house fire put out), you are pretty much stuck going to the fire department.

I disagree, however, that sending your children to a public school is this kind of situation (except in special cases, like my own, where I lived on a military base in Germany and the ONLY English-speaking school WAS the government-provided public school). There are a lot of options for homeschooling or private school, and if you're REALLY strapped for cash you could probably get a voucher. I would consider sending your children to public school to be a (mild, compared with, say, working for the IRS) sanction of evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't knocking your definition.
Nevertheless, it is an off-the-cuff definition that won't work outside this thread. In one sense, it is way too broad: someone fencing stolen goods aids and abets crime, but his actrions are much more than just "sanction". The sanction is only one part of his immorality, and not the major part. In another sense, the definition is way too narrow. When one tells a businessman that he should not feel guilty about making profits, and that he is being good when he does so, one gives him moral sanction. So, moral sanction can be a good thing. Within this thread, it's clear that we're all talking about the moral sanction one should withdraw from evil, not about the moral sanction one should give to the good. Still, you can see why that definition I provided is pretty weak.

In essence, sanction is approval. So, when one gives something a "moral sanction" one is saying that "it is the good, the moral". One might do this by word, or by deed.

I don't think sending a kid to public school is immoral for most people in the US; but, I'm going to defer that to a later post.

For now, I want to comment on this:

You choose to send your children to public school, even though you do not approve of it. ... Is it okay to sell the car that you designed to someone that you know who scams people for a living? Basically I think it does require a person's moral sanction to sent their children to a public school, because you are not forced to do so, and you have choices.
Assuming that car-scam example is a private transaction ... a run-of-the-mill scam, there is no force being applied to limit the choices available to you or to the scammer. The school example is different: force is being used against one. Obviously, the nature of the force is different from the robber with a gun in one's face, threatening one's life. However, in its essentials, the school example -- in the context of the US -- is closer to the rubber example than to the scam example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ayn Rand said somewhere (possibly in "A Question of Scholarships") that it's okay to use government services (or even work for the government) if it's an area where you could legitimately work anyway and, because of government interference, you don't have the option of going to a private concern.
Makes sense, thanks.

Nevertheless, it is an off-the-cuff definition that won't work outside this thread. In one sense, it is way too broad: someone fencing stolen goods aids and abets crime, but his actrions are much more than just "sanction". The sanction is only one part of his immorality, and not the major part. In another sense, the definition is way too narrow. When one tells a businessman that he should not feel guilty about making profits, and that he is being good when he does so, one gives him moral sanction. So, moral sanction can be a good thing. Within this thread, it's clear that we're all talking about the moral sanction one should withdraw from evil, not about the moral sanction one should give to the good. Still, you can see why that definition I provided is pretty weak.
Good point, I didn't consider that.
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...