Nations such as Saudi Arabia are known for their human rights violations (espcially against women). The government is mostly funded by oil revenues. Knowing that your money is going to the funding of such immoral activities, is it immoral to buy gas?
No, it is not. The same argument can be made to some extent about many aspects of life – a product comes from a tainted nation and the profits from selling to you may contribute to the continued existence of that nation. To insist that you not buy that product, something that is of clear value to you, implies that the small effect that your money has on the lives of those other people is more important than your life. That is, you should sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. Now that is what is immoral.
No, it is not. The same argument can be made to some extent about many aspects of life – a product comes from a tainted nation and the profits from selling to you may contribute to the continued existence of that nation. To insist that you not buy that product, something that is of clear value to you, implies that the small effect that your money has on the lives of those other people is more important than your life. That is, you should sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. Now that is what is immoral.
But then does that imply that it is okay to buy stolen goods or pirated media if it is of sufficient value to your life?
But then does that imply that it is okay to buy stolen goods or pirated media if it is of sufficient value to your life?
The wording of the question suggests a whim-based theory of value, which is invalid (especially the “pirated media” implication). If you have a rare fatal disease and the only medicine is produced in Krapistan (because their despotic sultan has the same disease), then it is right that you should live, regardless of the political problems of Krapistan. Gasoline is a necessity of life, and it is right for you to buy it in furtherance of your existence as a man.
Not to distract from the central point about not sacrificing yourself because you’re dealing with a tainted country, but in addition, refusing to buy any gas because some of it comes from a dictatorship will not change the fact that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship. A marginally, and I emphasize marginally, more plausible case could be made if not buying gas would then transform Saudia Arabia into a rights-respecting utopia. If wishes were pigs, we could feast all the time.
Hey Guru,
One of my first questions to this forum was on a similar topic. YOu might find some direct Rand quotes cited in there as well.
Gasoline is a necessity of life, and it is right for you to buy it in furtherance of your existence as a man.
Is this true or relevant? The argument isn’t “I need X, so I can’t be responsible if the money I pay for X may end up in the hands of dictators”. No one product is absolutely necessary for human life. I agree with you that it’s futile to refuse to buy specific products because some of the money may end up in the hands of dictators, but the only reason you need is that it’s a self-sacrifice to do so, just like it’s a self-sacrifice to refuse to pay your taxes even though the money is extorted from you by force and goes to a government that supports immoral stuff with it.
Now, my thinking is also that there are some situations where it is reversed and it is a self-sacrifice to buy from a dictatorship, like when that dictatorship has declared war on you and is trying to destroy your free or even semi-free country. In that case it’s even legitimate for the government of the free(er) country to declare a trade embargo preventing everyone in the country from trading with that other country whether they like it or not: doing anything else is suicide.
Is this true or relevant? The argument isn’t “I need X, so I can’t be responsible if the money I pay for X may end up in the hands of dictators”. No one product is absolutely necessary for human life.
I think it’s true and relevant. The distinction that I would make is between knowingly buying a pirated CD (the pirate is the wrong-doer) and buying gas that was “pirated”, made with the sweat of slave labor, or whatever. So maybe we should address the pirated CD issue. My moral code tells me that it is unquestionably wrong to directly violate the rights of other people, and also that you should not act in a manner which aids others in violating rights. On the latter point, this does not mean ritualistically rejecting morally impure products, but it also does not mean thinking that paying money for goods stolen by others is a perfectly moral act. Enabling thieves is not in your long-term best interest.
What is crucial is, exactly as you say, the issue of self-sacrifice. Given the choices “buy the pirated CD” / “don’t buy the pirated CD”; “buy tainted gas” / “don’t guy tainted gas”, it is in your interest to have gas and a CD. The moral cost in both cases is that your action aids rights-violators, which is contrary to your interest. The benefit in both case is getting something that is good for your life.
In comparing the alternatives, I find that the metaphysically real choice “Don’t buy the pirated CD, do buy a legal CD” leads to an increase in value – it it not self-sacrificial. That is in part because the objective benefit of the CD is smaller (I can almost hear people screaming “Maybe the CD is the most important thing in my life!!!”, which makes me think of phrases about getting a better life and about the difference between objective value and whim). The benefits to life that derive from purchasing gas are huge, and while there may be some primitive types who can go about their lives in a petroleum-free way… it has been a really long time since I’ve seen any such people (and I’ve been some wierd places).
So in other words, the “necessity of life” question is relevant in assessing whether a particular choice is self-sacrificial, that is, trading a greater value for a lesser value. I argue that it is right and in your self interest to pay the $14.00 for a “properly produced” CD even in the face of a $7.00 pirated CD, so much so that it is not a trade down if you decline to buy the pirated CD.
The need to buy oil because it’s a necessity of life also leads to foreign policy issues by the US. We are allies with Saudi Arabia, a country that violates human rights and is a breeding ground for fundamental Islam and terrorists.
Up to what extent should our need for oil supercede our need to stop, or at the very least shun, such nations.
No, it is not. The same argument can be made to some extent about many aspects of life – a product comes from a tainted nation and the profits from selling to you may contribute to the continued existence of that nation. To insist that you not buy that product, something that is of clear value to you, implies that the small effect that your money has on the lives of those other people is more important than your life. That is, you should sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. Now that is what is immoral.
David this argument seems to me to be lacking something. I don’t think it would be ok to further your own life if it meant the destruction of someone elses. Sounds too Nietzchien. Would it be ok if we bought oil from Citgo, despite its oil revenue directly funding Hugo Chavez? Perhaps the answer is to not have an indifferent attitude to nations we trade with, and that we ought to topple regimes like Chavez instead of just handing over money with such moral indifference to what the money goes to.
I think it’s relevant too, but might phrase it differently to correspond with one of Peikoff’s tapes on this topic. (Was it UO, or AofT?)
If the benefit to your life and to your resulting work to advance good ideas in the world outweighs the beneift to theirs and their efforts to act on and spread bad ideas then buy from them. Pekoff related this in a discussion about wether he should buy a good from somewhere in Communist Russia (a symphonic recording I think). Rand said he should get one for her too. 
Basically, there is a limit to how far your moral estimation of a trading partner or the culture from where he comes has relevance to the specific trade in question.
David this argument seems to me to be lacking something. I don’t think it would be ok to further your own life if it meant the destruction of someone elses. Sounds too Nietzchien. Would it be ok if we bought oil from Citgo, despite its oil revenue directly funding Hugo Chavez? Perhaps the answer is to not have an indifferent attitude to nations we trade with, and that we ought to topple regimes like Chavez instead of just handing over money with such moral indifference to what the money goes to.
Check the link I gave. This is very contextual. Each country must be evaluated on its own bases. It is not clearly yes, and not clearly no in all cases.
Up to what extent should our need for oil supercede our need to stop, or at the very least shun, such nations.
I think part of the answer is the magnitude of the transgression and how directly connected with your particular trade it is.
If slave labor is used to product your oil, well then that is pretty clear.
If oil revenues go to tax coffers of a govt and a small portion of that is funneled off by some other politician to go to Chechnya to advance terrorism against Russia, well that is pretty far removed.
The other factor to consider is that one could make the case in a commodity market that buying oil at all determines the price that any particular seller will get. That is, if I divert my oil purchases to Indonesia instead, then whoever was buying Indonesian oil will have to supply it from elsewhere, and eventually someone will end up buying Saudi oil when they wouldn’t have before.
Rand was pretty clear about what she thought about any trade policy with a Communist dictatorship like Russia.
Hmm, perhaps then the question is are we buying oil under duress? If we do not have a choice, in that we must buy oil from less than desirable regimes to further our survival, do we not have a responsiblity to stop this duress? We could drill for more oil in North America that is currently restricted by ridiculous environmental regulations. We could topple regimes (e.g. Iraq) that use oil revenues to subjugate others. We could opt for more nuclear power. All of these actions would be the moral thing to do, but to continue on like nothing bad happens by trading with some of the most vile nations on this planet seems to be nothing but depraved indifference.
Would it be ok if we bought oil from Citgo, despite its oil revenue directly funding Hugo Chavez?
I agree that we should not as a nation be indifferent and obviously the question of the US goverment politically aiding Saudi Arabia is very important. But I’m addressing the individual question, what should you do, and you’ve pointed to a good refinement of what I said. Because of the massive comingling of petroleum, you can pretty much never find “untainted” gas. However: you do have the option to not specifically patronize the commie gas company, without any sacrifice of self. In that case, Citgo gas is like the pirated CD.
I agree that we should not as a nation be indifferent and obviously the question of the US goverment politically aiding Saudi Arabia is very important. But I’m addressing the individual question, what should you do, and you’ve pointed to a good refinement of what I said. Because of the massive comingling of petroleum, you can pretty much never find “untainted” gas. However: you do have the option to not specifically patronize the commie gas company, without any sacrifice of self. In that case, Citgo gas is like the pirated CD.
And perhaps we each individually have a moral duty to convince our elected leaders we can’t be indifferent. Although one individual can’t topple Chavez or start drilling for oil in Alaska or build a nuclear power plant, one individual can make his voice heard or contribute in other ways. Write up articles and op ed pieces and send them to your newspaper, write to a legislator, lend financial support to institutions that advocate nuclear power, etc. I think it would be immoral for one individual to continue gassing up his car, and not make any attempt to change the current situation of duress.
In comparing the alternatives, I find that the metaphysically real choice “Don’t buy the pirated CD, do buy a legal CD” leads to an increase in value – it it not self-sacrificial. That is in part because the objective benefit of the CD is smaller (I can almost hear people screaming “Maybe the CD is the most important thing in my life!!!”, which makes me think of phrases about getting a better life and about the difference between objective value and whim). The benefits to life that derive from purchasing gas are huge, and while there may be some primitive types who can go about their lives in a petroleum-free way… it has been a really long time since I’ve seen any such people (and I’ve been some wierd places).
So in other words, the “necessity of life” question is relevant in assessing whether a particular choice is self-sacrificial, that is, trading a greater value for a lesser value. I argue that it is right and in your self interest to pay the $14.00 for a “properly produced” CD even in the face of a $7.00 pirated CD, so much so that it is not a trade down if you decline to buy the pirated CD.
Hm. Your argument is contingent on having a working definition of what constitutes a “necessity”, which seems entirely arbitrary and subjective (unless you’re talking about things like food, water, and air). I mean, I’m not arguing that gas isn’t important, but really, by “necessity” you really just mean something like “extremely useful and convenient to the point where it’s hard for me to imagine anyone living without it”.
I mean, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that buying a $14.00 legit CD is of greater value than a $7 pirated one? Is there a logical basis for it, or is that just your opinion? Are you arguing that it is universally true, or are you just telling us that this is the case for yourself? I assume that since you used the term “I argue that…” you must have a rational, objective reason for coming to that conclusion.
How did you come up with the values? Is it monetary? What if we’re talking about a software that’s $1,200 which you can get pirated for $5? What if it’s $1,000,000 vs 5 cents? If your answer is something like “each person needs to decide it themselves according to their metaphysical values”, it seems that it isn’t very different from a whim-based judgment.
Guess what happens if this turns into another prudent predator thread?
No, it is not. The same argument can be made to some extent about many aspects of life – a product comes from a tainted nation and the profits from selling to you may contribute to the continued existence of that nation. To insist that you not buy that product, something that is of clear value to you, implies that the small effect that your money has on the lives of those other people is more important than your life. That is, you should sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. Now that is what is immoral.
One of the infelicities of buying oil and its products from the Saudis is that a portion of the revenue finds its way into the pockets of groups like al Quedah. The Saudis are paying protection money to the Wahabis to dissuade bin Laden and like gangsters from overthrowing the Saud Crime Family. To the extent we remain dependent on Persian Gulf sources, to that extent we operate against our best long term interests. The sensible thing to do is to work very hard to NOT depend on Arab (or Venezuelan) oil. The quicker we kick the filthy oil habit the healthier and happier we shall be.
We have several courses to follow.
Build lots of fission generating stations.
Rehabilitate coal as an energy and chemical feed stock source.
Help the Canadians extract methane from their tundra.
Push shale oil development from North American sources.
Of course this cannot be done in a day or even a year. We have spent over a hundred years digging a hole in which we find ourselves, dependent on foreign petroleum sources from nations that are ill disposed towards us. I think we should obey the Three Laws of the Hole.
-
Stop Digging.
-
Put The Shovel Down.
-
Climb out of the Hole, even though it be difficult.
Ending our dependence on hostile foreign petroleum sources should be elevated to a security and military priority. That is how we got our A-bomb. It seems to have worked. Never buy bullets from the Enemy. Make your own.
Bob Kolker
Hm. Your argument is contingent on having a working definition of what constitutes a “necessity”, which seems entirely arbitrary and subjective (unless you’re talking about things like food, water, and air). I mean, I’m not arguing that gas isn’t important, but really, by “necessity” you really just mean something like “extremely useful and convenient to the point where it’s hard for me to imagine anyone living without it”.
Gas truly is a pro-life product. Without gasoline, we can’t continue the way we cultivate, gather, distribute, and then prepare food. Literally, without gasoline a large fraction of our population would die. So it is extremely necessary and not just convenient .
I thought of an argument for continuing to buy oil. There are many countries in he world that violate human rights and they do it either by selling some other commoditites such as diamonds or without any major wealth like previously in Afghanistan.
Gas truly is a pro-life product. Without gasoline, we can’t continue the way we cultivate, gather, distribute, and then prepare food. Literally, without gasoline a large fraction of our population would die. So it is extremely necessary and not just convenient .
The energy we derive by burning gasoline (and other petroleum distilates) can be gotten from burning coal, or from electricity generated by nuclear fission. Energy is energy. However we can get it we can use it move stuff around. Which is not to say it is easy for us to kick the gasoline habit. That will take some time, probably a decade or more.
Our dependence on gasoline should (if we do things wisely) be short term, starting from now. At least the gasoline and diesel oil we burn should be from domestic or friendly sources.
So what you say is true, but it need not be in the long run.
Bob Kolker