Innocents dying, ethics

Ethics
21

I would echo Don’s comments. Rand also did not specify how, in her view, a dissenting citizenry ought to oppose a government it is not in favour of.

This is no small matter. When you take the entire citizenry of say the US or UK, governments have been formed on occasion with the support of a minority (albeit the largest minority). It would be true to then state that government did not have the support of the majority of the citizens. Is that a legitimate government?

If a government isn’t legitimate due to minority support or it becomes illegitimate, for example, by supporting force initiating regimes elsewhere in the world, was Rand saying we have a duty to oppose it?

Don, in response to your question about moral culpability, it would depend on who was responsible for the deaths.

I’ll give two scenarios.

  1. A hostage taker is killed by government forces who throw a grenade at him. This also kills the hostages.

  2. A hostage taker is killed by a marksman. One hostage is killed by the marksman due to a ricochet.

In scenario 1, I would hold the gov morally culpable for the loss of innocent life. In scenario 2, I would hold the hostage taker solely responsible.

It would be ludicrous to hold the hostages to blame for allowing themselves to be taken hostage and furthermore remaining passive. It would be even more absurd to argue they can be sacrificed so we can defend ourselves from the hostage taking threat. This seems to be the thinking of some Objectivists though - Peikoff for example would nuke Iran, killing millions of Iranian’s who pose no threat to the West. Evil and insane to call for such a thing, and try to package it as self-defense.

22

Don, in response to your question about moral culpability, it would depend on who was responsible for the deaths.

I’ll give two scenarios.

  1. A hostage taker is killed by government forces who throw a grenade at him. This also kills the hostages.

  2. A hostage taker is killed by a marksman. One hostage is killed by the marksman due to a ricochet.

In scenario 1, I would hold the gov morally culpable for the loss of innocent life. In scenario 2, I would hold the hostage taker solely responsible.

It would be ludicrous to hold the hostages to blame for allowing themselves to be taken hostage and furthermore remaining passive. It would be even more absurd to argue they can be sacrificed so we can defend ourselves from the hostage taking threat.

You and I are completely agreed, allowing for this clarification of my point of view (which well might disagree with your own):

Between your #s 1 and 2, I would only hold #1 as immoral as opposed to #2 if the marksman is available.

However, I believe that there are conceivable situations where the “grenade” option is the only one available (metaphorically speaking; I’d find that really strange in an actual hostage situation). In those cases, I would hold #1 as moral, accounting the subsequent hostage deaths to the hostage-taker, just as with the ricochet.

What I mean is that I think that people have the right to defend themselves and to retaliate against force, with force. I think that in availing themselves of these rights, people need to target the guilty and not the innocent. Between options which achieve self-defense or retaliatory force against the guilty and only the guilty, and those which hurt people indiscriminately, only the former are moral. However, there may be cases where it is impossible (within a context, which sometimes includes restrictions on time and resource) to defend oneself so without unavoidably also harming the innocent.

As a scenario to add to yours, suppose that some mad dictator built his nuclear launch site underneath an orphanage (perhaps relying on us to refuse to destroy it, per his understanding of our moral code). We receive word that he’s set to launch against us, and we have the opportunity to destroy it beforehand, but we will necessarily destroy the orphanage in the process. (Perhaps there would be another way to take out the launch site and preserve the orphanage, or the orphans, but we don’t know how to do it yet, and there isn’t time to work it out before he launches his missiles.)

In such a case, I’d say that we absolutely have to destroy the launch site, according to what means we have to do so, and that morally the dictator would be responsible for the consequences to the orphans.

What say you?

23

We are in agreement Don. If I had intelligence which was clear beyond reasonable doubt that a launch was imminent then I would approve of the use of force to stop it. The deaths of the orphans would be due to the dictator, if there were no other form of self defense available which would spare them.

1 Like
24

New Buddha, you usually post well considered comments. Since when do Objectivists have duties? Sounds Kantian to me.

The only people who are responsible for the initiation of physical force by a regime are those who initiated it on behalf of the regime. Americans of all people ought to know how costly regime change is and that it takes years not hours. You cannot realistically expect a disarmed and repressed citizenry to do the same.

Give it some reflection.

Duty has many meanings.  I have a “duty” to myself to honor the contracts that I enter into. By honoring contracts that lead to (short term) losses, I know that it benefits me in the long run to have a reputation of someone that honors contracts.  The Kantian sense of moral imperative “duty” is along the lines of, “that which does not benefit the actor, is of the highest morality.”  This is the exact opposite of how Jefferson used the term.  I doubt he even knew who-in-the-funk Kant was.

 

You state:  “The only people who are responsible for the initiation of physical force by a regime are those who initiated it on behalf of the regime.” 

 

Does this exempt the factory munition worker (who never fires a gun) ?  Engineers who design new, more powerful tanks (that they never drive and fire) ?  Scientist who deliver into the hands of a despot a nuclear bomb?  Gun smugglers?  Never gas manufactures?

 

A “disarmed and repressed citizenry” does not happen over night.  No German went to sleep one night in Germany and woke up in Nazi Germany in the morning.  The citizenry knew what was coming, but there was massive, evasive thinking among the populace regarding their individual, moral responsibility to take action to prevent what was happening.  Taking action early would have spared their own lives.  But their thinking was, “Well, we might just get away with it…” 

25

I use the term responsibility instead of duty. Rights carry responsibilities. Under a contract the other parties must observe my rights, but I have a responsibility to observe their rights under the contract.

I don’t know about you but I have never entered into any formal contract with the government granting me said rights and placing on me certain responsibilities. I am aware of the law but again there is no contract, just expectation, backed by force should anyone break the law.

So it comes down to whether I pledge my support to a particular kind of government doesnt it? If I find no party represents me, and decide not to vote, I have no kind of contract with the people in power. So what is the source of my citizens responsibility to keep a government in check, and how far do they go?

Have you heard of the Military Industrial Complex? I would see industries, which continue to supply arms to a force initiating military, to be an extension of it and therefore a legitimate target for retaliatory force.

All governments holding a monopoly on force have disarmed the citizenry. Whether and to what extent they are also repressed depends on how such a government uses that force against its own people. That can happen extremely quickly - especially with outside support from other regimes.

26

I don’t know about you but I have never entered into any formal contract with the government granting me said rights and placing on me certain responsibilities.

I don’t mean to be factious, but if your house is on fire, will you refuse to call the local fire department - because you have not entered into a formal contract with them to protect your house?

 

Are the societies/governments that we live under totally just, equitable and infallible?  No.  Are they horrible? Certainly not in the UK or the US.  Are some governments better than others? Yes.  Will any government ever be perfect?  No. 

 

It’s hypocritical to not acknowledge that you receive benefits from living in London, and that these aren’t paid for by your taxes.  It’s childish to hold your breath until a utopia of laissez faire capitalism somehow, independent of any effort on your part, magically surrounds you. 

27

I don’t like your tone. I’ll address the content, which is not much better:

As I am compelled to pay taxes for the public fire service I see no reason why I shouldn’t use it. Rand made the same argument about the healthcare she received - it is restorative justice.

You’ve completely ignored the issue of legitimacy that I raised. Instead you give us frankly a strange straw man rant, to distract from this evasion. By the way describing governments as horrible is a fallacy - it takes our focus away from the individuals who make up the government and those in politics generally. Some are more virtuous than others, and even in our countries there are those who are riddled with vices. Let’s not live in denial - care to consider Guantanamo Bay? I hope not to hear some crap about the virtues of government sponsored torture in this forum. What did you do to oppose it?

I pay taxes (by compulsion) so I have to accept some responsibility for what the government then does with this taken wealth? Please do clarify your point. You seem to be blaming the victim - not something I would expect from an Objectivist.

28

Let’s not live in denial - care to consider Guantanamo Bay? I hope not to hear some crap about the virtues of government sponsored torture in this forum. What did you do to oppose it?

I’m not completely certain I understand the line of argument, but if we’re speaking to the contention that a citizen is responsible for the actions of his government (if anyone has actually adopted that standard as an argument, of which I’m unsure), then I should point out that even opposing a government doesn’t save one from the supposed moral implications of living under that government. For after all, this is from the quote Marc K. provided (though we still await his elaboration on the same):

 

Nazi Germany did elect its dictatorship, and therefore, even those Germans who were against Hitler were responsible for that kind of government and had to suffer the consequences.

I also don’t think we have to travel all the way to Guantanamo Bay to find abuses of liberty in western society. You know, whenever someone describes these western governments as “not all that bad,” I raise an eyebrow. On the one hand, it’s true: the governments in the United States, the UK, etc., are all far superior to any number of contemporaries or predecessors, and I’m happiest living here at present, given my choices. On the other hand, there are many people within these western societies who suffer tremendously – or who are killed – for “offenses” which are not actually crimes. These unjust laws routinely destroy individuals, families, and communities, so whether the government is good or bad on the whole is perhaps a matter of personal perspective and fortune.

But no matter. Whether the US Government is tyrannical or the greatest government to ever exist (though I would argue that “it can be two things”), I am not responsible for the actions of other people. I am not my brother’s keeper.

If the US Government (which, in reality, is actually some collection of individuals) is responsible for human rights abuses, this does not make me complicit, even if they claim to act on my behalf. It does not somehow invalidate my individual rights. It does not justify a man who seeks to harm the US Government to target me in its name.

29

 Let’s not live in denial - care to consider Guantanamo Bay? I hope not to hear some crap about the virtues of government sponsored torture in this forum. What did you do to oppose it?

I’m not living in denial.  I was chicken, and did nothing to oppose government torture.  I’d rather pay my taxes, and use government services, then go to jail.

 

I’m not trying to be an ass, but I’m long passed the stage of being pissed-off at the world.  I try and find happiness where I can - even though I am aware of the injustices that surround me.

 

I have not yet reached that stage yet where I feel that it is necessary to “pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”

 

Edit.  One of my favorite characters in fiction is Heinlein’s Lazarus Long.  A man who lived for thousands of years under many different governments.  Often times rich, sometimes a slave.  He treats the behavior of others like the weather.

30

Don, you got it perfectly.

New Buddha, are you what’s known as a happy slave? I am interested because I can’t figure out how your position reconciles with Rand’s comments on our supposed moral responsibility for actions carried out by “our” people in government.

Do you agree with the passage M posted?

31

My position is that each citizen should participate in Government, and vote for the people representing them in the City, County, State and Federal Governments.  If they see that the elected representatives (whether they voted for them or not) are acting outside the law, then it is their responsibility to seek to remove them from office and hold them accountable for breaking the law.  That I may not do so, does, to an extent, not allow me to bitch.

 

Is this anti-Objectivism?

 

Jon, I was responding to your notion that only those who “initiate force” should be targeted.  I asked the question if someone who manufactures weapons/never gas should be targeted, and you said that this was a “straw man” argument?  What is you position?

 

After WW2, the US was not morally obligated to see to the rebuilding of Germany and Japan.  However, it was very much within our self-interest to do so.  This was a lesson learned from WW1.  Avoiding casualties of non-combatants, will help in the re-building effort after the war.  However, we are not ethically obligated to do so.

 

I also (flame, baby flame) regard the notion that we cannot “reasonably expect” people to be responsible for the actions of their governments to be slightly condescending and, dare I say, racist.  If the British Government started constructing death camps for Jews, then I would damn well expect the wonderful people of Britain rise up and topple the regime.  Why should I expect less from a Third World country?

32

I also (flame, baby flame) regard the notion that we cannot “reasonably expect” people to be responsible for the actions of their governments to be slightly condescending and, dare I say, racist.  If the British Government started constructing death camps for Jews, then I would damn well expect the wonderful people of Britain rise up and topple the regime.  Why should I expect less from a Third World country?

It not a reasonable expectation to say that one must overtly “rise up” and topple a regime. When in history has that worked? It’s a strategy that only rarely works. To beat a bad country internally is not going to work by rising up. The American Revolution didn’t do that even! Usually it is slow, requires underground effort that isn’t “rising up” and even then it’s hard. For the most part, the majority won’t revolt, while a sizable minority wouldn’t because it’d be suicide. The minority has to be careful and blend in, lest their objective is revealed and stopped. Are they just not trying hard enough?

 

The “revolution” in this sense is just a Communist political strategy and belief. It’s an extension of the French Revolution. That is, if people would just rise up, all will be solved with that damn corrupt government! But it literally doesn’t work. It’s violent. Covert efforts with literature, satire, civil disobedience, etc, all far from an effort to flat out topple a regime, work far better. If you include covert efforts, well, it’s really slow. Sometimes it doesn’t work on its own, and toppling only happens from foreign intervention.

33

New Buddha,

You seem to be struggling to follow this discussion. On your point about weapons suppliers to a force initiating regime, I responded with:

“I would see industries, which continue to supply arms to a force initiating military, to be an extension of it and therefore a legitimate target for retaliatory force.”

Your straw man rant was an evasion of my question put to you on the matter of what a legitimate government is and what obligations citizens have when a government becomes illegitimate.

You clearly hold some pretty naive views on how the world works. Governments fear uprising and dissent, much of the machinery of state is about pacifying the populace and repressing it. It’s not about law, order and justice other than pacifying us. Its about manufacturing happy slaves New Buddha.

34

Is this rationally selfish to do? I guess we would all answer no, since this would make you feel like a monster. Right?

Right. Living through methods like that isn’t really living at all; just not-dying. When prominent Objectivists advocate things like that they’re using “life” to mean survival, and not “life” in the human sense.

However, in any war there is usually some amount of collateral damage, and that’s not the same as deliberately targeting civilians; it’s different in exactly the same way that manslaughter is different from murder.

35

 

Is this rationally selfish to do? I guess we would all answer no, since this would make you feel like a monster. Right?

Okay, so why is it moral to kill innocents in a war, in order to defeat the enemy?

 

I would like to clarify one point here – yes, it is true that murdering an innocent person would make you feel horrible, and this would be the immediately percievable reason not to do it. However, this does not establish why it is rational to feel empathy – ignoring this point means assuming that psychopaths are more rational than the general population.

 

The reason why empathy is rational is because human cooperation is metaphysically necessary for survival, and this means recognizing and respecting the inherent humanity of others. In the scenario you described, you would be violating the conditions under which humans can be guaranteed peaceful coexistence, and this would be a breach of social ethics for this reason. It is also worth noting that this situation would be extremely unlikely to occur, but if it were, then you could be the one whose kidneys had to be stolen next time, so you would be lending moral sanction to your own murder. If the universe worked that way, then everyone would basically be screwed anyway, so moral principles wouldn’t carry much weight.

 

In our universe, you would always have a chance of someone finding out what you would have done, and would have to take action to prevent that from ever happening. You and your partner would have to spend the rest of your lives in fear of being caught, and this would affect your ability to live your lives the way you would want to. (And if you were the types of people who COULD live your lives that way, then you would have to prevent others from finding out, which would take considerable effort, and prevent you from engaging in positive pursuits because you would be living in fear of reprisal from those around you – or other people would find out, and take the necessary actions to force to pay the consequences.)

 

As for how this relates to war, my position is that we are endangering our own survival by sanctioning the murder of civilians in other countries. I might accept the premise that it is better to die than to live under a dictatorship, but someone who is a Muslim might also believe that someone is better off dead than not knowing Allah. So if one accepts the argument that we’re justified in killing innocents in Muslim fundamentalist countries because they’re living under a dictatorship, then a Muslim could just as easily claim that the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were justified because their victims were not benefitting from Allah’s good graces.

 

We would of course be right that being free is a necessary condition for living well, while Islamists are wrong in thinking that following Islam is necessary. But the fact that our position is correct does not grant the right to initiate force.

 

The one counterargument which I do agree with is that it’s better for victims of an Islamist regime to die than for residents of a free country to be enslaved. However, this only applies if there is a danger of losing a war which can be averted by military actions which will result in collateral damage.

1 Like
36

 

However, in any war there is usually some amount of collateral damage, and that’s not the same as deliberately targeting civilians; it’s different in exactly the same way that manslaughter is different from murder.

 

This is a moral reason to avoid war wherever possible without jeopardizing our own sovereignty. (For instance, if another country is harboring terrorists or is likely to invade, other means such as sanctions are not effective, and the threat they pose is imminent.) But the only time we are justified in going to war is when there is absolutely no other option that will be effective at neutralizing the threat.

37

 But the only time we are justified in going to war is when there is absolutely no other option that will be effective at neutralizing the threat.

One issue I’ve noted significant division on is the “North’s invasion of the South” over taxation in the American Civil War. The other side being "The South commitment to the violation of ‘Individual Rights’ in the eyes of the North. Was the North violating the South in regard to taxation, or the South violating the North with regard to Individual Rights?

 

For many years now, I’ve held that the South was in the “right”, and the slavery would have fallen of it’s own accord. Andrew Bernstein posits that “Individual Rights” is the over-riding significant moral characteristic here.

 

Both ride on moral implications. Would you care to comment?

38

 

One issue I’ve noted significant division on is the “North’s invasion of the South” over taxation in the American Civil War. The other side being "The South commitment to the violation of ‘Individual Rights’ in the eyes of the North. Was the North violating the South in regard to taxation, or the South violating the North with regard to Individual Rights?

 

The South wasn’t violating the rights of people in the North by seceding. They were violating the rights of blacks by maintaining slavery. Of course, several northern states were also slave states, the U.S. government had actively worked to uphold slavery prior to secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s plan was to forcibly deport all black people to the west.

 

So the moral case for the invasion of the South was pretty much non-existent, and the Civil War was a moral atrocity given the brutal actions taken by the North against the civilian population of the South. (Such as Sherman’s March.) However, given that both the North and the South were denying individual rights to blacks, any fully free nation would have had a right to invade them given sufficient moral justification. However, this would only be a moral action if the actions of one side or the other posed a threat to the sovereignty of the other nation.

39

A well stated, thoughtful response, Eamon. I don’t recall coming across Lincoln’s plan before, but even it violates the rights of those who would be exiled to the west.

40

Thank you. :slight_smile: