Violation of Rights

Questions about Objectivism
41

:slight_smile: Well, we’re just making a “judgement” on what my best interest is, correct? OK, I’ll give you 99.9% chance sure I get away with it.

But your argument is about principle, and I’m not quibbling with that. I agree. To have a principle and contradict it is immoral.

But it’s not just immoral it’s irrational. Human perception (eyes, ears, nose) is of the present. The only way to know the future is through concepts, and concepts are abstract - they only tell you in principle what to do. So if you are not acting on principle it is not only immoral but irrational.

42

I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That’s what we’re discussing. Remember, I’m specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone’s “best interest”. Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.

Ic. But I am saying is that if you do not concede the second point, its basically an attempt to eat your cake and have it too. By the definition of what rights are, you cannot both violate them and secure them at the same time.

An example? Sure. How’s this?:

I’m a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.

Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That’s what I really want. Early retirement.

Another example:

I’m a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).

In both these examples you are not necessarily violating anyone’s rights. Rights can only by violated by the initiation of force. Though both these jobs require the use of force, the use of force is not what violates rights, but the initiation of it. As a marine or assassin you could possibly be an American killing al-quada agents.

Again, I’m just playing devil’s advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.

I agree with you, but those principles are build on the morality of egoism, of rational self interest.

43

So, you are specifically addressing “using force” as opposed to “initiating force”?

No, just an error. I should have used initiating there. Also, to clarify, I was stating that Objectivists CAN support the claim that it is “never” in one’s best interest to initiate force for all normal life situations.

… you are also assuming that the principle of non-initiation of force doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.

No, the hypothetical person (I was asked for an example) would make that claim. And the details and/or circumstances of when that claim could be made rationally would be, at best, extremely rare.

That would be an indictement of the principle, not of people who are refusing to live by it. The only reason to hold a principle is because it is in your best interest. Holding a principle just because Objectivism said so is wrong.

We’re not really in disagreement, and I hesitated to give an example because I knew it would, necessarily, be a convoluted and abnormal occurrence of human life. I don’t believe that initiating force to be in man’s best interest. I would tell that assassin that his LIFE, his HAPPINESS is suffering whether he realizes it or not. He’ll just tell me I’m wrong.

In any event though, I think you need to base the rationale on a code of conduct of a higher order than, “It is never in your best interest to initiate force…ever. Period”. The contradiction of a moral code is immoral. The fundamental principle should not be subject to contradiction *ever*.

To have a principle that contradicts reality is immoral. To be uncritical of a “judgement” that directly contradicts such a principle [is] also immoral, because you are living with a contradiction at that point. It either is in your best interest to commit crimes, or it isn’t.

Yes. So let me ask you. Is there a hierarchy of principles (code of conduct) here? Best interest “not to commit crimes” would seem to be a branch below best interest “to survive”. Both necessitate the adherence to the fundamental principle of non-contradiction, but those two principles could potentially contradict.

Though my two examples were flawed, I cannot be 100% certain that no situation in *any* individual’s life could arise where it is NEVER, rationally, in their own selfish best interest to initiate force.

Perhaps a real-life “lifeboat situation” is the most obvious way to illustrate why it is necessary to rely on more than the simple statement “It is NEVER in one’s best interest to initiate force”. A plane with two passengers is going down. There’s only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it “immoral” to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

I’m not anything close to an expert on Objectivism but from my reading about lifeboat situations, I’ve never found those hypotheticals to stymie Objectivist reason. What happens here (I think, and correct me if I’m wrong) is that the situation changed and no violation of rights occurred. Therefore, the initiation of force did not violate any rights, and was not “immoral”.

44

Yes. So let me ask you. Is there a hierarchy of principles (code of conduct) here? Best interest “not to commit crimes” would seem to be a branch below best interest “to survive”. Both necessitate the adherence to the fundamental principle of non-contradiction, but those two principles could potentially contradict.

I say they couldn’t contradict, as long as they are applied in the contexts they are valid in-“don’t commit crimes” is not valid outside the context of a Capitalist society, in non-emergency situations: I could care less for instance that it’s illegal to smoke pot. But it is always valid within that context, so it’s never in your best interest to commit a theft or a murder, as a normal course of action. The reason why the second principle is a derivative of the first one, and lower in the hierarchy, is because it merely expands on the first one, it explain how “acting in one’s best interest” should be done, more specifically. You shouldn’t copmmit crimes because it is in your best interest, and only for that reason. There is no other support for that principle, except the principle of self interest, applied to the facts of reality.

Now, if you want to get into those facts of reality, why exactly it is in your best interest to adhere to the principle “don’t violate the rights of others” (which in a fully Capitalist society would simply mean “don’t commit crimes”), there’s a list, starting with what the Police will do, to loss of self-esteem, to what your actions do to society as a whole (society in which you’re still supposed to live in), not to mention the absence of a rational principle to replace the one you just discarded, at least not as far as I know. I know some thiefs have “rules”, but I’m yet to see any good ones.

Obviously, none of those things apply the same way for a real emrgency situation in which your choices are limited to immediate death or the initiation of force against others. This principle was never meant to be applied in such a context. Your previous example about a crime you can get away with that will help you retire was not such an example. This last one is. While I don’t necessarily agree that yes it is moral to take the other guy’s parachute no matter what, this particular principle of non-initiation of force is not applicable. You’ll have to consider other things though, such as can you live with the consequences of doing that.

45

A plane with two passengers is going down. There’s only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it “immoral” to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

Objectivism can not tell you what to do in that situation. Rational philosophies build up their principles from looking at what repeatedly works in reality, but falling out of a plane without a parachute is something so out of the ordinary that principles worked out in everyday life just don’t apply, so no guidance can be offered. Only someone who spent their entire life risking life and limb such as an adrenaline junkie or elite commando could come up with principles applicable to that situation.

46

Objectivism can not tell you what to do in that situation. Rational philosophies build up their principles from looking at what repeatedly works in reality, but falling out of a plane without a parachute is something so out of the ordinary that principles worked out in everyday life just don’t apply, so no guidance can be offered. Only someone who spent their entire life risking life and limb such as an adrenaline junkie or elite commando could come up with principles applicable to that situation.

I think Objectivism allows you to remain consistent even in that situation.

Initiation of force is wrong for a reason. It isn’t just stated as so without rationale. Part of that reasoning includes that violating other’s rights is wrong. In a situation like above, when it is about base survival, “rights” do not apply as they do in “ordinary” situations. The context changes, but it is still in your best interest to survive by your ability to reason.

47

Perhaps a real-life “lifeboat situation” is the most obvious way to illustrate why it is necessary to rely on more than the simple statement “It is NEVER in one’s best interest to initiate force”. A plane with two passengers is going down. There’s only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it “immoral” to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.

Objectivism doesn’t hold the none-initiation force principle as a simple statement “It is never in one’s best inters to initiate force”. This principle is derived from objectivist ethics of egoism, or rational self interest. Objectivist ethics is derived from objectivist epistemology which is derived from objectivist metaphysics. Here is a short example. Man survives by using his mind. This means he must be able to keep and dispose the products of his mind in order to survive. The only thing that can take this ability away from him is the initiation of force. Therefore initiation of force is anti man’s survival anti man’s life.

What all lifeboat situations including yours do is remove the possibility of production, it makes impossible for any of the life boaters to produce what they need to survive. In a lifeboat scenario man’s mind is of no use. Lifeboat scenarios are a sneaky way to set up an artificial metaphysical reality were the definition of man is destroyed. So it basically asks, if man were not man, then would it be ethical for man to do action X?

But men do not live in metaphysical realities of life boats so objectivist ethics is not derived from those metaphysics, so I would have to agree with jake and philosopher that rights and other principles derived from normal metaphysics do not apply. In an emergency situation in which death is eminent the primary goal should be escape the danger and return to normal conditions. Whatever the man without the parachute chooses to do is the right thing. If he decides to die then that’s his choice. If he steals the parachute, he will have to live with that.