What are your thoughts on the following scenario?

Questions about Objectivism
1

Take a situation where one person’s rights are being violated by a second person. The second is inapable of correcting the violation without help from the victim and did not intentionally cause the violation.

The victim intends to use lethal means to protect his rights. The victim has non-lethal means of protecting his rights, but chooses lethal means for convenience.

A third party can forcefully intervene to make the first party to use the less convenient non-lethal means instead of the lethal.

In this situation, as the third person I stated that I would use force to prevent the unnecessary death, but I would not use lethal force. I’m not going to kill the victim to prevent the second from being killed. But I am going to further impose on the victim to prevent death.

Wrong answer. “Bearster” banned me from undernet #AynRand IRC for this position (reason: intrinsicist). Unfortunately I was not able to get a rational answer out of anyone as to the objectivist position.

I know that objectivists recognize force as binary. You either don’t impose, or you stand ready to fire a gun. There is no in-between.

Then, is the objectivist position that the means of protecting one’s rights are completely up to the person whose rights are violated in every case, even where the violation wasn’t willful?

Is there some other resolution I’m missing here?

2

First off, if the 2nd person did not intentionally cause the violation, it’s not really a right violation; more of an accident.

Second, I don’t think you have the right to use what is usually known as “excessive force.” If the 1st person can prevent the accident/violation without killing the 2nd person, they should do so, otherwise they might be themselves charged with a crime.

Third, I think the 3rd person would be within their rights to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force (although they would not be obligated to do so.)

Fourth, were you really banned just for this? :slight_smile:

PS I think your last few paragraphs misrepresent Objectivism. What is your source?

3

Fourth, were you really banned just for this?  :slight_smile:

The situation which the discussion originally applied to was an emotionally loaded one. I think that carried over, and not taking an absolute position on the use of force was the final straw.

PS  I think your last few paragraphs misrepresent Objectivism. What is your source?

I am thinking specifically of both Galt and Rearden equating any kind of compulsion with the pointing of a gun in Atlas Shrugged and of Roark doing the same in The Fountainhead. Bearster also conveyed this at the tail of our conversation:

Bearster:

oh, you say you wouldnt SHOOT her

well, what do you think the meaning, nature, and consequence of aiming the gun at her is?!?

it is a threat:

it means “do not think. act, not in accord with your thoughts, but with my demands.”

the nature is a threat “if you do not obey, I possess the power to kill you and I will exercise it”

McGroarty:

I wouldn’t take it to the extent of shooting. But I would use physical force.

Bearster:

the consequence is either the destruction of her rational faculty (perhaps temporarily) or else the destruction of her life

what a fucking compromiser’s pragmatist approach!

either you use force, or you dont

there is no way to kid yourself

“well, I wouldnt kill her”

what the fuck would you do if she shot your face full of pepper spray

what if she picked up a gun to shoot YOU!?!?

then would you kill?

or is this all some sort of stupid jesus fantasy

McGroarty:

Are you trying to challenge my views, or are you merely insulting now?

Bearster:

I let my disgust for your dishonesty show

I should not have done it in that way

=-= Mode #aynrand +b *!*mcgroarty@*.speakeasy.net by ARbot

=-= YOU have been booted from #aynrand by ARbot (Banned: intrinsicist)

I never made mention that I would use or point a gun. As I interpret it, Bearster brought that up at the end to further equate any force with the threat of escalating to deadly force.

In addition to the above, I haven’t seen any mention of degree of force in any objectivist writing. It’s been binary in that every individual has rights, but an individual loses those rights when they violate others’ rights. I’ve not seen any mention of an individual losing only some measure of their rights, or of weighing one individual’s rights over another where there is a conflict. I’m not sure I’ve even seen any acknowledgement of the possibility of a conflict.

4

In addition to the above, I haven’t seen any mention of degree of force in any objectivist writing. It’s been binary in that every individual has rights, but an individual loses those rights when they violate others’ rights. I’ve not seen any mention of an individual losing only some measure of their rights, or of weighing one individual’s rights over another where there is a conflict. I’m not sure I’ve even seen any acknowledgement of the possibility of a conflict.

I haven’t seen degree of force discussed explicitly either. Under Objectivism, individuals are only supposed to use force for immediate defence, and otherwise let the police deal with it. I don’t see the need for an either/or between killing and not defending yourself at all. You can defend yourself by pointing a gun at someone. If the person surrenders you shouldn’t shoot him anyway. (of course you could if he continued to attack you)

I would certainly say that violating someone else’s rights does not mean you lose your rights. You still have the right to a fair trial, etc. Just because someone steals a pencil off your desk does not mean it is open season for you to kill him.

5

Wrong answer. “Bearster” banned me from undernet #AynRand IRC for this position (reason: intrinsicist).

Don’t feel too bad. Given a choice, it is better to be an intrincist than a subjectivist. :yarr:

I know that objectivists recognize force as binary. You either don’t impose, or you stand ready to fire a gun. There is no in-between.

I do not know why you think that. The principle of retaliatory force is just that, a principle, and in regard to principles there is just black and white. But it is in the application of that principle that one determines the degree of force to be exercised, a judgment made based on the full context of the threat. In a proper society such retaliatory force is the province of the police, and a citizen generally only uses retaliatory force in emergency situations where the threat is so imminent one cannot wait for the police to arrive. In such an emergency the degree of retaliatory force to use is a judgment implying both moral and legal issues. If I had a gun I would not shoot a man for stealing my newspaper, but I would claw out his eyes if he was intent on causing serious harm to my wife. I would say that, in general, you use the least amount of force necessary to successfully defend yourself.

6

My, what a lovely channel is #aynrand. :yarr:

7

Something confuses me about your question: “convenience.”

How would you define that? What if your opinion is that the victim is acting from “convenience,” but it is the victim’s judgement that to use non-lethal force is too high of a risk to their personal safety?

Can you concieve of a REAL situation where using non-lethal force does not increase risk to the victim? Because if the victim were my wife, and lethal force even slightly increased her chances for escaping non-harmed, I would insist that she use lethal force.

I would think that the same principle would apply to any rational person.