So to Jon, perhaps I have a different definition of ontology than you (computer science version), but we are talking about a structure of elements that are objective to us, that lead to our preception right?
JC, I think what you are asking is, is it possible to steal from someone who actively denies property rights by their actions. So stealing is the property transfer between two parties, the legitimate owner to the illegitmate owner. For this we require restitution to rebalance things as best we can. The taking of a thugs gun, is certainly a valid form of resititution since it at least stops present predations. I would not call this stealing. To me the word stealing implies immorality just like the word murder.
twistedbydsign99:JC, I think what you are asking is, is it possible to steal from someone who actively denies property rights by their actions. So stealing is the property transfer between two parties, the legitimate owner to the illegitmate owner. For this we require restitution to rebalance things as best we can. The taking of a thugs gun, is certainly a valid form of resititution since it at least stops present predations. I would not call this stealing. To me the word stealing implies immorality just like the word murder.
OK, so, because I think that taking the antibiotics for my child is the right thing to do, I won't call it stealing. Then it won't fall under your definition of things that are always wrong.
See, I thought we were having a debate, where we were trying to establish whether stealing was always wrong. However, since you have built into your definition of the word stealing that the taking must be wrong, then I was mistaken. Instead, the debate is whether taking the food is stealing. However, I might suggest that loosening your definition, such that stealing means any taking without the permission of the current possessor/claimant is stealing, will make this debate more comprehensible to the general reader.
Ontology is better known as metaphysics, the branch of philosophy dealing with what entities might exist &c. The arguments are not scientific, they are pre-scientific, and are based more in logic than in observation, as they are in the first place what make observation possible (e.g. time-invariant causation.)
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
JCFolsom:I thought we were having a debate, where we were trying to establish whether stealing was always wrong.
I think it's more fundamental than that. It's whether the initiation of force is ever morally justified. You could very well rephrase the problem to slavery or whatever... For instance, say the magic pill must be personalized per patient. The pharmacist refuses to serve you: would you force him to produce the pill, in order to save your child? And is it a moral act?
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
BlackSheep:It's whether the initiation of force is ever morally justified.
Well, I tried to argue earlier that that is not a valid question in the scenario presented.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Well taking your looser definition of what stealing is, I think black sheep has a valid point. When you classified that person as an oppressor he was clearly defined as the initiator, to which actions of defense/restitution could be applied. Its not so much the permission of the current possessor, but the rightful owner. Now you were careful to say that the oppressor first justly acquired his gun. The moment he begins to oppress he denies the existence of a legitimate owner to anything, so taking his gun is fine.
BlackSheep: I think it's more fundamental than that. It's whether the initiation of force is ever morally justified. You could very well rephrase the problem to slavery or whatever... For instance, say the magic pill must be personalized per patient. The pharmacist refuses to serve you: would you force him to produce the pill, in order to save your child? And is it a moral act?
Well, sure, the initiation of force, we can put it that way. I have held, both here and in the Animal Rights thread, that there are circumstances other than self-defense where the use of force is appropriate. But, in this circumstance, we're talking about stealing (or taking, as you prefer) pills for a sick child. We have just seen an argument that it is okay to take from someone who displays a willingness to violate property rights. Because two wrongs make a right?
twistedbydsign99: Well taking your looser definition of what stealing is, I think black sheep has a valid point. When you classified that person as an oppressor he was clearly defined as the initiator, to which actions of defense/restitution could be applied. Its not so much the permission of the current possessor, but the rightful owner. Now you were careful to say that the oppressor first justly acquired his gun. The moment he begins to oppress he denies the existence of a legitimate owner to anything, so taking his gun is fine.
I see, so someone doing something you disagree with voids their property rights completely.
JCFolsom:I see, so someone doing something you disagree with voids their property rights completely.
JC, you should know that eliding "violating the principle from which property rights derives" into "doing something you disagree with" is a cheap and disengenuous ploy. I was beginning to think that you were beyond that kind of thing.
JC its not that two wrongs will make a right, I doubt that is possible. I was just saying that when a thief voids someones property rights they also void their own to the same degree. Just in the interest of fairness, not personal preference. As you noted restituion is far from a simple thing, it could easily become a second wrong. If a parent says I hereby deny this pharmacy the right to these pills because I see a better purpose, and that is considered moral. Then they must also consider the pharmacist taking them back immediately to be moral as well as anyone else who believes they see a better purpose for those pills. But note this is not what they believe. They believe they can take the pills and then KEEP them or else why would they steal? Very inconsistent right?
histhasthai: JC, you should know that eliding "violating the principle from which property rights derives" into "doing something you disagree with" is a cheap and disengenuous ploy. I was beginning to think that you were beyond that kind of thing.
I had not intended to do so... but I see your point. A bit embarassing. Thank you for pointing it out, though. Sorry.
twistedbydsign99: JC its not that two wrongs will make a right, I doubt that is possible. I was just saying that when a thief voids someones property rights they also void their own to the same degree. Just in the interest of fairness, not personal preference. As you noted restituion is far from a simple thing, it could easily become a second wrong. If a parent says I hereby deny this pharmacy the right to these pills because I see a better purpose, and that is considered moral. Then they must also consider the pharmacist taking them back immediately to be moral as well as anyone else who believes they see a better purpose for those pills. But note this is not what they believe. They believe they can take the pills and then KEEP them or else why would they steal? Very inconsistent right?
I tend to deny the idea that value is utterly subjective. If one person has the motivation, "I have no money and my child, to whom I have an obligation, will die without this medicine and the pharmacy won't trade it for anything I have available." and the other has the motivation, "If I sell this medicine to someone who does, in fact, have the money to pay for it, I can go get that new DVD I've been wanting.", I'm sorry, but I think it can be well established that one's need is more dire than the other's. I know this sounds socialistic, but I've said that I don't believe government agents have a right to do this for you.
Sorry to hear you think value is objective, or semi-objective if thats possible.
JCFolsom:I'm sorry, but I think it can be well established that one's need is more dire than the other's.
You're free to think that, or anything else you want to think, as long as you don't attempt to act on your opinions using force.
--Len
Len Budney:You're free to think that, or anything else you want to think, as long as you don't attempt to act on your opinions using force.
But most of us have already acknowledged we would attempt to act on this opinion by force, whether we are willing to say it's right or not. Therefore, all I am is stating that my beliefs are consistent with both my and your actions, while you insist that you believe differently from how you would act.
JCFolsom:But most of us have already acknowledged we would attempt to act on this opinion by force, whether we are willing to say it's right or not.
This is getting repetitious, but the reply to that is to remember that if you do it by breaking into MY house, I WILL shoot you. And hopefully you'll go to your grave knowing that I had every right to do so.
Len Budney: This is getting repetitious, but the reply to that is to remember that if you do it by breaking into MY house, I WILL shoot you. And hopefully you'll go to your grave knowing that I had every right to do so.
I agree that you have a right to do so, but what that means is that we have competing rights, not that one of us is wrong. And, thus, if I were on a jury, however that conflict turned out, I would convict neither party.
JCFolsom:I agree that you have a right to do so, but what that means is that we have competing rights, not that one of us is wrong.
That statement is morally incoherent. It's right for you to rob me, and it's right for me to stop you using lethal force. It appears that you're confusing, "I will do X," with "X is morally right."
Len Budney: That statement is morally incoherent. It's right for you to rob me, and it's right for me to stop you using lethal force. It appears that you're confusing, "I will do X," with "X is morally right."
My proposition is that a person's actions are more representative of his (forgive me for using the traditional male, ladies) true beliefs and morals than his words. Thus, if his words and actions are in conflict, than we should take his actions as the true statement. Y'all haven't even buckled under the weight of the immediate decision, no, you acknowledge even before that terrible choice comes about that you will act contrary to your stated beliefs.
Everyone always acts as they want to act, and people always want to act as they think they should act, regardless of what lies they tell themselves to satisfy their particular cultural shame. A person who matched the ethics you state would in fact value the property of others over the life of his child, and therefore would not steal. Psychology is complex, isn't it?
Morals aren't just pretty words. They only have meaning when they govern your actions. You may like the way the non-aggression principle sounds, and you certainly don't want to be aggressed against, but when the rubber hits the road, you would be as willing to steal as a statist. Indeed, by the actions you acknowledge, you admit that as a practical matter, you would support the state for some things.
My proposition is that a person's actions are more representative of his (forgive me for using the traditional male, ladies) true beliefs and morals than his words.
That's leading you to confusion. By your reasoning, it's always an oxymoron to say, "I just did something immoral." You're trying to do with ethics what economics does with preferences. It's badly misguided.
Len Budney: That's leading you to confusion. By your reasoning, it's always an oxymoron to say, "I just did something immoral." You're trying to do with ethics what economics does with preferences. It's badly misguided.
No, not always an oxymoron, only an oxymoron (lie, though perhaps to oneself as much as anyone) until the persons morals change such that they would not take the same action again in the same circumstances. It's just like saying you're sorry and then going and doing the same thing again. You weren't really sorry you did it, you just wanted to deflect the anger of the person you wronged, or alleviate your own sense of cognitive dissonance, or some such thing. Your statement of, "I did something immoral" just helps you maintain the illusiory character you've made for yourself. Your true self, your true morality, is defined by your actions.
JCFolsom:No, not always an oxymoron, only an oxymoron (lie, though perhaps to oneself as much as anyone) until the persons morals change such that they would not take the same action again in the same circumstances.
Yes, I understand you precisely. And you're wrong. First, it's possible to do something again and again, believing the whole time it's wrong. You're beggaring the meaning of "belief" here. And second, libertarian morality is a fixed frame of reference, with respect to which its adherents will judge a man immoral for initiating aggression regardless what he thinks about it himself. In that sense it is "objective."
Value is objective and agent-relative (which is why many take it to be subjective.) Something is valuable both because one values the ends it can be put to and because it is capable of servicing those ends (they can err on this, of course.) JCFolsom is arguing it's interpersonally comparable, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Len Budney: JCFolsom:No, not always an oxymoron, only an oxymoron (lie, though perhaps to oneself as much as anyone) until the persons morals change such that they would not take the same action again in the same circumstances. Yes, I understand you precisely. And you're wrong. First, it's possible to do something again and again, believing the whole time it's wrong. You're beggaring the meaning of "belief" here. And second, libertarian morality is a fixed frame of reference, with respect to which its adherents will judge a man immoral for initiating aggression regardless what he thinks about it himself. In that sense it is "objective."
Look, until you actually live up to the morals you propose, you are just (forgive the crudeness) engaging in mental masturbation, convincing yourself that you're a person you'd be more comfortable with than you really are, as your actions are somehow the exception to how you'd normally act. They're not. They're how you will always act in that circumstance, until you change yourself and your morals.
Your self-flagellation isn't you feeling bad about what you're doing. If doing it made you feel bad, you wouldn't do it. You feel bad that you don't feel bad, because you aren't matching the mental model you've built for yourself, the character you'd like to think you have. Telling yourself it's immoral is just your way of reaffirming that you are, in fact, the man you'd be comfortable being, and not the man your actions reveal you to be.
JCFolsom:Sorry.
Accepted. We may get along well afterall.
JCFolsom:I agree that you have a right to do so, but what that means is that we have competing rights,
How about this way: it is necessary for the mother to steal, but that does not make it right. There is no conflict of rights here. The reason this is such a dilemma is that she has no choice that is not immoral. Both choices are wrong, but she must do one of them. You can't make that decision based on morality.
And, to reiterate, that choice was forced on her as a consequence of some previous choice that was made incorrectly - even if innocently - either by her or by another.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: In the interests of derailing this thread even further, here's an amusing (some would say offensive) quote from a recent science fiction novel, The Philosopher's Apprentice by James Morrow: "Why . . . would this same divine serial killer have begun his career spending thirteen billion years fashioning quadrillions of needless galaxies before finally starting on his pet project: singling out a minor planet in an obscure precinct of the Milky Way and seeding it with vain bipedal vertebrates condemned to wait indefinitely for the deity in question to disclose himself?"
In the interests of derailing this thread even further, here's an amusing (some would say offensive) quote from a recent science fiction novel, The Philosopher's Apprentice by James Morrow:
"Why . . . would this same divine serial killer have begun his career spending thirteen billion years fashioning quadrillions of needless galaxies before finally starting on his pet project: singling out a minor planet in an obscure precinct of the Milky Way and seeding it with vain bipedal vertebrates condemned to wait indefinitely for the deity in question to disclose himself?"
I find that argument very weak. What if God has revealed himself but no one bothered to notice?
Once you declare that God has not revealed himself, you are guaranteed to miss revelation should it occur.
Not that I believe in God, personally.
Peace
JCFolsom:Look, until you actually live up to the morals you propose, you are just (forgive the crudeness) engaging in mental masturbation...
Back atcha, buddy. But the simple fact is that people do things contrary to their own morals. What do you think that "conscience" thing of yours is all about? Or do you lack one?
They're not. They're how you will always act in that circumstance, until you change yourself and your morals.
Nonsense. If you murder to save your child's life, and then turn yourself in to the police and submit voluntarily to lethal injection, do you sever the two completely in your mind, and conclude (1) that murder is moral, and (2) that you happen to feel suicidal?
Your self-flagellation isn't you feeling bad about what you're doing. If doing it made you feel bad, you wouldn't do it.
Talk about mental masturbation. You've just defined conscience out of existence for the sake of your glorious theory.
JCFolsom:until you actually live up to the morals you propose,
I live up to them (to the best of my imperfect ability) by avoiding being in such situations in the first place. When and if it does happen despite my best efforts, I do what is necessary, accept that it was wrong and take the consequences. I may try to avoid the consequences others wish to impose on me, but there are still consequences, (including consequences for the avoidance, if that choice is made).
That's the root action of moral behavior: not evading full knowledge of the consequences of what you do. Knowing the consequences of it, both natural and man-made, is what keeps me from going around drinking, whoring, and taking drugs, or stealing, raping, and killing.
histhasthai: JCFolsom:I agree that you have a right to do so, but what that means is that we have competing rights, How about this way: it is necessary for the mother to steal, but that does not make it right. There is no conflict of rights here. The reason this is such a dilemma is that she has no choice that is not immoral. Both choices are wrong, but she must do one of them. You can't make that decision based on morality. And, to reiterate, that choice was forced on her as a consequence of some previous choice that was made incorrectly - even if innocently - either by her or by another.
Well, but how far back does that go? How far does the, "I have to do this immoral act because of someone's error (resulting in an amoral circumstance)" extend. I am rather unconvinced of the classification of error for many things too. People have to deal with difficult situations. That's how it is.
I think your definition of error is too different from the general definition to be useful in discussion. With the whale example before, I think most people would agree, that wasn't an error, just really, really bad luck.
As implied in other posts, a moral is just words until you actually put it to the test. You say that such a circumstance as the stealing of medicine only happens because of a prior error. But if all such situations are the result of errors and people cannot be held to their morals in such situations, why have morals at all? A moral is something that restrains your actions, something where, even if you would be advantaged by violating that moral, you don't because you believe it's wrong. And, that sort of rule is not changed just becuase the situation is really difficult. A moral only becomes real when it's tested, when it determines your action. Unless I'm mistaken, you would render morals meaningless, or at least somewhat trivial, by your arguments.
JonBostwick: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: In the interests of derailing this thread even further, here's an amusing (some would say offensive) quote from a recent science fiction novel, The Philosopher's Apprentice by James Morrow: "Why . . . would this same divine serial killer have begun his career spending thirteen billion years fashioning quadrillions of needless galaxies before finally starting on his pet project: singling out a minor planet in an obscure precinct of the Milky Way and seeding it with vain bipedal vertebrates condemned to wait indefinitely for the deity in question to disclose himself?" I find that argument very weak. What if God has revealed himself but no one bothered to notice? Once you declare that God has not revealed himself, you are guaranteed to miss revelation should it occur. Not that I believe in God, personally.
This response seems to assume that it's meant to be a knock-down drag-out argument. I don't think it's meant to be. It's just suggestive, operating at the levels of metaphysics and psychology: i.e., touching on the nature of god and the universe. I also don't see why declaring that God has not revealed himself yet means you are guaranteed to miss revelation should it occur.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Len Budney: JCFolsom:Look, until you actually live up to the morals you propose, you are just (forgive the crudeness) engaging in mental masturbation... Back atcha, buddy. But the simple fact is that people do things contrary to their own morals. What do you think that "conscience" thing of yours is all about? Or do you lack one?
That conscience thing prevents me from taking actions I think are wrong. That guilt thing after you do something wrong isn't conscience, it's just you having difficulty reconciling your actions with the illusiory personality you maintain.
Would you? What if your child needs you again in the future? Seems kinda selfish to me, assuaging your own guilt (cognitive dissonance) at your child's expense.
JCFolsom:That conscience thing prevents me from taking actions I think are wrong. That guilt thing after you do something wrong isn't conscience, it's just you having difficulty reconciling your actions with the illusiory personality you maintain.
Are you a buddhist, trying to teach me about anatta? 'Cuz it sure sounds like you're just pontificating.
What if your child needs you again in the future?
Shoulda thought of that before attempting to burgle my house, and getting yourself shot.
JCFolsom:How far does the, "I have to do this immoral act because of someone's error (resulting in an amoral circumstance)" extend.
No further than the immediate fact that your choices are limited to only two, both of which are immoral. Investigating the root cause is a task for later, after the crisis is diffused.
JCFolsom:I am rather unconvinced of the classification of error for many things too. People have to deal with difficult situations.
You're right, but rather than use that to say that something is not an error, I use to explain why errors happen, and why they are often unavoidable. Errors do not necessarily imply guilt, but it doesn't matter, guilt or innocence is irrelevant at the point your choices are reduced to steal or die.
JCFolsom:if all such situations are the result of errors and people cannot be held to their morals in such situations, why have morals at all?
I didn't say they can't be held to their morals, I said such people exist in a context where morals are moot. They have literally no choice but to commit an immoral act - all the moral choices are literally impossible. Others are not in that context, and morals are not moot for them.
The reason to have morals at all is, first, to avoid getting into such a situation, and second, to afterward understand how you got there, how to deal with the consequences, and then back around to figuring out how to avoid it next time.
JCFolsom: A moral is something that restrains your actions,
I don't see it that way. A moral principle is something that guides your decisions. A subtle, but vitally important distinction. When your choices are constrained to only immoral choices, and it's not possible to not choose, then even a moral principle has no power to prevent your immoral action.
histhasthai:I don't see it that way. A moral principle is something that guides your decisions. A subtle, but vitally important distinction. When your choices are constrained to only immoral choices, and it's not possible to not choose, then even a moral principle has no power to prevent your immoral action.
Ever more convinced am I that we are arguing semantics, here. I say this thing means this, therefore that, you say no, this thing means this, therefore other, but you put us both in the same situation and press the mute button and the actions wind up looking exactly the same. The only real difference here is how we rule on a jury, which only happens after the fact.
JCFolsom:we are arguing semantics, here.
Don't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I think there's a substantive conceptual disagreement, in particular over the nature of morals themselves. We're additionally at a semantic disadvantage because there is no accepted terminology for the concepts I am attempting to describe, and the common terminology you are using, and the concepts it denotes, I believe, contain irreconcilable contradictions. Not the least of which is that it leads to the kind of dilemma that started this thread.
See, I'm arguing that the common understanding of the question itself, even to libertarians, is fundamentally flawed. I don't believe it is a dilemma, and am trying to explain why, yet I immediately hit a wall just on what the concept of "not a dilemma" means in this context.
And the actions don't look exactly the same, particularly those that follow from the core alternative actions we are discussing. As to the two choices of action, there are only two by the premise of the original question, and one of them we both seem to agree is unthinkable, so of course that particular question will have the same answer however we come to it. But the real question here is the moral status of the choice and the actions, and that implies consequent actions that do vary between our approaches.
The semantic issues are a serious obstacle, but not the root of the problem itself.
histhasthai: And the actions don't look exactly the same, particularly those that follow from the core alternative actions we are discussing. As to the two choices of action, there are only two by the premise of the original question, and one of them we both seem to agree is unthinkable, so of course that particular question will have the same answer however we come to it. But the real question here is the moral status of the choice and the actions, and that implies consequent actions that do vary between our approaches. The semantic issues are a serious obstacle, but not the root of the problem itself.
Well, alright. I don't want to short change a serious and interesting question like this one. Still, I think that semantics have become more and more of a problem, and I tend to agree that the language actually does not have a great variety of words for these concepts. We have morals and ethics, at least, to work with. I shall try to give my definitions of them, and we can see where we disagree.
So, let's go from there.