Well, as to determinism, not so much. In other words nothing that follows from my actions is BOUND to occur, but I definitely influence the probability that they WILL occur. Hence the assumption of partial (not full) responsibility.
I don't believe in legal accountability in the sense of some arbiting authority forcing me to abide by a law or pay a consequence. Now if I had some sort of contractual obligation to protect the guy and I failed for whatever reason, say I chose to save my own skin instead...then the guy himself, or others he had contracted with for his protection, would have some claim against me. What he had the right to do about it would depend on the contract, if one existed.
If none existed he still would have some right to take action against me on purely ethical grounds. Depending on what he tried, if I thought it was fair I'd allow his right to do it. I mean if he got out of the water and came up to me and punched me in the nose I'd probably say "hey man, that was fair", and if he died and his contractors lynched me and tried to drown me I'd have to agree that they had good reason to try, but I wouldn't let them. I'd have to feel I'd done the wrong thing but I still have to value my own safety above others'. Besides, I didn't throw him in so I never assumed FULL responsibility for the death. If I caused additional harm in the process of self-defense I'd probably feel I was racking up some serious points against my character NAP-wise, though.
I was agreeing with you until you said this:
Lady Saiga: I mean if he got out of the water and came up to me and punched me in the nose I'd probably say "hey man, that was fair", and if he died and his contractors lynched me and tried to drown me I'd have to agree that they had good reason to try, but I wouldn't let them. I'd have to feel I'd done the wrong thing but I still have to value my own safety above others'. Besides, I didn't throw him in so I never assumed FULL responsibility for the death. If I caused additional harm in the process of self-defense I'd probably feel I was racking up some serious points against my character NAP-wise, though.
I mean if he got out of the water and came up to me and punched me in the nose I'd probably say "hey man, that was fair", and if he died and his contractors lynched me and tried to drown me I'd have to agree that they had good reason to try, but I wouldn't let them. I'd have to feel I'd done the wrong thing but I still have to value my own safety above others'. Besides, I didn't throw him in so I never assumed FULL responsibility for the death. If I caused additional harm in the process of self-defense I'd probably feel I was racking up some serious points against my character NAP-wise, though.
You sound like a masochist (no offense :D) but really, you seem to think that it is perfect response for no action to be punched in a face (violence). It's not that you provocated the person or anything. It completely blows my mind. But what disturbed me the most was that you (at least it seemed to me) would be ok if his contractors used direct violence on you.
You really have strange sense of accountability. That's like those religious zealots hurting themselves for their "sins"... Are you religious? Were you raised in a religious enviroment? I know that's personal questions so you don't have to answer them. But still, your thinking is weird.
If you really believed in NAP and wanted to justify using this principle, the person who punched you and contractors would be violating this in a first place. Now you accept double standard, it's ok for them to use violence, but it's bad NAP-wise for you to not accept at least some of it. Who is agressing against whom? You against the person or he and his gang?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
The thing is I never said that violent reactions were the BEST way for anyone to handle that situation, I just said that those were some ways they MIGHT. They are possible consequences. Just like Autolykos might possibly punch me in the nose just for putting him into checkmate...not wise choices, but probabilities.
As I accept partial responsibility for the event, I also accept partial accountability to the person or their representatives. Whether or not I thought they were justified to use violence against me would wholly depend on the situation. Since I've never indirectly, knowingly caused anyone to risk death, I've never been in a position to think ANYONE was justified in punching me in the nose. I react accordingly, by the way, to any would-be chess partners.
As a matter of fact I was raised in a strictly non-practicing family, one parent Catholic and the other Methodist. I myself am a polytheist and since I derive my ethics from my understanding of HUMAN truths, I never believed that they were handed down by any deity. For every god out there that expects A,B and C from their followers, there's another that says NOT to do A,B, and C. I don't get my ethics from any religious authority. Only from what I see of the world.
Then I misunderstood you. Or you have a hard time explaining it unambiguously :D
So my conclusion stands: you only described cause and effect which has little to do with morality. I mean, it's like talking about physical laws when the speech is about social interaction between people.
Lady Saiga: Also I'd like somebody to take some pains to explain why I'm wrong in thinking that an observer, by having the OPTION of changing an event, does not gain a level of moral accountability.
Also I'd like somebody to take some pains to explain why I'm wrong in thinking that an observer, by having the OPTION of changing an event, does not gain a level of moral accountability.
How many children in Africa died today BECAUSE you did NOT go to Wallmart, buy tons of cheap food, flew over there and fed them -- and instead spent all your time discussing ethics at mises.org? What level of "moral accountability" would you say you carry for the choices you (didn't?) make?
z1235: Lady Saiga: Also I'd like somebody to take some pains to explain why I'm wrong in thinking that an observer, by having the OPTION of changing an event, does not gain a level of moral accountability. How many children in Africa died today BECAUSE you did NOT go to Wallmart, buy tons of cheap food, flew over there and fed them -- and instead spent all your time discussing ethics at mises.org? What level of "moral accountability" would you say you carry for the choices you (didn't?) make?
I lost this part. Now I'm confused again. Damn you, Z :D
MaikU, I was just using reductio to point out the absurdity of Lady's claim that 'no action' makes one liable for outcomes they haven't caused just as much as their action causing those outcomes does. If it does, she would be liable for NOT improving the state/satisfaction of (or preventing negative outcomes to) billions of humans on this planet who she could have saved during every second she spent arguing here. Hope this helped clarify.
No I get it, and both yours and his are decent questions. I would say that the degree to which I am responsible in that case can be judged by scale and in fact that is usually a pretty important consideration in most decisions. Combine this with the fact that my responsibility to myself is greater than to others, and I have a way of making decisions that are fair and reasonable. There are effective ways for me to be of help if I choose to, and if I don't choose to, I'm morally defensible because I chose to be more effective at protecting myself. Still, I have a degree of culpability. This is like the original question in the thread; a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. You choose in favor of whatever your personal goals are, and assume that whatever you've neglected in their favor may very well come back to bite you...and in some cases, deservedly so.
Say I shoot someone who's trying to rape me. I've done one thing right by protecting myself, and one thing wrong by taking that person's life. Just because I made the right decision from one perspective doesn't mean it's the right decision from ALL perspectives. And I still have to answer for my actions.
As for your question above, the morality is in the judging of value between actions. This allows you to make sense of what you're justified in doing in any given situation, and what kind of claims others might justifiably have over you as a result of your own actions. It's a matter not so much of trying to predict what's going to happen to you later, as of making sure your decision is morally justifiable as far as possible. I happen to believe that this is the best way to minimize the risk of negative consequences, although sometimes you still wind up in a bad spot even when you've decided in a way that's morally defensible.
It's easier to think of this on a smaller scale. We've all had the experience of breaking up a fight between kids, where all of them are just reacting to the last thing that happened, and half the time none of them are reacting any longer to whatever the original transgression was. You end up yelling at all of them because you KNOW that they all share culpability for the fight in spite of the initiating incident.
Lady Saiga:Autolykos, I'd like to know how you arrive at this, logically. Also, what bearing does it have on the question? I'm not following.
You asked for his logic, but I'll expand on it. If not doing anything is causing harm, then you, Lady Saiga, have caused harm to every person in Sudan who has been wrongfully killed by the sudanese rebels since the time you were able to be conscious of the murders. Not just that, but any injustice in the world where you could have in any way, shape, or form helped the person treated unjustly and did not help, then you have caused harm. Obviously, this conclusion is ridicules. By looking on your picture, it appears you are in some sort of law enforcement or military uniform. Are you either? if so, I can imagine you are placed in all sorts of circumstances where causing harm or stopping it might not be such black and white situations. As to your main question: follow the NAP. The people demanding your life are the ones in violation of the NAP. This is THE ONLY LAW; all other law may be derived from it, and it only. Because they are extorting you, you now have the right to take defensive, violent action against the party in fault.
Lady Saiga:Once you know about the situation you have a choice, and your choosing is an original action that requires you to accept moral culpability. You didn't create the situation; in fact you rarely create the situations you're reacting to in daily life; you only create your own reactions to them.
This might bolster your case that some actions have no good outcomes, but to me it isn't entirely clear in this example that saving the man is the moral thing to do. It COULD be, but WHAT IF you save the man, he sues you because there was some complication from your lack of knowledge for how to handle the situation. The court claims that you should have waited for "trained" paramedics to save the man, and so you are responsible for the damages. You must now move your family out of their house to pay the bills and court costs, as well as XYZ. Now you have harmed your family. Of course, this is an unlikely scenerio, but there are thousands of "what if's" to any situation that to assign blame for inaction, or as Mises would put it, choosing to sit idle while a man drowns, is utterly absurd. Now suppose the government takes the example above, and applies it to foreign aid. The government gives, say, 10 million bucks to China because, you know, their people are suffering and starving and if we don't do anything we are harming them. Well, it not just a "what if" but profoundly documented by this institute that foreign aid simply ends up in the hands of the rich of the nation receiving the aid and expropriates money from the poor of the nation giving it. For now, I am ignoring the harm our government would be doing to its citizens to give the aid in the first place, but you see my point. Assigning blame for harm to someone who refuses to "act" when presented with a situation of someone else's peril is utter poppy-cock. It is so naive that it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Sorry, I just noticed that Z kind of said what I just posted above. anyway
Lady Saiga:Say I shoot someone who's trying to rape me. I've done one thing right by protecting myself, and one thing wrong by taking that person's life. Just because I made the right decision from one perspective doesn't mean it's the right decision from ALL perspectives. And I still have to answer for my actions.
I dont really see how you can say that killing someone who is trying to rape you is wrong. Perhaps we are talking on two different fields. Maybe you believe it would be wrong. I do not. In this case, there is probably no debating around these issues. Its a matter of personal opinion. If you believe in objective morality (I do) then one of us is right and one is wrong. However, for the functioning of any society, as far as the law is concerned, I dont see how you could possibly be guilty of any wrong doing for killing the rapist. Ill show a similar stance using another example. A christian Libertarian might find using heroin objectively wrong because it becomes an idol that gets in the way of his relationship with God. However, he cannot, as a libertarian, legally condemn the heroin user for the sole reason of being a heroin user. In some senses, he also sees any legal action taken against the user for the reason of being a user also morally wrong. I see no conflict in this instance.
on a sidenote, you said in the other thread that all actions could be judged to be harmful to somebody? I guess all actions could be judged to be harmful to somebody in the same way that all cats COULD BE JUDGED to be adorable and cuddly. It doesn't change the fact that they are awful, disgusting creatures (or is that my judgement?). All kidding aside, if you take out the word "judged", I don't think this is always true. Every transaction in the market is seen to be beneficial by both parties to the exchange or else the exchange would not have taken place. you could use the "judged" argument to make any point you wanted. You COULD judge me to be a black guy. I'm not, but you COULD judge me to be.
Killing someone is not always wrong. Everything has a moral context. Sometimes killing someone is a moral and right act.
Killing an aggressor against your person to the point of attempted murder or rape, is not morally wrong. It is morally right. All uses of coercion to stop an aggressor are morally right, providing they go no further than stopping the aggressor. When the aggressor has taken the situation to life-threatening status, then you can morally kill them, carte blanche.
I think most would agree that being in the process of rape includes totally overpowering the victim, meaning they have the power of life and death over you, which means you would be able to morally use all means necessary to stop the trespass upon your person.
Use of responsive coercion to stop aggressive coercion is one of the most heroic things you can do, whether it's to save your own life or save another's. We must be very clear on what is the proper and moral use of coercion, lest we become like the immoral-pacifists who make no distinction between good uses of coercion and evil uses, and by that enable the evil uses and by their preaching a false morality oppose the moral and necessary uses of coercion.
Anemone:Killing an aggressor against your person to the point of attempted murder or rape, is not morally wrong. It is morally right. All uses of coercion to stop an aggressor are morally right, providing they go no further than stopping the aggressor. When the aggressor has taken the situation to life-threatening status, then you can morally kill them, carte blanche.
I don't think rape is necessarily life-threatening.
Anemone:I think most would agree that being in the process of rape includes totally overpowering the victim, meaning they have the power of life and death over you, which means you would be able to morally use all means necessary to stop the trespass upon your person.
That doesn't make attempted rape the same as attempted murder. Having the (perceived) power of life and death over a person is not the same as trying to kill him.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum