Political Theory

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 03:07:17 GMT

Clayton, thank you for directing my to your take.

mikachusetts said, "Everything that is unjust is immoral, but not everything that is immoral is unjust. Justice is part of morality, but not all of morality." This is the view that I held until I questioned the view that all things that are unjust are also immoral. Now I am unsure whether the view is correct or not.

Southern said, "But once we begin to erode peoples rights to their property for this exception or that exception would it really be a libertarian society based on non-aggression?" I had that thought too. My view is that a completely libertarian society is a society in which all acts of aggression are illegal. Even if the vast majority of people say that certain acts of aggression are moral, as long as those acts are still punished in the legal system as aggressive, unjust acts then I think it's still a libertarian society.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. I finished The Machinery of Freedom and am now going to start Gerard Casey's book Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Southern — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:01:58 GMT

If you're asking how we can determine which specific rights vilations are justified beforehand, I'd say we just can't.

This seems like a recipe for an arbitrary justice system.

This is essentially why a libertarian legal system would have judges at all.

I dont think the judges would be there to neccessarially decide what is just or unjust (was it ok to take the gun), but to mediate the two parties to determine what actually took place and give an opinion on whether an actual rights violation occured (whose gun was it / was it actually taken without permission).

But I suppose you are right in the sense that a judge could rule that no rights violation occured (that it is ok to take someone elses property given the circumstances) and if that view is popular with the community then that would become the new law. But once we begin to erode peoples rights to their property for this exception or that exception would it really be a libertarian society based on non-aggression?

It would not be too far a leap for those same people that accepted a minor violation of property rights (taking the gun) to save the lives of a handful of people to accept a major violation of property rights (maybe the taking the life of one person) to save the lives of thousands of people.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

mikachusetts — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:41:02 GMT

But how do we determine which specific rights violations are justified?

Well, it depends. If you're asking how we can determine which specific rights vilations are justified beforehand, I'd say we just can't. There is just too much tacit knowledge of time and place and custom, etc. required to make such a judgement. For this reason, I don't think we can come up with a complete picture of law when we're talking about justice.

But if you're asking how we can determine which specific rights violations are justified after the fact, then I'd say its a matter of practical wisdom and experience. It takes a kind of "on the ground" knowledge and a familiarity of justice as well as a strong theoretical understanding. This is essentially why a libertarian legal system would have judges at all. If all we needed to know regarding guilt can be known already, then we could simply program For a New Liberty and a bunch of Walter Block's articles into a computer and let it spit out verdicts.

Are you saying that everything that is unjust is immoral and everything that is immoral is unjust? What then would be the point in having the two concepts?

No. Everything that is unjust is immoral, but not everything that is immoral is unjust. Justice is part of morality, but not all of morality. For example, it would be immoral to treat animals with cruelty, but not unjust (unless, of course, it was someone else's property).

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Clayton — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:18:06 GMT

@Peace: Here's my take. I think, all in all, my view is a cobbling of several heterodox views but doesn't fit exactly into any existing framework.

Clayton -

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:03:17 GMT

mikachusetts:
I'm saying you can respect rights (in general) while violating a right (in specific).

....

Likewise, an unjust act isn't solely a violation of a person's right, it is doing it within a general pattern of disrepect for rights.

But how do we determine which specific rights violations are justified? If I go into the grocery store, pick up something and walk out without buying it there isn't any general pattern of disrespect for property rights, yet my single specific rights violation (act of theft) would be unjust. How would we determine which rights violations aren't unjust in your view?

mikachusetts:
The solution then, is to understand justice as a component of morality. Starting from this point, when faced with a case where an action appears to be both moral and unjust (or immoral and just), we would re-examine our understanding of rights in order to create a coherent picture of morality and justice.

Are you saying that everything that is unjust is immoral and everything that is immoral is unjust? What then would be the point in having the two concepts?

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:59:02 GMT

Clayton said,

The key is to understand what the moral criterion (individual satisfaction) is and what the legal criterion (justifiability) is and how these criteria are different from one another.

I agree. Unfortunately I don't have a great understanding of either the moral criterion or legal criterion yet. :-)

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Anenome — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:44:30 GMT

You could say respect for rights is ordinal. I'd rather a few people not die than respect the right of the firearm owner not to have his right momentarily violated, since the situation proposes that choice, and because I'd rather do something than nothing.

Similarly with the example of pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming bus. You must violate their right not to be invaded by a push in order to save their far more important right to life.

I think this makes perfect ethical sense.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

mikachusetts — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:27:20 GMT

Southern:
How can you claim to respect peoples rights and then intentionally violate someones rights?

I'm saying you can respect rights (in general) while violating a right (in specific).

I am assuming of course that an unjust act is an act that violates a persons rights and that you believe that the gun owner actually has a right to the gun.

Well, here's what I said about justice: "justice is a respect for rights, and not the avoidance of every single rights violating act."

Likewise, an unjust act isn't solely a violation of a person's right, it is doing it within a general pattern of disrepect for rights.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

vive la insurrection — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:35:58 GMT

An amoralist would / could just deny the category or intelligability of morality.

In so much justice can or does exist - morality simply doesn't, or is at least a non factor.

While I myself may be an amoralist, I did not bring that up due to my thoughts. I have seen David Friedman give amoral scenarios on justice, which may be relevant when trying to relate to David Freidmans writings.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Southern — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:30:25 GMT

If you accidentally hit another car while driving,

I think we both agree that and unintenional act such as getting into a car accident does not demonstrate a lack of respect for rights. But we were discussing the issue in the context of an intentional act, such as deliberately taking the gun from its owner.

When you say the following:

Returning to Friedman's rifle example, my natural inclination is to doubt that taking the gun from the misanthrope actually constitutes an unjust act.

How can you claim to respect peoples rights and then intentionally violate someones rights?

I am assuming of course that an unjust act is an act that violates a persons rights and that you believe that the gun owner actually has a right to the gun.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

mikachusetts — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:04:31 GMT

how can you respect rights by violating them? It seems that avoidance of rights violations is respecting those very rights.

Yes, in most cases, avoiding rights violations constitutes repecting those rights. However, this isn't necessarily the case.

If you accidentally hit another car while driving, has a rights violation taken place? By NAP standards, yes, you have damaged someone's property. But that car accident doesn't really demonstrate a lack of respect for property rights -- its not an unjust action your part. Now maybe you were driving really recklessly, or it was a hit and run. In those cases, even though it was still an accident, you are acting unjust because the accident fits into a pattern of general disrepect for rights.

Another way to look at it is what we mean when we say "respect your elders." This doesn't mean do whatever an adult tells you to do. Rather, it's part of a whole set of attitudes and behaviors that we call respectful.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Southern — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:29:25 GMT

I believe justice is a respect for rights, and not the avoidance of every single rights violating act. This resolves a lot of the special case issues that libertarians struggle with.

How can you respect rights by violating them? It seems that avoidance of rights violations is respecting those very rights.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

mikachusetts — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:26:32 GMT

PeaceRequiresAnarachy,

The belief that some actions can be simultaneously moral and unjust, or immoral and just, requires a conception of justice that is entirely separate from morality. It entails that there is no essential connection between what is right and wrong (morality) and what is rights respecting or violating (justice).

The first problem with this view, if true, is that we should expect the overlap between moral actions and just actions to be entirely random. Yet this just isn't the case. If you could list every single action that you believed to be moral, and every single action you believed to be unjust, the number of items appearing on both lists would be FAR too low. In other words, from a statistics viewpoint, there is a strong correlation between morality and justice which suggests a relation between the two.

Another problem arises when we try to determine what to do in the cases when justice and morality seemingly conflict. Moral actions are actions that ought to be taken -- this is simply what it means for an action to be moral. It just wouldn't make any sense to say "when justice conflicts with morality, you should choose the former over the latter" -- whatever it is that you should choose IS what's moral. But if morality should always be chosen over justice, why should we concern ourselves with justice at all? Ther's just no reason to respect rights when it would be immoral to do so.

The solution then, is to understand justice as a component of morality. Starting from this point, when faced with a case where an action appears to be both moral and unjust (or immoral and just), we would re-examine our understanding of rights in order to create a coherent picture of morality and justice.

Returning to Friedman's rifle example, my natural inclination is to doubt that taking the gun from the misanthrope actually constitutes an unjust act. It might be a violation of the NAP, strictly speaking, but I believe justice is a respect for rights, and not the avoidance of every single rights violating act. This resolves a lot of the special case issues that libertarians struggle with.

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Clayton — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:15:06 GMT

The difference is that law arises from legal settlement of disputes - hence, legal norms are not the result of decisions made solely by an individual and solely determined by factors within the individual. Morality, on the other hand, can be thought of as "the art of choosing right ends" or "making the right choice in any given situation". Because the conditions for moral choice reside solely within the individual, moral norms are of a different character than legal norms.

However, both moral norms and legal norms are co-dependent - what is right depends on what is legal and vice-versa. The key is to understand what the moral criterion (individual satisfaction) is and what the legal criterion (justifiability) is and how these criteria are different from one another.

Clayton -

Re: Can an action be both unjust and moral?

Malachi — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:05:35 GMT

Dont worry, it wont be long before $20,000 isnt much money at all ;-)