I've been reading Bastiat, and he states that:
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.
I agree with this assertion. However, I stand on a dillema. Someone proposed the "sick child" idea, where one would have a sick child which needs medicine, and therefore the morality of the action protecting the life by stealing medicine is less than the immorality of stealing the medicine, therefore making the robbery moral. I disagree, since I believe that the person has no right to steal, even if someone is sick.
However, is there another way to answer this argument other than "I don't believe someone should steal under any circumstances"?
Yeah. If the thief provided compensation afterwards it might be excused. Which is to say, he will be in debt to the person from whom he stole.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Robbery is never moral, but im that situation all of us would probably commit an immoral act. Morality isn't determined by the ends you wish to achieve. That is the same grave fallacy that supports taxation I believe.
So it could be excusable for someone to steal under extreme circumstances, as long as they pay back their debt when they have the possibility to pay back.
Yes, more or less.
i'd say it depends on how you define excuseable. In my opinion stealing is immoral under any circumstances, but i would act immorally if i had to steal to save a loved one and had no other option. If some fantastic scenario occured in which someone stole from me because it was their only choice to save a sick child, i'd understand and would forgive them.
twistedbydsign99:Robbery is never moral, but im that situation all of us would probably commit an immoral act. Morality isn't determined by the ends you wish to achieve. That is the same grave fallacy that supports taxation I believe.
Well, now, I think that by some moral calculus, it might in fact be moral to steal the medicine. If it be accepted that the parent has an obligation to provide for and care for his or her child, but they lack any means to acquire the medicine without stealing, than they have the competing moral imperitives to respect the property rights of the person who currently possesses the medicine and to care for the child who needs the medicine.
How do we decide which morality takes precedence? It is an immoral act not to fulfill your obligations, and an immoral act to steal. If it can be demonstrated that the least harm (I'm gonna get it for that one) is done by stealing the medicine, since one not doing so deprives a child of life you are obligated to protect, and the other merely potential revenue (I'm kinda assuming a pharmacy here, it can easily get more complicated), the theivery may in fact be the less immoral, thus the moral, action.
Only an inconsistent moral calculus could find such an action moral. Stealing is immoral, and letting your child die of some disease if you can prevent it is immoral. Which is the lesser of two evils is a personal preference and not related to morality. Choosing the preferred less immoral action does not turn it into a moral action. The reason this is important is because the pharmacy is within its right to defend its medicine from these sick thief parents haha. And the reason that is important to me is because I tend to define morality as actions that can exist in parallel.
nje5019: i'd say it depends on how you define excuseable. In my opinion stealing is immoral under any circumstances, but i would act immorally if i had to steal to save a loved one and had no other option. If some fantastic scenario occured in which someone stole from me because it was their only choice to save a sick child, i'd understand and would forgive them.
In that case, however, it probably wouldn't even come up. Your willingness to forgive based on the circumstance tends to imply that they wouldn't have had to steal in the first place, but rather you would have given it to them or sold it at a discount when you learned of their circumstances.
I think this is somewhat a question of what you would do if you were on a jury. An impoverished parent with no other options stole from a pharmacy to save their sick child. The pharmacy presses charges. Do you jail/fine the parent?
I usually point out that it is stealing and the person who does it takes a risk. In this case, the risk of prosecution is pretty low if the victimized has anything to do with it. So we can see the problem with statist judiciary systems. There is a wall of separation between the victims and the victimizer, and that is the state. It can be very difficult to engage in this sort of risk-based analysis of actions such as stealing medicine for child when the punlishment imposed is detached from the private property matrix.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
A valid and useful morality cannot demand that you have to either die or violate it. Risk is a different question, I'm talking about certain death.
Any such dilemma is a form of "lifeboat ethics", and is properly outside the context of morality. Such a situation is caused by a breach of morality somewhere along the chain of actions that led to it. I know, you can always contrive a situation where there is apparently no one at fault, but nonetheless, a breach of morality has brought the situation outside of "pure" moral choices.
That breach may be unintentional, and it may even have been the most rational decision from incomplete information. The moral breach does not have to carry blame (that's not the purpose of moral principles), but nonetheless, an action that violates what morality would demand if known fully will have consequences. The universe doesn't care about your intentions or how much information you had.
Edit: I'll add that one of the primary purposes of morality is to avoid such situaitions in the first place. This hypothetical is not an argument against moral principles, but one that reveals the importance of them.
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.
You could state WHO you are stealing from. Maybe the person who has the medicine is in desperate need of, say, food, and the only way he can get food is to SELL the medicine he has.
What if you are taking away the last vile of medicine that someone else would pay for who also has a "sick child"? But in all reality I think everyone would do it.
Is it justifiable - yes. Is it morally justified - no. One could also use utilitarian grounds for justification.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
histhasthai, I completely agree. I would add that we can discuss/attempt to solve these difficult moral problems if and when they arise; such problems only serve to complicate and confound what are, typically, rather simple moral imperatives, i.e. do not steal, rescue when you are able. If and when these two imperatives come into conflict outside the realm of theory, their reconciliation will be a matter of moral judgment that, I am sure, very few moral agents will feel compelled to call into any great question.
Democracy does little else but depose one tyrant and install a nation's worth in his place.
histhasthai:A valid and useful morality cannot demand that you have to either die or violate it. Risk is a different question, I'm talking about certain death.
Validity is partly what is at question here, and I think you need to establish better that no valid morality can demand your death. As for useful ones, many of the warrior cultures of the world have had circumstances where death was the best option (to avoid dishonor or the like).
histhasthai:Any such dilemma is a form of "lifeboat ethics", and is properly outside the context of morality. Such a situation is caused by a breach of morality somewhere along the chain of actions that led to it. I know, you can always contrive a situation where there is apparently no one at fault, but nonetheless, a breach of morality has brought the situation outside of "pure" moral choices.
Are you saying that one person's immoral action voids all considerations of morality from the chain of events that follow? Is a bodyguard who contracted to do so not obligated to take a bullet for his employer because someone has attempted the immoral act of shooting at him?
histhasthai:That breach may be unintentional, and it may even have been the most rational decision from incomplete information. The moral breach does not have to carry blame (that's not the purpose of moral principles), but nonetheless, an action that violates what morality would demand if known fully will have consequences. The universe doesn't care about your intentions or how much information you had.
This is a somewhat ridiculous example, but if your ship has plenty of lifeboats, but several get destroyed by an angry whale and your ship is sinking, the dilemmas are not brought about by immorality. One can only make the best decisions one can based on the information that is reasonably available to them. Doing so, you act morally, and if you fail to do so, you act immorally. It can thus easily be done, as in the case of natural disasters and the like, that situations like these could arise with no precedent immorality.
Lord Jeff:such problems only serve to complicate and confound what are, typically, rather simple moral imperatives, i.e. ... rescue when you are able...
Do you actually propose that this is a simple moral imperitive? Because I beg to differ. There are all sorts of good reasons not to rescue someone, particularly if their predicament is one they brought about themselves, or if you just know them to be a bad person.
JCFolsom: Lord Jeff:such problems only serve to complicate and confound what are, typically, rather simple moral imperatives, i.e. ... rescue when you are able... Do you actually propose that this is a simple moral imperitive? Because I beg to differ. There are all sorts of good reasons not to rescue someone, particularly if their predicament is one they brought about themselves, or if you just know them to be a bad person.
I mean to say that it is simple relative to the example proposed about the medicine.
JCFolsom:I think you need to establish better that no valid morality can demand your death. As for useful ones, many of the warrior cultures of the world have had circumstances where death was the best option (to avoid dishonor or the like)
The purpose of morality is the furtherance of your life. (I'm sure you'll disagree with that, but if so, you can disregard what I wrote.) There's no benefit to honor if you are dead, and anyone putting your dishonor on your family is committing a logical fallacy.
JCFolsom:Are you saying that one person's immoral action voids all considerations of morality from the chain of events that follow?
No. The fact of a conflict between morality and life implies a previous breach, but a breach does not necessarily imply there will be such a conflict. A breach runs the risk of it, which is one reason to try as hard as possible not to commit such breaches, but it does not guarantee it. Such a conflict is prima facie evidence that the breach has broken the moral context - not all breaches have that consequence.
JCFolsom:Is a bodyguard who contracted to do so not obligated to take a bullet for his employer because someone has attempted the immoral act of shooting at him?
No, no more than whatever brought the mother and child to their circumstance breaks the pharmacist out of his moral context. They are separate contexts, (unless the event is part of a larger one, such as the complete breakdown of society or something). The pharmacist still has the right to protect himself from theft. I would question the morality of accepting a job that requires the possibility of such a sacrifice, but that's a different kind of question.
JCFolsom:but if your ship has plenty of lifeboats, but several get destroyed by an angry whale and your ship is sinking, the dilemmas are not brought about by immorality.
If you prefer, think "mistake" when I say moral breach. I consider them fundamentally the same class of things (with various species), but I have a much broader definition of morality than most people, so it's understandable if you disagree. Even mistake might sound too severe for you, but understand that my meaning of it is "not the correct action for the circumstances". And, as I said before, neither one automatically implies blame - the opposite of "moral" is not necessarily "immoral" as the term is commonly understood. Not having enough lifeboats to account for the whale eating some was not the correct action for the circumstances, by definition, since the whale did eat them and left you in the lurch. It may have been completely rational to not take more boats, it may have even been irrational to take more, nonetheless, the reality is that it was not the "correct" decision in the end.
Think of it this way, you have a map of an underground cave complex. The map is like a moral code, it helps you figure out the way to get where you want to go. You're walking around, and realize you made a wrong turn somewhere, so you no longer know where you are. There's no indication of what part of the cave you are in, so the map is suddenly no help. The map (you're moral code) no longer gives you any basis for deciding to turn right, turn left, or go straight. But you have to go somewhere. Flip a coin, pray, dowse, whatever, but it's no longer a question of the "moral code" map guiding you through the cave. The immediate goal then is to get your bearings as soon as possible, but until you do, you have no guidance. to your actions (at least not from the map).
histhasthai:If you prefer, think "mistake" when I say moral breach. I consider them fundamentally the same class of things (with various species), but I have a much broader definition of morality than most people, so it's understandable if you disagree.
I think you hit on what will be one of the real obstacles to this discussion, which is the somewhat ambiguous definition of morality. What is it? Does it differ from ethics, and if so, how? How do we determine morality in the first place? Those following the Rothbardian train of thought will say we can derive it from human nature, but even this I find tenuous.
I don't really expect for the question of "how ought we to live" to be definitively answered here.
Morality is a set of rules or guidelines defining how one should act. Determining what is moral is a long and exploratory process. Morality is not defined as that which furthers man, or that which is innate in mans nature. A parasitical class, such as a politician, can be defined as perfectly moral if we define morality as that which good for mans survival. Also my nature would tell me to murder if I caught my wife cheating on me. Neither of those things are a good moral ruler.
There are some basic rules I think I would agree a moral theory should possess. It should be internally consistent and non self detonating. Apply to all men, at all times, for all time. A moral action can never eliminate or impede the moral actions of another. Lastly there is no such thing as a positive moral action, such as one that must be performed or you are doomed to immorality. So if you see a child drowning you have no moral obligation to save that child, but it would be preferrable to me to do so. Note however that if you jump to save the child, then you are indeed obligated to follow through, there is no backing out at that point. The reason is that since you jumped in to save the kid from drowning, other people that may have noticed will not jump in as well since it could impede the rescue.
JCFolsom:one of the real obstacles to this discussion
Oh, I know it. I know I'm using terms, and even concepts, that differ from common understanding, even from the understanding common to the relatively small world of libertarian thinking - which itself differs from that of the wider world. To make it worse, there's a granuarity to it that leaves even me without clear terms for some of the parts.
I don't know how to resolve it without a whole long, contentious thread that would probably have to include parts of the last thread we encountered each other in, and with me making terms up as I went along.
The best I can do is make it as clear as possible what my concepts are, and see if any part of it rings true to others. If it helps, my starting point is the objectivist view of morality, but I've diverged even from that somewhat.
predius: I've been reading Bastiat, and he states that: Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. I agree with this assertion. However, I stand on a dillema. Someone proposed the "sick child" idea, where one would have a sick child which needs medicine, and therefore the morality of the action protecting the life by stealing medicine is less than the immorality of stealing the medicine, therefore making the robbery moral. I disagree, since I believe that the person has no right to steal, even if someone is sick. However, is there another way to answer this argument other than "I don't believe someone should steal under any circumstances"?
Defending your life is not the same thing as preserving your life at someone else's expense.
If I am allowed to steal medicine because I'm sick, in order to preserve my life, I am allowed to never work and just steal food, in order to preserve my life.
An individual's freedom to act towards their continued existence does not include actions that are detrimental towards another person's existence. Civilization can not exist when one person is allowed to sacrifice other for his own good.
Of course, law is not without a sense of proportionality. Stealing medicine from a store shelf and stealing medicine from someone else who will also die without it are different events. In the first case it may be in the person's best interest to steal the medicine and accept the liability of his crime, though the morality of doing so can be questioned.
Peace
JonBostwick:If I am allowed to steal medicine because I'm sick, in order to preserve my life, I am allowed to never work and just steal food, in order to preserve my life.
Well, the way I've always put it is that you only get the morality boost when stealing is your only option. A person who has to steal because they refuse to work is not restricted in their options. Stealing is only moral because the only other option, allowing your child to die, is even more immoral. If other, more moral actions exist to avoid the same evil, then you must take those options, whatever they might be.
JCFolsom:Stealing is only moral because the only other option, allowing your child to die, is even more immoral.
The problem with that is that there's basically no objective criterion for proving that this is the case. Will the child die in one second unless fed? One day? One week? One month? At what point are you allowed to decide that there's "no other option"? And do you really mean "no other option"? Have you tried catching and eating pigeons, or rats? How about tree bark? Dandelion or maple leaves? Refuse from dumpsters? As soon as you say, "Look, I'll steal before I make my kids eat ant-covered food from the garbage," you've lost the moral high ground.
And on a practical level, it's almost-but-not-quite impossible to be completely without choices, including relatives, friends, churches, charities and begging.
--Len
Len Budney: And on a practical level, it's almost-but-not-quite impossible to be completely without choices, including relatives, friends, churches, charities and begging.
Well, now, the last point is true, and these horrific, it-must-be-Armageddon-so-who-cares scenarios can be a little tiresome. That being said, remember we are talking about medicine here. Like, say the kid has pneumonia and needs antibiotics. You could try growing your own penicillin, I guess, but even if you managed to a lot of bugs these days are immune.
Len Budney: As soon as you say, "Look, I'll steal before I make my kids eat ant-covered food from the garbage," you've lost the moral high ground.
As soon as you say, "Look, I'll steal before I make my kids eat ant-covered food from the garbage," you've lost the moral high ground.
You're quite right. Ants are good protein anyways. And the formic acid gives them a nice tang.
JonBostwick: predius: I've been reading Bastiat, and he states that: Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. I agree with this assertion. However, I stand on a dillema. Someone proposed the "sick child" idea, where one would have a sick child which needs medicine, and therefore the morality of the action protecting the life by stealing medicine is less than the immorality of stealing the medicine, therefore making the robbery moral. I disagree, since I believe that the person has no right to steal, even if someone is sick. However, is there another way to answer this argument other than "I don't believe someone should steal under any circumstances"? Defending your life is not the same thing as preserving your life at someone else's expense. If I am allowed to steal medicine because I'm sick, in order to preserve my life, I am allowed to never work and just steal food, in order to preserve my life. An individual's freedom to act towards their continued existence does not include actions that are detrimental towards another person's existence. Civilization can not exist when one person is allowed to sacrifice other for his own good.
I was going to respond to the OP, but your post is uncannily similar to what I wanted to say, so I shall just add my 2 cents.First, why is the parent of the sick child destitute in the first place? OK, he might be a victim of government confiscation, or of some uninsurable natural calamity, but if he is responsible for his plight then I'd question the morality of his parenting a child which he could not afford to care for adequately.Second, if it were moral to steal to keep the child alive, then it would be moral to kill someone to obtain his liver for an organ-transplant. Morality is not the same as acting in your best interests. The purpose of law is to penalize IMMORAL acts sufficiently to make them AGAINST your best interests.And the purpose of morality, in a libertarian society, is not the preservation of your own life, liberty, and property, at any expense, but a system of rules to best protect EVERYONE's life, liberty and property with minimal conflict.
Arguing whether or not it is moral to initiate force against another (theft) even under dire circumstances simply leads us back to the collectivist socialist idea that sometimes it is ok to take from one for the benefit of another. Either something is wrong or it isn't. If you follow the logic of "oh, it's ok because the child might have died" then someone could just as easily say "yeah, I'm taking your money because the poor children in Africa need food" or "the poor are in need of housing" or any number of socialist programs.
No, stealing the medicine, even to save a life, is not moral or legal. But you can't always act in a moral and legal way. If it were me in that situation I would first ask for the medicine begging for charity. Failing that I'd steal it and live with the consequenses. I'd rather sit in jail while my child lived then try and live with the idea that my child died and I could have done something about it.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
kingmonkey:I'd rather sit in jail while my child lived then try and live with the idea that my child died and I could have done something about it.
I guess my version of morality is different than y'alls. Morality is something you live. You can theorize all day about morals but if, as many have said here, you would in fact steal for your child, in my mind that is your morality. You have decided that is what you should do in that circumstance. You are open hypocrites, and I mean that in a purely observational way. Your morality is revealed in your actions, not your words. If, truly, the mentality that it is ok to steal for someone in dire need is behind statism, than not one of the people, including myself, who states that they would steal for the child is truly an enemy of statism.
JCFolsom:If, truly, the mentality that it is ok to steal for someone in dire need is behind statism, than not one of the people, including myself, who states that they would steal for the child is truly an enemy of statism.
As long as you realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots you in self-defense, that's something at least.
Len Budney:As long as you realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots you in self-defense, that's something at least.
You or I could say we realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots us in self-defense, but do we mean it? Again, if he started shooting, would we just stand there and die? If I could not flee, I'd probably shoot back. If you would do the same, then, we certainly aren't respecting his right to shoot us in self-defense. Again, we place our own needs and wants over the property, rights, and even life of the current possessor.
Indeed, the only way to really respect his right to defend himself is to go to him and say, "I'm going to take that medicine now, with your permission or not. If you don't want me to, you'll have to shoot me." If you use stealth to accomplish your theft, you are denying him his right to defend his property just as surely as if you are shooting back at him.
JCFolsom: Len Budney:As long as you realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots you in self-defense, that's something at least. You or I could say we realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots us in self-defense, but do we mean it? Again, if he started shooting, would we just stand there and die? If I could not flee, I'd probably shoot back...
You or I could say we realize the property owner is doing nothing wrong when he shoots us in self-defense, but do we mean it? Again, if he started shooting, would we just stand there and die? If I could not flee, I'd probably shoot back...
I was suggesting recognition in principle, but OK. To put it in archic language, would you would still demand that the full penalty of law be imposed on thieves, sick children or no? Would you convict such a man of theft, as you should? Would you acquit the property owner for using lethal force, as you should? If the thief "defended" himself, taking the life of the property owner, would you convict him of murder, as you should? Would you vote against any measure intended to relax the law against theft or murder in such cases?
We can stipulate that if you were the accused, you'd tell a sob story and hope the jury buys it. We can also agree that that's hypocrisy--but if you can answer "yes" to the above questions, that's still something.
JCFolsom:not one of the people, including myself, who states that they would steal for the child is truly an enemy of statism.
No one is suggesting that the law recognize the right to steal in this scenario, only that the parent will steal. The question is one of responsibility. If she is held responsible for the theft, regardless of it's necessity, that does not support statism. If she is relieved of responsibility by a law recognizing her right to do so, that is statism.
All the arguing here about her moral choice is jumbling contexts. The first context is her own choice, the second context is the choice presented to people whom her choice affects. Going back to what I said earlier, her moral context is broken, she doesn't have morality to guide her in such a dilemma. But everyone else's moral context is intact. It still demands that they protect their property rights. If they decide to give her the medicine from charity, they have preserved their autonomy with relation to their property. If they choose not to give it to her, but then cannot, will not, or are prevented from defending (at least attempting to) that property against her, they have lost that autonomy.
The question, in regards its impact on statism is not: is it right for her to steal the medicine, it is: is it still considered stealing.
Len Budney: I was suggesting recognition in principle, but OK. To put it in archic language, would you would still demand that the full penalty of law be imposed on thieves, sick children or no? Would you convict such a man of theft, as you should? Would you acquit the property owner for using lethal force, as you should? If the thief "defended" himself, taking the life of the property owner, would you convict him of murder, as you should? Would you vote against any measure intended to relax the law against theft or murder in such cases? We can stipulate that if you were the accused, you'd tell a sob story and hope the jury buys it. We can also agree that that's hypocrisy--but if you can answer "yes" to the above questions, that's still something.
Good questions. Excellent questions. At first, I wanted to say I would. Now that I think of it, though, I'm not so sure. If I would have done the same thing in the same situation, and indeed, if nearly anyone would have done the same, should I punish someone for what everyone's expressed morality demands? Do I accomplish anything by punishing? Have I truly made any change? People are saying they would steal the medicine, with full consciousness of the consequences if they are caught. So clearly, punishment is not a deterrent in these circumstances. I can not say that the person accused is any worse a person than I am if I would have acted as they did. Mere circumstance divides us.
I would demand that the person work to compensate the previous owner for the loss. However, in the case that the owner had died in the conflict (assuming no heirs) there would be no one to compensate.
Note that there are some differences from statism in this position. I do not hold that a person has a right to act as a mercenary in this situation. Stealing for a wage is different than stealing for someone to whom you have a legitimate prior obligation. Your obligation via your contract is illegitimate, as a mercenary or hired thief, because you have no actual justification to steal from that person yourself. Your need is not there. A bit garbled, but I hope you take my meaning.
Thus, government thugs stealing for you is not justified. Your "hiring" them is, but their agreement to do so is not. The middleman is in the wrong. Even if we say that stealing in these circumstances is moral, if everyone acts morally and you are incapable of personally performing the theft, you're SOL.
JCFolsom:If I would have done the same thing in the same situation, and indeed, if nearly anyone would have done the same, should I punish someone for what everyone's expressed morality demands? Do I accomplish anything by punishing? Have I truly made any change? People are saying they would steal the medicine, with full consciousness of the consequences if they are caught.
Here's a perspective on that, though: stealing to save a life, and accepting the consequences, we can empathize with. But does that justify eliminating the consequences? One could view accepting the consequences as a "penance," or testimony to one's belief in nonaggression, which has no place in libertarian law, but which makes sense at the same meta-level as our empathy for the thief.
A more utilitarian argument would be that eliminating the consequences reduces the cost so that those who would steal without accepting the consequences are now incented to do so. Retaining the consequences at least limits such behavior to those who are willing to pay the price.
That's an excellent point. I think you've just made a cogent argument against aggression-to-save-life need not translate into institutionalized aggression. It's solid against legalization. I'm not so sure about decriminalization, though, because I'm fuzzy on the difference between that and legalization.
It also raises a new question. If your son is dying, aren't you saying that it's moral for him to steal the medicine, but not you?
JCFolsom: kingmonkey:I'd rather sit in jail while my child lived then try and live with the idea that my child died and I could have done something about it. I guess my version of morality is different than y'alls. Morality is something you live. You can theorize all day about morals but if, as many have said here, you would in fact steal for your child, in my mind that is your morality. You have decided that is what you should do in that circumstance. You are open hypocrites, and I mean that in a purely observational way. Your morality is revealed in your actions, not your words. If, truly, the mentality that it is ok to steal for someone in dire need is behind statism, than not one of the people, including myself, who states that they would steal for the child is truly an enemy of statism.
No, now you are trying to argue that you are a perfect man who commits no wrongs. Stealing is wrong pure and simple. Stealing to save a life does not make my theft moral. I don't have the right to steal but I have chosen to consciously commit an act of aggression against someone in order to save a child. Am I right in doing so? No. Does that mean I support statism? No, that's just stupid. It just means I've committed a crime -- I purposely violated the non-aggression axiom. I'm not justifying theft on any grounds. I'm just telling you what I'd do. And if you read my post I said I would first ask if the person would donate the medicine. Failing that you bet your ass I'd resort to breaking the law and saving my child. Anyone that says they'd just allow their child to die is either a liar or a psychopath.
And besides there is a BIG difference between you personally stealing and having some bureaucrat in Washington doing it and getting rich from it as well.
Len Budney: That's an excellent point. I think you've just made a cogent argument against aggression-to-save-life need not translate into institutionalized aggression. It's solid against legalization. I'm not so sure about decriminalization, though, because I'm fuzzy on the difference between that and legalization. It also raises a new question. If your son is dying, aren't you saying that it's moral for him to steal the medicine, but not you?
Your obligation to preserve their life was not solicited by them, but inherent to the parent/child relationship until the child is no longer dependent. I'm having a bit of trouble putting this to words, but the prior, legitimate obligation to preserve their life is what obligates you to act in their stead. It is a paren't role to act for their children when they cannot; it is a unique relationship.
JCFolsom:I'm having a bit of trouble putting this to words, but the prior, legitimate obligation to preserve their life is what obligates you to act in their stead.
Libertarian law (which is designed to be moral, but only a strict subset or morality) assumes NO positive obligations.
kingmonkey:No, now you are trying to argue that you are a perfect man who commits no wrongs. Stealing is wrong pure and simple. Stealing to save a life does not make my theft moral. I don't have the right to steal but I have chosen to consciously commit an act of aggression against someone in order to save a child. Am I right in doing so? No. Does that mean I support statism? No, that's just stupid. It just means I've committed a crime -- I purposely violated the non-aggression axiom. I'm not justifying theft on any grounds. I'm just telling you what I'd do. And if you read my post I said I would first ask if the person would donate the medicine. Failing that you bet your ass I'd resort to breaking the law and saving my child. Anyone that says they'd just allow their child to die is either a liar or a psychopath.
No, not a perfect man. If I steal a candy bar just because I wanted it, I think I have done right, but most would think I did wrong, and they'd be right. However, if I'd steal the medicine, and you'd steal the medicine, and that guy over there would steal the medicine, I think that we've established that the widely held, simplistic phrase that "Stealing is wrong pure and simple." is established as something most of us don't really believe. Indeed, if, as you say, not doing so would make you a "psychopath", than it is absolutely ridiculous to say it's wrong to do it.
Again, you can say it up and down all day and all night, but your actions prove you don't think it's wrong. And, as comforting as you might find it if they were, morals are not simple. People have been struggling with the question, "How ought I live?", for millenia. That struggle will not be resolved by simplistic deontology.
Len Budney:Libertarian law (which is designed to be moral, but only a strict subset or morality) assumes NO positive obligations.
If you are in a car accident that, while accidental, is completely your fault (looking for a cheeto or something) and you wreck the guy's ability to provide for himself, are you not obligated to provide for him? You are the cause of his dependency, so you must provide for it. Thus it is with children. They did not ask to be created, you imposed this upon them. Whether you intended to do so, as with the car accident, is immaterial. Thus, inasmuch as they are conceived and born into a state of dependency, you are obligated to provide for that dependency until such time as they can reasonably be considered independent.
JCFolsom, I agree. So the question, I guess, is whether the dependency of a child is accurately described as positive.
If you are in a car accident that, while accidental, is completely your fault (looking for a cheeto or something) and you wreck the guy's ability to provide for himself, are you not obligated to provide for him? You are the cause of his dependency, so you must provide for it.
True. That's not a positive obligation, though: it's a consequence of your actions. That it's an "unintentional" consequence doesn't excuse it.
They did not ask to be created, you imposed this upon them. Whether you intended to do so, as with the car accident, is immaterial.
I don't think I've seen the "children as car accident" approach taken before, but it's interesting. You might be on the trail of a viable libertarian legal doctrine of child-rearing. You're equating child-rearing with caring for someone in a coma with complete amnesia as a result of a car accident: the other driver has an obligation to care for them, gradually relinquishing control to the patient as he recovers consciousness, the ability to fend for himself, etc.
Very, very intriguing!