Altruism

[Wolf DeVoon]

As an aside, the term Good Samaritan Law usually means limited indemnity for a doctor or quick-thinking Boy Scout who renders aid at the scene of an accident before legally authorized do-gooders arrive. When seconds count, cops and paramedics are only minutes away, half hour tops except Sundays and holidays and after 8 pm unless it's raining.

;)

Good Samaritan doctrine - Black's Law 7th edition: 'A statute that exempts from liability a person (such as an off-duty physician) who voluntarily renders aid to another in imminent danger but negligently causes injury while rendering the aid. Some form of good-samaritan legislation has been enacted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.'

Edited March 20, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Brant Gaede]

Look, one and all, you start with your humanity; that's where the principles will come from. When you impose principles on your humanity you've got it ass-backwards! That's just for starters, for your humanity may be fucked up. Happens all the time. Then the right principles, like the principal of rationality, might help you back to your humanity qua human being! That is, there is an architype right human being and if it's not you one or the other is wrong, in whole or more likely part. Being human means, because of the volitional natural nature of being human, that one strives to be more "human" and that means exploring what the fuck that means! This ain't easy!

--Brant

rant, pant, pant, pant!

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm curious as to why you don't start with the humanity of the situation? Adult/child, what's the dif.? Legal obligations? Who cares how much the law fucks you over when you gratutitously abandon a fellow human being to die? Do you imagine I'd be there as a character witness? If I were your personal friend I'd take you out back and, being a natural thug of course, beat the holly shit out of you. Who cares about you and your fucking "principles" if you don't know how to be simply human?

--Brant

Brant, I suspect that you're drinking and not reading carefully. In case you are reading carefully, aren't you, every day, "gratutitously [sic] abandon[ing]" starving children to die who you know exist at least in other countries, maybe in the very town you live in. The legal question here is, as it has been throughout the entire discussion, however often it's lost sight of, just what sort of law -- specifics please -- do those who want a law to cover the starving-child-in-the-wilderness scene want to see enacted?

Ellen

___

[cjsmall]

Who cares how much the law fucks you over when you gratutitously abandon a fellow human being to die? Do you imagine I'd be there as a character witness? If I were your personal friend I'd take you out back and, being a natural thug of course, beat the holly shit out of you. Who cares about you and your fucking "principles" if you don't know how to be simply human?

This is the expression of humanity? This is an expression of the philosophy of Objectivism in practice?

I wonder which is the greater moral transgression: ignoring another human who finds themselves in peril or to "beat the holly shit" out of those that have the audacity to disagree with your personal assessment of what was required and appropriate in every situation. Brant, maybe you can explain to me how this differs from the approach that Islamic terrorists use in retaliating against those that do not adhere to their canon of beliefs?

Wolf, I understand your explanation of the Good Samaritan doctrine as it applies to limiting liability for those who do offer emergency aid to others, and I fully support this. What I was referring to was an extension to these laws that obligate individuals to offer aid to others in various circumstances or face legal penalties.

Regards,

--

Jeff, the moral monster

[Wolf DeVoon]

just what sort of law -- specifics please -- do those who want a law to cover the starving-child-in-the-wilderness scene want to see enacted?

Since I'm on deck and have some professional skin in this game, let me begin by saying that 'enacting' is the wrong way to go about the practice of law and the profession of justice. The solution to starving-child-in-the-wilderness is fundamental due process. Every natural person regardless of age or competence has an enduring right to petition the courts (Art. I). Obviously, you can't show up in court without help if you're an abandoned infant in peril, which happens too often, over 1000 cases a year in the United States. Foundlings therefore have a legal right to be rescued by anyone who subscribes to the rule of law. Not everyone does. Nor is it constitutionally permissible to police every single citizen, resident alien, and visitor to determine whether he or she previously ignored or might be disposed to ignore an infant in peril. As a practical matter, it's more important for the cops to nab serious felons and lunatics. Historically, 50% of murders go unsolved.

Is ignoring a starving-child-in-the-wilderness murder? Could be. Somebody left him there to starve, which is attempted murder, and you could be an accessory for enabling the criminal enterprise. Worse: it might be reasonably construed as wrongful use of the police power, knowingly preventing the kid in peril from filing a lawsuit (against his uncle, like Davey Campbell in Kidnapped). That's why it has to be litigated on a case-by-case basis.

Having bored everyone to pieces, I thank the jury and rest my case.

W., Esq.

[ethan_a_dawe]

Ethan: 'I took issue with what Barbara said because, if you asked Luke if he would leave the babe in the woods he would say NO. He would also say that he is free to do it without fear of LEGAL action. I'm sure he would expect that IF he did ignore a lost bade in the woods that, despite not being legally subject, he would be ostracized from society to the point of not being able to enter a single local place of business or count on a single friend. THat would be the right reaction to someone who behaved thus. Morals relate to the self. It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful. Should they be illegal too? HELL NO!...

"Barbara's statement is at best a misnunderstanding of his position, and at worse an out of context smear. I'm sure she can speak to that herself. I would encourage anyone who thinks that Luke is a fundamentalist baby killer or who wishes to know what Luke really thinks to ask him directly yourself. It is fortunate that he is easily available and still around so that you can safely get his side of the story. No need to rely on the words of another. :-)

Ethan, it was not my intention or desire to smear Luke. Yes, he certainly did say that he personally would help the starving child. But he wrote:

"I have generally found MSK a likeable person and I still consider him a friend, but the fascistic stand he takes on this issue has left me fuming and checking my premises about the character of MSK.

'As I understand him, MSK takes the position that government may justifiably punish any adult who could help the stranded child of another but does nothing instead.  I could not disagree more strongly.  What he advocates is not freedom, but fascism.

"If that is indeed his position, I must necessarily label him a fascist and act accordingly."

It is particulary this -- the glib equating of disagreement with fascism -- that characterizes Objectivist fundamentalists.

As to the idea that anyone who would allow the baby to starve would be socially ostracized: if that were sufficient punishment for what both Michael and I believe to be the legitimate province of the law, we would need no laws against murder or child molestation, for surely murderers and child molesters would be socially ostracized if their crimes were revealed -- except, of course, by other murderers and child molesters..

I just did somewhat of a double take on your statement that "It's is imoral to have mystical beliefs, becasue they are harmful." I would add to the category of fundamentalism the view that everyone who believes in God is immoral. People hold mistaken ideas for all sorts of reason. It is the height of presumption to assume that "harmful" or "mystical" views can be arrived at only through evasion.

Barbara

In answer to the part about Luke calling Michael's (and your) views facist, I await your answer to Jeff's question about these laws. If you can provide an answer to that that shows why you think that rationally should be a law I will gladly listen.

As regards murderers and rapists they have actively sought out others to violate there rights. The baby is a question of positive rights as I see it. The babies "right to life" cannot be legally forced on another party. Perhaps your answer to Jeff will show me why you think it can. I'll give that answer due consideration.

As to religious people and immorality. People would not be immoral if they hold their belief due to wrng knowledge. Many hold their beliefs as a tradition and haven't really considered them carefully. Many beleive that we cannot know anything about such questions and can't be bothered to think about them. I wouldn't call them immoral. Then there are many who refuse to check their beliefs and will argue that they are right in spite of any evidence to the contrary. They would be immral in my eyes. By immoral I mean acting in a way that harms your life. Immorality is a buzz word and I wish to clarify it here. People hear you saying such and such is immoral and they get all upset.

Ethan

Edited March 20, 2008 by ethan dawe

[tjohnson]

Personally, I think enacting laws is not the way to go about encouraging human values. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" applies here. There is something animalistic (inhuman) about ignoring the plight of fellow humans. When a wildebeest falls prey to a lion the others keep their distance and obey their instincts for self preservation. Humans are in a constant internal battle against their instinctive animalism but it is education, not laws, that will eventually win this battle.

[Dragonfly]

I'd wanted to stay out of the discussion, as I'm completely fed up with Objectivism, but I'm afraid I can't resist after reading the recent contributions... The problem with the example of the baby in the woods is that it is rather farfetched. Therefore I prefer another example illustrating the same issue: suppose you're driving on a lonely road and suddenly you see someone lying at the roadside, severly injured (for example a fallen motorcyclist). If you don't help him (by giving first-aid, calling emergency services) he will probably soon die, so his life will depend on your action. Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes, you should be punished if you drive on without bothering about that person. If some Objectivist now tells me that his ethical formula tells him that such behavior should not be punishable by law, that we may only morally condemn and ostracize such a person, then I can only say: to hell with Objectivism with its simplistic ethical principles and its ridiculous notion that you can derive such principles in an objective way.

Of course this doesn't mean that we should be help anyone who might be in distress or starving anywhere, that is a straw man argument which has no relation to this situation. In this case there is a clear-cut situation in which only you can decide at that moment about life and death of the injured person. I chose this extreme example, as it clearly illustrates the principles involved. In practice the situation may be more complicated: there may be other people around, helping may pose a risk to you (if someone is drowning for example), etc. Therefore every situation should be judged on a case-to-case base, but that doesn't change the principle that you may be held legally accountable for your negligence.

[ethan_a_dawe]

Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes,

Okay. Why?

[ethan_a_dawe]

Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes,

Follow up: What if it is a person you hate, who has done you wrong? Should you still be legally required to help them?

[Brant Gaede]

Who cares how much the law fucks you over when you gratutitously abandon a fellow human being to die? Do you imagine I'd be there as a character witness? If I were your personal friend I'd take you out back and, being a natural thug of course, beat the holly shit out of you. Who cares about you and your fucking "principles" if you don't know how to be simply human?

This is the expression of humanity? This is an expression of the philosophy of Objectivism in practice?

I wonder which is the greater moral transgression: ignoring another human who finds themselves in peril or to "beat the holly shit" out of those that have the audacity to disagree with your personal assessment of what was required and appropriate in every situation. Brant, maybe you can explain to me how this differs from the approach that Islamic terrorists use in retaliating against those that do not adhere to their canon of beliefs?

Wolf, I understand your explanation of the Good Samaritan doctrine as it applies to limiting liability for those who do offer emergency aid to others, and I fully support this. What I was referring to was an extension to these laws that obligate individuals to offer aid to others in various circumstances or face legal penalties.

Regards,

--

Jeff, the moral monster

Of course I wouldn't actually do that; such a person wouldn't be my friend any longer. Beating him up as an expression of friendship then we'd-go-have-a-beer therefore wouldn't obtain in this situation. Of course we'd care about the law here for it is in a court of law that we'd find out and judge what happened. But not everything gets to court. Some things are handled privately, especially within a family.

--Brant

Edited March 20, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

The legal question here is, as it has been throughout the entire discussion, however often it's lost sight of, just what sort of law -- specifics please -- do those who want a law to cover the starving-child-in-the-wilderness scene want to see enacted?

On research, there are very few Common Law statutes that demand a 'duty to rescue,' although there are several US states whose child abuse and endangerment laws imply or explicitly demand such a duty (see Child Neglect & Abandonment State Statutes**; see also a lengthy discussion of 'duty to rescue' laws and legal theory in Beneficence, law, and liberty: The case of required rescue†).

According to the second article, only Vermont, Minnesota and Rhode Island have clear law. Here, for example is the Minnesota statute:

604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW

.

Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the

scene of an emergency who knows that another

person is exposed to or has suffered grave

physical harm shall, to the extent that the

person can do so without danger or peril to self

or others, give reasonable assistance to the

exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include

obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law

enforcement or medical personnel. A person who

violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty

misdemeanor.

Concerning the now-moderated Ba'ab 'Avenger' Kolker, some commentary on Maimonides, from "The Bystander's Duty to Rescue in Jewish Law":

In Judaism, the bystander's duty to come to the

rescue of his fellow man who is in peril is

religious, ethical and legal. A citizen is

expected to engage in the act of rescue both

personally and with his financial resources. He

is required, however, neither to give his life

nor to place his life in substantial jeopardy to

save his fellow.

-- to be fair to the argument of Jeffrey, Ethan, Luke and others who contest the coupling of morality with law, the particularly human revulsion at abandonment of helpless babies and children (and those passersby who are indifferent) may have roots in all normal members of our species -- but moral revulsion ought not be the basis of law without rigourous examination of any moral prejudice or irrational premises supporting such law.

So, some may find Luke's opinions revolting, a man with a heart of rage and an indifference to life other than his own (as evinced by his avowal that he would rescue the abandoned child "unless the child demonstrated himself as a total brat," and by the fate of wandering animals on his farmstead as a youngster, or by his claim that he would let a pregnant woman bleed to death on his doorstep if they had philosophical differences). We might even question his intelligence, as when he feebly quibbles about sociopathy.

But Luke is not a criminal, merely a symbol of feral Randiosity.

An example of moral revulsion underpinning law would be the anti-sodomy statutes in states like Texas (or the pre-Trudeau Canadian criminal law against homosexuality). Should a law stand because we find the behaviour revolting, disgusting (as did Rand and does Wolf)? Not without examining the revulsion for its roots and examining the behaviour for its innate harm.

Another case in point might be Rand's take on racism as wholly immoral, but her rejection of any laws that proscribed discriminatory behaviour (i.e., laws forbidding racial discrimination in hiring, accomodation or private services). Surely the bus boycott in Birmingham was a more Objectivist action than a law demanding equal treatment? Similarly, Rand's revulsion at mandated physical access for the handicapped (her notorious case of 'kneeling buses') and the mixing of the 'retarded' with normal children in public schools -- none of this implies that however unsavoury her opinions she would enforce her personal moral disgust on fellow citizens' behaviour.

As a sidenote to Ethan, your arguments are as ever undercut by your sloppy writing. The myopic correctives to Barbara Branden are off-target and doltish. Barbara cautions to not mix up Objectivists of different stripes. You write of a 'misnunderstanding,' 'facist' views, and 'wrng knowledge,' and invite her to answer your addled ramblings. Funny!

I find it ironic that you take advantage of full and free discussion here while supporting exclusions that led to a moribund and doctrinaire Rebirth of Dogma. That you enjoy MSK's forum while keeping him off your own premises is hilarious.

_________________________

** -- Most US states specifically note that a crime of abandonment is committed only by parents or custodian. Some state law, however, does not single out parent, guardian, or those charged with a child's care, referring to any person. See especially Texas, Tex. Penal Code § 22.041 (2006); New Mexico, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-6-1 (2007); Nebraska, R.R.S. Neb. § 28-707 (2007); Kansas, K.S.A. § 21-3608 (2006); Idaho, Idaho Code § 18-1501 (2006);

_________________________

† -- (see notes 41-43).

[Dragonfly]

Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes,

Okay. Why?

For the same reason that it is punishable by law to kill a person.

[Dragonfly]

Follow up: What if it is a person you hate, who has done you wrong? Should you still be legally required to help them?

Of course, just as you're still punishable if you kill someone you hate or who has done you wrong (except in a case of self-defense).

[ethan_a_dawe]

Should you be legally obligated to help? My answer is: yes,

Okay. Why?

For the same reason that it is punishable by law to kill a person.

That's not the same thing at all. In the case of a murder you are acting directly to kill someone. The legality of that is obvious. You can tie it directly in to an objective reason.

In the case of the motorist, you are legally requiring an action. An action that may very well put you in danger. Why should that be LEGALLY required?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

There are several manners of examining this issue as you can see from some of the posts above. I will stay within Objectivism for this post. There is a contradiction involved on the identification (premise) level that has always made me uncomfortable, in addition to any emotional load this issue involves.

The Objectivist premise is that rights derive from ethics, which derive from man's nature. This is usually stated in Objectivism as a conceptual hierarchy:

Metaphysics (most fundamental)

Epistemology (based on metaphysics)

Ethics (based on metaphysics and epistemology)

Politics (based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics)

Man's nature (in terms of identifying it on a cognitive level) is usually sandwiched in between metaphysics and epistemology in Objectivism and not given a separate philosophical category. That's OK so long as we understand that man's nature is a valid category for contemplating philosophical issues.

Regardless of this detail, man's nature falls between two branches of philosophy that come before ethics in the hierarchy of fundamentality. In other words, if there is a logical breach (contradiction) between an ethical identification and a metaphysical one, the ethical one has to be corrected and rethought since the metaphysical one is more fundamental to the concept. That's just the way concepts are formed in Objectivism (and in life). Rand expressed this a gazillian times in Atlas Shrugged by saying "Check your premises."

For the record, it is also possible to redo the metaphysical identification if it is found to be wrong, but in that case, the entire philosophy would need to be revised since everything else rests on it. (An example would be if a white-haired white-robed dude suddenly came thundering down from the sky for all to see, making miracles happen left and right, then proclaiming that He was God. Our metaphysics would have to be... er... revised... )

But I am presuming that Objectivist metaphysics is correct, the axiomatic concepts are true, man as a living being needs values to survive and that man has conceptual volition as his principal means of obtaining those values.

So let's look at the definition of man under Objectivism. Man is a rational animal, with rational being the differentia and animal being the genus. Genus is the wider category. Man is not just a rational thing. He is a rational animal. This means that he has all the fundamental characteristics of animal, and the added characteristic of being rational, which distinguishes him from all other animals. Far too many Objectivist arguments treat man as if he were a rational thing, a "premise with feet" to use Robert Bidinotto's colorful phrase.

To my knowledge, there never has been a standard Objectivist definition of animal drawn up, but I certainly cannot see it excluding fundamental components like life cycle, birth, death, growth, reproduction, species and so forth. So a fundamental part of being an animal is coming into life—as a member of a species—in a relatively helpless state, growing and acquiring survival skills, becoming fully autonomous, then aging and dying. This is the natural state of all men if they are lucky enough to be born without a birth defect and not be squished or starved to death (or something else horrible) along the course of their lives.

This cycle and different states of it are fundamental parts of man's nature. Rationality is not the only characteristic. Man has animal-ness built in.

How we define human nature will determine how we define ethics, which is basically man's values (cognitive identification) and man's exercise of volition in obtaining those values (normative identification). And how we define ethics will determine how we define rights, which under Objectivism, are moral principles transposed to the social level.

Rand had no problem at all with stating this almost explicitly. For instance, in discussing severely retarded individuals in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Mayhew, p. 4, Rand stated very comfortably "since all rights rest on human nature..." That is her logical chain and it is mine. Human nature is more fundamental than rights. Human nature defines the needs and nature of rights because it defines the needs and nature of ethics.

Now in the same book, in discussing the rights of children (p. 3), Rand made a cognitive identification of the nature of children: "An infant can't earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it."

Rand stated clearly that a child cannot exercise these rights, but she also stated (quite correctly, in the same paragraph) "both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Before continuing, let us make sure we understand the cognitive identifications going on here. Rand is not talking about two different animals. She is talking about the same animal (man) in different states of existence along a life cycle. A child is not one thing that has no rights, then transforms one day into another thing (adult) that has them. A man (or woman) is the same animal from birth to maturity. That is why he has the normative and political rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from birth and not later, when he has the biological survival skills to exercise them (basically, in Objectivism, this means a developed rational mind).

Many Objectivists treat children as if they were different animals from adults. This is simply more "premise with feet" thinking. Since Rand certainly understood that a child is merely one state of a human being and not a different species, she was very comfortable in saying (p. 3): "The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen."

Now, to be fair, Rand was talking within the context of parents. Back then, during the Ford Hall Forum lectures, the public was largely college students (Boston is a college city). The 70's was a time of widespread questioning parental authority. Thus there are many questions in Ayn Rand Answers that deal with parental relations that could have been broader. I believe this is the reason her focus was on parents in this case and not from any intention to exclude other considerations.

But getting back to the paradox, if the government exists to protect individual rights, if a child by definition is a citizen and human being, and if a child by nature has such rights but cannot exercise them (the right to life being the main one we are discussing, which is only assured by being supported by adults with functioning rational minds), there is no logical reason on earth why the right to life of a child should be excluded in a discussion of rights in Objectivism.

Now notice in your questions and arguments that this is precisely the right you exclude. You focus solely on the rights of the adult. And here we come to the contradiction. If both parties (adult and child) have fundamental rights and the government exists to protect those rights, what happens if those rights collide on a definitional level?

That is what happens here. That is the contradiction in the Objectivist argument. It is a premise problem. The normal manner of dealing with it by many Objectivists has been to do what you just did, simply ignore the rights of the child and focus solely on the rights of the adult. But ignoring this merely compounds the logical error. It implies that not all people have equal protection of rights under the law or that not all people have rights. For the logic to work, a new identification would need to be made, something along the lines of "at any given moment, the government exists to protect the rights of some people, but not the rights of others," or "a child is not a human being until it becomes an adult" or whatever. And, of course, this would be absurd.

Placing the burden for raising children on parents is the correct thing to do for protecting children's rights, but there are too many cases where parents are not available to simply use this formula as an all-inclusive treatment of the child's rights and pretend that the right has been fully protected. A child has the right to life, regardless of whether a parent is near or not. And this derives directly from his nature as a human being, since it sets squarely on the ethics of human values and the metaphysics and epistemology of man as a rational animal, which includes a life-cycle of growth from helplessness.

I have a whole bunch of other considerations, but for now this will do. While this is not a fully developed argument as to why there should be a legal sanction against an adult for depraved indifference resulting in loss of life (and I believe there should be, but I have not yet arrived at the full reasons), it does show that according to the internal logic of Objectivism, there is no valid logical case for sanctioning instances of excluding the right to life of children from legal concerns during moments of clear and present danger.

Something has to give. Something needs to be redefined or reworked. The logic is wrong. The premises contradict each other.

Michael

[cjsmall]

Therefore every situation should be judged on a case-to-case base, but that doesn't change the principle that you may be held legally accountable for your negligence.

We agree that every situation must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Where we disagree is in who is to do the judging. You are suggesting that it is you - or some other higher moral authority - who is to be appointed with the job of judging the appropriateness of everyone else's actions, based upon some criteria which you have yet to delineate other than alluding to our "humanity" as if that made everything crystal clear, allowing all the worlds population to unambiguously know exactly how they should respond in any situation to avoid legal penalties. In contrast, I am proposing that each individual is in the best position to judge the cases that occur for them, since they are best able to determine their own context in relation to those circumstances.

If you are prepared to intervene in another person's moral decision-making process when it comes to the area of offering aid to others in need of help, then how do you then argue against other interventionist measures such as prosecuting people for smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, engaging in the wrong type of sex, eating unhealthy food, not wearing a seat belt, and so on? Many people think it is clear that these behaviors are damaging to the person and should therefore be outlawed wholesale without regard for personal context. On the other hand, maybe you agree that there indeed should be laws with penalties for all these actions and more. If so, based upon what principle? Or don't you think that our laws need to be grounded in clearly articulated principles?

... I'm completely fed up with Objectivism ...

Fine, but I certainly wouldn't take the seat-of-the-pants discussions that occur on these forums as anything resembling Objectivism, which is supposed to be a rational, systematic philosophy that provides a comprehensive world view useful for living on earth. Most of what I see here is based more upon emotional responses than careful reasoning.

Regards,

--

Jeff

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Most of what I see here is based more upon emotional responses than careful reasoning.

Jeff,

Do ya think our posts crossed? Check out the "careful reasoning."

Michael

[Dragonfly]

That's not the same thing at all. In the case of a murder you are acting directly to kill someone. The legality of that is obvious. You can tie it directly in to an objective reason.

Killing by non-action can be equally effective. Suppose you drive on a road using the cruise control, and unexpectedly someone steps in front of your car, but at such a distance that you can brake in time to avoid a collision. I think that if you just do nothing but drive on with your cruise control on you're certainly guilty. Such cases may not be not the equivalent of murder, as there is no malice aforethought, but they are a form of manslaughter. It is a silly notion that failing to do something may never be punished.

In the case of the motorist, you are legally requiring an action. An action that may very well put you in danger. Why should that be LEGALLY required?

I answered that already in my post #58.

[ethan_a_dawe]

That's not the same thing at all. In the case of a murder you are acting directly to kill someone. The legality of that is obvious. You can tie it directly in to an objective reason.

Killing by non-action can be equally effective. Suppose you drive on a road using the cruise control, and unexpectedly someone steps in front of your car, but at such a distance that you can brake in time to avoid a collision. I think that if you just do nothing but drive on with your cruise control on you're certainly guilty. Such cases may not be not the equivalent of murder, as there is no malice aforethought, but they are a form of manslaughter. It is a silly notion that failing to do something may never be punished.

In the case of the motorist, you are legally requiring an action. An action that may very well put you in danger. Why should that be LEGALLY required?

I answered that already in my post #58.

The cruise control issue is different. That is obvious. You set the cruise control. You acted.

As for having answered my question, that wasn't an answer. Without that answer rationally and reasonably explained we cannot continue. You must answer why legally the person should be held responsible. What fact of reality requires that law? Your answer is a dodge in my opinion. If you'd like to continue with me then an answer to that question is my price. :-)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, as a postscript to my long post above, I do not believe that the Objectivist concept of human nature is wrong. I believe it is incomplete, or at least, has been applied to several issues as a premise in an incomplete form.

And I believe this error is constantly repeated by others, many of whom get very angry when this premise is checked.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

We agree that every situation must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Where we disagree is in who is to do the judging. You are suggesting that it is you - or some other higher moral authority - who is to be appointed with the job of judging the appropriateness of everyone else's actions, based upon some criteria which you have yet to delineate other than alluding to our "humanity" as if that made everything crystal clear, allowing all the worlds population to unambiguously know exactly how they should respond in any situation to avoid legal penalties. In contrast, I am proposing that each individual is in the best position to judge the cases that occur for them, since they are best able to determine their own context in relation to those circumstances.

You mean that each individual must judge for himself if it is ok to kill his neighbor?

If you are prepared to intervene in another person's moral decision-making process when it comes to the area of offering aid to others in need of help, then how do you then argue against other interventionist measures such as prosecuting people for smoking cigarettes, taking drugs, engaging in the wrong type of sex, eating unhealthy food, not wearing a seat belt, and so on? Many people think it is clear that these behaviors are damaging to the person and should therefore be outlawed wholesale without regard for personal context. On the other hand, maybe you agree that there indeed should be laws with penalties for all these actions and more. If so, based upon what principle? Or don't you think that our laws need to be grounded in clearly articulated principles?

Nothing wrong with clearly articulated principles, but it is nonsense to think that there can only exist one single set of correct principles (that supposedly can be proved). Personally I'm against meddling with other people's decisions as long as these don't harm others, but I don't pretend that this is the only possible rational choice.

... I'm completely fed up with Objectivism ...

Fine, but I certainly wouldn't take the seat-of-the-pants discussions that occur on these forums as anything resembling Objectivism, which is supposed to be a rational, systematic philosophy that provides a comprehensive world view useful for living on earth. Most of what I see here is based more upon emotional responses than careful reasoning.

Judge the tree by its fruit. I don't like that fruit.

[ethan_a_dawe]

Jeff,

There are several manners of examining this issue as you can see from some of the posts above. I will stay within Objectivism for this post. There is a contradiction involved on the identification (premise) level that has always made me uncomfortable, in addition to any emotional load this issue involves.

The Objectivist premise is that rights derive from ethics, which derive from man's nature. This is usually stated in Objectivism as a conceptual hierarchy:

Metaphysics (most fundamental)

Epistemology (based on metaphysics)

Ethics (based on metaphysics and epistemology)

Politics (based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics)

Man's nature (in terms of identifying it on a cognitive level) is usually sandwiched in between metaphysics and epistemology in Objectivism and not given a separate philosophical category. That's OK so long as we understand that man's nature is a valid category for contemplating philosophical issues.

Regardless of this detail, man's nature falls between two branches of philosophy that come before ethics in the hierarchy of fundamentality. In other words, if there is a logical breach (contradiction) between an ethical identification and a metaphysical one, the ethical one has to be corrected and rethought since the metaphysical one is more fundamental to the concept. That's just the way concepts are formed in Objectivism (and in life). Rand expressed this a gazillian times in Atlas Shrugged by saying "Check your premises."

For the record, it is also possible to redo the metaphysical identification if it is found to be wrong, but in that case, the entire philosophy would need to be revised since everything else rests on it. (An example would be if a white-haired white-robed dude suddenly came thundering down from the sky for all to see, making miracles happen left and right, then proclaiming that He was God. Our metaphysics would have to be... er... revised... )

But I am presuming that Objectivist metaphysics is correct, the axiomatic concepts are true, man as a living being needs values to survive and that man has conceptual volition as his principal means of obtaining those values.

So let's look at the definition of man under Objectivism. Man is a rational animal, with rational being the differentia and animal being the genus. Genus is the wider category. Man is not just a rational thing. He is a rational animal. This means that he has all the fundamental characteristics of animal, and the added characteristic of being rational, which distinguishes him from all other animals. Far too many Objectivist arguments treat man as if he were a rational thing, a "premise with feet" to use Robert Bidinotto's colorful phrase.

To my knowledge, there never has been a standard Objectivist definition of animal drawn up, but I certainly cannot see it excluding fundamental components like life cycle, birth, death, growth, reproduction, species and so forth. So a fundamental part of being an animal is coming into life—as a member of a species—in a relatively helpless state, growing and acquiring survival skills, becoming fully autonomous, then aging and dying. This is the natural state of all men if they are lucky enough to be born without a birth defect and not be squished or starved to death (or something else horrible) along the course of their lives.

This cycle and different states of it are fundamental parts of man's nature. Rationality is not the only characteristic. Man has animal-ness built in.

How we define human nature will determine how we define ethics, which is basically man's values (cognitive identification) and man's exercise of volition in obtaining those values (normative identification). And how we define ethics will determine how we define rights, which under Objectivism, are moral principles transposed to the social level.

Rand had no problem at all with stating this almost explicitly. For instance, in discussing severely retarded individuals in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Mayhew, p. 4, Rand stated very comfortably "since all rights rest on human nature..." That is her logical chain and it is mine. Human nature is more fundamental than rights. Human nature defines the needs and nature of rights because it defines the needs and nature of ethics.

Now in the same book, in discussing the rights of children (p. 3), Rand made a cognitive identification of the nature of children: "An infant can't earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it."

Rand stated clearly that a child cannot exercise these rights, but she also stated (quite correctly, in the same paragraph) "both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Before continuing, let us make sure we understand the cognitive identifications going on here. Rand is not talking about two different animals. She is talking about the same animal (man) in different states of existence along a life cycle. A child is not one thing that has no rights, then transforms one day into another thing (adult) that has them. A man (or woman) is the same animal from birth to maturity. That is why he has the normative and political rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from birth and not later, when he has the biological survival skills to exercise them (basically, in Objectivism, this means a developed rational mind).

Many Objectivists treat children as if they were different animals from adults. This is simply more "premise with feet" thinking. Since Rand certainly understood that a child is merely one state of a human being and not a different species, she was very comfortable in saying (p. 3): "The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen."

Now, to be fair, Rand was talking within the context of parents. Back then, during the Ford Hall Forum lectures, the public was largely college students (Boston is a college city). The 70's was a time of widespread questioning parental authority. Thus there are many questions in Ayn Rand Answers that deal with parental relations that could have been broader. I believe this is the reason her focus was on parents in this case and not from any intention to exclude other considerations.

But getting back to the paradox, if the government exists to protect individual rights, if a child by definition is a citizen and human being, and if a child by nature has such rights but cannot exercise them (the right to life being the main one we are discussing, which is only assured by being supported by adults with functioning rational minds), there is no logical reason on earth why the right to life of a child should be excluded in a discussion of rights in Objectivism.

Now notice in your questions and arguments that this is precisely the right you exclude. You focus solely on the rights of the adult. And here we come to the contradiction. If both parties (adult and child) have fundamental rights and the government exists to protect those rights, what happens if those rights collide on a definitional level?

That is what happens here. That is the contradiction in the Objectivist argument. It is a premise problem. The normal manner of dealing with it by many Objectivists has been to do what you just did, simply ignore the rights of the child and focus solely on the rights of the adult. But ignoring this merely compounds the logical error. It implies that not all people have equal protection of rights under the law or that not all people have rights. For the logic to work, a new identification would need to be made, something along the lines of "at any given moment, the government exists to protect the rights of some people, but not the rights of others," or "a child is not a human being until it becomes an adult" or whatever. And, of course, this would be absurd.

Placing the burden for raising children on parents is the correct thing to do for protecting children's rights, but there are too many cases where parents are not available to simply use this formula as an all-inclusive treatment of the child's rights and pretend that the right has been fully protected. A child has the right to life, regardless of whether a parent is near or not. And this derives directly from his nature as a human being, since it sets squarely on the ethics of human values and the metaphysics and epistemology of man as a rational animal, which includes a life-cycle of growth from helplessness.

I have a whole bunch of other considerations, but for now this will do. While this is not a fully developed argument as to why there should be a legal sanction against an adult for depraved indifference resulting in loss of life (and I believe there should be, but I have not yet arrived at the full reasons), it does show that according to the internal logic of Objectivism, there is no valid logical case for sanctioning instances of excluding the right to life of children from legal concerns during moments of clear and present danger.

Something has to give. Something needs to be redefined or reworked. The logic is wrong. The premises contradict each other.

Michael

If the premises contradict and there are no contradiction, then you need to check your premises. :-)

Seriously though, you are looking at an extremely rare and narrow case, in our society at least. In how many instances would this crop up? Almost never. So it's a massive lifeboat situation. We'll set that aside for a moment. Suppose you have a law requireing the action, suppose that a person comes accross the child and the child is about to be eaten by a bear; Should you be legally required to act to save that child, probably resulting in you yourself being eaten? What if you are wounded and come across the baby? Legally responsible? You seem unsatisfied that everyone involved in these discussions would try to help the child. Suppose in one out of a hundred of these infinitesimally rare cases someone did nothing, is that worth legislation? Is this really a problem with Objectivism, or is it merely that the whole premise of this discussion is wrong?

[ethan_a_dawe]

I don't like that fruit.

Like is an emotional reaction. Why do you not like it? What is the root of your reasoning? It's to your own benefit to ask yourself these questions and understand why you do not like it.

[Dragonfly]

The cruise control issue is different. That is obvious. You set the cruise control. You acted.

When you drove by the victim at the roadside you also acted by driving along. In both cases you can do A) continue the action you started, with the result that the person will die, B) initiate a different action, which saves the life of that person. The only difference is that in one case there is a direct physical interaction that is the cause of death, while in the other case death is caused by the absence of a direct physical interaction. But why should the physical mechanism here be important? I think the essential point is the choice you have to continue doing what you're doing, with the result that the person dies, and initiating a different action that will save that person's life.

As for having answered my question, that wasn't an answer. Without that answer rationally and reasonably explained we cannot continue. You must answer why legally the person should be held responsible. What fact of reality requires that law?

The same fact of reality that requires the law against manslaughter. In my previous post I also said that there may be mitigating circumstances, like the fact that your saving action might put you in danger. That's the reason that we should judge on a case-by-case basis.