White Lies and The Hostage Principle

[Peter]

What are the rights and responsibilities of a hostage? I was thinking about the woman hiker who was captured by the Iranians and recently released for “medical reasons” after paying a half million dollars in bail, or ransom, however you look at it.

Now she is back here after getting a clear bill of health, and saying how wonderful the Iranian people are, and kissing up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN to win the release of her fiancé and friend. Perhaps she should be put into a room with the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were killed by bombs made in Iran.

Or is what she doing, simply a corollary of Philip Coates’ “The Hostage Principle?” She is doing what is necessary to win the release of her friends from a barbaric regime, and there is no moral turpitude involved. In a sense she is still a hostage because her friends are still hostages.

I remember an Ayn Rand publication verifying the morality of lying to a Nazi to save yourself and others.

Another corollary of “The Hostage Principle” is the obligations of captured soldiers. Virtually everyone is familiar with the old saying, “Only give your name, rank, and serial number.” However, what if a captured soldier is under duress, such as deprivations or torture? Is he expected to hold out until he is dead? Is this congruent with Objective principles?

And what about “white lies?”

See my notes at the bottom for some ideas. Any responses would be appreciated.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Thought of the Day

Time is that quality of nature which keeps events from happening all at once. Lately it doesn't seem to be working. – Anonymous

Notes:

The United States Military Code of Conduct, Article One, begins:

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Explanation: Article I of the CoC applies to all Service members at all times. A member of the Armed Forces has a duty to support U.S. interests and oppose U.S. enemies regardless of the circumstances, whether located in a combat environment or in captivity.

Article II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

End of quotes from Code of Conduct.

From: "Philip Coates" <philcoates@worldnet.att.net>

To: "owl" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: The Hostage Principle -- Short Form

Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 00:48:43 -0700

Subject: The Hostage Principle -- Short Form

Because I'm job hunting I don't have time now for long time-consuming posts to this list, but this philosophical principle is _extremely_ important right now . . . and is in fact a life and death issue in terms of the war on terrorism and whether we are going to win it:

I've been corresponding with a libertarian leader who takes the position of what seems to be the overwhelming majority of the leadership of the libertarian movement who have joined forces with the far left on this issue (a position which is so anti-life and anti-commonsense that it threatens to marginalize the libertarian movement, to undo the progress they have made in the last twenty years, and make to them a laughing stock in the country).

This position is applied to any innocent civilians who are killed by the U.S. in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. It is also applied to the Israelis when they invade the West Bank, trying to root out terrorists. It was applied decades ago to Hiroshima (whose purpose was to shorten that war . . and ultimately to save lives):

>How can the killings of non-combatants by the US government, intentional or not -- possibly be legally or morally allowed?

I first ran across this argument stated by Murray Rothbard when I sat in on a class he gave in NYC.

He stated that if the Soviet Union were to launch a nuclear attack on the United States and kill millions of people, the U.S. would be morally wrong to retaliate with a second strike because it would kill more millions of people in the Soviet Union, the overwhelming majority of whom were innocent.

I was aghast and horrified that this influential libertarian was spouting such a grotesquely false and twisted (and suicidal) version of the non-initiation of force principle.

I pointed out the following to him in a letter I titled "The Hostage Principle" (I gave a copy to Dr. Peikoff and Harry Binswanger...and a couple years later I heard some people in Oist circles referring to the hostage principle...but I wasn't given credit for it or its title, if I recall):

<This is a very short, terse, essentialized form of the argument...I don't deal in this post with the whole set of 'fog of war' issues or apply it to a wide range of circumstances and varying contexts . . . nor do I deal with cases in which an alternative solution to 'collateral damage' is possible.>

1. Suppose a robber walks into a bank and grabs the first person standing by the door as a human shield. Holds him in front of this body and starts shooting at the guard, trying to kill him. Only way guard can survive is to shoot thru the hostage.

2. Result: Self-defense in some cases (this one) requires that you kill an innocent non-combatant.

3. Conclusion: U.S. law (properly) places full moral blame for the deaths on the person who placed the innocents in the position of shields or hostage.

4. In a certain metaphysical sense, the aggressor is the _cause_ of the deaths of the innocents, of civilians, of non-combatants and of any collateral damage which is unavoidable in the process of self-defense.

5. Application: Now apply this on a larger scale. Apply this to war in which the civilian population (of both countries) are used as hostages or shields by the aggressor.

6. Alternative: If you can't defend yourself if innocents or non-combatants die in the process, you must become a pacifist -- it becomes immoral to defend yourself against a sufficiently ruthless aggressor.

No defender could ever win a war or discourage aggression this way. The aggressor would merely insure that the body count of innocents would be high and would win immediately.

--Philip Coates

RAND QUOTE 1:

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

END

Ayn Rand question and answer session

QUOTE 2

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

END

From Ayn Rand...

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

End of Rand quote

Honesty as an Objectivist virtue, from OPAR

quote (all that follows is a quote until I say end of quote)

"Conventional moralists usually regard honesty as a form of altruism. They regard it as the selfless renunciation of all the values one could have obtained by preying on the naiveté of one's fellows. Objectivism discards any such notion. In both its forms - honesty with oneself and to one's fellows - the present virtue, like every other, in an expression of egoism. Every virtue defines an aspect of the same complex achievement, the one on which man's survival depends: the achievement of remaining true to that which exists.

We can now deal summarily with the issue of "white lies." The ethical status of a lie is not affected by the identity of its intended beneficiary. A lie that undertakes to protect other men from the facts represents the same anti-reality principle as the con-man variety; it is just as immoral and just as impractical. A man does no service to his fellows by becoming their accomplice in blindness. Nor does he gain any moral credit thereby; an improper practice is not improved by attaching to it an altruistic justification. If anything, the latter merely compounds the evil. It removes the liar a step further from reality.

Is honesty then an absolute?

Just as particular objects must be evaluated in relation to moral principles, so moral principles themselves must be defined in relation to the facts that make them necessary. Moral principles are guides to life-sustaining action that apply within a certain framework of conditions. Like all scientific generalizations, therefore, moral principles are absolutes within their conditions. They are absolutes - contextually . . . A man is obliged to practice what he preaches - when he has the political freedom to do it. But he has no obligation to preach or practice any idea that would invite the attention, say, of the Gestapo or the IRS.

The same approach applies to the interpretation of honesty. The principle of honesty, the Objectivist view, is not a divine commandment or a categorical imperative. It does not state that lying is wrong "in itself'" and thus under all circumstances, even when a kidnapper asks where one's child is sleeping (the Kantians do interpret honesty this way). But one may not infer that honesty is therefore "situational," and that every lie must be judged "on its own merits," without reference to principle. This kind of alternative, which we hear everywhere, is false. It is another case of Intrinisicism vs. Subjectivism preempting the philosophical field.

Lying is absolutely wrong - under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it in the attempt to obtain a value. But, to take a different kind of case, lying to protect one's values from criminals is not wrong. If and when a man's honesty becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. The man who tells a lie in this context is not endorsing any anti-reality principle. On the contrary, he is now the representative of the good and the true; the kidnapper is the one at war with reality (with the requirements of man's life). Morally the con-man and the lying child-protector are opposites. The difference is the same as that between murder and self-defense.

There are other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers. An analysis covering such detail belongs, however, in a treatise on ethics.

In discussing integrity, I said that to be good is to be good "all the time." I can be more precise now. To be good is to obey moral principles faithfully, without a moments exception, within the relevant context- which one must, therefore, know and keep in mind. Virtue does not consist in obeying concrete-bound rules ("Do not lie, do not kill, do not accept help from others, make money, honor your parents, etc.") No such rules can be

defended or consistently practiced; so people throw up their hands and flout all rules.

The proper approach is to recognize that virtues are broad abstractions, which one must apply to concrete situations by a process of thought. In the process, one must observe all the rules of correct epistemology, including definition by essentials and context-keeping.

This is the only way there is to know what is moral - or to be honest."

end of quote

From: Diana M Hsieh

To: OWL <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: honesty and social construction and personal questions

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:29:12 -0600 (MDT)

A few notes on three different posts:

Eyal Moses wrote:

>I think the Objectivist analysis of honesty makes it clear that the answer is yes, people in general should act absolutely honestly. There is no room for personal differences on this.

I agree with Eyal that the virtue of honesty is contextually absolute. If a long-range perspective is taken, faking reality is never in our self-interest in the normal course of life.

But there are very difficult personal judgments to be made about honesty, particularly when the question is: How much of this information should I reveal to this particular person at this time? People committed to honesty struggle with these questions all the time.

For example: Is a father being dishonest in telling his friends that his daughter is "in the hospital" when she is more precisely at the drug rehab center? When those friends start reasonably inquiring after her illness or injury, then what should the father say?

For example: If your spouse asks you whether you ever fantasize about other women, is it acceptable to refuse to answer the question? As your spouse, doesn't he/she deserve a truthful answer? And won't refusing to answer be tantamount to answering "yes"?

For example: If you meet a co-worker/friend on her way to the conference room to give an important presentation to some clients and she asks you how she looks, should you tell her that she looks like she hasn't slept in a week? Is telling her that she looks "fine" dishonest? Should you deflect the question by saying "Go get 'em!" or somesuch?

In other words, is it acceptable to tell possibly misleading technical truths? Must we tell the whole truth to some or all people? Does honesty require is to sacrifice privacy or kindness or other important values?

The failure of traditional accounts of honesty to deal with these questions has opened the door in recent years for defenders of dishonesty (like the very slick David Nyberg). They argue that full honesty isn't even possible, let alone morally praiseworthy.

In my recent lecture "White Lies, Black Lies" to the TOC Summer Seminar, I addressed these questions in arguing that the standard here ought to be that we tell the contextually-relevant truth. I gave some primary and secondary criteria for determining that relevant truth, although I'm sure my list is not exhaustive. That lecture should be available through TOC Live! at some point soon, and my slides from the lecture are available from this page:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/philosophy/ethics/honesty/white_lies_black_lies.html

BTW, the best in-print discussion of honesty in the Objectivist literature is Tara Smith's _Viable Values_ pages 164-174.

Robert Campbell wrote:

>Conclusion: Socially constituted phenomena exist, and we need to take them seriously. Social constructionism, however, isn't needed to explain them. Which is just as well, because it is untenable.

I agree with Robert that social constructionism is false, but that we do need to understand socially constituted phenomena.

To self-promote just a bit more, I attempted to do that with respect to norms of masculinity and femininity in my essay "Sex and Gender Through an Egoist Lens: Masculinity and Femininity in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" in _Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand_. There I argued that gender norms take on symbolic meaning in a culture (or subculture) and thereby serve as methods of communicating information about our inner selves to others. As egoists, we want to be sure that the norms we adopt are authentic and not harmful to our lives and happiness.

(If I were writing that paper again today, I would probably alter and expand upon a number of points, but I think that my basic thesis stands.)

Amy Hayden wrote:

>At last year's summer seminar, where I was lecturing about sexual ethics, I was constantly approached by men. While I had hoped they would want to discuss ethics and philosophy, the majority of the things they had to ask me had to do with my sexual preferences, behavior, and experience.

Having attended the talk, I suspect that Amy got this reaction because her conclusions seemed to rely very heavily upon her own personal experience. That wasn't how she presented her ideas, but the lack of any substantial philosophical justification or citation of relevant psychological research left myself and others with the strong impression that her ideas were basically her own personal opinions. So it doesn't surprise me that people asked her about her personal experience, as that seemed to be the primary data on which the talk was based. (I have no doubt that some men were boorish and rude, however. But that is surely not the explanation for all or likely even most of the inquiries.)

diana.

[Jerry Biggers]

Ayn Rand's position on the moral dilemna of someone being held hostage (i.e., should s/he falsely "confess" to committing acts when faced with torture, imprisonment, and other forms of coercion?) by a tyranical government, was clearly stated in her response to "The Pueblo Incident" in 1969, when the North Korean government captured a U.S. Naval Ship, The Pueblo, and held them hostage, claiming that they were "spying."

What follows is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Ayn Rand on Torture," from the ARIWatch.com website http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnTorture.htm

First some background. In January 1968 North Korea attacked the USS Pueblo, a small and only lightly armed spy ship, in international waters. The Pueblo was no match for the Koreans’ torpedo boats and MIG fighters. The Seventh Fleet failed to come to the Pueblo’s defense, the commander quickly surrendered to save the crew, and the Koreans took all the survivors (which was all but one of the crew) prisoner. The Koreans severely beat commander and crew over the course of eleven months and forced them to confess, in writing and on film (though they made it look ridiculous), that they had invaded North Korean waters, that conditions in the U.S. were oppressive, and that the Koreans were treating them well. Eventually the U.S. government itself issued an official statement along similar lines, and retracted it after the men were consequently released.

There followed a military Court of Inquiry and a Congressional investigation of the incident. At the time of Ayn Rand’s article Commander Bucher was facing court-martial.

Were the men right to “confess?” After their release the New York Times published a letter saying that here was a “moral dilemma.” Ayn Rand disagreed, and wrote a letter of her own, which she published in “Brief Comments.” (And sent to the NYT – which never published it.) She said that Commander Bucher was a hero and should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor, and that the U.S. government is trying to make him the scapegoat:

“... on the grounds of an immoral and irrational military code. That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premise of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.

“We recognize the difference in our criminal law – see the Supreme Court decisions which invalidate the confessions of criminals, if obtained by pressure. Yet we do not grant the same considerations to the protectors of our country when they are in the hands of savage killers.

“When we ascribe validity to the ‘confessions’ of men imprisoned by communist governments ... – when we do it in spite of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities practiced by such government are a matter of record – we endorse and invite the atrocities.

She elaborates, then suggests the following to put an end to such extorted “confessions”:

“Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy ... . (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.) Let the government declare to the world that we will not accept as true, valid or meaningful any statement extorted by force, i.e., any statement made by an American prisoner in a foreign country – and that all such statements are repudiated in advance, in his name, by his government.

“This would re-establish the moral meaning of freedom and of truth. It would put an end to the martyrdom of innocent victims, to the kind of ordeal Commander Bucher and his men had to endure.

“In principle, this was the policy adopted by our government to obtain their release. Let this become our official policy, to be practiced by individual prisoners – as a proper expression of contempt for the social systems ruled, not by reason, but by brute force.”

Edited September 25, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Jonathan]

What are the rights and responsibilities of a hostage? I was thinking about the woman hiker who was captured by the Iranians and recently released for “medical reasons” after paying a half million dollars in bail, or ransom, however you look at it.

Um, what in the hell was she and her companions doing "hiking" at the Iranian border? Were they really so incredibly stupid as to be unaware of what a dangerous part of the world they were in? What type of people treat the Iranian border with such nonchalance? They're either total fucking idiots, spies, or they were hoping to be captured so that they could become famous and wealthy by writing books and/or selling movie rights to their story.

Now she is back here after getting a clear bill of health, and saying how wonderful the Iranian people are, and kissing up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN to win the release of her fiancé and friend. Perhaps she should be put into a room with the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were killed by bombs made in Iran.

Or is what she doing, simply a corollary of Philip Coates’ “The Hostage Principle?” She is doing what is necessary to win the release of her friends from a barbaric regime, and there is no moral turpitude involved. In a sense she is still a hostage because her friends are still hostages.

"Hostages"? If Iranians were being held by U.S. officials after having been caught crossing into the U.S. illegally, would you also call them "hostages"?

J

[Peter]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Ayn Rand's position on the moral dilemma of someone being held hostage (i.e., should s/he falsely "confess" to committing acts when faced with torture, imprisonment, and other forms of coercion?) by a tyrannical government, was clearly stated in her response to "The Pueblo Incident" in 1969, when the North Korean government captured a U.S. Naval Ship, The Pueblo, and held them hostage, claiming that they were "spying."

He also quotes Rand as stating The Code of Conduct should be modified on the grounds that it is:

“. . . an immoral and irrational military code. That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premise of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.

end quotes

Rand is right in general but there is still room for thoughtful improvement on this position. After all, Rand supported the concept of “rational honor,” and I imagine her fictional character, John Galt, would have taken the location of Atlantis to his grave. So one cannot say that her ideal soldier would be one who never resists after capture.

Article II reads in part:

“I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.”

End quote

I agree with the moral concept that the Pueblo should NOT have fought to the death, but the commander of the Pueblo did not sufficiently resist before surrendering. American equipment and codes that could have been destroyed were not destroyed, if there had been more time. A few months after this incident I was sent to South Korea with new codes and machinery precisely because the Pueblo surrendered too quickly. Our national interests were harmed by a “too easy” surrender.

Article V. reads in part:

I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

End quote

The key phrase in Article V is “to the utmost of my ability.” There is an obviously early “too easy” point of surrender. Many jokes were made about the Italian soldiers who were disillusioned with Benito Mussolini during WWII and who then surrendered, waving the white flag, upon the first sighting of the Allies. But, I think Rand would agree that that was the moral thing to do and not a sign of cowardliness, given the evil nature of their Fascist government. However, in the fight with the North Koreans we were the good guys, not the Communist thugs.

Ayn Rand is also quoted as saying:

“Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy ... . (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.)

end quote

I agree with Rand that the Code of Conduct should be modified AND that our Government should repudiate and forgive statements given under duress.

Yet, I also agree with former prisoner of war, Senator John McCain, that there is a line that must not be crossed, such as ratting out your fellow prisoners for any gain from their enemy captors, whatsoever.

I would resist to the best of my ability. Yet, I would also want my government to publicly forgive in advance most that occurs during captivity, and as statements are issued that are attributed to prisoners of war, to immediately declare them "bullshit," for very rational reasons.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Jonathan replied to my calling innocent American hikers "hostages”:

"Hostages"? If Iranians were being held by U.S. officials after having been caught crossing into the U.S. illegally, would you also call them "hostages"?

end quote

If the supposed Iranians strayed across our border and were otherwise innocent, they would not be hostages unless our government incarcerated them rather than deported them, called them criminals, and also falsely accused them of being spies. Do you doubt that they are being held as hostages for political reasons? Are the Iranians much better than the North Koreans?

Of course they were, and are “hostages.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Ayn Rand's position on the moral dilemma of someone being held hostage (i.e., should s/he falsely "confess" to committing acts when faced with torture, imprisonment, and other forms of coercion?) by a tyrannical government, was clearly stated in her response to "The Pueblo Incident" in 1969, when the North Korean government captured a U.S. Naval Ship, The Pueblo, and held them hostage, claiming that they were "spying."

He also quotes Rand as stating The Code of Conduct should be modified on the grounds that it is:

“. . . an immoral and irrational military code. That code ignores the difference between a voluntary statement and a forced statement, thus endorsing the moral premise of thugs who regard torture as a legitimate method of inquiry.

end quotes

Rand is right in general but there is still room for thoughtful improvement on this position. After all, Rand supported the concept of “rational honor,” and I imagine her fictional character, John Galt, would have taken the location of Atlantis to his grave. So one cannot say that her ideal soldier would be one who never resists after capture.

Article II reads in part:

“I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.”

End quote

I agree with the moral concept that the Pueblo should NOT have fought to the death, but the commander of the Pueblo did not sufficiently resist before surrendering. American equipment and codes that could have been destroyed were not destroyed, if there had been more time. A few months after this incident I was sent to South Korea with new codes and machinery precisely because the Pueblo surrendered too quickly. Our national interests were harmed by a “too easy” surrender.

Article V. reads in part:

I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

End quote

The key phrase in Article V is “to the utmost of my ability.” There is an obviously early “too easy” point of surrender. Many jokes were made about the Italian soldiers who were disillusioned with Benito Mussolini during WWII and who then surrendered, waving the white flag, upon the first sighting of the Allies. But, I think Rand would agree that that was the moral thing to do and not a sign of cowardliness, given the evil nature of their Fascist government. However, in the fight with the North Koreans we were the good guys, not the Communist thugs.

Ayn Rand is also quoted as saying:

“Let the U.S. government publicly order our armed forces to say, sign, admit or confess anything demanded of them when they are seized by an enemy ... . (This would not apply to divulging actual military secrets, but only to lying about political-ideological issues.)

end quote

I agree with Rand that the Code of Conduct should be modified AND that our Government should repudiate and forgive statements given under duress.

Yet, I also agree with former prisoner of war, Senator John McCain, that there is a line that must not be crossed, such as ratting out your fellow prisoners for any gain from their enemy captors, whatsoever.

I would resist to the best of my ability. Yet, I would also want my government to publicly forgive in advance most that occurs during captivity, and as statements are issued that are attributed to prisoners of war, to immediately declare them "bullshit," for very rational reasons.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter,

Rand's point, in her statement on The Pueblo, was that Commander Buechner and his crew were justified in lying to their North Korean captors and that they were also justified in signing false "confessions" because the confessions were obtained through torture.

This is an application of her statement in Galt's Speech: "Morality ends where a gun begins."

This issue is also discussed in more detail in Lecture 10, Reason and Virtue, in Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism" audio course (or see the print version, The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (2009) Chapter 10, pp.278 -279).

[Peter]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

Rand's point, in her statement on The Pueblo, was that Commander Buechner and his crew were justified in lying to their North Korean captors and that they were also justified in signing false "confessions" because the confessions were obtained through torture.

End quote

I do NOT disagree with that at all!

I would like to see the US Military’s Code of Conduct modified to reflect Objective Principles. I would especially like to see something in the CofC that demands a quick response from our government when a prisoner is coerced into saying or writing anything detrimental to the United States, so that they and their families do not needlessly suffer.

If a prisoner, I would not volunteer information and that should be part of the CofC too. I do not think our military’s effectiveness would be compromised by a rewrite.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

What follows is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Ayn Rand on Torture," from the ARIWatch.com website http://ariwatch.com/...ndOnTorture.htm

End quote

I went to the ARI Watch site. It was not to my liking because it was as if the author, whoever the unnamed coward is, placed himself as a true defender of Ayn Rand but also as an implacable foe of the ARI, which I am not.

Some of the ARI’s positions are not exactly those of Rand, and I agree with the author of the site (whoever the coward is,) that Ayn Rand’s later personality quirks were adopted by some at the ARI, which places the later Ayn Rand and ARI on a collision course with Objectivists who can think for themselves.

Demanding obedience, acquiescence and silence if you disagree, is not the sign of an Objectivist. Nor is hiding behind a mask, the sign of an Objectivist. A Scientist, or an Objectivist should argue their case openly. So, unnamed author of ARI Watch: MAN UP! Who art thou?

Another point the ARI Watch site brings up, is that some ARI honchos have endorsed torture.

I don’t think Rand would explicitly endorse a government utilizing torture but she was all for James Bond doing his job, whoever’s head he cracked. I think she would be for the torture of terrorists in certain strictly defined circumstances. The hard part, is putting that discretion into the hands of the government.

Let me set up an argument for torture. You are on an island with no government. You see a fellow islander abduct your child or spouse. You later capture the kidnapper but the child or spouse is nowhere to be found AND the kidnapper says your loved one is buried alive and has a limited amount of air to breath. If you don’t come up with his ransom demand, he will allow your child to suffocate. You, the parent or spouse, do not have the amount of the ransom.

Would you use torture to extract the location of your loved one from the kidnapper?

If you do say yes to this, would you then place this function in the hands of a government? What if a terrorist admits to having an atomic bomb set to go off. He yells at the police, “All you infidels are going to die!” Would you grant New York’s finest the right to use force or torture to find the bomb before it goes off?

If you say, “Hell Yes!” can you still be an Objectivist?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

These children were either really good CIA-planted actors, or what they appear, criminally insane, self-duped leftists.

The government has no responsibility to civilians who ignore State Department advisories and travel in a war zone. These children should have been left to the consequences of their actions, and the government should have taken no action on their behalf. If there is a legal pretext, this woman should face civil and criminal penalties for her actions. I hope she is sued by the parents of the men still there as jointly culpable for their false imprisonment. She should be liable for the ransom money to whoever paid it.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry Biggers wrote:

What follows is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Ayn Rand on Torture," from the ARIWatch.com website http://ariwatch.com/...ndOnTorture.htm

End quote

I went to the ARI Watch site. It was not to my liking because it was as if the author, whoever the unnamed coward is, placed himself as a true defender of Ayn Rand but also as an implacable foe of the ARI, which I am not.

Some of the ARI’s positions are not exactly those of Rand, and I agree with the author of the site (whoever the coward is,) that Ayn Rand’s later personality quirks were adopted by some at the ARI, which places the later Ayn Rand and ARI on a collision course with Objectivists who can think for themselves.

Demanding obedience, acquiescence and silence if you disagree, is not the sign of an Objectivist. Nor is hiding behind a mask, the sign of an Objectivist. A Scientist, or an Objectivist should argue their case openly. So, unnamed author of ARI Watch: MAN UP! Who art thou?

Another point the ARI Watch site brings up, is that some ARI honchos have endorsed torture.

I don’t think Rand would explicitly endorse a government utilizing torture but she was all for James Bond doing his job, whoever’s head he cracked. I think she would be for the torture of terrorists in certain strictly defined circumstances. The hard part, is putting that discretion into the hands of the government.

Let me set up an argument for torture. You are on an island with no government. You see a fellow islander abduct your child or spouse. You later capture the kidnapper but the child or spouse is nowhere to be found AND the kidnapper says your loved one is buried alive and has a limited amount of air to breath. If you don’t come up with his ransom demand, he will allow your child to suffocate. You, the parent or spouse, do not have the amount of the ransom.

Would you use torture to extract the location of your loved one from the kidnapper?

If you do say yes to this, would you then place this function in the hands of a government? What if a terrorist admits to having an atomic bomb set to go off. He yells at the police, “All you infidels are going to die!” Would you grant New York’s finest the right to use force or torture to find the bomb before it goes off?

If you say, “Hell Yes!” can you still be an Objectivist?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter,

Those are interesting hypothetical situations that you give at the end of your post. In both cases, the kidnapper and the terrorist, have already, by their actions and by their statements (the threat to kill your loved one who he has buried and the threat to blow up New York City by placement of an atomic bomb) initiated the threat of coercion and physical force.

So, answer your own rhetorical questions: As the victim in both cases, what would you, as an Objectivist, do in those situations?

--------------------------------------------------------------

RE: ARI Watch:

"Who is ARI Watch?" His name is given as Mark Hunter, and discussed at some length in the ARI Watch thread in the Ayn Rand Institute Section on OL http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4735

BTW, I used their site because it popped-up on a Google search about Rand and The Pueblo. The site had a good summary of Ayn Rand's position on The Pueblo Incident. For opinions pro and con by OL posters, see the above link.

(But, since he identified himself and argued in defense of his positions in the thread listed, I don't think he can be labelled as a "coward").

Edited September 27, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[kiaer.ts]

I don't think Rand would explicitly endorse a government utilizing torture but she was all for James Bond doing his job, whoever's head he cracked. I think she would be for the torture of terrorists in certain strictly defined circumstances. The hard part, is putting that discretion into the hands of the government.

Objectivists are not Jews.

The mistake here is to think that there is such a thing as "the government" as opposed to some actual person with a conscience who is a government agent who will do the 'torturing.' There is no need to legalize "torture" (and, to be careful with our language, the true issue is forcible interrogation, not the intentional infliction of pain for pain's sake) so long as rational men have consciences.

Objectivists aren't supporters of law for law's sake. They are not Pharisees. It may actually be possible that in certain circumstances the good requires the violation of the letter of the law. It would always be up to an agent of the law, or some other person acting in someone's defense, to judge the situation and act properly. The question is, do I torture the terrorist and stop the bomb going off, but face trial afterwards, or do I obey the letter of the law and let the innocent die because I obeyed the letter of the law?

Sometimes, "breaking" the law is worth the any possible penalty.

This is Ethics 101, people.

[Kimmler]

I thought the main problem these days was the American military torturing and humiliating POW's into confessing.

But, to interrupt Ted's points about torturing a terrorist to defuse the 'bomb', lets pause here. Scenarios like this are found in fiction...but never, ever in real life. So we can dispense with that scenario.

If it is moral to use torture at all, how could you limit the government to only using this power in an emergency situation?

Ted writes :

"There is no need to legalize "torture" (and, to be careful with our language, the true issue is forcible interrogation, not the intentional infliction of pain for pain's sake) so long as rational men have consciences."

So, provided you have been trained and passed various tests and show you are rational then you are free to torture!

Just like they used to have in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes.

So, the question is, does torture work? Presumably objectivists will answer yes! Provided objectivists are doing the torture.

[Selene]

I thought the main problem these days was the American military torturing and humiliating POW's into confessing.

But, to interrupt Ted's points about torturing a terrorist to defuse the 'bomb', lets pause here. Scenarios like this are found in fiction...but never, ever in real life. So we can dispense with that scenario.

If it is moral to use torture at all, how could you limit the government to only using this power in an emergency situation?

Ted writes :

"There is no need to legalize "torture" (and, to be careful with our language, the true issue is forcible interrogation, not the intentional infliction of pain for pain's sake) so long as rational men have consciences."

So, provided you have been trained and passed various tests and show you are rational then you are free to torture!

Just like they used to have in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes.

So, the question is, does torture work? Presumably objectivists will answer yes! Provided objectivists are doing the torture.

Steven:

If you wish to avoid Ted's critical definitional question, you are certainly free to do so. However, I would ask you to define "torture" first. Otherwise, we will not able to continue without a common definition.

Ted used forcible interrogation. Water boarding, for example, is forcible interrogation. Torture, has been defined, by some, as inflicting pain, to hurt the prisoner merely to cause pain and having nothing to do with getting information that can save a live, or lives.

Jack Baur, fiction though it was, was also quite clear about inflicting pain on a prisoner to get information to save a life, or lives.

So, please define your terms, otherwise there is no basis for argument.

Adam

[Kimmler]

Adam

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

—UN Convention Against Torture