Right to Life

[Praxus]

Objectivists justify the killing of civilians by saying they refused to overthrow their Government therefore, they are supporting their Government and forfeit their right to life.

Do we not forfeit our right to life by passively supporting actions of the Government that deprive people of their right to life and property, such as the draft and taxation.

What do you think about this?

Edited April 27, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[Kukyona]

Objectivst justify the killing of civilians by saying they refused to overthrow their Government therefor they are supporting their Government and forfeit their right to life.

I think it is the other way around... Objectivists deny the right of the government to exist because it initiates force against it's citizens. However, no one is obligated to help them. I don't think thats the same as saying they forfeit their right to life.

Do we not forfit our right to life by passively supporting actions of the Government that deprive people of their right to life and property, such as the draft and taxation.

I think someone is definetly immoral if they do support them... I do not think choosing life over fighting the goverment is 'passively supporting' the government.

[Tom]

Objectivst justify the killing of civilians by saying they refused to overthrow their Government therefor they are supporting their Government and forfeit their right to life.

Source, please?

Do we not forfit our right to life by passively supporting actions of the Government that deprive people of their right to life and property, such as the draft and taxation.

Depends.

If you don't keep still, will the government punish you?

If they will, then it's an emergency case. Ayn Rand addresses emergency cases in "The Ethics of Emergencies", which can be found in the book _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

[Capitalism Forever]

Objectivst justify the killing of civilians by saying they refused to overthrow their Government therefor they are supporting their Government and forfeit their right to life.

Do we not forfit our right to life by passively supporting actions of the Government that deprive people of their right to life and property, such as the draft and taxation.

(emphasis mine)

If someone refuses to overthrow a government that tyrannizes him (i.e. he has an opportunity to do so, but he chooses to keep his tyrant instead) that definitely makes him evil. However, all that the simple fact of being tyrannized makes you is a victim. If an armed robber threatens to kill unless you give him your wallet, the fact that you comply does not mean that you don't respect your own rights and therefore forfeit them; IOW it does not even imply passive support for the robber.

Besides, the justification for risking civilian casualties is NOT that the civilians have forfeited their rights. It is that the moral responsibility for any deaths in war lies with the initiator of force.

[Praxus]

Oh ok, I see. It just seemed to look like objectivist see it that way, thanks for clearing it up.

[Capitalism Forever]

My pleasure.

[MasterScowler]

the moral responsibility for any deaths in war lies with the initiator of force.

So said responsibility is garnered every time the trigger is pulled, correct? The gunman is "initiating" a bullet into somebody else's body, after all.

Does this mean I need take no prisoners? If my Ranger unit storms an enemy's compound and finds that all of the militants therein are "pencil-pushers", am I to shoot them all? They are quite directly supporting the war effort.

And while I'm dispensing "ifs", how would one ethically treat draftees vs enlistees? If Wackistan invades Funkistan, then introduces a draft (and it is well-known that Wackistan has methods to "convince" conscientious objectors), are the draftees initiating force, or are have they been forced, too? Or should they have refused, on pain of death -even their childrens' deaths, to initiate force against their neighbor, and thus accept moral responsibility for myriad Funkistani deaths?

Of course, emergency situations are not the same as non-emergency situations; anybody with a gun pointed at me had better be prepared to get shot, regardless of their motives and life circumstances. Feeling remorse after the fact is far preferrable to getting dead.

The moral responsibility, I think, does indeed lie on the shoulders of the initiator of force, i.e. the individual. If you are killing another person, you had better have a damn good reason to be doing it; yeah, your government is responsible for its actions, but you are responsible for your actions in the name of your government: viz Nazi Germany.

[Praxus]

You take the pencil pushers captive and get whatever info you want. It might be nessecary to keep them a live after you get info out of them so it makes other people come more wilingly.

[RadCap]

"So said responsibility is garnered every time the trigger is pulled, correct? The gunman is "initiating" a bullet into somebody else's body, after all."

Not correct. When speaking of the initiation of force, we are speaking of the individual or group of individuals who FIRST made contact with another without that other's consent. Subsequent contact with that individual or group of individuals is a RESPONSE to the force they used.

The difference here is the difference between murder and self-defense.

Do you understand that difference?

I ask because the statements you have made do not indicate an understanding of that difference. Your statements indicate a belief that all contact without consent is morally the same.

[MasterScowler]

Your statements indicate a belief that all contact without consent is morally the same.

Perhaps I should clarify then.

I purport that there are three forms of violence: aggressive, defensive, and retributive. Of the three, only defensive violence is justifiable. Initiating violence is in and of itself morally gray; the morality of the violence lies in the intent... in the value judgment placed by the individual.

I would never kill a man unless my hand was forced; any threat (the word "threat" implying myriad forms) upon me forces my hand, and even though I might be killing pre-emptively, I could still be acting in self-defense. When I speak of the responsibility (read: accountability) of the killer, I am not implying any specific recourse. Despite the paradigmatic context of the word, "killing" is not always evil, but it is always lamentable. That is not to say that any shame falls upon me for killing a Bad Guy, but that the Bad Guy bears the shame of espousing such values as to incur his own death.

It falls inescapably upon each individual, be they solider or serial killer, to assess their values ere they act upon them. Regardless of whether or not my commanding officer or my President has ordered a missile assault on a village, if I am the one pushing the red button, I am obligated to resolve the value judgment of doing so; viz every single Nazi solider what executed a Jew, viz Ron Lafferty.

Free Will demands personal accountability.

The difference between murder and self-defense is in the value judgment, thus, it is good to kill a killer before they can kill somebody else, viz. the U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein.

***

Yes, I understand the difference between murder and self-defense. Thus, I understand the moral implications of each.

i.e.:

I am accountable for what I do.

I am not accountable for what you do.

If personal accountability cannot be instilled, it must be enforced.

[AisA]

MasterScowler, it sounds as though you ascribe to the intrinsic theory of value.

"Despite the paradigmatic context of the word, "killing" is not always evil, but it is always lamentable. "

Why is the death of an evil person lamentable?

[Richard_Halley]

It is not lamentable to me. In fact it is benefical to me...

[MisterSwig]

I purport that there are three forms of violence: aggressive, defensive, and retributive ...

The difference between murder and self-defense is in the value judgment, thus, it is good to kill a killer before they can kill somebody else, viz. the U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein.

The difference between murder and self-defense is the answer to the question: Who started it?

A murderer (the aggressor) initiates force on someone. Self-defense is the act of protecting yourself from the initiators of force.

Retribution is a matter of justice. It is what someone deserves for initiating force against another. Ideally retribution should be carried out objectively by our government, to ensure that it is fairly applied to all citizens.

Murder and self-defense are not distinguished by anyone's value judgments. Murder is anti-life. Self-defense is pro-life. Nobody's value judgments will change that fact.

The reason to punish a murderer is because he killed someone. He initiated lethal force, violating the individual's right to life and breaking the laws upon which a free society is built. Therefore, he deserves punishment.

Generally we execute such scum.

We execute murderers for their crimes. The fact that this punishment prevents them from killing more people is merely a consequence of our actions. It is not the reason why we kill murderers.

[RadCap]

" aggressive, defensive, and retributive. Of the three, only defensive violence is justifiable. Initiating violence is in and of itself morally gray; the morality of the violence lies in the intent... in the value judgment placed by the individual."

(First off, violence is not the appropriate term. One can violate rights without using violence. Force is the appropriate concept here. In other words, violence is a specific form of force - a specific form of human contact).

Objectivism properly identifies only two forms of force: initiation or response. These two are opposites. There is no 'third way' to use force.

The initiation of force serves to replace the value judgments of one man with those of another.

Responsive force seeks to prevent this replacement.

That is why responsive force is moral and initiation of force is immoral. One defends a mind, the other seeks its elimination. The "intent" of the user of force does not change what is done to the other man. As such, it does not serve to define the nature of force.

Consciousness does not determine reality.

--

I can only agree with the others who have responded to your comment:

" "killing" is not always evil, but it is always lamentable"

Hitler, Stalin, Mao - just to name a few of the most obvious. To have killed them would not have been lamentable at all.

I do not feel sorrow that they are no longer able to kill and enslave millions.

I do not weep because they are unable to inflict more violence against others.

I do not mourn their deaths at all. I rejoice that they

Their lives were NOT a value. In fact, their lives were decidedly ANTI-life.

To express sorrow for the loss of their lives is to express sorrow for the end of anti-life actions.

[MasterScowler]

AsiA: It sounds as though you ascribe to the intrinsic theory of value.

I had to think on this a bit, AisA. As it turns out, you are right; I do indeed subscribe to stipulatory intrinsic values. The stipulations are simple:

1) A human being has intrinsic value; sentience and conscience are prime factors of the definition of human, in this case

2) An evil human being abdicates their own value; anti-life has no value, nor do any who propagate it.

Thus, I do not value anybody who does not value me. I do not believe a chair has intrinsic value. I do not believe a service has intrinsic value. I do not believe a moral code or any other normative concept has intrinsic value. But a human life does, by default, until such time as the value of life is discarded by the individual, or anti-life values are embraced by them.

MisterSwig: The difference between murder and self-defense is the answer to the question: Who started it?

And what of accidental deaths? Would the survivor of a fatal car crash, where no evil intent was present, be guilty of murder or mere self-defense?

MisterSwig: Self-defense is the act of protecting yourself from the initiators of force... Retribution is a matter of justice... We execute murderers for their crimes.

Capital punishment is an issue in and of itself. I would be interested in taking part in a discussion if you care to start the topic.

RadCap: Force is the appropriate concept here.

Duly noted.

RadCap: Responsive force seeks to prevent this replacement.

A soldier in a firefight mistakes a fleeing civilian youth for an enemy, and shoots him dead. What has been prevented? (viz Intrinsic value of a human being.)

A soldier recognizes a fleeing civilian youth as such, and shoots him dead anyway. (He woulda grown up to be one of 'em.) Has value replacement been prevented here? (viz Intrinsic value of a human being.)

If, in any of the above hypotheticals, it is determined that the individuals in question are at fault, guilty of wrongfully initiating force, a fitting reaction is necessary. If they are morally sound individuals, they will recognize their transgression and kill themselves for having wrongfully killed another, yes? If not, then an objective third party is justified in carrying out any retributive... er, responsive force, and since they have used deadly force, they are to be killed, yes?

What if they had used debilitating force or mutilating force? Should the response be wholly reciprocal?

Intent defines an action, and thus the reaction. This is the role of the conscience, that sector of reason whose purpose it is to make value judgments. As the conscience is a factor in determining the action, so too should it be a factor in determining the response.

RadCap: Their lives were NOT a value. In fact, their lives were decidedly ANTI-life.

I concur with all statements on this. I do not propose a replacement of these statements, but an addendum. What I lament is that they chose to use their minds, almost inarguably great minds, for ANTI-life. thus, their deaths are not lamentable; their choices are.

i.e. Some people need a bullet in the head, e.g. murderous dictators. These are people who have abdicated their right to life, and that is a shame, for life is to be valued.

[RadCap]

"A soldier in a firefight mistakes a fleeing civilian youth for an enemy, and shoots him dead. What has been prevented? (viz Intrinsic value of a human being.)

A soldier recognizes a fleeing civilian youth as such, and shoots him dead anyway. (He woulda grown up to be one of 'em.) Has value replacement been prevented here? (viz Intrinsic value of a human being.)"

Couple things:

First off, you use the term "intrinsic" as the identifier for the value of life. However, you go on to say the value of life is CONDITIONAL - ie you value life EXCEPT under x conditions: "until such time as the value of life is discarded by the individual, or anti-life values are embraced by them." By making the value conditional, you have removed it from the realm of the intrinsic. That means the value is either subjective or objective.

I will say you are very close to a proper identification of the value of life (including the 'addendum' you wish to add to the other quote of me you make). But you are not quite there yet. As such, I will repeat my suggestion that you read OPAR, because it provides all the ideas and answers you are searching for here.

Now, as to the example you have provided. In the first instance, you have a man mistakenly initiating force. In the second instance you have a man purposefully initiating force. Since neither is a defensive use of force, neither prevents 'value replacement'. Noth are instances where value replacement occurs - BECAUSE they are initiations of force.

Given that you appear to believe these two instances you site are defensive uses of force when in fact they are initiations of force, I suggest you review your understanding of the concepts "initiation of force" and "defensive force", for they appear to be in error. I would suggest a reading of a particular book, but I have done that a few times already.

[y_feldblum]

RadCap, one can break down the category of responsive (non-initiatory) force into retribution (or whatever one wants to call it) and self-defense. Citizens delegate their right to retribution to the government (eg, to reclaim property, to execute murderers); but they retain their right to self-defense undelegated. Self-defense is during-the-fact; retribution is after-the-fact.

[RadCap]

These points have been discussed in other threads. I will summarize here, but if you wish to continue discussing them, I suggest you do it in those other threads.

Whether one is acting in the immediate moment or at a later point in time, all these responsive acts are defense. They are defense against the violation of one's rights. Until the violation has been resolved - ie the individual is made 'whole' again - any and all actions taken by the victim, no matter what point in time those actions occur, are defense.

Therefore, while it is possible to identify various catagories of defense, those catagories are NOT separate forms of force. In other words, there is still only initiation and defense.

[y_feldblum]

I see. So you're saying that ...

Morally, there are only initiation and defense; while ...

Politically, there are retained defense and delegated defense. This is not too (or at all) relevant in making ethical decisions, but it is necessary in drafting laws etc. which deal with them.

[RadCap]

No.

Furthermore, I EXPLICITLY said if you wanted to continue the conversation, you should do so in a different thread.

Please follow such directions, or do not post at all.

[oldsalt]

Killing during a fire fight isn't immoral. You are in a fight for your life. In the first example, the accidental killing of an innocent during battle is lamentable, but not immoral. How the hell are you supposed to know this person is an innocent?

I have been involved in the military all of my life, either as family or directly (during Vietnam). It is difficult enough to live with all of the death without taking on unearned guilt. This is where a rational ethics is crucial to someone who carries a gun for his country. (Obviously, a rational ethics is crucial in every aspect of life, but I'm speaking to a particular situation here.) There is no way to avoid killing innocents during battle, but one must differentiate between the accidental and the deliberate. Only the rare person kills innocents deliberately -- and they are usually found out and punished. While it is lamentable that accidents occur, one must not place oneself under the same burden of guilt that accrues to one who commits deliberate murder. (Unfortunately, this won't help you in the middle of the night when the nightmares come, but it may help you to live with it.)

The second example sounds like a pathetic attempt to assuage a bad conscience, assuming it was an accident. If it wasn't an accident, but rather the killing of someone using "he woulda grown up to..." as a justification, then it is a blatant murder and ought to be treated as such.

There is also the question of artillary fire, and bombing, which, even with the advances we've made, deals with an seemingly indiscriminate use of force. But was the death toll in Dresden or Berlin or Tokyo really indescriminate. What was the purpose of the bombing of civilians in these cases? Was it simply to kill as many Germans as possible? Or was it to discourage the people who were helping the war effort of their governments? Those people who die who have actively helped prosecute the war are not innocents, whether they are in the active military or not. What may be lamentable in this situation is that there may be innocents killed who had no choice in the matter -- which meant that they were dead by the hand of their masters, or they were children, who were also dead by the hand of their masters. As such, it wasn't the individual who loaded and fired the artillary, or the person who dropped the bomb who initiated the war, but the masters of Germany and Japan, and the burden of guilt accrues to them.

[RationalBiker]

And what of accidental deaths? Would the survivor of a fatal car crash, where no evil intent was present, be guilty of murder or mere self-defense?

Murder is a specific legal term. Intent is a pre-requisite for murder, so one could not be quilt of murder without intent (and actually malice as well).

VES

[MisterSwig]

And what of accidental deaths? Would the survivor of a fatal car crash, where no evil intent was present, be guilty of murder or mere self-defense?

There are degrees of the initiation of force (murder being the most extreme). These degrees are defined depending on various factors, such as intent, motivation, and method.

If you kill someone in an auto accident, then you may be guilty of manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

[Censure the Opposition]

What may be  lamentable in this situation is that there may be innocents killed who had no choice in the matter -- which meant that they were dead by the hand of their masters, or they were children, who were also dead by the hand of their masters.  As such, it wasn't the individual who loaded and fired the artillary, or the person who dropped the bomb who initiated the war, but the masters of Germany and Japan, and the burden of guilt accrues to them.

(I hate to single you out like this as I agree with most of what you say, but you wrote the most recent post pertaining to what I have to say, so I quoted you.)

It seems like many are stating that when acting in response (Self-defense, retribution, whatever) to the initiation of force, the innocents harmed in the application of responsive force are the sole responsibility of the original initiator. I agree they share a large portion of the blame, but the fact still remains that the responding party dropped a bomb that killed innocent third parties. This is even more prevalent in situations where there are other options that would result in less innocent casualties as well as when the responsive party foresees the impact it will have on the innocents. To say "It's not our responsibility to ensure that innocents are protected from our bombs in the middle east because we didn't cast the first stone" is not only immoral, it states that we don't care about the consequences of our actions, so long as we can find someone else to blame them on. In the end, the innocents are still dying directly at the end of our guns and bombs and we have to be, in part, accountable for that.

[Censure the Opposition]

Source, please?

Check the "U.S. Convoy in Iraq Attacked" thread under the "Current Events" section. It seems to be a fairly prevalent opinion. I'd start on page 3, foregoing all the differing opinions on what kind of nuke to use.