Lifeboat Scenarios and the Non-Aggression Principle

[LastTrueLiberal]

An ethical theory must apply to every context. The first test of validity, is logical consistency.

[LastTrueLiberal]

"The justification for this is that some amount of liberty and property are required for everyone's well being." This is a utilitarian justification for the NAP. There is a deontological justification as well.

[XOmniverse]

Give me a rational ground for the existence of duty. In other words, why do I have a DUTY to respect the NAP?

[AfroOntarian]

Either you are are aware of the origin of the idea and person that coined the term, Garrett Hardin, or you are not. I suggest you look into it and post an appology.

[XOmniverse]

Wikipedia says he was born in 1915. I'm fairly certain that lifeboat scenarios (even if they weren't called that by earlier philosophers) existed and were discussed long before he existed.

[AfroOntarian]

Be honest, "lifeboat theory" obviously was meant to be applied to non-white people. Just say what you mean and don't be a pussy.

[XOmniverse]

You're ridiculous. How the hell did you manage to play the race card in response to a video that never mentions race or even has any racist implications?

[AfroOntarian]

Enjoy your day in the sun, don't waste time with objectivism. By the time you have a developed this irrational theory your day in the sun will be over like everyone elses. If you feel the need to convince yourself that your collective wealth is not a matter of military aggression, political and economic manipulation and racial alliances then you are not being honest.

[AfroOntarian]

DackBev you are an honest man.

Why not just ask: Is it ethical to be unethical? You can't talk your way around it whatever your definition of ethical behaviour is. By the way there is no such thing as objectivism. Why are the "poor countries", for the most part, non-European? Don't you think that this is a way for "white people to rationalize the reasons for their concentration of wealth despite being a minority on earth?"

[Entropy56]

You don't look tough enough to take me on. Don't flatter yourself. You'd be the first to die. If you really believed your philosophy then you better start working out.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

[2] In law, we would ideally say he is guilty of fact, but not of mind, in regards to my previous comment in [1].

Meaning, the law (and ethics) should still recognize that that man DID do a wrong, as a matter of factual circumstance, but he may be absolved, to some degree, based upon some diminished capacity type argument, which is both legal as much as it is ethical.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

[1] I would like to qualify my previous statement a tad, supporting deontological absolutism.

One distinction I failed to make, is whether the person is acting as a rational actor. If a man is still in possession of his faculties, I would hold him morally culpable. HOWEVER, if a man was driven to some state of insanity, irrationality, let's say by extreme starvation, the argument could hold we find him not culpable.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

Since this is a rare scenario in life, I won't lose to much sleep worrying about being killed on a liferaft by my fellow sailor who wants to eat me as his meal.

However, I still maintain that it is a very odd ethical viewpoint to believe that an ethical action which is impermissible one day, is valid the next. I don't really grasp how an action can potentially be moral and immoral simultaneously. It's really just a way of rationalizing the selective invocation of utilitarianism.

[Person009]

They shall catch fish with their shirts or pants!

Bear Grylls can do it.

[BWF89]

Video response posted.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

So the Non Aggression Principle is a really good idea. EXCEPT when life throws us a little bump in the road... then we abandon it just because it is convenient to do so.

Got it.

Yes, that was sarcasm. *shrugs* I'm a deontological absolutist. Obviously, there will always be that irreconcileable difference. I don't deny context, I just question which makes for better philosophy. Saying you believe in something, and abiding by it... or setting deontological rules which are "flexible."

[XOmniverse]

I think a lifeboat scenario is well beyond a "little bump in the road." Most people will never experience one.

[Zerofire18]

Its interesting to see how one can justify killing someone else by using reason. I think that if I were in that life boat "scenario" I would use my mental power to find solutions for the situation instead of intellectualizing murder and cannibalism.

[Sconz30]

Hmmmm yes, indeed. Indeed.

[Shezmu]

I'm sorry sir, but your answer is incorrect. The correct answer is "who gives a **** about rare-ass, virtually non-existed life-boat scenarios". :p

[DackBev]

In other words you should be able to make one ethical statement that subsumes the particular ethics for all situations. What is it?

[XOmniverse]

The pursuit of eudaimonia (the good life, fluorishing, happiness, etc.)

[DackBev]

Ok, but if you push the idea a little more your ethics would be simply that everything is morally permissible that brings "the good life, flourishing, happiness, etc." Non-aggression is simply a general guideline that's USUALLY works toward that end, not always. Since it works against your end sometimes, it's not a moral principle. The moral principle is simply do WHATEVER works to bring about "the good life..."

[DackBev]

And even then it's not proven that non-aggression usually works toward that end. Someone can live very well as a professional thief in league with the state.

[XOmniverse]

Materially very well, sure. I'm not convinced that they can live spiritually well (and I don't mean that in any mystical sense).

[DackBev]

Maybe. But, anyway, since you recognize that the non-agression principle is not a solid priciple, this opens the door to not having to be an anarchist. It's my belief that humanity is always in a lifeboat situation. Limited government is necessary aggression in order to MAXIMIZE life and liberty.

[Libertarian333]

"Limited government is necessary aggression in order to MAXIMIZE life and liberty."

A positive claim for which you've provided absolutely no evidence or reasoning. Just stating it to be so, doesn't make it so.

[DackBev]

If there are some situations where the non-aggression principle is obligatory and others where it's not, then what is the overarching ethical principle that is bringing you to decide that aggression is ok in one case but not the other? That's what you should be asking yourself.

[thatguyublocked]

It seems to me that you open and close your contextual matrix in order to justify whatever values you have at a given time; morality tightens up in consistent homogeneity when you label minarchy as a contradiction, yet opens up in relative specificity in videos like this.

[XOmniverse]

It would have to be demonstrated that existence without a state is somehow uncivilized or an emergency situation. Historically, this does not turn out to be the case.

[thatguyublocked]

That's relative to what you consider "uncivilized". And examples of isolated social experiments from history aren't applicable to the modern era. For example, if I could prove that a few proto-communist communities from hundreds of years ago worked, would this be sufficient evidence to support global communism?

[XOmniverse]

Nope. But the American West during the 19th center was in the modern era and not hundreds of years ago.

Check out a book called The Not So Wild Wild West.

[thatguyublocked]

Comparing the wild west with your contemporary view of anarchy is apples and oranges for reasons that are just so obvious I don't even know how you can bring this up. But this is steering away from my original point. My original point was that you are liberal when it comes to all the contradictions of market anarchy and say we have to take specifics into account yet when it comes to your criticism of states specifics aren't allowable, and they are held as being contradictory.

[thatguyublocked]

Minarchism is not about preventing every single initiation of force, that's impossible to guarantee under any system. It's about preventing larger and more significant initiations of force. Besides, how does voluntarism solve this problem? It doesn't...Not without weaving a long story about a purely voluntary society that will somehow exactly conform, like throwing a deck of cards blindly into the air and expecting them to fall into a preconceived pattern.

[XOmniverse]

Replace "initiation of force" with "shoes" and why your argument is silly should unfold before you.

Be honest; how much literature about market anarchism have you actually read?

[thatguyublocked]

You're assuming there is only one kind of initiation of force and have abstracted away all possible contexts with which this can be applied and the varying degrees with which their reduction may be valued. For example, if I am forced to eat my vegetables, it's different than if I am forced to work in a death camp. Minarchism sacrifices one for the other in practical reality so as to maximize a situation where the most significant forms of initiatory force are reduced as a means and an ends.

[thatguyublocked]

It's fine for you, as an anarchist to say something like "I equate all forms of initiatory force as being exactly the same and so I don't value the reduction of one any more than the next" and this would explain your objection to minarchism. But saying it's a contradiction is unfair. In actuality all you are saying is that minarchism doesn't conform to your hierarchy of values.

[XOmniverse]

Your underlying premise that anarchism is somehow a sacrifice and that there would be worse forms of force which would prevail is something you have yet to prove. The same goes for minarchism being more practical. Considering how every single state has turned out, including the ones that originally embraced minarchism, that's a tall order ahead of you.

[thatguyublocked]

Anarchy sacrifices equality in terms of defense services and in doing so embraces a possible hierarchy of defense services. Anarchy sacrifices universal defense services and so embraces the possibility of some people not having sufficient defense services. How is this not a sacrifice? How is this not a possibility for worse forms of force than universal taxation of a small fee?

[thatguyublocked]

Minarchy is not a contradiction, it's a trade off. If you don't value the trade off that's your business, you can promote it as being something you don't value for because you don't think the trade is worth it, but kill this ridiculous "contradiction" argument. I can turn it right back into anarchy and even easier and in the same ridiculous fashion.

[XOmniverse]

Dude that argument is blatantly statist. It sounds identical to people who advocate socialized health care because of the possibility of some people not having health care.

[thatguyublocked]

My argument is statist? That's probably because I'm arguing in favor of a state. I believe a state is necessary to socialize nonaggression, you think it's possible privately. I don't buy the argument. It's just not convincing that a voluntary society will end up so specific.

[thatguyublocked]

As for health care, I think empirical evidence should be the judge. From what I've heard, Frances healthcare system is the cheapest and the best. If that's the case, I think common sense rather than logical gymnastics should decide. In other words, you can talk all you want but I want the cheapest and best insurance, and I want equal rights the same as everyone else. I think government has too much power, but that's an issue of separation of powers and other structural integrity issues.

[Jechno]

I would rather let the other person eat me, because I don't think I'd be able to live on knowing I killed and ate another person. Just imagine encountering the other person's family when you got to shore and having to explain where their loved one is.

[XOmniverse]

Well I think I might've given some people the impression that I think the only moral choice would be to kill the other person. I was more saying that it COULD be a moral choice DEPENDING on your values and the exact circumstances.

[Libertarian333]

"it would be ethical in order to kill and eat the other person"

I lol'd.

It wouldn't be ethical because the NAP doesn't cease to apply just because someone's subjective values (e.g. the value they place on their own life) conflict with it. That something is an "emergency" is subjective. If one were to eat the other, the victim's heirs would have a legitimate claim to restitution. They could also kill the cannibal out of revenge, in which case the restitution claims would balance out.

[XOmniverse]

In that case, I challenge you to explain to me, logically, why the non-aggression principle applies to all contexts.

[Libertarian333]

The NAP is the default position, given self-ownership (see Hoppe, Rothbard, et al). The burden is on the aggressor to justify the aggression. Why does your want of food justify violating another individual's person? You can violate or not violate the NAP, it doesn't control behavior, but it is a source for judgment of behavior. What reason is there for you to be judged as completely innocent after killing and eating another individual? How did your claim to his person become greater than his?

[DackBev]

Power justifies itself. It doesn't any more justification other than the fact that it is more powerful than you. Self-ownership is irrelevant.

[Libertarian333]

That's an absurdity. Might may make what is, but it cannot make what is right anymore than it can make 2 plus 2 equal 27.

[DackBev]

What need is there for me to justify to myself that I have a "right" to kill you if I have the ability to kill you? It would just be an unnecessary intellectual exercise.

[Libertarian333]

"What need is there for me to justify to myself that I have a "right" to kill you if I have the ability to kill you? It would just be an unnecessary intellectual exercise."

Yes, if you and I are the only two people in existence, it wouldn't much matter, but rational ethics is a tool for objectively judging behavior, which anyone may employ. That includes my heirs, and anyone who may homestead my claim against you should I have no heirs. You have to justify the murder to more than just yourself.

[DackBev]

Not if I have more power than everyone else. Justification is only necessary if someone else is stronger than you. You have to justify to the strong that what you want do is in their self interest. If they deem it not so, they're free to stop you and the don't need to justify their actions to you.

[Libertarian333]

"Not if I have more power than everyone else."

Well you don't, and it's not likely you ever will. Rational ethics is based on what's best for man as he is, it's based on man's nature. If everyone were to start cannibalizing each other, the world would be a living hell, and soon afterward man would cease to be.

[DackBev]

They already do. The strong rule the weak, and that's NEVER going to change. "Rational ethics" is just a desperate tool that the weak have to try to manipulate the strong to prevent them from inflicting harm on them.

[Libertarian333]

"'Rational ethics' is just a desperate tool that the weak have to try to manipulate the strong to prevent them from inflicting harm on them."

In much the same way a sign in a mine field that says "warning: land mines" is just a clever ploy to keep people from killing themselves and those around them.

[DackBev]

Sure, I can accept that.

[opinionhead444]

I think that the Non-Aggression Principle is definitively rooted in a scientific, tangible foundation. Any competent survey-maker with a background in statistics would be able to prove this true. Granted such a scenario leaves wide open room for error, but even a cursory view around any city or town will prove the validity of the principle at least to the satisfaction of the average person.

[theindividual11]

From Rand's Virtue of Selfishness The Ethics of Emergencies, "The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats - and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one's metaphysics. The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others." p. 56

[PaulMcKeever]

That passage speaks of not sacrificing oneself unto others, but not of not sacrificing others unto oneself. Yes, one could argue that, for Rand, sacrifice is wrong, period, such that not sacrificing others unto oneself is implied by the passage you quote. However, in the absence of an explicit statement against sacrificing others in a lifeboat scenario, XO might simply interpret the passage as strengthening his argument that not resorting to cannibalism is tantamount to sacrificing oneself.

[Crunchybear1]

Why is no one considering the Truly ETHICAL option. letting the other person eat you(In most circumstances)

[Crunchybear1]

OR you could let the other person eat you.

[PaulMcKeever]

That's precisely the kind of problem that would arise were one to drop ones ethical code in the face of a lifeboat scenario. I do not agree that one drops ethics in a lifeboat scenario. It's been some time since I read Rand's "The Ethics of Emergencies", but I do not recall it to say that ethical codes should not apply in lifeboat scenarios. Rather, they should not be DISCOVERED by consideration of such scenarios, (cont'd)...

[PaulMcKeever]

Philosophers who base their ethical codes PRIMARILY upon such scenarios base their codes upon a view of reality in which pain and loss is the norm, in which the avoidance of pain and loss is the best one can hope for, etc.. Lifeboat scenarios happen, at the margins of experience but, taken in isolation, they misrepresent the facts of reality. Accordingly, an ethical philosophy founded upon a misrepresented view of reality is, ultimately, an irrational one.

[PaulMcKeever]

In short: were an Objectivist in New York, perhaps due to a physical disability, to lose everything he owns and to be starving and homeless, he would not try to avoid death by pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer on a person walking down the sidewalk. The lifeboat changes nothing: he would not murder another lifeboater to avoid his own death.

[Crunchybear1]

I would hardly think that someone with a physical disability would be an objectivist. I am not an objectivist, I am a Traditionalist.(In regards to the Philosophy of Rene Guenon, Martin Lings, Julius Evola, Ect)

[PaulMcKeever]

I would hope that anyone who enjoys living life on this planet would - for the sake of his/her own life and happiness - be an Objectivist. Tradition is not a rational basis for establishing a system of right and wrong. For example, slavery is, in some places, "traditional", as are such things as not allowing women to vote, and beheading those who don't believe in Allah.

[Crunchybear1]

It seems you are not learned about traditionalism. Go to my channel, go to my links to the websites of Julius Evola. he is the best starting point for studying traditionalism.

Traditionalism IS a rational basis for establishing a rational basis for right and wrong because we focus on God.(Or as Guenon called called "Supreme Being", "Unique", "The Absolute")

[Crunchybear1]

The Philosophy of traditionalism is best described is as a rejection of all "Renaissance Humanism" and all ideology's that came out of it (Darwinism, Democracy, Nationalism, Communism, Objectivism)

[Crunchybear1]

What if you where in a lifeboat with a 10 year old kid? would you eat the child or would you let your child eat you?

(I would let the child eat me)

[XOmniverse]

Well in that scenario there should be an abundance of things to eat that aren't people. I'm definitely not suggesting simply dropping ethics altogether. I am just suggesting that there are contexts, bizarre and rare though they may me, in which initiating force against someone else is not necessarily unethical.

[PaulMcKeever]

Are you saying that there are contexts in which irrationality is not necessarily unethical? That murder (not killing, murder) isn't irrational in some contexts? If so, isn't that tantamount to dropping ethics in some contexts? Again, I don't think that's consistent with Objectivism, if you are stating that it is so.

[XOmniverse]

I'm saying that, in the bizarre context in which your options are either death or murder, it is not irrational or immoral to kill for the sake of survival. Of course this isn't useful for developing a general ethical framework because this is the kind of scenario one would try to avoid at all costs, and should not regularly occur in ordinary life.

Are you saying that the only ethical choice would be to destroy yourself? That seems pretty much like the exact opposite of rational egoism to me.

[PaulMcKeever]

A man clinging to a rock in the middle of an oceanic nowhere does not destroy himself for lack of food and potable water. He dies, even though he has remained rational to the end. Rationality does not guarantee ones own survival, but that fact does not imply that rationality can be jettisoned whenever murder is all that will facilitate ones own survival. Otherwise, why be virtuous in the middle of a city? The answer to that question applies with equal force in both city and lifeboat.

[Crunchybear1]

In what conditions would you loose your life? If it was you and a 11 year old child on a boat would you eat the child(It would be an easy fight) or would you let the child eat you?

(By the way, please respond to my pm) peace, good will to all

[BWF89]

The Machinery of Freedom listed a few instances where he thought breaching the NAP would be justified even within civilized society.