Spideynw: Justin Laws:I could decide that I don't like your opinion, shoot you in the head, then walk away. And then my family would take you to court for murder. Again, a "right' is just a "legal claim".
Justin Laws:I could decide that I don't like your opinion, shoot you in the head, then walk away.
And then my family would take you to court for murder. Again, a "right' is just a "legal claim".
So, I don't own your body, thus I cannot kill you. But if I do kill you, your "family" who also doesn't own your body can take me to court?
They have no further right to take me to court over your dead body than anyone else does. Your family is just another group of individuals, like any other group.
Unless we're talking about a society of DRO's and PDA's, it's a false dichotomy.
Spideynw: Justin Laws:It is simple. As a libertarian, the Captain owns the boat, therefor, he decided who gets kicked off. Did the captain own the person he killed?
Justin Laws:It is simple. As a libertarian, the Captain owns the boat, therefor, he decided who gets kicked off.
Did the captain own the person he killed?
No, but if the Captain owns the boat, he may forcibly eject any person he wishes off his property. Regardless of self-ownership or not. No one has a "legal right" to force their property (ie., your body) onto someone another's property.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Justin Laws:So, I don't own your body, thus I cannot kill you. But if I do kill you, your "family" who also doesn't own your body can take me to court?
Yes, once someone dies, the body is owned, and they have a right to sue for loss of life. And family has the best claim to the body.
Justin Laws: Spideynw: Justin Laws:It is simple. As a libertarian, the Captain owns the boat, therefor, he decided who gets kicked off. Did the captain own the person he killed? No, but if the Captain owns the boat, he may forcibly eject any person he wishes off his property.
No, but if the Captain owns the boat, he may forcibly eject any person he wishes off his property.
No he cannot, he does not own the person's body he is forcing off.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: Justin Laws:So, I don't own your body, thus I cannot kill you. But if I do kill you, your "family" who also doesn't own your body can take me to court? Yes, once someone dies, the body is owned, and they have a right to sue for loss of life. Justin Laws: Spideynw: Justin Laws:It is simple. As a libertarian, the Captain owns the boat, therefor, he decided who gets kicked off. Did the captain own the person he killed? No, but if the Captain owns the boat, he may forcibly eject any person he wishes off his property. No he cannot, he does not own the person's body he is forcing off.
Yes, once someone dies, the body is owned, and they have a right to sue for loss of life.
So, in essence, I am not allowed to kick someone forcibly off of my lawn? Even if they don't want to leave? I am sorry, we are in disagreement here.
If the boat is sinking, and nobody is willing to get off, then it will sink. I don't see what else you can derive from this.
I don't agree with any of your premises, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Adieu!
Justin Laws:No, but if the Captain owns the boat, he may forcibly eject any person he wishes off his property. Regardless of self-ownership or not. No one has a "legal right" to force their property (ie., your body) onto someone another's property.
Only if the person agreed to that before getting on the boat, if not, then he has an easement and cannot be jettisoned at any point. (All of this breaks down at life or death situation though)
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Spideynw:No he cannot, he does not own the person's body he is forcing off.
So what?
You don't need to own somebody to defend yourself or your property from them. Or, say, your wife gets assaulted, so you should stay out of it entirely as you neither own her nor the attacker. Correct?
Justin Laws:So, in essence, I am not allowed to kick someone forcibly off of my lawn?
Not if it is going to result in their death! Otherwise you are claiming a right to their life, which you do not have.
Justin Laws:If the boat is sinking, and nobody is willing to get off, then it will sink. I don't see what else you can derive from this.
Yup, it will sink and they will all die, which is what they deserve if they are all that selfish.
Angurse: Spideynw:No he cannot, he does not own the person's body he is forcing off. So what? You don't need to own somebody to defend yourself or your property from them.
You don't need to own somebody to defend yourself or your property from them.
Well, a pacifist would say that one never has the right to attack someone. Regardless in this situation, the other people are not attacking you.
Angurse:Or, say, your wife gets assaulted, so you should stay out of it entirely as you neither own her nor the attacker. Correct?
It is not the same thing. In the boat scenario, no one is attacking anyone else. Not only that, but I do not need to necessarily kill the attacker to stop him from attacking my wife.
Spideynw: Well, a pacifist would say that one never has the right to attack someone. Regardless in this situation, the other people are not attacking you.
They are the cause of my dying. I thought you said I had a right to life?
Spideynw:It is not the same thing. In the boat scenario, no one is attacking anyone else. Not only that, but I do not need to necessarily kill the attacker to stop him from attacking my wife.
So what? Why does my ownership matter in one case but not another?
Spideynw:Not only that, but I do not need to necessarily kill the attacker to stop him from attacking my wife.
That seems like a dodge. I can harm someone that I don't own just not kill them? So then I could simply kick you off the boat with a life jacket. And there's no issue anymore?
Angurse: Spideynw: Well, a pacifist would say that one never has the right to attack someone. Regardless in this situation, the other people are not attacking you. They are the cause of my dying. I thought you said I had a right to life?
No, the cause of you dying is too much weight on the boat.
Angurse: Spideynw:It is not the same thing. In the boat scenario, no one is attacking anyone else. Not only that, but I do not need to necessarily kill the attacker to stop him from attacking my wife. So what? Why does my ownership matter in one case but not another?
That is a good question. A pacifist would say it does not matter. And the pacifist may be right.
Angurse: Spideynw:Not only that, but I do not need to necessarily kill the attacker to stop him from attacking my wife. That seems like a dodge. I can harm someone that I don't own just not kill them? So then I could simply kick you off the boat with a life jacket. And there's no issue anymore?
If the life jacket would keep them alive, I don't see what the big deal would be. But in this scenario, kicking someone off the boat is a death sentence. So I have to assume there is no life jacket. Or the water is freezing and the life jacket does not matter.
As to your question about harming someone, I may be wrong. It may not be justified to harm someone, no matter what the situation. Again, the pacifist may be the only consistent philosophy...
Daniel: What would be the moral answer to this situation: A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why? Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.
What would be the moral answer to this situation:
A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?
Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.
So here is how one classmate responded to the scenrio:
I think ultimately he doesn't really have a right to sacrifice anyone. If none of the passengers offer to give up their place, such as one of the old passengers or the terminally ill on grounds of having less life to live or someone else out of duty or responsibility, his only decision is to sacrifice himself. I think it is very likely that someone in the group (especially the nun) would probably volunteer, but in no circumstances does the captain have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
I responded with:
But by the officer sacrificing himself, he is guaranteeing that everyone will die, since the scenario stipulates that the he is indispensable with regard to being able to navigate the lifeboat. Would that be a moral option?
He then responded with:
e could show people how to do his job, but of course, like you and the question said, he is the essential person there and really shouldn't be the one to stay behind. my point was just that he has no right to choose ANYONE other than himself from a moral point of veiw.
Thoughts, anyone?
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Spideynw:No, the cause of you dying is too much weight on the boat.
That wasn't the scenario. But it doesn't matter, they are the weight. Therefore they are the cause.
Spideynw:That is a good question. A pacifist would say it does not matter. And the pacifist may be right.
So, you must let your wife be beaten then. For rights!
Spideynw:If the life jacket would keep them alive, I don't see what the big deal would be. But in this scenario, kicking someone off the boat is a death sentence. So I have to assume there is no life jacket. Or the water is freezing and the life jacket does not matter.
No it isn't. In this scenario leaving everyone on the boat means death. Nothing, in Daniels scenario explicitly said you need to kill the seventh passenger. They just need to be off of the boat. Nor did it say what the water conditions were.
Daniel:Thoughts, anyone?
I would completely agree.
Angurse: Spideynw:No, the cause of you dying is too much weight on the boat.That wasn't the scenario. But it doesn't matter, they are the weight. Therefore they are the cause.
Angurse: Spideynw:That is a good question. A pacifist would say it does not matter. And the pacifist may be right.So, you must let your wife be beaten then. For rights!
Angurse: Spideynw:If the life jacket would keep them alive, I don't see what the big deal would be. But in this scenario, kicking someone off the boat is a death sentence. So I have to assume there is no life jacket. Or the water is freezing and the life jacket does not matter.No it isn't. In this scenario leaving everyone on the boat means death. Nothing, in Daniels scenario explicitly said you need to kill the seventh passenger. They just need to be off of the boat. Nor did it say what the water conditions were.
"There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people." So, throwing one off of the boat, is sentencing the person to death, because there would not be sufficient provisions for the person thrown off the boat. It is irrelevant how the person dies. The fact of the matter is, whoever is kicked off the boat dies, according to the OP.
sounds like a libertarian in the making if not already. you know what to do .....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Spideynw:So, because they just happen to end up on his boat, you think he gets to decide who dies, and that he is justified in killing someone, just because of chance? Give me a break.
The alternative is death. Don't pretend like you know what you would do or would approach the situation differently if it wasn't due to chance. The conditions that got you there seem irrelevant.
Spideynw:Not for rights, to be consistent. Practically though, I doubt any arbitrator would find fault with me for trying to get him off of my wife, even if it meant killing him.
Earlier it was rights, now consistency. But practically who cares? I think 6 of us on a boat could dump the 7th and get away fine, practically that is.
Spideynw: "There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people." So, throwing one off of the boat, is sentencing the person to death, because there would not be sufficient provisions for the person thrown off the boat. It is irrelevant how the person dies. The fact of the matter is, whoever is kicked off the boat dies, according to the OP.
Where in that statement does it say throwing him off equals death? Nowhere. Regardless, not throwing him off is sentencing death on the other passengers. So the only fact of the matter is you can save yourself. I really doubt people wouldn't, or at least try, for the sake of consistency.
nirgrahamUK: Daniel:Thoughts, anyone? sounds like a libertarian in the making if not already. you know what to do .....
[draws blank]. Anyway, I already plugged in Rothbard as a philosopher who said that lifeboat situations usually leave out much information. Maybe someone will Google him.
Angurse: Spideynw:So, because they just happen to end up on his boat, you think he gets to decide who dies, and that he is justified in killing someone, just because of chance? Give me a break. The alternative is death.
The alternative is death.
And? The point is that it would not be justified to kill someone else, who is innocent, to save yourself.
Angurse: Spideynw:Not for rights, to be consistent. Practically though, I doubt any arbitrator would find fault with me for trying to get him off of my wife, even if it meant killing him. Earlier it was rights, now consistency. But practically who cares? I think 6 of us on a boat could dump the 7th and get away fine, practically that is.
And as I stated earlier, there are quite a few ways to resolve the issue. One, is if everyone agrees to it, could be a democratic vote. Or if everyone agrees, could draw straws (or something similar). But if even one person refused, I would jump off. I would not kill someone else, who is innocent, to save myself.
Spideynw:And? The point is that it would not be justified to kill someone else, who is innocent, to save yourself.
And I have yet to hear why. First it was because you didn't have the right, then consistency, now its...?
Spideynw:And as I stated earlier, there are quite a few ways to resolve the issue. One, is if everyone agrees to it, could be a democratic vote. Or if everyone agrees, could draw straws (or something similar). But if even one person refused, I would jump off. I would not kill someone else, who is innocent, to save myself.
Sure there are other ways, but that wasn't the proposed question. It was who should the officer (you) throw over. Also, the captain (you) is indispensable for the survival of the others. Your suicide is their death as well. And, call me skeptical, but I don't think you'd be so quick to jump.
Spideynw:Have you heard of Doctor Kevorkian and assisted suicide?
I should have known you would have taken what I wrote out of context, in order to make a point like this. Where did the rest of my sentence go? You know - the part where it concludes my point. Would robbers, criminals, thieves who violate your property by initiating violence - would they consent to being killed, would they - if they had the choice, let you justly defend yourself, or would they want you to accept the situation and kneel to their will? I know of voluntary euthanasia. The thing is - red herring.
Spideynw: Conza88:Was his ownership / control of the property legitimate or not? What does that have to do with whether or not it is OK to kill someone? Regardless, assume he is considered the owner of the life raft.
Conza88:Was his ownership / control of the property legitimate or not?
What does that have to do with whether or not it is OK to kill someone? Regardless, assume he is considered the owner of the life raft.
Because you have a right to self defense. That is why. Since this is a hypothetical, everyone is making assumptions. I stipulated the different possible scenarios and assumptions, and drew conclusions from them applying natural rights.
Spideynw: Conza88:No, you cannot own another person. Why does that even need to be asked? Because if one cannot own another human being, then how does one derive the right to kill another person based on owning the property the other person is standing on?
Conza88:No, you cannot own another person. Why does that even need to be asked?
Because if one cannot own another human being, then how does one derive the right to kill another person based on owning the property the other person is standing on?
You have the right to ask them to leave, it is your property. The property owner set the rules. But yet again, as I brought up in my earlier response - was there a contract signed / agreed upon? Did the person who is being asked to leave, have a legitimate agreement with the boat owner, that in this situation - they would 'rent' a lifeboat seat. The officer, asking them to leave - is violating the contract. The person being asked to leave, is in their right to say "No". Then the officer, initiates violence against the person to get them to leave. That person defends themselves, and their right to that seat. The officer kills them. He is a murderer. Alternatively, the officer attacks the person who has the right to their seat and they defend themselves against his initiation of violence - the officer is killed. It was self defense, it is justified.
Spideynw: Conza88:Are you justified in defending your property (yourself included) from the initiation of violence? A pacifist would probably say no. I have not yet decided. I am leaning towards no.
Conza88:Are you justified in defending your property (yourself included) from the initiation of violence?
A pacifist would probably say no. I have not yet decided. I am leaning towards no.
The Right to Self Defense by Rothbard
"If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property – to defend it by violence against violent invasion.
Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights – such as Mr. Robert LeFevre – are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property."
Spideynw:The OP was clear that all 7 people were in a sinking boat, and that if one of them got out, it would not sink, but the one that got out would die (from freezing water I assume).
No. None of that is mentioned. They were on a sinking ship. They are now in a lifeboat.
"A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?"
- It does not state the lifeboat is sinking. It does not state, anywhere, that it will sink, and it does not state anywhere - that if one got out they would die.
Your assumptions, which have nothing to do with the direct scenario. Which is fine, as I added possible scenarios and what would happen in those situations. But you criticized me for doing that, didn't you?
Such a simple and raw example of seven humans in a 'scarce resources' situation, and already so many fervently "just" suggestions on how to resolve it. Extrapolating to billion people facing 'scarce resources', how many fervently "just" yet conflicting resolutions and resulting enforcements (actions) would that produce? How MANY TIMES MORE "just" resolutions and enforcements would then be caused by this initial wave of "just" enforcements which were subsequently "justly" found by others to have been "unjust"? Then how many more in the third wave, and so on? After the fourth wave would it even matter who threw the first stone (initial aggression), or if a stone was even thrown, to begin with?
Why is everyone avoiding a vote or a straw-draw from this discussion? Is it because these would establish a modicum of a State (god forbid!) on the boat? Who on the boat would refuse either of these proposals and on what basis?
Z.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap