Richard A Garner:A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?
Absolutely. I hold that an action is moral if it has good results, and the person is sure of those results. As long as the person is sure that the action will save the others, and there is no large probability that 6 will be killed instead of five, it is moral.
Richard A Garner:As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
Probably not, because chances are that the fat man won't stop the trolley completely. Of course, if somebody is sure that the trolley will be stoppped by the fat man, it will be moral for that person to intervene.
Richard A Garner: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
Even less moral, because chances are that there are significant probabilities that the transplants won't succeed, and some won't be saved.
Our weaponry is about as precise as human arms and wrists will allow. In fact, militaries around the world are researching precision weaponry faster than the free-market would dictate. That point isn't important, though.
You said that in my original hostage scenario (not JC's modification) -- despite the fact that I knew from history that the hostage would be killed if I killed the mass-murderer -- it's not my fault, it's the fault of the person who killed the hostage (because it was his choice). In the case of JC's modification (where it's a device hooked up), why isn't it the fault of the person who chose to attach the device to the hostage (and to the gang member)? Same with human shields; why isn't it the fault of the mass-murderer who chose to employ human the shields? In all of these examples, you are acting in a way that would otherwise be completely legitimate, even using your value system. The difference is that someone evil chose to do something that knowingly results in another innocent life lost. That's why any lives lost in this way should be blamed on the true aggressor, not the man acting to defend himself and his family.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Stephen Forde:I think that for one to be an accessory they must both actively support and sanction the perpetrator of the crime. Both conditions are necessary and neither is sufficient. Giving an axe to a known axe-murderer might make one an accessory. I'm not sure. But a taxpayer definitely doesn't qualify. He doesn't give his support willingly, as is demonstrated by the fact that coercion is used to extract funds from him, so the fact that he gives support does not mean that he also gives a sanction.
Ah, but the taxpayer does give it willingly, according to many here. True, he is faced with dire consequences via government thugs if he refuses, but merely being faced with such duress does not remove one's culpability. You make this point repeatedly in saying that shooting the man with the life monitor makes you a murderer of the innocent in the trap
Your fallacy comes in thinking that the automated mechanism is any less the result of the aggressor's action than his presence in trying to directly harm you. BOTH are fully HIS aggressions. If we have an absolute right to defend ourselves, as I think we do, this right cannot be done away with because some cackling supervillain decides to be sure that his very last act is a murder.
That being said, I think we're beginning to get circular here. I cannot really comprehend the logic of your position, if there is any, and you, apparently, find no opposing arguments convincing either. It's been a long thread...
Why is it no longer a matter of morality? And what people will do is irrelevent to the question of what they ought to do.
It is no longer a matter of morality because there is no "ought" if it's not truly enforcably obligatory. It's just something you may or may not choose to do based on your own whims or preferances. A morality that is not enforcable is no morality at all. It becomes aesthetics, as when it comes down to it you can prefer and do whatever you want, since no particular standard is enforcable. What's the point of saying "you ought to do X" if in the same breath one says "but noone can make you do X". Logically, that would reduce to "you don't have to do X". Hence, it ceases to be an obligation.
But it is the enforcement of the obligation that violates the NAP, not the presence of it. Why can't I have an obligation it would be immoral for you to enforce?
You can't have an obligation that it would be immoral to enforce because that negates the entire point of it being an obligation. The obligation would not be legitimate if the only way to enforce it would be to breach morality. Legitimacy is the key question. There is no such thing as a legitimate obligation that cannot be morally enforced.
Sure it is an obligation. You can have the power to choose what you should do with you property and it still be true that one option be the one you should be chosing as opposed to others.
If it's a matter of whatever you have the power to do then the obligation becomes meaningless. Furthermore, I think that once legitimacy in ownership of the property has been established, it's irrelevant what you do with it. There is no obligation for what to do with it once legitimacy in ownership has been established. In the absence of any blatant NAP violation, how you use it henceforth becomes a matter of personal preferance.
I have not encountered many libertarians who think that morality only encompasses what it is OK to force people to do or not do.
And I have never encountered any libertarians who think that libertarian ethics are unenforcable yet somehow it still entails tangible obligations. What's the point of ethics if it's unenforcable? Functionally, it ceases to be ethics.
Stephen Forde: When it comes to personal ethics, I think intent matters. When it comes to interpersonal ethics I don't think it does. If someone is driving drunk, and they accidentally kill somebody, they should be just as liable as if they intentionally killed them. The result of their action is the effect of someone else dying, whether they intended it or not. They are no less responsible for the other person's death because it was accidental. The family of the victim should be entitled to the same proportional restitution and retribution. This is the proper assumption of risk for not taking precautions to avoid killing someone. And even if the driver were sober, the same would hold. He is still responsible for his choice to drive that day, and just as culpable.
When it comes to personal ethics, I think intent matters. When it comes to interpersonal ethics I don't think it does. If someone is driving drunk, and they accidentally kill somebody, they should be just as liable as if they intentionally killed them. The result of their action is the effect of someone else dying, whether they intended it or not. They are no less responsible for the other person's death because it was accidental. The family of the victim should be entitled to the same proportional restitution and retribution. This is the proper assumption of risk for not taking precautions to avoid killing someone. And even if the driver were sober, the same would hold. He is still responsible for his choice to drive that day, and just as culpable.
If a sober driver has an accident (a real accident, that's not his fault - a tyre blows out or the steering linkage breaks or something; or even a sudden and unforeseeable heart attack, etc. - not an "accident" resulting from the driver's stupidity) and kills someone, he should be treated in the same way as if he'd deliberately set out to murder the "victim"? I don't think so.
(From the original question: what if Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Mugabe are the guys tied to the main track, and Ludwig von Mises is tied to the other track - do you still pull the lever? What if someone else is about to pull it - do you stop him? )
I suppose I consider "personal ethics" to be subjective "aesthetics" and therefore not real ethics at all. The only kind of ethics that ever made sense to me is interpersonal ethics. I can't see how one can truly have a genuine obligation to themselves.
Stephen Forde: There would be a lot more if I wasn’t typing everything up in Word first to make sure the spelling and grammar is incorrect.
There would be a lot more if I wasn’t typing everything up in Word first to make sure the spelling and grammar is incorrect.
You deliberately check that the spelling and grammar are incorrect before posting? Interesting choice
JCFolsom:Ah, but the taxpayer does give it willingly, according to many here.
According to who?
Let's change the scenario. The hostage is now with the mass-murderer and armed. Do they have a right to kill you, to prevent you from defending yourself from the mass-murderer and indirectly killing them?
JCFolsom:I cannot really comprehend the logic of your position, if there is any, and you, apparently, find no opposing arguments convincing either.
My position is basically Rothbardian. We have exclusive jurisdiction over our person and any property we homestead. If we have a right to our person and property, we have a right to defend it, but only in proportion to the aggression being imposed on us. If a crime has been committed against us, we have a right to both restitution and retribution each in proportion to the crime. We may not conscript others, or force them to give us the necessary funds, or otherwise use their property in our persuit of justice. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, not the defendent. The proper assumption of risk lies with the aggressor not the victim.
All of this except the last part can be found in the first 5 or 6 chapters of the Ethics of Liberty.
My point is that we only have the right to defend ourselves against an aggressing party. We don't have the right to use any innocent bystanders as a means to that end against their will. And I don't see why that should change just because the situation is an extreme one.
Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.
user="Brainpolice"]Why is it no longer a matter of morality? And what people will do is irrelevent to the question of what they ought to do. It is no longer a matter of morality because there is no "ought" if it's not truly enforcably obligatory. It's just something you may or may not choose to do based on your own whims or preferances.
It is no longer a matter of morality because there is no "ought" if it's not truly enforcably obligatory. It's just something you may or may not choose to do based on your own whims or preferances.
So what? Why does that mean that it ceases to be something you should choose to do?
A morality that is not enforcable is no morality at all. It becomes aesthetics, as when it comes down to it you can prefer and do whatever you want, since no particular standard is enforcable. What's the point of saying "you ought to do X" if in the same breath one says "but noone can make you do X". Logically, that would reduce to "you don't have to do X". Hence, it ceases to be an obligation.
No, it is an obligation if that is what you ought to do. Why should the fact that you are not forced to do X mean that X is not something you ought to do?
But it is the enforcement of the obligation that violates the NAP, not the presence of it. Why can't I have an obligation it would be immoral for you to enforce? You can't have an obligation that it would be immoral to enforce because that negates the entire point of it being an obligation. The obligation would not be legitimate if the only way to enforce it would be to breach morality. Legitimacy is the key question. There is no such thing as a legitimate obligation that cannot be morally enforced.
So you keep asserting, but I've yet to see a reason why. It certainly seems to me that there can be moral and immoral ways of ensuring others behave morally.
Sure it is an obligation. You can have the power to choose what you should do with you property and it still be true that one option be the one you should be chosing as opposed to others. If it's a matter of whatever you have the power to do then the obligation becomes meaningless. Furthermore, I think that once legitimacy in ownership of the property has been established, it's irrelevant what you do with it. There is no obligation for what to do with it once legitimacy in ownership has been established. In the absence of any blatant NAP violation, how you use it henceforth becomes a matter of personal preferance.
So what? Look, its like this: Property rights enable us to tell who gets to decide how a resource is used. They tell us absolutely nothing about how he ought to decide.
I have not encountered many libertarians who think that morality only encompasses what it is OK to force people to do or not do. And I have never encountered any libertarians who think that libertarian ethics are unenforcable yet somehow it still entails tangible obligations. What's the point of ethics if it's unenforcable? Functionally, it ceases to be ethics.
What are "libertarian ethics"? Libertarianism is a theory about what rights are and what rights people have. It is not a theory of ethics. And I have not even said that "libertarian ethics" are unenforcable. In fact, I have said the opposite. I have said that obligations correlative to rights can be enforced, but obligations not correlative to rights cannot (without failing to fulfill obligations correlative to rights).
I have yet to see a decent explanation as to why it follows from the fact that nobody should be able to force me to help my sick mother that helping my sick mother is not something I ought to do.
Like JC is saying, under your value system you are guilty for funding a government which steals and murders.
Sure, if you don't fund them, they'll kill you or lock you in a cage for the rest of your life, but according to you, that doesn't matter. According to you, even if someone is under severe torture (or the threat thereof), they should be blamed for everything he or she does. By ever doing any business with any taxpayer, you are funding the government.
It's cruel to blame a victim for the situation an aggressor places them into, and that's exactly what you've been doing this entire thread.
Ego:In all of these examples, you are acting in a way that would otherwise be completely legitimate, even using your value system. The difference is that someone evil chose to do something that knowingly results in another innocent life lost. That's why any lives lost in this way should be blamed on the true aggressor, not the man acting to defend himself and his family.
Why couldn't a terrorist use the same argument? The state compels X to pay a tax or conscripts X into its army to support foreign aggression. The state is the true aggressor so any lives lost if the terrorist should defend himself or family by killing X should be blamed on the state for putting X in that position. If X were not compelled by force to fight or fund aggression, the terrorist would be perfectly justified in taking X out.
Also, what if the hostage is hooked up to a device so that when the mass-murderer's heart stops, he dies. And he is with the mass-murderer and armed. Is he justified in taking you out as a matter of self-defence if you try to kill the mass-murderer while he's on a rampage?
Ego: Sure, if you don't fund them, they'll kill you or lock you in a cage for the rest of your life, but according to you, that doesn't matter. According to you, even if someone is under severe torture (or the threat thereof), they should be blamed for everything he or she does. By ever doing any business with any taxpayer, you are funding the government. It's cruel to blame a victim for the situation an aggressor places them into, and that's exactly what you've been doing this entire thread.
What I have been saying all along is that the taxpayer cannot be considered an accessory to the crimes of government agents because they don't give sanction in anyway to the goverment agents to commit acts of aggression. They are innocent victims.
That's inconsistent. Victims of the mass-murderer didn't give consent, either.
Stephen Forde:Why couldn't a terrorist use the same argument? The state compels X to pay a tax or conscripts X into its army to support foreign aggression. The state is the true aggressor so any lives lost if the terrorist should defend himself or family by killing X should be blamed on the state for putting X in that position. If X were not compelled by force to fight or fund aggression, the terrorist would be perfectly justified in taking X out.
A "terrorist" (that is, a fighter without a state to officially back him) can indeed make that argument. According to your previous positions, however, X is not exempted from responsibility for his actions by the threats of his own government against him. He is still choosing to act for his own well-being at the expense of the "terrorist"'s people. Under your moral calculus, only if you are bodily forced, puppeted into taking an action that results in an innocent death, are you exempted from responsibility. No threat constitutes that, but only a rather unfortunate set of choices.
Stephen Forde:Also, what if the hostage is hooked up to a device so that when the mass-murderer's heart stops, he dies. And he is with the mass-murderer and armed. Is he justified in taking you out as a matter of self-defence if you try to kill the mass-murderer while he's on a rampage?
Absolutely. Again, as I've pointed out before, while we might think him more noble for not doing so, we cannot hold him criminally culpable for any action he takes in self-defense. Self-defense is an absolute right. That your rights bring you into conflict is unfortunate, but it does not mean that either right is invalid. It just means that the aggressor, the man attacking you and linked to the other, has committed murder one way or another. You're SOL.
Another fallacy I see coming up frequently here is that if two people are in conflict, especially violent conflict, at least one of them has to be in the wrong ethically. I do not believe that is so. It would be nice. It would make it very easy to pick sides. It is rarely that simple, alas.
Do you think that it is criminal to prevent a justice-seeker from pursuit of a criminal by using force or the threat of force?
Ego:That's inconsistent. Victims of the mass-murderer didn't give consent, either.
There is no inconsistency. If A threatens B into aggressing against C, B has aggressed against C and is culpable. If A threatens B into giving A the necessary funds to aggress against C, B has not aggressed against C nor did he give sanction to A to aggress and he is not culpable. If B contracts with A, gives him funds and sanction to aggress against C, he is an accomplice and culpable for A's aggression.
Why on earth does it matter if there is a contract if everyone knows where the money is going?
Look... when pull the trigger of a gun when pointing it at someone, I'm not technically what kills that person. However, I know that when I pull the trigger, a bullet will come out.
To return to the torture victim you want to punish, if someone is coerced under torture by an aggressor to fire a gun at someone, he knows what will happen when he pulls the trigger just as much as the taxpayer who is threatened with deadly force knows what happens to his tax dollars.
edit: haha "threated"
"How might libertarians solve the Trolley Problem?" Better yet, how would the Dadaist's solve the Trolley Problem? Probably take a picture with a polaroid & scribble 'The World Is Burning" as a caption; 'bout as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Do you know what killed Vaudeville? Talking pictures, but ya still make it kid, you just gotta have a gimmick. I for one am a tumbler!: tumbles back on topic:Wouldn't a contract matter as a way of providing legality & proof of an agreement?
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Ego:Why on earth does it matter if there is a contract if everyone knows where the money is going?
Well, how would you in your system justify punishing state rulers for the crimes which other state agents who are acting on their behalf? And at the same time avoid punishing the state's subjects?
I don't really think anyone should be punished for any of it. If anything, we should punish the people who advocate for larger government, more welfare, more taxes, etc., not the people who want a job and sign up with the IRS.
Still, I don't think any of them should be punished; with a vengeful attitude, we'll never get anything done!
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