Freedomain Radio

Hi Stefan and everyone else.  I was just turned onto an article that Stefan posted on his blog entitled "Hanging By A Thread: Flagpoles, Lifeboats, and the Edge of Ethics," and I wanted to discuss what he wrote.  I tried posting the following as a comment on the article itself, but I'm not quite sure if it worked.  The thing said that the comments needed to be moderated, so it wouldn't appear immediately, but when I pressed the post comment button, I didn't get any kind of confirmation whatsoever.  I'm not sure if that's normal.  In any case, I didn't want the comment to get lost, so I'm starting this thread (this way I can see that it worked for sure!).  Without further ado, my reaction:

Interesting article; I'm disappointed that I didn't see it sooner.  I'm not sure if you intended this as a response to our earlier conversation on this topic, but some questions still remain.

First, the reason that I was worried about the situation is that in your book, you suggested that it would be wrong to kick in the window.  In this discussion, it seems like you've reversed that position.  Am I understanding you correctly?  If so, we agree.

Second, you say that the window-kicker might "guess wrong," and smash the window when the owner of the window would not actually have granted permission to do so.  I'm curious whether you would think the window-kicker to act wrongly if he kicked in the window with full knowledge that the owner would not have been willing to grant him permission.  That is, is it immoral to infringe on someone's property rights in order to save one's own life if one knows that the property owner would not have granted permission to do so? 

(To anticipate your frustration, I recognize that there are a lot of "if's" there.  The reason it's important is not to establish what the right rule would be in those particular circumstances.  I ask in order to understand how we are to think about property rights: are they absolute, or can they be bypassed for certain kinds of reasons?  To put it another way, is there ever a reason in which someone would not be morally entitled to having their property rights upheld?  I think that's a question that deserves answering, and it just happens that this "lifeboat" example is helpful in teasing out the issue.)

I look forward to hearing your answers!

You know what, I had an answer but deleted it.

After reading your question, my faith on humanity is hanging by a thread right now. So i'll ask you what do you thing is the answer to your own question. Please, go read or watch the video again, maybe you missed something. I can undertand, I've been raise to not see those things, I truly understand the need to ask your question.

But i'm asking you a favor here, try to find the answer or come up with your own theory of what could be a genuine rational answer.

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 

Stewart:

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 

 

Innocuous? By his own hand, Donnywithana has indicated otherwise. Why are you obfuscating the Original Poster's own characterization of the seriousness or gravitas of his questions with your own? 

Well, if you want my own opinion, you can check out my essay, "Respecting the Rich Victim: Boundary Crossings and Critical Opportunities," which is posted on my blog.  But I'm not interested in trying to force my views onto Stefan.  I'm interested in hearing what he thinks, and why he thinks it.  If we disagree, and I find his arguments compelling, then perhaps I would be led to reject my current views.  I'm not sure what's so objectionable about that.

Stewart:

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 

I think it will be more construtive if he come up with his own conclusion at first before we spoon fed all the answers. The question can be answer by itself if we bring to its logical conclusion what it was said in the article and/or video. His question look more to be a reaction coming from a emotional scar tissu then from someone willing to take time to listen and understanding the arguments made by the writer.

Yes, I'll go nut and i'll show a big finger to humanity if I see the same question again. (It isn't the first time I see it). Just reading the comments under the Youtube video is enough for me to say people doesn't listen but just have knee jerk reactions.

That is the only thing I could say without using a bunch of "F" words. He doesnt have to answer my request, but i'm sure I have the same right to do so either.

Again, I offered a link to an essay I wrote presenting my own views on the subject.  I'm not asking to be educated on the correct view, or for you guys to help me see something I've been too lazy to think about myself.  As a political philosopher, this issue is at the core of what I do.  I want to know what Stefan's view is so that I can engage him in a way that is meaningful to both of us.  I take offense to the suggestion that I didn't take the time to understand Stefan's article; the questions I asked could not be answered solely by reference to what Stefan says in the piece.  Stefan could consistently take either side on the matters I raised. 

I just don't understand why my you think that my question has anything to do with emotion, or that it's some angry knee-jerk reaction.  It's an article about a thought experiment which has little or no relevance except through its importance in illustrating ethical principles.  I don't know about you, but I don't think that the nature of rights is something to get upset over.  It's more that I find it interesting because I'm a philosopher, and this is what I study.  I hope you can understand.

DonnywithanA:

I asked could not be answered solely by reference to what Stefan says in the piece.  Stefan could consistently take either side on the matters I raised. 

I strongly disagree with you there.

We have a definition of what proprety rights is. We have a victim and someone who is responsible of the actions. Both individual will have to deal with each other and more individuals in the community. I really don't understand how someone could not come up with a theory that would be close to Stefan's answer to your question.

I understand the answer isn't intuitive in our time, which is why FDR is original and bring some fresh air into ethic. But I couldn't get my head around the fact that a philosopher who are train to come up with none intuitive answer could ask your question.

I assume the fact I am a jerk and I'll accept the outcome, but answering this question won't help me and any futur discussion on the subject.

Do me a favor and read my essay.  If you still don't understand why I'm curious, then we can talk.

I'm not understanding this issue well.  I scanned your article and will give it a more thorough reading when I have time.  I am also not well grounded in philosophy.  I read and (I think) understand the scenario you present.  Why would it not be the case that Jerry, if he breaks into Lucy's house, is obligated to compensate her for the damage?  Is it just a matter of amount?  I understand the calculation of utility, but if the job is worth more to jerry than paying for the window (or making payments for the window, etc.), then why can't he make a morally neutral choice of damaging property and then obliging himself to compensate the owner?  Am I looking at this in too shallow a manner?  Stef's article seemed to present a reasonable framework for an individual to make a decision in these instances.

The illustration hinges on the idea that Jerry would not be able to properly compensate Lucy, even if he got the job.  Does that help at all?

The thing that's really pertinent for this conversation is that I, and likely Nozick, would argue that Jerry would surely act permissibly, given his circumstances, if he could compensate Lucy.  The issue I take with Stefan's account is that in his book, he argued that in a situation like Jerry's, it would be wrong to smash the window.  I don't see why this would be the case, and I think I present a pretty decent argument to that effect in my essay.

The second question I raised is not so much an objection as a genuine inquiry about Stefan's opinion.  In my essay, you'll notice that I struggled a bit with the question of whether Lucy would be justified in refusing consent, and whether Jerry would be justified in smashing the window anyway.  I'm not completely settled on the matter myself, which is why I'm curious to see what Stefan's view is.  If you have an opinion on the matter, I'd love to hear it as well. 

Jerry is not in a lifeboat situation.  He just wants to improve his standard of living.

I didn't say he was.  I just haven't written an essay on lifeboat situations.  In my opinion, the issue has been dealt with pretty well by people like Judith Thomson and Joel Feinberg, and their conclusions are reflected in my essay, which attempts to move beyond lifeboat situations and break new ground in the discussion of rights.  I only cited it in order to demonstrate that I've done work in this area and am not simply attacking Stefan's paper out of some emotional need to reject his conclusions, and in order to show that this area of libertarian philosophy isn't as cut-and-dried as people were making it sound.

Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask that someone actually address the two questions I raised?  If the answers are so obvious, surely it wouldn't be too much trouble to spell them out to me, right?

Donny,

I don’t think you are going to get a reply from Stefan on this.  The point of his article was to answer you.  I listened to the video and read the article and I thought it was brilliant.  You are missing the main point which is that, “the desire for absolutism stalls ethics.”

I would recommend you listen to the series, Introduction to Philosophy by Stefan, especially the ones on Ethics.  This is a six part pod cast.  It is also on You Tube. 

 Your questions were to Stefan and I can’t answer for him.  I do have my own view based on what I’ve read and listened to from Stef.  I may be totally wrong and if so please correct me. 

 First, I did not see any indication that Stef reversed his position that it was wrong to kick in the window.  He said it was a “clear abrogation of property rights but was the right and sensible thing to do.” 

 The second question you had was also answered near the end of the article and video.  You asked if it was immoral to violate someone’s property rights to save your life, if you know that the property owner would not grant permission. Again it is a violation of property rights or immoral, but sensible to preserve your life and be liable for the damage you cause.

 The point I see in all of this is that ethics is much like biology.  Mutations in biology don’t make the science invalid.  Gray areas or lifeboat situations don’t invalidate ethics.

These points are made in detail in the pod casts mentioned above.  

 I hope this helps.

I don't think this is an issue of "absolutism."  This is an issue of understanding how Stefan's view works.  I don't care about its answers in lifeboat situations.  That doesn't matter.  The reason lifeboat situations are worth examining is that they help us understand how moral systems come up with answers in situations where there are conflicts between important values.  The answer itself, again, is peripheral.  The interesting thing is to see how Stefan arrives at an answer.

On page 55 of his book on Universally Preferable Behavior, Stefan writes, "This is not to say that breaking the window to save your life is not wrong.  It is, but it is a wrong that almost all of us would choose to commit rather than die.  If I were on the verge of starving to death, I would steal an apple.  This does not mean that it is right for me to steal the apple - it just means that I would do it - and must justly accept the consequences of my theft."

 In light of that statement, the position Stefan takes in his article seems like a change in direction.  Hence my first question.  In addition to clarifying what Stefan's position is on this particular point, his answer will also be important for my understanding of his ethical system as a whole.  An ethical system which acknowledges that it would be acceptable to do what's wrong seems very different from an ethical system which defines wrong as that which is unacceptable to do.  I'm hoping to understand how the concept of "wrongness" fits into Stefan's view.

 The reason I asked the second question is that Stefan's answer will reveal another interesting feature of his conception of rights.  Stefan suggests that the window-smasher would be justified in kicking in the window because the victim would likely offer consent.  But he also says that this assumption could be incorrect.  The purpose in asking if the window-smasher would be justified in smashing the window if he knew that consent would be refused is to establish what qualifies as an acceptable basis for infringing on rights.  Is it okay to smash the window because of what will happen to the victim, so that in an important sense, the victim would not be justified in insisting that her rights be upheld?  Or is it only okay to smash the window because of the assumption of consent, so that it wouldn't be okay in the absence of that assumption?  This is important in determining whether Stefan believes that the final say in whether a rights infringement is justified should be held by the holder of the right, or whether one can sometimes legitimately infringe on rights against the will of the holder of the rights.

So again, I really couldn't care less about the answer to the lifeboat example.  It really doesn't matter.  What's interesting is why Stefan answers the way he does.  Hopefully that makes some sense.