|
 |
| Comments Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 |
|
 | The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 0:49:56 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
PS - I don't want to leave things confused here and I've realized one of my statements could be badly misinterpreted. When I provided a requested example of a situation where someone else might be hurt while you defend yourself, I said: "a hostage is used as a shield to block a person shooting at you." That statement should be understood to mean a hostage is used by the initiator of force as a shield *for himself* (as protection against your defense) while he is shooting at you. And the point was, that hostage's life cannot be used as the moral justification for you NOT to defend your life against the force being initiated against you. THAT would be altruism.
I hope that clears up any ambiguity in my original statement.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
| Comments Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 |
|
| 68 Percent?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 23:28:05 mst
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I must point out, specifically to Don Kenner, that his response to me is made up entirely of fallacies. He suggests that I am a libertarian, and condemns my approach as typically libertarian, without attempting rational refutation; I believe that's ad hominem. He goes on to compare my statement to other statements that he disagrees with, including statements made by leftists, and to characters an entire class of views in negative terms, without specific argument as to why my position is wrong. And finally, he equates my view to the views of a liberal friend of his, which he finds absurd. That's a classic straw man argument. It's a sad thing for Objectivism when someone who apparently claims to adhere to it can provide nothing but argumentative fallacies. Not that Mr. Kenner's statements are the fault of Objectivism, or evidence of any failings on its part; I disagree with the conclusions of Mr. Laughlin and Mr. Williams, but they certainly offered reasoned arguments for them.
Though I will question one of Mr. Laughlin's minor premises: that death is worse than torture. All through history, there have been people who chose suicide rather than face torture. Ayn Rand even showed us one of her heroes willing to kill himself rather than see another person face torture. A few minutes of life as someone who dies by their own choice and with as little suffering as can be managed may be a greater value than hours of tremendous pain inflicted by another's will. In asserting the contrary, Mr. Laughlin assumes too much.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Evasion Invasion
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 22:03:39 mst
Name: Andrew Baker
E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com
Gridlock did seem to work well during the nineties. Maybe my memory just fails me but I don't remember any odious legislation passed during the years Clinton was busy with his scandal.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 21:29:06 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
For Sajid - I am not going to debate the altruist premise that it is immoral to defend oneself if there is a chance someone may be hurt or killed in the process.
As to this claim - "If one feels the need to consciously separate what you do from who you are underneath it definitely means you are conflicted." The conflict he has is in having to JUSTLY hide his identity so as to protect himself from the initiation of force. That is not, as you claim, a reason/emotion conflict.
As to the rest, given your increased use of sarcasm, its just as well no further posts will be forthcoming.
For the general reader - it is unfortunate the thread is being shut down before someone chose to answer the questions which most interested me here from the beginning, ie: how, in a situation where it is claimed no rationality and no morality is supposedly possible, ANY action can therefore be identified as "sensible" or 'preferable' or 'right' compared to any other action. What *standard* is used to make such *moral* judgments about a situation in which it is explicitly claimed morality is IMPOSSIBLE. And how the defensive use of force can be considered rational or objective if the initiation of force supposedly, as claimed, makes rationality and morality impossible.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 20:56:57 mst
Name: Sajid
Alright last comment:
>"And even if it did, I think a truly moral man would not consider the possibility of saving himself at the >expense of killing someone else." And there we have exactly what I said - the premise which underlies the >idea of the 'just war'. On what basis do you claim that morality requires a man's life to be held hostage to >the life of another man? That a man may not defend himself against the initiation of force if there is even >a chance (let alone a supposed certitude) someone else could get hurt or killed? Is it your claim that >another man's life is properly the standard of value for you or any morality? That is altruism.
Using the life of another man to save yours is as wrong as sacrificing your life to others. Using your own soldiers to shield yourself is their job. Using a hostage or another random man to shield yourself from bullets is just plain wrong and immoral.
>As to the quote you tried to recall, Batman says: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I *do* that >defines me." This is not, as you claim, a "clear separation of emotion and reason
This is indeed the quote I was referencing to and is, once a again, a clear separation of emotion and reason. If one feels the need to consciously separate what you do from who you are underneath it definitely means you are conflicted. For example Hank Rearden wanted to sleep with Dagny Taggart but in the beginning he didn't feel right about it.
Yes Batman is exactly like Christ. When he wears a black mask, when he fights physically for what he believes in, when he kicks the Joker's ass in the cell, when he actually has a girlfriend and kisses her when she is dating Dent. I was thinking of Jesus Christ the whole movie. As for Plato, once again I have no idea what you are talking about.
>As to the reason you do not see why the movie is vile, it is (as evidenced over the last few posts) because >we do not share the same fundamental principles. Therefore we come to decidedly different conclusions.
I certainly don't share your opinion on many things is all I am going to say.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 20:31:27 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Folks, this debate has gone on *way* too long. In general, after about 2-3 back and forths, further debate becomes a serious waste of time. I'd much rather the commenters here spend their time writing a letter to the editor or two or twelve -- rather than continuing to argue with each other without end in sight. Such letters might actually accomplish something, unlike this debate. (Seriously, I should have put a halt to it about 30 comments ago. I'll do better in the future.)
So please wrap up this debate in the next comment or two.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 20:25:46 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"A situation that involves you killing a hostage to escape a murderer is extremely arbitrary." Any situation in which force is initiated against you is arbitrary.
"Why would this ever happen?" There are plenty of reasons. On a one-to-one situation, a hostage is used as a shield to block a person shooting at you. On a larger scale, a government uses its own citizens as a shield to block another nation from attacking it.
"And even if it did, I think a truly moral man would not consider the possibility of saving himself at the expense of killing someone else." And there we have exactly what I said - the premise which underlies the idea of the 'just war'. On what basis do you claim that morality requires a man's life to be held hostage to the life of another man? That a man may not defend himself against the initiation of force if there is even a chance (let alone a supposed certitude) someone else could get hurt or killed? Is it your claim that another man's life is properly the standard of value for you or any morality? That is altruism.
"The fact that the people who chose to kill did NOT have the courage of their "convictions" showed that they were conflicted." Only one man was show this way - the Businessman. But my point remains. The boaters were shown not to have integrity - which is EXACTLY what The Joker wanted to prove. So the boaters didn't repudiate but actually PROVED The Joker's premise.
"It often happens that your brain tells you to do one thing but your emotions tell you to do something else." Yes, and the man who acts according to his emotions without knowing why (and in contradiction to his consciously held principles) is acting arbitrarily. He is acting on EXACTLY the same premise as The Joker. He is acting by whim, not by rules (rational or otherwise). He is practicing emotionalism.
"Even in the first movie Batman was sort of a playboy and then came to the conclusion." This is false as well. Bruce Wayne became a 'playboy' in the first film as a means of hiding his identity. In other words, it was a ruse he devised as a result of his premises. He was NEVER a playboy before becoming Batman.
As to the quote you tried to recall, Batman says: "It's not who I am underneath, but what I *do* that defines me." This is not, as you claim, a "clear separation of emotion and reason."
"However Batman is not John Galt nor was he designed to be." He certainly is no John Galt in "The Dark Knight". He is a Plato or a Christ - ie a rationalist/intrinsicist and, as such, certainly not worth praising.
As to the reason you do not see why the movie is vile, it is (as evidenced over the last few posts) because we do not share the same fundamental principles. Therefore we come to decidedly different conclusions.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| 68 Percent?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 20:08:31 mst
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)earthlink.net
"The belief that a government will torture one group of people, but treat another as sacrosanct, is a reassuring fantasy, but that's all it is."
I don't mean to be unduly harsh to William H. Stoddard, but this kind of platitude is typical of libertarian thinking and illustrates the difference between how Objectivists and libertarians approach an issue. I don't know if Stoddard is a libertarian, but if you troll their sites, or read their journals, you can read this kind of soft, intellectual-sounding pap all day long. It reminds me of so many lefty slogans that socialists always find profound, like "As long as there is one person in jail, no one is free" or "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong."
It is amazing that people find this stuff profound or (worse) a guide to action. I tried to convince a liberal friend that having your fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers or having electric shock applied to your genitals (by Palestinians) might be fate slightly worse than a waterboarding session at Guantanamo, regardless of how one feels about the ethics of waterboarding. He wouldn't even consider it. The U.S. waterboards terrorists so waterboarding is the worst torture on the earth. Good grief!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Black Google?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:47:49 mst
Name: KPaige
E-mail: tr34rip(at)dlco.net
Jim: Excellent points. All of them. Thanks.
Brian: You are right. I should have said "savagery on the part of a significant number of blacks directed at whites" not "black savagery." That is collectivist.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:44:31 mst
Name: Sajid
>Sajid said "However when somebody offers you a direct way of saving yourself involving murder..." The claim >that you are a murderer if you end up killing someone while defending yourself FROM a murderer is a >grotesque moral inversion. The initiator of force is the one morally responsible for any loss of values >caused by his victim's attempt to defend himself. So if you end up killing a hostage while trying to escape >a murderer, you are NOT a murderer. Someone else's life is NOT a claim AGAINST your right to self-defense.
A situation that involves you killing a hostage to escape a murderer is extremely arbitrary. Why would this ever happen? And even if it did, I think a truly moral man would not consider the possibility of saving himself at the expense of killing someone else (unless it were by accident). This choice itself should not exist. The Joker presented the people of Gotham with a FALSE choice that they needed to kill in order to survive. Since such situations don't exist in real life they were rightfully confused.
In response to your quotes from the movie itself:
The fact that the people who chose to kill did NOT have the courage of their "convictions" showed that they were conflicted. On the one hand they wanted to save themselves but on the other hand everything they were revolted at the idea of coldly blowing up a boat. Once again, the faction that finally won out on both boats was the one that chose not to kill. I don't think that was just supposed to be plain luck. It often happens that your brain tells you to do one thing but your emotions tell you to do something else. I don't know what I am supposed to be arguing here. I am saying I am glad that the people finally chose not to deal with the Joker. What are you arguing for? What action should they have taken and why are their choices so morally deplorable that you lump the movie with the passion of the christ????
>"Maybe he didn't want to kill out of anger." Why try to arbitrarily guess at his motivations when he states >outright there is "one thing" he won't do - one line he won't cross? *Batman doesn't kill* (this is true not >only in the films, but in the whole Batman mythos. It's not something I am guessing at or pulling out of my >hat).
It was a guess but hardly arbitrary. Even in the first movie Batman was sort of a playboy and then came to the conclusion "Its what you do that's important not what you feel" or something like that. This is a clear separation of emotion and reason and this is the light we have to see batman in. Let's also remember that he may have been partial to Dent because Dent was willing to put himself on the line and protect the Batman's identity. I thought it was questionable of the Batman to have done that but he did it. The Batman has never been presented as a hero who has no conflict between his emotions and his actions. Thus it is no surprise that he is not in favor or extreme action as his emotions and reason are not completely integrated. I think you maybe judging the Batman by the standard of John Galt or something. However Batman is not John Galt nor was he designed to be. I don't think this necessarily makes him Jim Taggart or Jesus??!? or Toohey. He is who he is and I think he is heroic. If you identify with his struggle I think you would ilke the movie. If you don't because he is not your type of hero that's fine too. I don't see why the movie is "vile" as you say.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:17:21 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Sajid said "However when somebody offers you a direct way of saving yourself involving murder..." The claim that you are a murderer if you end up killing someone while defending yourself FROM a murderer is a grotesque moral inversion. The initiator of force is the one morally responsible for any loss of values caused by his victim's attempt to defend himself. So if you end up killing a hostage while trying to escape a murderer, you are NOT a murderer. Someone else's life is NOT a claim AGAINST your right to self-defense.
Again, your premise is a foundation of the whole fallacious 'just war' idea.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| 68 Percent?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:11:07 mst
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
I would go even further than Mr. Laughlin and say that it is morally acceptable for the United States to knowingly support foreign governments who torture their own citizens. For tactical, and only tactical, reasons of course. It is not the United States' fault that these government behave they way they do. The US should not have to choose between it's own security (ie: it is easily demonstrable that by not supporting Government A, Government B's power reaches an unacceptable level) and the individual right of innocent people stuck inside an immoral country.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:09:10 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Grant - your post is a bit cryptic. Perhaps you could explain how it serves as a response to the actual arguments presented against the premises you have put forth here.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| 68 Percent?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:06:56 mst
Name: Jeff Montgomery
Anything goes, provided you claim to be God-fearing. Next to the "the good of the people", it may be the biggest moral blank check ever written.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 19:04:21 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"yes of course you are absolutely right. If a girl gets dumped by her boyfriend because of her inadequacies one must immediately start pointing out her inadequacies to her even if she is looking for comfort." I assume this is sarcasm. As such, I can only refer you to Dr. Smith's book, specifically on the subject of honesty. Changing your mind on the subject is going to take more argumentation than can be presented in a handful of posts.
"Maybe he didn't want to kill out of anger." Why try to arbitrarily guess at his motivations when he states outright there is "one thing" he won't do - one line he won't cross? *Batman doesn't kill* (this is true not only in the films, but in the whole Batman mythos. It's not something I am guessing at or pulling out of my hat).
"Since the faction that one out on both ships was the one that chose "NOT" to kill it is TRUE that the people chose NOT to kill." Again, not true. On the prison ferry:
PRISONER: "You don't wanna die. But you don't know how to take a life. Give it to me. These men will kill you and take it anyway. Give it to me, you can tell people I took it by force...give it to me and I'll do what you should have done ten minutes ago."
The Warden slowly hands him the REMOTE. The Prisoner looks at it. He looks the Warden in the eye... Then TOSSES the remote out the window. Warden, prisoners and officers are stunned.'
So on THIS ferry, supposedly everyone (even the 'good guys') chose to kill. They just didn't have the courage of their convictions. They didn't have INTEGRITY (which is the THEME of the movie, driven by The Joker. Joker was trying to prove that rules are arbitrary and are dropped when push comes to shove). And so they gave the button to someone who claimed he DID have the willingness to kill to defend their lives - but it turns out he lied and didn't have that willingness to defend them all.
So the button wasn't pressed, but because of *deception*, not conviction - not principle.
And on the citizen's ferry:
'PILOT: "The tally is 196 votes against. And 340 votes for. ... I voted for it."
PASSENGER: So do it!
PILOT: "I didn't say *I'd* do it."
BUSINESSMAN: "No one wants to get their hands dirty. Fine. I'll do it."
The Businessman stares at the remote in his hands. Finally, he puts it down. Sits down. Waits to die.
The clock strikes MIDNIGHT.'
So on THIS ferry, the majority also chose to kill (and apparently the minority were willing to go along with whatever choice the made). It simply turns out they TOO didn't have the courage of their convictions either. They too didn't have INTEGRITY. And the one man who claimed to have that integrity chickened out at the last moment.
So the button wasn't pressed here either, but because of *cowardice*, not conviction - not principle.
So, while we find that Batman has integrity (he has an *arbitrary* rule and wont break it, no matter what), we find that the boaters do NOT have integrity. And yet their lack of integrity is shown to be a supposed 'repudiation' of The Joker. Yet it was nothing of the sort. It actually PROVED that which The Joker claimed all along - which is another of the reasons I condemn this film.
"You are correct in that they should have focused much more on saving themselves instead of not killing others." Since rejecting the false alternative presented by the likes of The Joker and acting on the moral principle of self-defense was my point, I am glad we are in agreement. :)
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 18:47:30 mst
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
"When I see the city from my window, no I don't feel how small I am, but I feel that if a war came to threaten this I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these building with my body." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 18:22:48 mst
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Diana said: "To some degree, I would regard the people of Gotham as being in a similar kind of position as that patient." I must disagree with this claim. The situations are not comparable.
The doctor is concerned with something *beyond* the patient's volitional choice - his physiology. Batman is concerned with something directly in the citizen's volitional control - his choice of how to think and act. Put simply, the doctor does not lie to influence a patient's *choice* of medical treatment (THAT would be immoral). Batman, however, lies *precisely* to PREVENT the citizens from making a free and informed choice (and that IS immoral).
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 18:01:47 mst
Name: Sajid
In response to BrianS:
>Is it so wrong for batman to protect the image of a man whom the entire city respected as a hero and whom >the Joker corrupted after the man lost his fiance and half his face really that wrong?" Yes, for reasons I >have already identified.
You have like ten posts on here. Please be more specific. If you are referring to the fact that emotions must never take primacy over reason in any circumstances, yes of course you are absolutely right. If a girl gets dumped by her boyfriend because of her inadequacies one must immediately start pointing out her inadequacies to her even if she is looking for comfort. If Dent is in excruciating pain and has just lost his fiance it still cannot be fathomed that he would go crazy. If the city is still in shock from what happened it is indefensible that someone tries to maintain the image of their foremost *lawful* hero so that they don't lose faith in the law itself. You may argue that it is in precisely these times that people need to stand up for the absolute truth and face reality exactly as they see it. Sure. It is not enough that the Batman save the city from the Joker. He now has to help them face reality and be their mayor too.
"I believe in killing in self defense in the heat of battle..." Which is the opposite position Batman takes. He will not kill. He, in fact, explicitly SAVED The Joker from dying in the "heat of battle"
I've already said why it is okay to save someone from dying if they have already been defeated. Yes Batman also did not kill the Joker on his motorcycle when he had the chance and ended up injuring himself. Maybe he didn't want to kill out of anger. I missed the part where the Batman was supposed to be an ideal hero.
"I don't understand why the natural confusion of the people aboard and their choice not to kill..." It has already been pointed out (more than once in fact) that was not their only means of trying to defend themselves. (I would also point out that, for most, they DID chose TO kill - so even the claim that they were 'naturally confused' and 'chose not to kill' is FALSE). Blanking out such alternatives is the acceptance of the false alternative presented by The Joker (and the wider false alternative presented by the film between Batman and The Joker - ie between intrinsicism and subjectivism).
In my post I give like 5 different choices people could have. They chose one. Since the faction that one out on both ships was the one that chose "NOT" to kill it is TRUE that the people chose NOT to kill. I dont know what movie you saw but their sure seemed to be plenty of emotional people on the two ships wrestling with their choices. You are correct in that they should have focused much more on saving themselves instead of not killing others. However when somebody offers you a direct way of saving yourself involving murder I am glad the people chose to think twice.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| 68 Percent?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 17:44:45 mst
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> "The belief that a government will torture one group of people, but treat another as sacrosanct, is a reassuring fantasy, but that's all it is."
I am puzzled by this idea. Try this substitution: The belief that a government will bomb one group of people, but treat another [it's own citizens] as sancrosanct, is a reassuring fantasy, but that is all it is. So our government shouldn't bomb other people.
If it is, under all circumstances, morally wrong to torture aggressive foreign enemies of a free country, then it is even worse to kill them. Death is worse than torture (as horrible as some forms of torture are).
So, should a free government take only peaceful actions against aggressive enemies? Boycotts? Shunning? Ridicule?
P. S. -- I worked as a volunteer for Amnesty International for several years, perhaps 30 years ago. I did a lot of reading about the methods used by right-wing and left-wing governments. I had recurring nightmares merely from reading the descriptions presented matter of factly. Many of the torturers were ghouls. However, to treat all forms of torture and all torturers alike--as being the worst possible--is to treat "torture" as a frozen abstraction.
I do support the use of torture against aggressive enemies in certain circumstances: there is no reasonable alternative, the expected information can be verified, and the sessions are fully objective, that is, the method of selecting the torturer (to weed out sadists), the names of the people involved, the goals, the methods, and the results are recorded in writing. This record need not be a file drawer full of paper. A single sheet might be sufficient under many circumstances.
In summary, under some conditions, torture of foreign aggressors in times of war or other emergency situations is moral if done objectively.
That exhausts my contribution.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 17:39:28 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Just for the record, Leonard Peikoff thinks that it is moral and proper for a doctor to lie to his patient about the seriousness of his medical condition in the short term, if he thinks that telling the truth will compromise his patient's capacity to recover. (He said that very, very clearly in response to my question about privacy lies at the Q&A at OCON.)
To some degree, I would regard the people of Gotham as being in a similar kind of position as that patient. Learning the truth about Harvey Dent could be so devastating that they might not be able to fight the evil that faces them. And so a temporary lie -- one that Batman knows he can endure the cost of -- might be the only way to achieve his goal of restoring the city to a civilized state with a functioning justice system.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
