Responsibility for indirect certain effects of our actions

[square4]

 

It is clear that we responsible for the direct results of what we do, but what about indirect effects of our actions, if they follow with certainty from our actions? Some scenarios:

 

A. a sound maniac switches on a device on the street that generates such a loud noise that random bystanders get hearing damage

The sound maniac is responsible for the physical damage he has caused indirectly. Even though he did not touch anyone, it was a violation of their body rights.

 

B. someone molests another person

Even when no physical damage was done, the molester is guilty of a crime against its victim.

 

C. policemen deploy a radiation scanner on the street, scanning people that happen to walk by

Even when the radiation does not cause physical damage, the radiation enters the clothing without permission, extracting an image; it is a violation

 

D. someone talks to random bystanders on the street, and causes their eardrums to move

The eardrum movement is caused by the one who talks, and he is responsible for that, but it is not bad, even without permission.

 

If you agree the behavior in scenario A, B, C is impermissible, while the behavior in D is permissible, then my question is this: How can we objectively make a distinction between these scenarios. It seems to me that:

- the distinction cannot be indirectness, as scenario A shows. (the sound maniac)

- the distinction cannot be lack of physical damage, as scenario B shows. (molestation)

- the distinction cannot be the combination of indirectness and lack of physical damage, as scenario C shows. (radiation scanner)

I have difficulty finding an objective criteria for distinguishing the different scenarios. Does anyone has a good idea how to solve this?

 

The idea for this topic originated in another thread. I copy here some remarks already made in that other thread. Dsayers remarked about the eardrum scenario:

Eardrums moving are an effect. It's not at all the same as a direct action such as raising your hand.

 

Related to moral responsibility is the idea of ownership. If we act indirectly, are we able to acquire ownership? Do we own something if we have manufactured it using air / thermal / electrical flows, without directly touching the object that is manufactured? Dsayers remarked in the other thread:

If I put a brick through your window, I own that action even though I didn't touch your window directly. I was using the brick as a tool to amplify my force and/or range.

Using an intermediary is still investing value into an object to meaningfully alter it from a naturally occurring state. It has no bearing on the claim of ownership.

[june]

It is clear that we responsible for the direct results of what we do, but what about indirect effects of our actions, if they follow with certainty from our actions?

direct or indirect does not, nor can not, matter, as it is still your effect that is interfering with other peoples free will. so a person turning on a deafening loud speaker is still responsible for making people deaf, because even though he didn't literally make the sounds, he still initiated the speakers which did. to say otherwise, and to take it literally, would be like saying: "i planted and denoted a bomb, but i am not responsible for the deaths, the bomb is" which obviously is rather absurd. 

[greekredemption]

direct or indirect does not, nor can not, matter, as it is still your effect that is interfering with other peoples free will. so a person turning on a deafening loud speaker is still responsible for making people deaf, because even though he didn't literally make the sounds, he still initiated the speakers which did. to say otherwise, and to take it literally, would be like saying: "i planted and denoted a bomb, but i am not responsible for the deaths, the bomb is" which obviously is rather absurd. 

Yes but suppose you started a chain which resulted in harm, albeit unintentional. Are you responsible?

[june]

Yes but suppose you started a chain which resulted in harm, albeit unintentional. Are you responsible?

part responsible, yes.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

D is not immoral. 

[greekredemption]

D is not immoral. 

How so?

 

Perhaps we ought to define 'harm'.

[june]

D is not immoral. 

i too would like to hear your proof of this claim.if self-ownership is the right to have "full exclusive rights of control over one's body", then forcing someone to listen to your words seems immoral to me. by definition you are breaching their exclusive rights to have control over their body, and so anything else after that violation is only a matter of degree (whether it's talking, touching, pushing etc.)

[J-William]

This seems to not be the best thread for a great discussion of ideas.... but I'll take thee bait anyway.

It is clear that we responsible for the direct results of what we do, but what about indirect effects of our actions, if they follow with certainty from our actions? Some scenarios:

 

A. a sound maniac switches on a device on the street that generates such a loud noise that random bystanders get hearing damage

The sound maniac is responsible for the physical damage he has caused indirectly. Even though he did not touch anyone, it was a violation of their body rights.

 

B. someone molests another person

Even when no physical damage was done, the molester is guilty of a crime against its victim.

 

C. policemen deploy a radiation scanner on the street, scanning people that happen to walk by

Even when the radiation does not cause physical damage, the radiation enters the clothing without permission, extracting an image; it is a violation

 

D. someone talks to random bystanders on the street, and causes their eardrums to move

The eardrum movement is caused by the one who talks, and he is responsible for that, but it is not bad, even without permission.

 

If you agree the behavior in scenario A, B, C is impermissible, while the behavior in D is permissible, then my question is this: How can we objectively make a distinction between these scenarios. It seems to me that:

All of your questions suffer from being set in a statist world-view, we will assume that all of the examples are in a free society, so there will be no such thing as common land (especially in an area like a city where there would be more people)

and also A and C would be permissible given certain conditions.

 

A - Someone owns the road, you are damaging the users of his property and he has a valid complaint to take to the DRO. If you are holding a concert or rave, or just love loud noise and you have spoken to the DRO and the owner of the road, and you have all taken steps to warn people about the dangers of the noise and help prevent hearing damage... If someone still suffers hearing damage, they will likely be recompensed by the DRO.

If you haven't prepared, then you'll probably be asked to stop and need to make restitution to the people you have harmed.

 

B- There is actual invasion of the other person's body.... pretty cut and dried.

 

C- since we're in a stateless society we can call the "policemen" "security people". If the people know that by being on this road they may be subject to a scan and steps have been taken with the DRO to ensure the safety and non-invasiveness of the scan, then people who don't like it can avoid the road, and if enough people don't like it the road owner won't employ people to scan users of his road.

 

D- It certainly could be impermissible to talk to someone on the street if talking is not allowed by the owner of that street (that would be ridiculous, but not immoral). 

 

The action of talking, scanning people, or playing loud music that might damage someone's hearing is not immoral by itself... I would agree that in a statist paradigm where people don't have a choice about being scanned or having loud music played at them then it is immoral. But these are not important issues, if you care whether your neighbors are friendly you don't blast loud music, but the state is one of the leading agents in "not caring what your neighbors think".

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

How so?

 

Perhaps we ought to define 'harm'.

It doesn't violate UPB. A person on the street gives permission to have their ear-drums moved. 

If you can't find any valid reason why talking to someone in public is immoral then put it forward. The burden is on the person claiming something is wrong because if it was on the other person then they couldn't do anything.

i too would like to hear your proof of this claim.if self-ownership is the right to have "full exclusive rights of control over one's body", then forcing someone to listen to your words seems immoral to me. by definition you are breaching their exclusive rights to have control over their body, and so anything else after that violation is only a matter of degree (whether it's talking, touching, pushing etc.)

You're not forcing them to listen to your words. The accept sound-waves when they're in public. If some person does not want to have people speak to them without explicit permission then they shouldn't go out in public. Expecting everyone else to adapt to some new preposterous norm is insane and impossible. 

[june]

It doesn't violate UPB. A person on the street gives permission to have their ear-drums moved. 

 

what about if they're in their own home, and they hear people making noise outside. is that a breach of property rights, upb etc?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

what about if they're in their own home, and they hear people making noise outside. is that a breach of property rights, upb etc?

No. What's that person going to argue? That there should be dead silence at all times from everyone else within sound distance of their house until such time as they give explicit permission for noise to be made? I'm not even sure that's logically possible. 

[J-William]

It doesn't violate UPB. A person on the street gives permission to have their ear-drums moved. 

If you can't find any valid reason why talking to someone in public is immoral then put it forward. The burden is on the person claiming something is wrong because if it was on the other person then they couldn't do anything.

You're not forcing them to listen to your words. The accept sound-waves when they're in public. If some person does not want to have people speak to them without explicit permission then they shouldn't go out in public. Expecting everyone else to adapt to some new preposterous norm is insane and impossible. 

A person on the street does not give permission to have their ear-drums moved, there is no social contract. It just so happens that most people are not bothered by having their ear-drums moved while walking down the street, and also the "damage" is so small that hardly anyone cares.

 

But let's say you are a member of some crazed religious sect that doesn't like sound, or want to be talked to... or whatever. He's walking down the street and is subject to people talking because he is being forced to use the roads to get to where he needs to go, so therefore it is immoral to talk to him... a very tiny immorality and not likely one that anyone would ever bother to punish.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

A person on the street does not give permission to have their ear-drums moved, there is no social contract. It just so happens that most people are not bothered by having their ear-drums moved while walking down the street, and also the "damage" is so small that hardly anyone cares.

 

But let's say you are a member of some crazed religious sect that doesn't like sound, or want to be talked to... or whatever. He's walking down the street and is subject to people talking because he is being forced to use the roads to get to where he needs to go, so therefore it is immoral to talk to him... a very tiny immorality and not likely one that anyone would ever bother to punish.

I give permission to have my ear-drums moved when I'm on the street and now is the first time I've ever thought about that. If you're on the street you give implicit permission to have your ear-drums moved. If a person is a demented weirdo and doesn't give permission then that's their problem. No one has any moral obligation to follow an illogical and preposterous made-up rule that is such a violation of norms that it's virtually impossible to even know about.

It's not immoral to talk to the religious nut in your example. When did doing things people don't like become immoral? I don't want to look at bad ties. Does that mean anyone with a bad tie who happens to get in my field of vision is immoral? 

[june]

No. What's that person going to argue?

they are going to argue that the noise other people are making is interfering with their right to self-ownership and also that it is breaching the property rights of their home. again you just say "no" but give no explanation. if it is not a violation of property rights please explain why instead of just saying "no".the rest of your response is an attempt to argue from effect rather than first principles.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

they are going to argue that the noise other people are making is interfering with their right to self-ownership and also that it is breaching the property rights of their home. again you just say "no" but give no explanation. if it is not a violation of property rights please explain why instead of just saying "no".the rest of your response is an attempt to argue from effect rather than first principles.

It doesn't interfere with their right to self ownership or breach their property rights. Any such claim is logically contradictory (and insane) because the claim itself demands interference with the other persons self-ownership and property rights (assuming you apply the same standard). Your notion of self-ownership and property rights is a straw-man. What example of self-ownership or property rights has been put forward that includes the right to never receive sound-waves to your ears without explicit permission? There isn't one.

The principle I'm arguing from is that moral rules should be logical. 

[J-William]

I give permission to have my ear-drums moved when I'm on the street and now is the first times I've ever thought about that. If you're on the street you give implicit permission to have your ear-drums moved. If a person is a demented weirdo and doesn't give permission then that's their problem. No one has any moral obligation to follow an illogical and preposterous made-up rule that is such a violation of norms that it's virtually impossible to even know about.

It's not immoral to talk to the religious nut in your example. When did doing things people don't like become immoral? I don't want to look at bad ties. Does that mean anyone with a bad tie who happens to get in my field of vision is immoral? 

You are not reading very well.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You are not reading very well.

You care to explain?

[june]

It doesn't interfere with their right to self ownership or breach their property rights. Any such claim is logically contradictory (and insane) because the claim itself demands interference with the other persons self-ownership and property rights (assuming you apply the same standard).

whoa. property rights demands the "interference" of one's selfownership by limiting his choices to not being allowed to interfere with the property rights of others. that is basic tenant of selfownership. to argue otherwise is to argue against property rights themselves.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

whoa. property rights demands the "interference" of one's selfownership by limiting his choices to not being allowed to interfere with the property rights of others. that is basic tenant of selfownership. to argue otherwise is to argue against property rights themselves.

I have little to no idea what this means and it is very awkwardly phrased. 

[TheRobin]

Teabager: So how would you deal with a guy sitting in front of your house (but outside your lawn/property) that was playing loud music 24 hours a day? I mean, given you can't avoid it and given they do control and force upon you their sound/noise in your own house, how is that not a violation of property rights?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Teabager: So how would you deal with a guy sitting in front of your house (but outside your lawn/property) that was playing loud music 24 hours a day? I mean, given you can't avoid it and given they do control and force upon you their sound/noise in your own house, how is that not a violation of property rights?

Well I think that would be different because it comes under the category of pollution. The level of sound in that case far exceeds certain agreed upon norms and implicit contracts. Such a thing at some point would escalate from being a distressing annoyance into an assault. They would be deliberately invading your personal space including your body. It would be much harder to judge at what point this becomes an assault but at some point it would definitely be a property violation; just as much as if they'd thrown a brick through your window. So at that point you would have the right to respond with proportionate force. 

I might get a sound system, set it right beside them and play some awful cacophony (maybe nickleback) until they pissed off. If they continued to stay then you'd have enough evidence to show that they're just there to torment you.

[greekredemption]

Well I think that would be different because it comes under the category of pollution. The level of sound in that case far exceeds certain agreed upon norms and implicit contracts. Such a thing at some point would escalate from being a distressing annoyance into an assault. They would be deliberately invading your personal space including your body. It would be much harder to judge at what point this becomes an assault but at some point it would definitely be a property violation; just as much as if they'd thrown a brick through your window. So at that point you would have the right to respond with proportionate force. 

I might get a sound system, set it right beside them and play some awful cacophony (maybe nickleback) until they pissed off. If they continued to stay then you'd have enough evidence to show that they're just there to torment you.

Can you talk more about these 'agreed upon norms' and elaborate on what exactly an 'implicit contract' is?

[june]

I have little to no idea what this means and it is very awkwardly phrased. 

 

"It doesn't interfere with their right to self ownership or breach their property rights. Any such claim is logically contradictory (and insane) because the claim itself demands interference with the other persons self-ownership and property rights (assuming you apply the same standard)."you are arguing against a basic tenant of selfownsership, which is that your choices are indeed limited as you cannot "interfere" with the property rights of others. you claim this is insane and contradictory, but if it isn't followed then property rights may aswell not exist. 

The level of sound in that case far exceeds certain agreed upon norms and implicit contracts.

what are these "norms" and "implicit contracts" and why are they the deciding factor for what constitutes as a property violation? 

 

 Such a thing at some point would escalate from being a distressing annoyance into an assault.

specifically, what determines the point of when a person's sound turns from not violating property rights to violating property rights? 

[abcqwerty123]

It is clear that we responsible for the direct results of what we do, but what about indirect effects of our actions, if they follow with certainty from our actions? Some scenarios:

 

A. a sound maniac switches on a device on the street that generates such a loud noise that random bystanders get hearing damage

The sound maniac is responsible for the physical damage he has caused indirectly. Even though he did not touch anyone, it was a violation of their body rights.

 

B. someone molests another person

Even when no physical damage was done, the molester is guilty of a crime against its victim.

 

C. policemen deploy a radiation scanner on the street, scanning people that happen to walk by

Even when the radiation does not cause physical damage, the radiation enters the clothing without permission, extracting an image; it is a violation

 

D. someone talks to random bystanders on the street, and causes their eardrums to move

The eardrum movement is caused by the one who talks, and he is responsible for that, but it is not bad, even without permission.

 

If you agree the behavior in scenario A, B, C is impermissible, while the behavior in D is permissible, then my question is this: How can we objectively make a distinction between these scenarios. It seems to me that:

- the distinction cannot be indirectness, as scenario A shows. (the sound maniac)

- the distinction cannot be lack of physical damage, as scenario B shows. (molestation)

- the distinction cannot be the combination of indirectness and lack of physical damage, as scenario C shows. (radiation scanner)

I have difficulty finding an objective criteria for distinguishing the different scenarios. Does anyone has a good idea how to solve this?

 

The idea for this topic originated in another thread. I copy here some remarks already made in that other thread. Dsayers remarked about the eardrum scenario:

Eardrums moving are an effect. It's not at all the same as a direct action such as raising your hand.

 

Related to moral responsibility is the idea of ownership. If we act indirectly, are we able to acquire ownership? Do we own something if we have manufactured it using air / thermal / electrical flows, without directly touching the object that is manufactured? Dsayers remarked in the other thread:

If I put a brick through your window, I own that action even though I didn't touch your window directly. I was using the brick as a tool to amplify my force and/or range.

Using an intermediary is still investing value into an object to meaningfully alter it from a naturally occurring state. It has no bearing on the claim of ownership.

 

The definition I use for Morality (Thanks to dsayers): "The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others."

I am also basing my answers off of a free world.

 

A: I want to change this situation to one where the sound maniacs are on their own property making the sounds and the neighbors are the people having issues with the sound, who are also on their own property.

I believe that everyone voluntarily accepts sound and if they don't, they are being hypocrites as they make sound when doing anything. The question is, when does the sound become a problem. The first thing is, the neighbors must know where the sound is coming from, whether it be a barking dog, construction or just very loud music. Another thing to consider is the time the sounds are taking place. So let's say that the sound maniac's are playing very loud music in the middle of the night and the neighbors aren't able to sleep. The neighbors are now involuntary, but they must inform the sound maniacs of the problems because morality requires knowledge. If the sound maniacs stop or make it very quiet, they are being moral and the problem is fixed. If the sound maniacs choose to continue, then the neighbors are allowed to defend themselves from the immoral sound maniacs. However, I don't believe there is any size fits all in a situation like this. It would be different depending on factors involved.

A different example could be, two people hug voluntarily, but one person hugs too hard and the other person becomes involuntary. The involuntary person tells them that they are hugging too hard and when they choose to keep squeezing, the person is allowed to defend themselves even though they were voluntary at the beginning.

 

B: I would have to ask what you mean by molest. Also, this example isn't detailed enough to give an answer. It would depend on whether your definition of molest was physical, vocal or only looking/staring. It would also depend on who's property they are on as well as the severity of the physical contact.

 

C: In a free world, the street would be owned, not public, and you have the choice to not use the street. If this were to happen and the radiation scanner was dangerous, many people would not use this street and would/should give bad reviews. The street owners would have to do something in order to keep their customers, but either way, I don't see a problem with morality here.

 

D: Again, in a free world, the street would be owned, not public. So the talking person and the non-talking person are on someone else's property. This also goes back to 'A' with people being voluntary of sound. I can understand somebody being involuntary when someone else is talking to them, unfortunately, they would be hypocrites by not accepting this as they most likely also talk to other people. If the talking person is yelling at them and causing harm to the non-talking person, then you have a different situation.

 

*I understand that the definition I provided of morality isn't perfect and that some of the scenarios you provided don't fall under the definition. I am still learning and working on a more precise definition.

[square4]

Thank you for all the interesting responses.

 

In some situations, this issue could indeed be resolved by using the authority of the land owner. But even on owned land, there would still be default rules that apply, when nothing else has been agreed upon. By default, it would be impermissible to hit someone on the head, while permissible to talk. Besides that, sound waves, or pollution in general, easily crosses property boundaries. This shows that also in a free society there would be a need for clarity on this subject.

 

Objections against speech, by the way, are not uncommon. Not to speech itself, of course, but to the content of the speech that they involuntary get exposed to (insults, swearing, etc.). If someone is granted absolute authority over eardrum movement, he could use that authority selectively, for any purpose.

 

At one end of the spectrum, there is the sound we make while breathing, which is unavoidable, and therefore cannot be immoral. At the other end, there is the sound that causes deafness to its victims, which is clearly immoral. In between there is uncertainty. Based on which objective criteria can we determine which behavior is immoral, or the degree of immorality? Societal norms will probably not quality as objective.

 

A nice quote from Rothbard about this in "For a New Liberty":

Noise, too, is a form of air pollution. Noise is the creation of sound waves which go through the air and then bombard and invade the property and persons of others. Only recently have physicians begun to investigate the damaging effects of noise on the human physiology. Again, a libertarian legal system would permit damage and class action suits and injunctions against excessive and damaging noise: against "noise pollution."

 

When actions are done directly, libertarian ethics is based on the authority of the owner. No need to refer to damage. If the owner does not allow it, it is forbidden, period. But when it happens indirectly through particles, such as with loud noise or pollution, the criteria that is often used is if something is damaging. This raises several questions:

- The different ethical evaluation of causation through particles seems inconsistent. Can it be shown it is not inconsistent?

- Can objectively be determined what constitutes damage? If not, how can it be part of moral evaluation? If yes, does this imply that damage could possibly also be the base for other moral rules, such as the positive obligation to help someone to prevent damage?

- Is damage the only determining criteria? What about annoying or disturbing sounds that do not damage you, but make it impossible to concentrate, or to sleep, etc. Is privacy also a criteria (the radiation body scanner)? Can we logically and objectively deduce, based on first principles, which criteria should determine the morality of particle effects?

[abcqwerty123]

Thank you for all the interesting responses.

 

In some situations, this issue could indeed be resolved by using the authority of the land owner. But even on owned land, there would still be default rules that apply, when nothing else has been agreed upon. By default, it would be impermissible to hit someone on the head, while permissible to talk. Besides that, sound waves, or pollution in general, easily crosses property boundaries. This shows that also in a free society there would be a need for clarity on this subject.

 

Objections against speech, by the way, are not uncommon. Not to speech itself, of course, but to the content of the speech that they involuntary get exposed to (insults, swearing, etc.). If someone is granted absolute authority over eardrum movement, he could use that authority selectively, for any purpose.

 

At one end of the spectrum, there is the sound we make while breathing, which is unavoidable, and therefore cannot be immoral. At the other end, there is the sound that causes deafness to its victims, which is clearly immoral. In between there is uncertainty. Based on which objective criteria can we determine which behavior is immoral, or the degree of immorality? Societal norms will probably not quality as objective.

 

A nice quote from Rothbard about this in "For a New Liberty":

Noise, too, is a form of air pollution. Noise is the creation of sound waves which go through the air and then bombard and invade the property and persons of others. Only recently have physicians begun to investigate the damaging effects of noise on the human physiology. Again, a libertarian legal system would permit damage and class action suits and injunctions against excessive and damaging noise: against "noise pollution."

 

When actions are done directly, libertarian ethics is based on the authority of the owner. No need to refer to damage. If the owner does not allow it, it is forbidden, period. But when it happens indirectly through particles, such as with loud noise or pollution, the criteria that is often used is if something is damaging. This raises several questions:

- The different ethical evaluation of causation through particles seems inconsistent. Can it be shown it is not inconsistent?

- Can objectively be determined what constitutes damage? If not, how can it be part of moral evaluation? If yes, does this imply that damage could possibly also be the base for other moral rules, such as the positive obligation to help someone to prevent damage?

- Is damage the only determining criteria? What about annoying or disturbing sounds that do not damage you, but make it impossible to concentrate, or to sleep, etc. Is privacy also a criteria (the radiation body scanner)? Can we logically and objectively deduce, based on first principles, which criteria should determine the morality of particle effects?

 

I agree and have trouble finding the point of where acceptability and over the line meet. In a real life situation, I can determine this, but everyone would have a different line making it very hard, if not impossible, to determine a universal line.