Plz help me with Ayn Rand's property right vs starvation debate

[Libertyblues]

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[\quote end]

 

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force?

 

Please help me solve this!

 

Lionblue

[Thomasio]

That's a moral question and comes down to the libertarian belief that charity in a free society will always be better than welfare under government could be.

Libertarians believe, in a free society, where everyone has the option to make his own money, there would be far less poverty, therefore less charity needed, while a huge load of helpful people would always provide enough supplies for charity so nobody would have to starve.

 

Whether or not thats true remains to be seen.

As far as I know libertarians don't think past the point of "there will always be enough charity", for the reason that if there will always be enough there is no plan needed of what to do if not.

[Will Torbald]

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[\quote end]

 

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force?

 

Please help me solve this!

 

Lionblue

 

What do you mean by "bound to starve to death". How did he get to that point? If you begin your argument with a made up situation you can't have any moral judgement without understanding how it even began.

[Alan C.]

The problem with this narrative is that it consists of context dropping.

 

You have to analyze the logical and requisite antecedents to arrive at the correct conclusion. You can't stage a narrative and then say that it invalidates a libertarian idea.

As far as I know libertarians don't think past the point of "there will always be enough charity", for the reason that if there will always be enough there is no plan needed of what to do if not.

 

Libertarians probably have greater foresight than any other group of people.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Under an ancap society he would have no rights, and could be treated any way the owners of property pleased. This is because a person must abrogate his rights to the owner of the property he passes into. A man in ancapistan has inalienable legal rights such as self ownership, but can only express these through his property.

The right of self ownership, the right of the individual, are actually inferior to external property.

 

Man, if Ayn Rand didn't reject the labour theory of value she would so be a socialist. The socialist claim that the producers should own the means of production so as to receive the full product of their labour is crazy similar to her own belief. I always felt like anarchists on both sides of the fence had such eerily similar goals, but just started from different assumptions. (yes I know she wasn't an anarchist, wat evz)

[David Ottinger]

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[\quote end]

 

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force?

 

Please help me solve this!

 

Lionblue

 

 

So, how does one have the right to life by taking life from another?  That's a contradiction.   The difference between conquest and voluntary exchange is morality, and theories of morality must be universal in order to be objective.  So, either we all have the right to life or no one has it.  Morality is not circumstantial.  That would be an argument in favor of morality being relative. 

[Mister Mister]

That's a moral question and comes down to the libertarian belief that charity in a free society will always be better than welfare under government could be.

Libertarians believe, in a free society, where everyone has the option to make his own money, there would be far less poverty, therefore less charity needed, while a huge load of helpful people would always provide enough supplies for charity so nobody would have to starve.

 

Whether or not thats true remains to be seen.

As far as I know libertarians don't think past the point of "there will always be enough charity", for the reason that if there will always be enough there is no plan needed of what to do if not.

Charity or welfare can only occur when there is an abundance of resources for people to give, or for the government to tax (of course, morality aside, charity is more effective).  This abundance, historically, has only occurred when there was some degree of a free market.  So, as Alan said, libertarians are actually thinking in the long-term more than anyone else.  People who support the deficit-inanced welfare state are basically guaranteeing that many people will be hungry in the future, as if someone was telling farmers to eat their seed-crop.

[dsayers]

Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live.

The right to live and the right to not be murdered are different things. Unchosen positive obligations cannot be ethical because they ignore consent. For a more thorough explanation:

 

[Libertyblues]

Thanks guys for the replies, it already gave me some insight.

 

When I asked if the starving person has the right to initiate force I didn't mean for him to kill the other person, just enough force to get some food and shelter, as it is his right to take action to survive, or not?

 

The other person, the one with some food, could argue that he needs it to get through the winter. So defensive force would be legit.

 

What about impeding death? Doesn't it give the right to action?

 

Can someone give me a philosophical answer? I need a Randtian counter argument for a discussion that's coming up for me..

 

Thanks for the support!

[LibertarianSocialist]

Thanks guys for the replies, it already gave me some insight.

When I asked if the starving person has the right to initiate force I didn't mean for him to kill the other person, just enough force to get some food and shelter, as it is his right to take action to survive, or not?

The other person, the one with some food, could argue that he needs it to get through the winter. So defensive force would be legit.

What about impeding death? Doesn't it give the right to action?

Can someone give me a philosophical answer? I need a Randtian counter argument for a discussion that's coming up for me..

Thanks for the support!

Does it have to be a Randian one? What about an egoistic one?

 

Simply state that everything is already yours, that you have merely yet to attain power over it. Insist further that they themselves are your property, and if they should object using moral arguments simply yell at them unrelentingly that morality is a spook and so is property.

???

PROFIT

 

Can't touch a person who simply doesn't give any fuks about imaginary constructs like right and wrong, you can only beat him for being a dick.

[Libertyblues]

Does it have to be a Randian one? What about an egoistic one?

 

Simply state that everything is already yours, that you have merely yet to attain power over it. Insist further that they themselves are your property, and if they should object using moral arguments simply yell at them unrelentingly that morality is a spook and so is property.

???

PROFIT

 

Can't touch a person who simply doesn't give any fuks about imaginary constructs like right and wrong, you can only beat him for being a dick.

Everyone has the positive right to be an arse

 

I'd like the Randian argument for now though. She defines property only as the right to action, you can't just say you own that mountain over there, from what I understand..

 

Also, I'm not sure that putting the starving man in context makes the discussion more valid.. you won't know the truth of what happened anyway when he advances to your shed.

 

Ayn Rand defines property as the right to action, action having to be moral, as action is needed in order to survive, does she not?

 

So the argument must be, any action is moral in order to survive, or not?

 

(btw, I couldn't figure out the starvation problem from the vid)

[AncapFTW]

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[\quote end]

 

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force?

 

Please help me solve this!

 

Lionblue

The post already includes the answer, as the emboldened text also applies to life.  You have a right to preserve you life, but you are also subject to the consequences of it, such as jail if you stole to preserve it.

[Will Torbald]

Also, I'm not sure that putting the starving man in context makes the discussion more valid.. you won't know the truth of what happened anyway when he advances to your shed.

 

 

You can ask the man. "I'm not sure" is not an argument against morality, but against your own capacity to understand.

[dsayers]

When I asked if the starving person has the right to initiate force I didn't mean for him to kill the other person, just enough force to get some food and shelter, as it is his right to take action to survive, or not?

Where do you draw the line? This only serves to reveal that you're not referring to a principled conclusion.

[Libertyblues]

Where do you draw the line? This only serves to reveal that you're not referring to a principled conclusion.

As far as I understand people can't act morally if the don't have a choice of alternatives. When you're starving to death you don't have a choice, therfore the action to save yourself can't be evil. Sounds pretty damn principaled to me..

[David Ottinger]

Thanks guys for the replies, it already gave me some insight.

 

When I asked if the starving person has the right to initiate force I didn't mean for him to kill the other person, just enough force to get some food and shelter, as it is his right to take action to survive, or not?

 

The other person, the one with some food, could argue that he needs it to get through the winter. So defensive force would be legit.

 

What about impeding death? Doesn't it give the right to action?

 

Can someone give me a philosophical answer? I need a Randtian counter argument for a discussion that's coming up for me..

 

Thanks for the support!

 

Your hypothetical equates food with life.  So, if food equals life, and you take food from another by force, you are negating the other person's right to life because you are denying the other person his/her access to property by imposing force.  Further more, your scenario holds person 'B' responsible for person 'A's circumstances.    How is that possible? 

 

It doesn't matter that you're restricting your hypothetical by omitting murder.  There is no reason why scale should matter.  Death is a probable outcome to violent acts.  That is the reality.  So, why omit it?

 

 

There is no rule in life that says, "If you use x amount of force against me, I'm only allowed to respond with equal amount."   If you want to deny me the principle of equal consideration, I owe you no consideration in return.  Hence, why war is brutal.   So, someone dying in a physical altercation is probable, and even more so when you put life on the line just as you did with your hypothetical.  I accepted it.  But, what you want is mercy from me because you've appealed to emotion by bringing up poverty and famine. 

 

You demand that I sacrifice my food for your life.  Why should I?  Because you hold mercy to be virtuous?

 

No, I refuse to reward your use of force against me for any reason.  And, should you decide to pursue seizure of my food, death is not off the table because that is reality.  

 

 

Does that clarify it for you?

[dsayers]

When you're starving to death you don't have a choice

False. To steal takes effort. Effort that could be put into earning. Plus the person you would steal from must not be in a position of starvation in order to have food to steal. In what way are these two people fundamentally different that one of them can provide for their own need for food while the other cannot?

[vforvoluntary]

It is simply inaccurate to suggest that people don't have choices when they are starving. The moral choice may be difficult but nonetheless possible. Slaves have allowed themselves to starve to death because they preferred death to a lifeless life. As dsayers stated it is possible to put the effort put into theft into earning or finding another means of survival. When Ayn Rand spoke of the right to live she meant not only the right to remain alive but to fulfill one's life. Life consists of actions. Therefore taking the right of a person to act away from them is taking away a piece of that person's life. The ability to perform actions freely is what gives a person's life value. There are many who would prefer death over enslavement and being unable to make their own choices. This is their right. It may seem absurd to you but it may not be to others. The subjectivity of value is one of the reasons if not the main reason liberty is important.The reason you want to live is because there is an aspect of your life that you value. Otherwise you would have no problem dying. You do not have the right to take away that which another person values for the sake of pursuing your own values unless you are willing to accept to consequences of your actions.

[Libertyblues]

False. To steal takes effort. Effort that could be put into earning. Plus the person you would steal from must not be in a position of starvation in order to have food to steal. In what way are these two people fundamentally different that one of them can provide for their own need for food while the other cannot?

Thank you for the insightful argument. I'm still learning the ropes so bare with me please. Also, I appreciate critique of constructing a challenging example to test the truth of my proposition. Following example.

 

Situation arises in a long cold winter. The food stock was burnt down. The tribe migrate to find food to provide their offspring with. they negotiate with another tribe, but they can't share their stock because food is too scarce. The first tribe initiate force to survive. Rand: in order to survive you must take action. Any action that depends on survival then must be moral. So the initiation of force in the example is moral.

 

A similar argumentation applies to rare medicine..

 

The problem I want to solve is the Randian premises of: ..action that is needed to survive is good..

 

Is this even a right formulation of Rand's logic?

[Libertyblues]

Your hypothetical equates food with life. So, if food equals life, and you take food from another by force, you are negating the other person's right to life because you are denying the other person his/her access to property by imposing force. Further more, your scenario holds person 'B' responsible for person 'A's circumstances. How is that possible?

 

It doesn't matter that you're restricting your hypothetical by omitting murder. There is no reason why scale should matter. Death is a probable outcome to violent acts. That is the reality. So, why omit it?

 

 

There is no rule in life that says, "If you use x amount of force against me, I'm only allowed to respond with equal amount." If you want to deny me the principle of equal consideration, I owe you no consideration in return. Hence, why war is brutal. So, someone dying in a physical altercation is probable, and even more so when you put life on the line just as you did with your hypothetical. I accepted it. But, what you want is mercy from me because you've appealed to emotion by bringing up poverty and famine.

 

You demand that I sacrifice my food for your life. Why should I? Because you hold mercy to be virtuous?

 

No, I refuse to reward your use of force against me for any reason. And, should you decide to pursue seizure of my food, death is not off the table because that is reality.

 

 

Does that clarify it for you?

It helps, thanks

 

I'm not saying you have to be charitable, what I'm trying to understand is: how is it not moral to try to steal, when you don't have a choice. Also see my new hypothetical I posted in reply to Dsayers.

[Will Torbald]

It helps, thanks

 

I'm not saying you have to be charitable, what I'm trying to understand is: how is it not moral to try to steal, when you don't have a choice. Also see my new hypothetical I posted in reply to Dsayers.

There is no such thing as having no choice.

[Des]

This is Ayn Rand's property argumemt according to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

 

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

 

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

[\quote end]

 

The way I understand it now, once someone is bound to starve to death he has the right to initiate force to get food, doesn't he? Ayn Rand deduces the right to act from having the right to live. Problem I have is that I've only heard Stef say that these people only have charity to take care of them..

 

How does this apply to starvation in a far distance? Or illness, does a dying man have the right to initiate force?

 

Please help me solve this!

 

Lionblue

The "has a right" viewpoint is misleading.

Correct: Our current minimum objective standard of ethics/morality rests upon the pillar of a preference for being alive.

Without that preference: an objective standard of morality / ethics could not be rationally computed to be what we now conclude that it is.

A standard of ethics/morality constructed on the pillar of a preference for life, leads to the non-aggression principle as the non-optional or minimum ethic (the objective ethic / moral standard).

 

All "lifeboat scenarios" are covered by the principle that you don't rationally expect a person who has agreed to trade his ethical behaviour in exchange for your ethical behaviour (because that is how he benefits from ethics) - you don't rationally expect him to fulfil his end of the bargain if doing that would end his life and with that end his hope of profit from the trade.

 

[to clarify, his profit is that he has less risk of dying as a result of human aggression if he trades non-aggression for non-aggression, than if he does no such trade]

[dsayers]

Thank you for the insightful argument. I'm still learning the ropes so bare with me please. Also, I appreciate critique of constructing a challenging example to test the truth of my proposition.

Certainly. I admire your conviction and patience on such an important matter

 

Is this even a right formulation of Rand's logic?

I don't know. I'm more interested in reality than individuals. I think what might be happening is that you're expecting morality to do more than its purpose. Morality's purpose isn't to say what you can and cannot do. It's a tool to interpret the actions that people actually do. Like in your antiquated tribes example. We all understand WHY they initiated the use of force. Morality's purpose is to help us understand that the action was in fact the initiation of the use of force. So you say that tribe A's food supply was burned down. Unless tribe B did the burning, it is not their responsibility, and therefore they cannot be compelled to relinquish their food, meaning that the seizing of the food is indeed the initiation of the use of force.

 

The reason why that is important is because tribe B will almost certainly defend what is theirs, thus providing competing claims. Morality helps us to identify whose claim is righteous.

[David Ottinger]

It helps, thanks

 

I'm not saying you have to be charitable, what I'm trying to understand is: how is it not moral to try to steal, when you don't have a choice. Also see my new hypothetical I posted in reply to Dsayers.

 

The difference between trade and theft is a moral theory.  Both are an exchange of goods, but the former is consensual and the latter is not.  Whether you realize it or not, what you're arguing here is that there is no such thing as theft as it would not be objective to hold that sometimes non-consensual exchange of goods is theft and sometimes it's not.   Well, then what is the act if not theft because clearly the exchange was non-consensual?   

 

See, by labeling the act as theft you're accepting the principle that establishes this difference between trade and theft.  That principle is property rights.  So, by labeling that exchange of property as theft, you are acknowledging property rights.   If the individual in question has a right of claim on the property, then it cannot be theft as s/he would simply be exercising his/her right to the property.  So, why do you keep labeling the act as theft while also holding the individual has a right of claim?  Such wording is contradictory.   Just as a door cannot both be open and closed, one cannot steal something when he/she has a right of claim on the property.  

 

 

If we apply your premise universally, what we get is that need can supersede all other claims.  Atlas Shrugged deals specifically with what you're inquiring about.  So, maybe read the book if you want Ayn Rand's perspective.  You can get it on audible.com.   The narration is performed exceptionally. 

 

 

Thank you for the insightful argument. I'm still learning the ropes so bare with me please. Also, I appreciate critique of constructing a challenging example to test the truth of my proposition. Following example.

 

Situation arises in a long cold winter. The food stock was burnt down. The tribe migrate to find food to provide their offspring with. they negotiate with another tribe, but they can't share their stock because food is too scarce. The first tribe initiate force to survive. Rand: in order to survive you must take action. Any action that depends on survival then must be moral. So the initiation of force in the example is moral.

 

A similar argumentation applies to rare medicine..

 

The problem I want to solve is the Randian premises of: ..action that is needed to survive is good..

 

Is this even a right formulation of Rand's logic?

 

"Rand: in order to survive you must take action."

 

 

I have no idea where you got that from, but I highly doubt that's her claim given that she wrote about integrity, thus holding that not all actions are the same.  Your claim asserts that all actions are the same.  Clearly not her idea.

 

 

Your new hypothetical asserts the same dilemma.  All you're asserting with them is that people are more willing to initiate force when their survival is at stake.  No where does your hypothetical ever address why circumstance has any affect on people's property rights, especially the dissolution thereof, i.e. How does the famine of you or your people give you a right of claim on property that other people possess? 

[Libertyblues]

Thanks for the last two replies.

 

On a side note to David, I haven't used the word theft at all yet..

 

Which made me realize that I need to think more about property rights..I'll do more reading on that for now..

[Libertyblues]

Hello guys,

 

Before delving more into the property rights problem I need help with. In the recent FDR radio show "Dusty P3n!s Syndrome" Stef said "with a gun to your head you don't have a moral choice, whe the you go left or right "(at 2:08:30).

 

So in Stef's universal ethics the ability of choice is crucial for being able to act moral. This brings me back to my earlier argument. A starving person has no choice but to initiate force to pluck the apple, so it can't be immoral.

 

Before talking about the implications of this and property rights outside the body, do you guys now agree with my argument?

[dsayers]

This brings me back to my earlier argument. A starving person has no choice but to initiate force

Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not an argument. I addressed this earlier:

 

False. To steal takes effort. Effort that could be put into earning. Plus the person you would steal from must not be in a position of starvation in order to have food to steal. In what way are these two people fundamentally different that one of them can provide for their own need for food while the other cannot?

For which you thanked me. How then are you now able to repeat yourself as if no refutation/challenge has been offered?

[Will Torbald]

Hello guys,

 

Before delving more into the property rights problem I need help with. In the recent FDR radio show "Dusty P3n!s Syndrome" Stef said "with a gun to your head you don't have a moral choice, whe the you go left or right "(at 2:08:30).

 

So in Stef's universal ethics the ability of choice is crucial for being able to act moral. This brings me back to my earlier argument. A starving person has no choice but to initiate force to pluck the apple, so it can't be immoral.

 

Before talking about the implications of this and property rights outside the body, do you guys now agree with my argument?

If a starving man in the desperate and ridiculous position of having no choice, literally no choice, but to steal from your food actually stole an apple or a dollar from you - wouldn't you forgive him given that he had no choice? What he did was immoral, but given that you have reduced his life to that of a beast or an animal (life without choice or reason) it is rational to consider him an amoral being. If a starving raccoon stole from you, you wouldn't think the raccoon was immoral because it is an animal without reason and thought. Your starving man is equal to that: You've fictitiously generated a man that is an animal, and asked us to morally judge him as a trick.

[Libertyblues]

Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not an argument. I addressed this earlier:

 

For which you thanked me. How then are you now able to repeat yourself as if no refutation/challenge has been offered?

I'm sorry to make you repeat yourself. For some reason I have a problem with solving the question with your analogical reasoning. Your attacking my premises that the starving man has (or had) indeed a choice. What I'm getting at is: if he only has the choice of forcefully taking food, it cannot be evil.

 

Could you agree with this more precise premises? And can you agree with the conclusion?

[Libertyblues]

If a starving man in the desperate and ridiculous position of having no choice, literally no choice, but to steal from your food actually stole an apple or a dollar from you - wouldn't you forgive him given that he had no choice? What he did was immoral, but given that you have reduced his life to that of a beast or an animal (life without choice or reason) it is rational to consider him an amoral being. If a starving raccoon stole from you, you wouldn't think the raccoon was immoral because it is an animal without reason and thought. Your starving man is equal to that: You've fictitiously generated a man that is an animal, and asked us to morally judge him as a trick.

I never asked for anyone to judge the starving man, I'm asking if he can be judged..

[algernon]

As mentioned previously I think we always need to consider death the final outcome in these situations.

 

If two people are trying to kill each other, can we say they are both morally justified? I can't think of a scenario where that would be possible, as it's contradictory.

 

If I have food and someone else wants it, in my attempt to defend my food it escalates and they end up dead, was I morally justified in my actions? If it goes the other way and they kill me, and someone says their actions were just, that means they have a greater claim to my property than I do.

 

I've had these arguments ad nauseum and I'm curious where this "starving to death" argument comes from, is this a socialist argument to justify theft?

 

Someone dying without medical treatment, if the doctor has a moral obligation to help someone, that means the person dying has more of a right to the doctor's life than the doctor does.

 

How can a moral ever be a positive obligation, because at that point it is arbitrary, can we have arbitrary morals?

 

Do you have a moral obligation to feed your children? Yes because you had the negative obligation of not creating children you were not planning to feed, and since you chose to create another life, they would perish without your care. It would be the same situation as if you burned down the neighbors crops, you now have a moral obligation to feed them due to your actions.

 

As far as I understand it, morals are and can only be things in which you cannot/should not do, not things you must do.

[Libertyblues]

As mentioned previously I think we always need to consider death the final outcome in these situations.

 

If two people are trying to kill each other, can we say they are both morally justified? I can't think of a scenario where that would be possible, as it's contradictory.

 

If I have food and someone else wants it, in my attempt to defend my food it escalates and they end up dead, was I morally justified in my actions? If it goes the other way and they kill me, and someone says their actions were just, that means they have a greater claim to my property than I do.

 

I've had these arguments ad nauseum and I'm curious where this "starving to death" argument comes from, is this a socialist argument to justify theft?

 

Someone dying without medical treatment, if the doctor has a moral obligation to help someone, that means the person dying has more of a right to the doctor's life than the doctor does.

 

How can a moral ever be a positive obligation, because at that point it is arbitrary, can we have arbitrary morals?

 

Do you have a moral obligation to feed your children? Yes because you had the negative obligation of not creating children you were not planning to feed, and since you chose to create another life, they would perish without your care. It would be the same situation as if you burned down the neighbors crops, you now have a moral obligation to feed them due to your actions.

 

As far as I understand it, morals are and can only be things in which you cannot/should not do, not things you must do.

Oh dear, I should have known that this must have been discussed to death..

 

The main reason why I need to clear this up is regarding a discussion about immigrants coming to Europe, or the future waves from Africa, if they continue to reproduce so fast.

[Libertyblues]

As mentioned previously I think we always need to consider death the final outcome in these situations.

 

If two people are trying to kill each other, can we say they are both morally justified? I can't think of a scenario where that would be possible, as it's contradictory.

 

If I have food and someone else wants it, in my attempt to defend my food it escalates and they end up dead, was I morally justified in my actions? If it goes the other way and they kill me, and someone says their actions were just, that means they have a greater claim to my property than I do.

 

I've had these arguments ad nauseum and I'm curious where this "starving to death" argument comes from, is this a socialist argument to justify theft?

 

Someone dying without medical treatment, if the doctor has a moral obligation to help someone, that means the person dying has more of a right to the doctor's life than the doctor does.

 

How can a moral ever be a positive obligation, because at that point it is arbitrary, can we have arbitrary morals?

 

Do you have a moral obligation to feed your children? Yes because you had the negative obligation of not creating children you were not planning to feed, and since you chose to create another life, they would perish without your care. It would be the same situation as if you burned down the neighbors crops, you now have a moral obligation to feed them due to your actions.

 

As far as I understand it, morals are and can only be things in which you cannot/should not do, not things you must do.

I haven't made the conclusion yet that there is a positive obligation to give him the apple. If you accept my conclusion that the starving man's action cannot be evil, even though he initiates force, then you can get to the following conclusion: if a free society marginalizes and ostracizes groups of people to the point of starvation, the initiation of force becomes moral for one group but not the other - which is inconsistent with the universality axiom.

[algernon]

I haven't made the conclusion yet that there is a positive obligation to give him the apple. If you accept my conclusion that the starving man's action cannot be evil, even though he initiates force, then you can get to the following conclusion: if a free society marginalizes and ostracizes groups of people to the point of starvation, the initiation of force becomes moral for one group but not the other - which is inconsistent with the universality axiom.

 

I don't accept your conclusion that the starving mans actions aren't immoral, because if they aren't immoral then the person defending against that force is immoral. So which is it? If you say neither are evil then why are we having this discussion?

 

if a free society marginalizes and ostracizes groups of people to the point of starvation

 

 

With almost every life form the urge to replicate our DNA is very strong, if humans didn't have a drive to have sex we would cease to exist in a short order. What if I'm a male no one wants to have sex with me and they are dooming my genetic line to extinction, do I have the right to rape someone? The urge to replicate and ensure our offspring live on is so strong we would willingly give up our life for their survival, as many parents would tell you. This is something more important than food, therefore if no one gives me an apple I am allowed to take it, and if no one gives me a child I am allowed to take that as well, is that right?

[AncapFTW]

I haven't made the conclusion yet that there is a positive obligation to give him the apple. If you accept my conclusion that the starving man's action cannot be evil, even though he initiates force, then you can get to the following conclusion: if a free society marginalizes and ostracizes groups of people to the point of starvation, the initiation of force becomes moral for one group but not the other - which is inconsistent with the universality axiom.

It depends on if the "marginalization" and "ostracization" was the result of violence.  If they were in an internment camp and stole from the guards, that's one thing.  If people just refuse to deal with them and they respond with theft, that's completely different.