ClearConscience Posted March 26, 2016 Posted March 26, 2016 This guy is not a nitpicker. Counter-examples are a valid way of disproving the argument. The version of property rights you're touting doesn't allow for people to violate the property rights of others in cases of necessity where they do so in order to prevent a greater harm. I will shove you onto the ground and potentially injure you, and have zero moral hang-ups about doing it, if it will take you out of the path of a speeding bus. I violate your property rights, self-ownership, in order to protect YOUR property from a greater harm. This extends further to where people can violate the property rights of another in order to prevent a greater harm to themselves, but the perpetrators must find ways to return those harmed to their pre-injured state. In the example with the guy breaking through another person's window, he would have to pay compensatory damages to the home owner. This is the foundation of tort law in the United States. Breaking through somebody else's window without permission is an intentional tort in addition to being a crime of breaking and entering. That doesn't mean you can shoot him to defend your property. The only time you can use lethal force to defend your property is if you are reasonably in fear of losing your life or serious bodily harm. This is how it works in America. The reason we handle it this way is because it's the only way to handle these examples that conforms to justice and fairness. Stefan should have explained that, even in American law, a valid defense to a crime is necessity, meaning you can commit a crime and not be held culpable so long as the crime was committed with the intent to prevent a greater harm. That's part of American law BECAUSE it's clearly the moral way of assessing these sorts of situations. You can lie to Nazis in order to save the lives of Jews. That's not immoral at all. Why? Because you were acting from necessity. You committed the crime to prevent a greater harm, therefore you're not culpable. The Nazis would actually be culpable for your lie. They created the necessity. They are the greater harm. This is is how American law works. This is how morality works. 1 5
Cesco Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 The lies the jews tell about the nazis are not "acting from necessity", but revenge. The nazis did not allow the jewish banks to control their currency, they did not allow the jews to control the german media, they did not allow the jews to control the german courts. As revenge the jews called for a boycott of german goods. The germans did react boycotting jewish stores in germany. Then it escaleted really quickly. Read that part of history. Our "official narrative" is pretty wrong about the 1930 time period. 1 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 Stefan actually rebutted your examples in the video. You have the right of self defense and third party defense. At no point in the video did Stefan argue that counter-examples were not valid. You didn't even listen to the video your critiquing. 2
shirgall Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 This guy is not a nitpicker. Counter-examples are a valid way of disproving the argument. The difference between a counter-example and a time-wasting lifeboat scenario can be seen in the extraordinary work that went into limiting the actor's choice in the scenario.
A4E Posted March 27, 2016 Posted March 27, 2016 3 direct appeals to government authority in op. And numerous rephrasings of "this is the only way it can work". I sense agenda.
Nathan Metric Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 The version of property rights you're touting doesn't allow for people to violate the property rights of others in cases of necessity where they do so in order to prevent a greater harm. This is not true. You cannot cite property rights to interfere with the purpose of property rights which is to serve man's mind. Stefan should have explained that, even in American law, a valid defense to a crime is necessity, meaning you can commit a crime and not be held culpable so long as the crime was committed with the intent to prevent a greater harm. That's part of American law BECAUSE it's clearly the moral way of assessing these sorts of situations. There is no such thing as "necessity" in reality. There is what you should do, what you merely want to you and and what you shouldn't do. "There are no have to's in life". (Stefan's own words on a very early podcast) Is the person who breaks the window acting virtuously? Yes, but saying he is doing so "by necessity" is utter nonsense. That is just bad metaphysics. It's also not virtuous for the reason you're saying. The guy who breaks the window is not virtuous because he is preventing harm but because he is a rational being deserving of life. The reason rational beings deserve life is because having rational beings meaningfully cooperate and compete with each other is a virtue. This order between rational beings is a virtue because rationality is a virtue. Rationality is a virtue because the TRUTH is a virtue and there is no higher virtue than the truth. "Harm" and "utility" are subjective so you cannot base an objective moral rule on reducing harm or maximizing utility. You can lie to Nazis in order to save the lives of Jews. That's not immoral at all. Why? Because you were acting from necessity. You committed the crime to prevent a greater harm, therefore you're not culpable. Lying to a Nazi is virtuous but not for the reason you're saying. The reason you can lie to a Nazi in order to save the lives of Jews is because Jews are rational beings deserving of protection whereas the Nazi are anti-rational beings. if the truth is a virtue than that which maximizes the pursuit of truth is better than that which does not maximize the pursuit of truth. By allowing Nazi's to kill rational beings you are harming the pursuit of truth so a person who values the truth is by no means contradicting themselves when they lie to a Nazi.
ClearConscience Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 The lies the jews tell about the nazis are not "acting from necessity", but revenge. The nazis did not allow the jewish banks to control their currency, they did not allow the jews to control the german media, they did not allow the jews to control the german courts. As revenge the jews called for a boycott of german goods. The germans did react boycotting jewish stores in germany. Then it escaleted really quickly. Read that part of history. Our "official narrative" is pretty wrong about the 1930 time period. Okay... if by "control" you mean freely exercise the same privileges that all German gentiles enjoyed, by "revenge" you mean making self-interested business decisions, and by "escalated quickly" you mean systematically murdered every last Jewish man, woman, and child, only then is your version of history not abhorrently false. The difference between a counter-example and a time-wasting lifeboat scenario can be seen in the extraordinary work that went into limiting the actor's choice in the scenario. That's not extreme work. These sorts of scenarios happen all the time, which is why the United States has common law regarding necessity and duress. Necessity is when you commit a crime to prevent a greater harm BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. Since these defenses are based on common law, it means that these scenarios aren't simply hypothetical. They actually happen in the real world. Calling scenarios demonstrating principles of real world American law, "time-wasting lifeboat scenarios," is unsubstantive crap and belongs nowhere near a philosophy forum. 3 direct appeals to government authority in op. And numerous rephrasings of "this is the only way it can work". I sense agenda. So you propose that the man hanging on the flag pole committed an evil act by violating a home owner's property rights? The only logical reason for why he didn't commit a moral wrongdoing is because he prevented a greater harm. He should still pay back the damages if he is able. This is morality. American law just HAPPENS to correspond with morality in this instance. The reason why I reference American law is because it should be obvious to somebody like Stefan. If he disagrees with American law, this is an opportunity to talk about that. He doesn't mention it at all, and instead chooses to attack the question itself, saying it's some incredibly challenging question that only serves to distract him from fighting the great forces of darkness. That's utter bullshit. Answer the question. It's not even a difficult question. 1
shirgall Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 That's not extreme work. These sorts of scenarios happen all the time, which is why the United States has common law regarding necessity and duress. Necessity is when you commit a crime to prevent a greater harm BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. Since these defenses are based on common law, it means that these scenarios aren't simply hypothetical. They actually happen in the real world. Calling scenarios demonstrating principles of real world American law, "time-wasting lifeboat scenarios," is unsubstantive crap and belongs nowhere near a philosophy forum. I didn't call anything that, I only stated what the continuum was. It is subjective, of course, but you are trying to convince people to spend their time on these sorts of problems and I'm indicating that the more limited or odd the scenario the less people will care to engage them.
regevdl Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Did you even listen to this video or am I missing something? As far as 'committing a crime to prevent greater harm' he absolutely covers...maybe not in this particular video but in many MANY others. Actually he went over it for like the 100th time in the recent video about the cry-bully reporter Michelle Fields case as a recent example. What I find deliciously hilarious are the nitpickers who use the 'ok..let's say one guy owns ALLL of X and they won't let you use it because xzy'. My first response is....... isn't that what gvt already does and you don't seem to worry about it..in fact you seem to glorify and wonder how you can live without it.... so what if X was owned by one guy who actually provided that service cheaper, better quality and more effeciently even if he has no competitors...why would that be a bad thing when you don't complain now?
Cesco Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Okay... if by "control" you mean freely exercise the same privileges that all German gentiles enjoyed, by "revenge" you mean making self-interested business decisions, and by "escalated quickly" you mean systematically murdered every last Jewish man, woman, and child, only then is your version of history not abhorrently false. Nope. I know this is OT, but too important to let it slide. Control: using strong in-group preferences to occupy power positions against a naive group with weak in-group preferences. Revenge: boycotting products against own self-intrest to punish people. Systematically murdered every jew: The laws in my country do not allow me to correct you. A fact speaking for itself.
Recommended Posts