Thought experiment recarding voluntarism

[Kikker]

I would like to propose a situation in which I'm not sure if a robbery or a voluntary exchange has taken place.

Keywords are voluntarism, intention and consequence.

 

Full context

Let's say Person A is invited to a small house party. He shows up, greets the guests and starts wandering around. Eventually person A wanders into the basement where he enjoys the view of some antique objects. Meanwhile the host of the party sees the open basement door and locks it to stop guests wandering in there. During this he remained unaware of person a who is still in the basement. The Guests already started leaving so persons at the party assume Person A has left. Person A eventually becomes aware of his situation as he tries to leave, he is however unable to contact anyone during the party. When the party is over and the host is cleaning up he wanders near the basement door and hears Person A trying to make contact. He decides to make use of the situation and proposes a deal where person A would pay him 500$ to perform the service of unlocking the door. Person A accepts this deal as he rationalizes that it would take him a day to break out of the basement and that day would be worth about 500$ to him.

 

Summarized.

Person A chooses to go to an event where he is unintentionally put in a disadvantaged position in which the host can demand high pay for minimal effort.

 

Did Person A and the host perform a voluntary exchange?

Or did Person A get robbed?

 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

You can never know what actually happened, but that which can be proven by evidence. The rest is left to informed speculation. You can't prove that person B didn't know person A was locked in the basement for certain, in my opinion. 

 

The precedent of this type of particular situation would suggest that forethought and planning was involved, since friends do not simply extort each other on whim, completely out of the blue.

 

If it could not be proven that forethought was involved to extort person A, then person B would be seen as a psychopath, rightly so, and as soon as this information was available to the public, he/she would be ostracized. Charity would be available for person A's losses.

 

The only way this wouldn't happen is if A and B had a history of odd disputes, in which case they would both be ostracized as creeps. 

 

That is my take on it.

[Pod]

Every event after he refuses to open the door is a result of coercion.  This is the mugger argument. 

[Mister Mister]

You really have to stretch to come up with these scenarios   Yes Pod has it right, up until he finds out the man is trapped in there, it's an honest mistake.  After he has the knowledge that someone is trapped in a room in his house against their will, to no release them is kidnapping.

[EclecticIdealist]

Summarized.

 

Person A is accidentally imprisoned by the "host" who then extorts $500 to release person A.

 

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of person A? No.

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of the host? Yes.

Therefore, force is being used by the host against person A keeping them imprisoned.

Extorting person A's property for his release is therefore robbery.

 

The "host" would rightly be ostracized by the community. Person A would be justified in taking his property ($500) back from the host by force if it is not returned voluntarily.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Summarized.

 

Person A is accidentally imprisoned by the "host" who then extorts $500 to release person A.

 

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of person A? No.

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of the host? Yes.

Therefore, force is being used by the host against person A keeping them imprisoned.

Extorting person A's property for his release is therefore robbery.

 

The "host" would rightly be ostracized by the community. Person A would be justified in taking his property ($500) back from the host by force if it is not returned voluntarily.

 

Good summary. What do you think would change if Person A accidentally locked himself inside the basement?

[Kikker]

Every event after he refuses to open the door is a result of coercion.  This is the mugger argument. 

 

He refuses to open the door for free, he doesn't refuse to unlock the door as a whole.

 

You really have to stretch to come up with these scenarios   Yes Pod has it right, up until he finds out the man is trapped in there, it's an honest mistake.  After he has the knowledge that someone is trapped in a room in his house against their will, to no release them is kidnapping.

 

Person A isn't trapped indefinitely, he can get out, it only takes him a day of work. Maybe a scenario with a broken lock in a public restroom makes more sense. In that case a malfunction causes Person A to be trapped instead of another person.

 

 

Summarized.

 

Person A is accidentally imprisoned by the "host" who then extorts $500 to release person A.

 

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of person A? No.

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of the host? Yes.

Therefore, force is being used by the host against person A keeping them imprisoned.

Extorting person A's property for his release is therefore robbery.

 

The "host" would rightly be ostracized by the community. Person A would be justified in taking his property ($500) back from the host by force if it is not returned voluntarily.

 

Is person A really imprisoned though? He is able to get out within a day. Furthermore he was accidentally trapped, which is very unlikely I admit, by the host. The host doesn't  prevent Person A from escaping his current situation. He does however refuse to service Person A for free. But you'll probably argue that the host is responsible for his actions even if it wasn't his intent. In that case it doesn't matter whether he was imprisoned or not since the host is still responsible for any disadvantage person A receives.

 

More interesting is a scenario in which person A traps himself or is trapped by a third party. Would that be a voluntary exchange if all other factors remain the same?

Or would the location need to change on neutral ground, let's say a public restroom with a broken lock, for it to be a voluntary exchange?

Or is something else making it involuntary?

[dsayers]

What do you think would change if Person A accidentally locked himself inside the basement?

I don't think how it came to pass is relevant. B invited A over and A's presence in the basement did not create a debt to B. It's B's property and A makes it clear he wishes to leave. If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to alleviate such restraint, he is then deliberately binding A without his consent.

 

This is why it's so important to understand that reason is the seat of self-ownership. B didn't know that not unlocking the door would trap A at first. Once he knows, he is responsible because it's his property.

[Kikker]

 

I don't think how it came to pass is relevant. B invited A over and A's presence in the basement did not create a debt to B. It's B's property and A makes it clear he wishes to leave. If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to alleviate such restraint, he is then deliberately binding A without his consent.

 

This is why it's so important to understand that reason is the seat of self-ownership. B didn't know that not unlocking the door would trap A at first. Once he knows, he is responsible because it's his property.

 

Important is that Person A can get out within a day, he is only temporary trapped (or immobilized). If he trapped himself then person B isn't directly responsible except for owning the basement and the key.

 

By the same logic Person A could walk into an airport and claim he's trapped in the USA because it would take hem years to build a craft an travel to Australia on his own, not even discussing the dangers. Realizing that the country is trapping him, they offer Person A a free flight to Australia.

 

If those situations aren't simular, why?

[EclecticIdealist]

Good summary. What do you think would change if Person A accidentally locked himself inside the basement?

No material change whatsoever.  If on the other hand, the person, trespassed in an area they should not have, resulting in a situation wherein the host would incur a loss to extract the individual from in a timely manner (for example, the guest is trapped inside a time-locked vault that can only be opened ahead of the scheduled time at significant cost), then it would not be unjust to demand payment for an early extraction, since the guest has incurred a cost to his host which the host cannot reasonably be expected to absorb.

[Kikker]

Summarized.

 

Person A is accidentally imprisoned by the "host" who then extorts $500 to release person A.

 

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of person A? No.

Is the imprisonment voluntary on the part of the host? Yes.

Therefore, force is being used by the host against person A keeping them imprisoned.

Extorting person A's property for his release is therefore robbery.

 

The "host" would rightly be ostracized by the community. Person A would be justified in taking his property ($500) back from the host by force if it is not returned voluntarily.

 

(I already responded to your post it disappeared, probably something to do with my account which was validated while the post still needed to be validated by the moderator.)

 

Is Person A really imprisoned though? He can get out within a day. Furthermore the host disadvantaged person A by accident, although I admit this is hard to imagine in the real world. Also the host isn't preventing Person A from escaping. He is willing to lend his hand for a fee. But you would probably argue that any consequence is still the responsibility of the host regardless of his awareness of those consequences. So it wouldn't matter if he was actually imprisoned or not.

 

More interesting is the question whether something changes when the cause is different.

Is it still coercion if person A trapped himself or a third party (person C) trapping him?

Or would you need to change the location to be owned by a third party (a public bathroom with a broken lock) to make it a voluntary exchange?

Or does none of this matter?

 

Personally I think if Person A trapped himself or was trapped by someone else and made a deal with person B who does not own the location then it would be a voluntary exchange. That is because you could argue that being invited to a party implies safe exit from the party with the host held responsible for any preventable hazards.

[dsayers]

Important is that Person A can get out within a day,

Kidnapping for a day is still kidnapping.

[Kikker]

Kidnapping for a day is still kidnapping.

...

You said:

 

 

I don't think how it came to pass is relevant. B invited A over and A's presence in the basement did not create a debt to B. It's B's property and A makes it clear he wishes to leave. If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to alleviate such restraint, he is then deliberately binding A without his consent.

So I put the situation in your sentence then

 

I don't think how it came to pass is relevant. B invited A over and A's presence in the USA-airport did not create a debt to B. It's B's property and A makes it clear he wishes to leave. If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to return A to Australia-airport, he is then deliberately binding A without his consent.

 

I wanted to know if and why those situations aren't similar, because in my mind they are.

In both cases Person A traps himself.

In both cases Person B isn't directly responsible.

So in both cases I argue that Person B isn't obligated to provide that service for free.

[dsayers]

If B doesn't make a reasonable effort to return A to Australia-airport

Strawman. Releasing somebody isn't the same as transporting them somewhere.

[EclecticIdealist]

Is Person A really imprisoned though? He can get out within a day. Furthermore the host disadvantaged person A by accident, although I admit this is hard to imagine in the real world. Also the host isn't preventing Person A from escaping. He is willing to lend his hand for a fee. But you would probably argue that any consequence is still the responsibility of the host regardless of his awareness of those consequences. So it wouldn't matter if he was actually imprisoned or not.

I can't believe you are actually asking this question. Yes. Shall we say that a person in jail for 24 hours is not imprisoned? What about 25 hours? 26 hours? At what point does it become imprisonment? The moment the person becomes aware that the person is locked in the room and can immediately, and without incurring any cost to the host, be released but the host chooses not to without extorting money from them.

 

More interesting is the question whether something changes when the cause is different.

Is it still coercion if person A trapped himself or a third party (person C) trapping him?

Or would you need to change the location to be owned by a third party (a public bathroom with a broken lock) to make it a voluntary exchange?

Or does none of this matter?

It's not a matter of whether the person was intentionally trapped or unintentionally trapped as to once the entrapment has been discovered by an individual capable of effecting their immediate release, it becomes imprisonment if they refuse to immediately release them. It doesn't matter where the location happens to be.

 

Unless the person deliberately trapped them in a third party-owned location for the purpose of extorting money for their release from them, they cannot be considered guilty of wrongful imprisonment. Nevertheless, such a person is morally obligated to at least attempt to let the owners of the property know of the person trapped in their facility, or to alert personnel able to effect their release. In such an instance, the person thus trapped may bear the responsibility for the cost of their release; depending of course upon the circumstances of their predicament (i.e., did they ignore signs warning of the danger, or worse circumvent any contrivance made to prevent entrapment inside (such as breaking into the bathroom in the first place). 

 

Personally I think if Person A trapped himself or was trapped by someone else and made a deal with person B who does not own the location then it would be a voluntary exchange. That is because you could argue that being invited to a party implies safe exit from the party with the host held responsible for any preventable hazards.

I would tend to agree with this; however, person B should be considered under a moral obligation to inform the host of the party of person A's predicament; especially if not willing to assist person A personally without the aforementioned extortion of money.

[Kikker]

I can't believe you are actually asking this question. Yes. Shall we say that a person in jail for 24 hours is not imprisoned? What about 25 hours? 26 hours? At what point does it become imprisonment? The moment the person becomes aware that the person is locked in the room and can immediately, and without incurring any cost to the host, be released but the host chooses not to without extorting money from them.

 

It's not a matter of whether the person was intentionally trapped or unintentionally trapped as to once the entrapment has been discovered by an individual capable of effecting their immediate release, it becomes imprisonment if they refuse to immediately release them. It doesn't matter where the location happens to be.

Imprisonment is a matter of intent. You ask me from which time frame something is imprisonment, I can ask you when something isn't imprisonment. When there is a locked door but Person A has a key, a normal person wouldn't call this imprisonment. However if person A takes 30 seconds to open the door, person B (host) takes 10 seconds to open the door and Person A asks Person B to open the door for him, Person B refuses, then it's technically also imprisonment. There is always a cost to any action taken, so your argument is a utilitarian statement about when a cost is or isn't significant. A definition in which your situation of being a prisoner or being trapped is depended on the time it takes you to free yourself vs the time it takes for others to free you, isn't a sensible one.

 

So I would say that until Person B actively prevents Person A from escaping his undesired situation Person B isn't imprisoning Person A. Inaction isn't imprisonment.

 

That doesn't take away the argument that not helping someone who is trapped within reasonable bounds is immoral.

 

Unless the person deliberately trapped them in a third party-owned location for the purpose of extorting money for their release from them, they cannot be considered guilty of wrongful imprisonment. Nevertheless, such a person is morally obligated to at least attempt to let the owners of the property know of the person trapped in their facility, or to alert personnel able to effect their release. In such an instance, the person thus trapped may bear the responsibility for the cost of their release; depending of course upon the circumstances of their predicament (i.e., did they ignore signs warning of the danger, or worse circumvent any contrivance made to prevent entrapment inside (such as breaking into the bathroom in the first place). 

 

I would tend to agree with this; however, person B should be considered under a moral obligation to inform the host of the party of person A's predicament; especially if not willing to assist person A personally without the aforementioned extortion of money.

 

So person B warns Person C and proposes a deal to Person to free him quicker than Person C can, for a price. Is it voluntary?

Or simply a property which has the warning "enter at own risk".

[Kikker]

Strawman. Releasing somebody isn't the same as transporting them somewhere.

Yet they are both acts of removing an obstacle in order to accommodate the will of Person A. In the example I changed the obstacle from a locked door to a vast amount of space and/or a body of water.

[dsayers]

Yet they are both acts of removing an obstacle in order to accommodate the will of Person A. In the example I changed the obstacle from a locked door to a vast amount of space and/or a body of water.

Still a strawman. Pointing out one way they are the same doesn't negate all the ways that they're different, including the one that matters here.

[Kikker]

Still a strawman. Pointing out one way they are the same doesn't negate all the ways that they're different, including the one that matters here.

It would help if you actually say what matters.