What is it, to be governed?

Post Reply New Topic

From consequentialist point of view, there is no fundamental difference between action or inaction. Inaction with knowledge is still a decision not to act, and making that decision makes one accountable for it, with or without will to harm.

I would argue that the important fact is not the between positive action and action, but between decision and lack of decision, and knowledge and lack of knowledge. Accidentally causing a great harm without knowing that one's action could be dangerous at all is not morally reprehensible; deciding not to help someone is.

No one can be forced to help everyone, but not helping when one is aware that one could make a difference with no cost for oneself is.

I was not talking about CPR. I was thinking more of calling 911 or shouting for help, bystander effect or no bystander effect. I don't see on how conception of freedom apathy to death is defensible.

I don't believe this is purely "opinion" and "beliefs". Although it would need a lenghty exposition, I believe such a situation holds true to any set of belief which thinks good should be promoted and bad should be avoided; not necessarly that it should enforced by the government, mind you. It is a fundamental moral imperative, no matter how it is translated in reality.

Well, I'm talking about the ideal where everyone would voluntarily feel like they should be supporting these things. You can't force someone to feel obligated and nor should you try to, but I still think that people should feel obligated. Mind you, the NHS works off of everyone paying in, and so long as it has majority support then I think that everyone should pay in (correct me if I'm wrong about how the NHS works--I'm unfamiliar with it, as the Canadian health system is slightly different)

You are right, "Inaction with knowledge is still a decision not to act", however this knowledge remains a thought, not an act. Cognition in this regard is not an act, it is an inaction (in the strictest sense that it is a thought, NOT an act), therefore one could only be accountable for it if a society deems it appropriate to punish someone for a 'morally questionable' thought. By your logic if I thought about killing 50 people I should be condemned.



Again you are right, it is morally reprehensible, but a free society cannot punish you for a lack of a decision or knowledge (with regard to helping someone in the context we have been discussing) because the very act of it being a decision means, that by the suggestion you proffer, a society should punish you for what you decide or think. Also by your logic a person who fails to save a life because they choose not to can be punished (or at least morally condemned), but someone who 'accidentally' kills one billion people should not be (or at least not morally condemned because they did not possess the ability of foresight). That may sound hyperbolic but is consistent to what you are proposing.



Of course you don't, and frankly this is an admirable position to take, one I have similar views to, but your logic is being obfuscated by your scruples. That is in no way designed to be a criticism but it is clear that your moral convictions are standing in your way of logic here.



I can partly agree with this. However what you are suggesting is opinion, you use opinionated words such as 'belief', 'believe' and 'think', this is great but you think it's a fundamental imperative to act in this manner, and whilst your opinions remain valid, they are just that, opinions. Whilst I also concede that my side of this is also an opinion, I try to root mine in logic rather than feelings.

I would always help someone out if I even suspected then needed assistance but in a free society, one cannot be punished because they choose not to.

No, because you did not decide to kill them. Your thought had no real consequence.



I believe society should punish, but I am talking about the "morally reprehensible" bit, not about punishment. I think the moral aspect is undeniably truly, but that the need for punishment is an entirely distinct question. Enforcement should be used if it is effective, i.e. if it helps promote good without creating a greater evil. My opinion on enforcement of moral principles is built on fallible data, but the theoretical moral obligation to help others is not; I am discussing the latter. (See below.)



Yes, I would agree with that. By "accidentally", I mean with no knowledge, way to reach knowledge and way to know that more knowledge would be desirable to reach the correct decision. Killing people through carelessness (say, throwing a hammer out of a window) is not defensible.

My extreme theoretical example is this: Say, for reasons unknown, a tile in a building was actually the detonator for a nuclear bomb in a major city (for the sake of argument, you are not in its effective radius). Unless one decided to see under every tile, everywhere, to see if there were a detonator, it would be impossible to know; and it would be unreasonnable to check under every tile in the world. Now, a person steps on that tile, unaware of the consequences. The bombs explodes and kills several million people. That person cannot be morally responsible for that, since there was no way to know the consequence of such a benign act as walking on ordinary tiles. A decision was taken (step on that tile), without knowing the full extent of the consequences (millions of death), and without there being anyway to know there was a consequence.

Of course, the blame could be on the person who put a bomb there, etc., but that is not important. It could be a natural phenomenon or anything, really. The important variables are:
1- absolute lack of knowledge, of reasonable way to reach knowledge or to know more knowledge was desirable;
2- identifiable (more or less direct) causality;
3- absolute negative consequences. (Though ideally for that, it would destroy the planet.)

Another example: Say you life in a tribe entirely isolated from modernity. On a river, you and your friend find a gun. You obviously don't know what it is. While your friend is in line with the barrel, you press the trigger, and your friend dies. The consequences are undeniably negative, but there was no knowledge, no way to reach knowledge or way to know more knowledge was desirable.

However, were you to repeat the experiment on someone else, you would have that knowledge, and should be morally responsible for the consequences. The first time, it killed someone, so you should have shown caution.



No. What I mean is that death is an absolute negative utility to the victim (+ presumably a strongly negative on relatives, etc.), and calling 911 is a minimal cost on oneself. I don't think it can be argued logically that it is proper to choose not to save a life at no morally significant cost. [This, by the way, has been my main point since the beginning. The rest is very secondary.]

However, you are right, I expressed it in a more... emotive way than I wanted. A bad combination of speaking in my second language and of trying to remain concise. By "morally defensible", I mean that I positively cannot think of a moral philosophy that would disagree that help should be provided, even though it can be said that no one should be in practice forced to help, or that lack of help should be punished.


I think it is built from logic. The only mostly dogmatic position or "belief" on which I hold is the fact that moral imperatives should be made around the idea of maximization of global utility. The rest of it is just logic and reason.

It could also be said that I believe that governments should enforce those imperatives in a limited fashion, but that was not my argument at all. I was not talking about laws and practice, I was talking about moral imperatives and theory. I never talked about punishing anyone. It could very well be argued that government ought not to enforce moral imperatives; that does not deny their existence.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 05 Mar 2012, 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

strange that the conversation that has arisen here has nothing at all to do with the quote from m. proudhon that started it...

I take full responsability for that

Government is not love, government is not goodness, government is force.

It is based on the assumption that humans are evil and must be flogged into behaving themselves acceptably.

ruveyn

"By "morally defensible", I mean that I positively cannot think of a moral philosophy that would disagree that help should be provided, even though it can be said that no one should be in practice forced to help, or that lack of help should be punished."

That is the basis of my argument, to whit you now acknowledge (even if in theory and against your moral viewpoint) . As I have previously mentioned, I do wish to be in a society which puts a value on life, with the aid of others being at the forefront of peoples minds should they need it. We agree on pretty much everything apart from, until now, the fact that [above quote].
This whole thread has been a fascinating read and it has been insightful to read varied opinions on this issue. I even brought this up at work, and whilst my co-workers completely agreed with my assessment, it has been interesting to see the other side of the argument.
I cannot imagine a society which does not act in the way you envision. If I was dying in the street then I would certainly expect and want someone to come to my aid, such as yourself, and in return I would expect nothing less of myself than to act in a reciprocal manner. Your heart is not only in the right place but is lodged in the firm conviction that you will aid your fellow man if they are in need.

Thanks again for stimulating my brain, it's been a while

But what is the alternative? Complete lawlessness? You seem to be quite interested in the "evil" part of "necessary evil", but you're glossing over the "necessary" part, about which I was primarily asking. Even Paine conceded that the inability of pure morality to serve as man's guiding compass necessitated a structure for ensuring the security of a society and its people. In a world where all people felt obligated to respect the rights of others to exist, I might see your point about minimizing or abandoning government. But this is not that world.

You talk about eliminating the government as if it is the solution to regaining absolute freedom. But for many within such a system, it would simply be transference of the source of oppression, from a centralized power structure to one's own peers. Are killing you and stealing from you without fear of legal consequence lost freedoms of mine which I even should retain? What are you advocating here, survival of the fittest?

Government keeps the piece. Huge financial disparities, especially if they are marked along cultural or ethnic divisions, tend to cause ugliness and incivility. Groups of humans have made war on and slaughtered / enslaved other groups of humans in order to obtain resources for their benefit and survival since the very beginning of the human race. When humans cease having empathy for those outside their given tribe and conditions get harsh violence becomes the only option for survival.

We who are about to die, salute you.

ruveyn

if we follow m. proudhon's logic, though, huge financial disparities would be mitigated against by a sea change in societies outlook on property, ownership and possession. he saw "castes of masters and wage workers [as] repugnant to a free and democratic society".

he was certainly an interesting thinker.


ruveyn, i am interested to know your thoughts on m. proudhon's ideas in a wider and more general sense. for instance, do you support his philosophy of mutualism? what are your views on his ideas on property?

What is mine is mine and what is his is his.

Anyone who does not know the difference between mine, yours and his is a barbarian savage.

What is mine? Anything I take from wild un-owned nature by my own effort or anything I buy or trade for with either my labor or my possessions is my property. The air in my lungs is mine. The pee in my bladder is mine. The blood in my veins is mine, the skin on my bones is mine. My time is mine.

Not society's, not God's, not the government's but mine.

I am a strict propertarian. Without property one cannot live.

ruveyn

interesting. i think it is quite possible to live without property, although this might just be differences in the limits of our definitions.

i'd be interested to ask whether you value the right of property over the right of freedom?

If one is prohibited from owning property then he/she is not free.

ruveyn

but in another recent thread you said that inventing property was the start of the decline for humanity, to paraphrase you. perhaps you were being ironic or sarcastic, but if not i see a contradiction.

regardless, what i was trying to get at is what you think about proudhon's idea that the right to property impedes on the universal right to freedom. to quote from "what is property",