I thought more about those questions, and I have to revise my ethical system to answer them. I've realized that the "force" part isn't so important, whats important is the "violation" part. Violation can be done with or without force. The way I define violation is using, taking, or destroying someone's property without their consent. A person's most important piece of property is his or her own body, and that should never be taken away. Every evil stems from the violation of one's property, especially one's body. Murder destroys the body without consent, making it a violation. Rape and slavery use the body without consent. Theft takes one's property without consent. If someone initiates violation of another's property, their property can be violated. This is a practical necessity for enforcing this code of ethics.
1] To clarify my abuse question, the problem was: what if it can be shown that I violated someone else's rights because I was abused by a third party when I was a child?
You can only violate the person who initiated violation against you. By violating someone elses rights who is not that person, you are initiating violation, regardless of whether your history of abuse lead you to do it.
2] Surely al-Qaeda were 'provoked' by the violation of the sovereignty of Middle Eastern nations by Western interests?
Sovreignty is irrelevant. What matters is property. It is true that the property of middle eastern people was violated, but whether it was an initiation of violation depends on which case you're talking about. In any case, Al Qaeda cannot initiate violation on innocent civilians. Their violation must be targeted specifically on those individuals responsible for the violation of middle eastern people.
3] If I kill a burglar, is that legitimate because I was simply 'reacting'?
Using the "force" code of ethics, I was really unsure how to answer this one. The burglar isn't really using force unless he happens to be carrying a gun and threatening you. However, he is violating your property merely by stepping onto it without your consent. Just because he steps on your property doesn't mean you can blow him away. I believe the amount of violation used in response must be proportional to the degree of violation that was initiated on you. So if a burglar steals something from you, you cannot kill him. You can physically stop him, turn him into the law and fine him. You could perhaps shoot him in the leg or something. If the burglar is carrying a gun though, that constitutes a threat of extreme violation, so you would be responding in proportion by killing him.
4] If I con someone out of their house, is this not wrong - simply because I didn't use 'force' to do it?
You're right that you don't use force, but you use violation, because the victim did not truly consent. True consent must involve awareness of the results of the agreement. For example, I could consent to eating McDonalds by paying for it, but if it turns out it was poisoned, that was not true consent because I didn't know about the poison.
5] If I injure someone in the course of consensual sex, is that wrong?
No, it is not wrong. By agreeing to sex, you are agreeing to a certain amount of risk associated with the act. Risk includes accidents, but not things done on purpose. If you injured someone on purpose, that was not part of the agreement, and therefore wrong.
6] If I steal someone's home stereo, but don't use any 'force' to do it, is that wrong?
Same as 3.
7] Is counterfeiting wrong?
No, but paying some in counterfeit when they believe it is real is wrong. The person did not consent to being paid in counterfeit, so it is little more than stealing.
8] What about tax evasion? Am I using force?
Taxes are theft. They are an initiation of violation of your property without your consent. Therefore you have every right to evade taxation, and tax collectors should be treated like burglars.
Look. I think the only reason that utilitarianism doesn't work for you is that you are attaching arbitrary standards to it that need not be there. One principle is: "If it is truly wrong, then it should be illegal." And another presupposed standard is: "Actions are right/wrong in and of themselves."
I can't prove those things. They seem to me to be self-evident. I suppose all ethical theories need presumptions.
For this reason, you repeat the murderer thrown in gaol thought experiment. My answer is: the murderer would stay in gaol. Why? Because the murderer reasoned that his actions would have a negative effect and still committed the actions. Assuming there were no mitigating factors.
This would not be true utilitarianism though. True utilitarianism doesn't concern itself with intentions.
You question how we could know the murderer's intent. Yet intent is a part of every developed legal system as it currently stands. It is obviously not 'objective', but it is a reasoned guess. It is a major part of actually determining that a crime took place in the first place. Without intent, most crimes don't exist. And guesses do cut it before the law, because they are exactly what the law is based upon.
True. My ethical system covers intent through what is consented to. Everyone realizes that there is a certain amount of risk involved in everything. Therefore, when they consent to anything, they are consenting to a certain amount of risk associated with that thing. If they decide to walk out on the sidewalk, there is a risk that a car will run them over accidently. If they do get hit, they consented to that risk just by stepping out on the sidewalk. Therefore the car driver isn't at fault, provided it was truly an accident (for example if the brakes stopped working). If the driver intentionally ran over the person, that is wrong because the person did not consent to that when they walked out on the sidewalk.
Of course utilitarianism has problems. Of course making a cost/benefit analysis is difficult. You could, if you wanted to, reduce it to 'units of happiness'. And this would seem to be unreasonable. But, then again, your system needs a quantitative basis too. Should someone who brushes someone else in the street be given the same prison term as someone who punches you half-dead be given the same term as someone who rapes you? If not, then you too are talking in terms of degree. And your system has to allow for 'degrees of violation'. And in the end it will need some sort of quantitative 'measure' of violation, which is no more stupid than any utilitarian quantitative measure. Is it also a failed system?
Making a cost/benefit analysis that accounts for everything is
impossible. I suppose units of happiness wouldn't be too unreasonable, since arbitrary degrees of violation would be necessary in my system. But at least you could be sure of the degree of violation, you can't be sure that the total units of happiness will be greater because of a certain action.
Another 'presupposition' in your system - one that you can't back up, because it is subjective and arbitrary - is the idea that you can't 'wrong yourself'. That each person automatically has sovereign rights. What if, for instance, me starving myself to death makes my mother suffer? Is it not wrong? What gives people the right to 'do what they want' with their own bodies in the first place? Surely they have a duty to maintain certain standards for the community in which they live?
I still stand by the statement that you can't wrong yourself. If wrong means a violation, then you must violate yourself in order to wrong yourself. How is it possible to destroy, use, or take from your body without your consent?
Each person automatically owns their body because they start out controlling it. Your property is what you control. It is only through society that control of your body is given up.
You have to understand the difference between rights and privilages. Your mother does not have the right not to suffer. Making her suffer emotionally is not a violation of her property. She enjoys the privilage of not suffering through the joy that you choose to give her. You can choose to take away that joy you give at any moment. You could do it by killing yourself, being an asshole to her, or any number of ways. That is your right, because you can do anything you want as long as it does not violate the property of others.
No one has a positive duty to do anything. Their bodies do not belong to others, so others cannot force them to do things "for the good of the community" or for any other reason. That is slavery. Whether they think they should help out or not is their decision alone. If they choose to give help, it is out of mercy and compassion, as it should be, not slavery. While mercy and compassion are good qualities, they are not "right" or "wrong." That is like saying politeness is right, and rudeness is wrong. They are desirable qualities, but they should have nothing to do with morality.
- By Tainari88
- By FiveofSwords
- By KurtFF8
- By Puffer Fish