Justification

[Megan 0]

"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz steal the drug?"

This was a post in a discussion board that I was active in. We were suposed to answer the question based on our ethics. Every single other person in the discussion said he should steal the drug, except me. I tried and tried to convince them but they would ignore all my arguments. They just kept saying "Oh, the woman is dying! He needs to steal it." I argued my point with more than enough logical points that anyone who was looking at this question rationally would have agreed. However, the others kept insisting that since the woman needs the drug, it is alright for the husband to steal it. I find myself faced with this type of problem often. I never seem to be able to get the people I argue with to understand. I get frustrated by the fact that so many make decisions based off irrational views and ethics. How do you justify something to someone who won't listen to logic?

[JRoberts 0]

How do you justify something to someone who won't listen to logic?

Simple. You don't. And the reason you don't is because you can't. A person who refuses to listen to logic is out of your reach to communicate with. Sometimes the hardest part about knowing that you are right is accepting that fact in silence. If you do not really value the person (ie., a classmate), then it is best just to stop talking, realize that the person is impervious to reason, and continue on with your life burden-free.

[JRoberts 0]

By the way,

Welcome to the Forum .

[Guest danielshrugged]

How do you justify something to someone who won't listen to logic?

I wouldn't conclude so quickly that the people in question are refusing to listen to logic. In fact, as the question is stated, I agree with them. At least, I don't think there's any commandment forbidding the husband to steal the drug, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences afterwards. No proper moral principle can demand that a man sacrifice such a crucial value. That would be altruism.

[B. Royce 0]

I wouldn't conclude so quickly that the people in question are refusing to listen to logic. In fact, as the question is stated, I agree with them. At least, I don't think there's any commandment forbidding the husband to steal the drug, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences afterwards. No proper moral principle can demand that a man sacrifice such a crucial value. That would be altruism.

I agree. If the alternative is let my top value die, or spend a few years in prison and have her alive, I would steal the drug.

[pianoGeek 0]

Hey, Megan! (It's Aidan.)

I would agree with the other members of the discussion board that Heinz should steal the drug, though probably not for the same reasons. What logic did you use to support your argument?

I've been in your situation more times than I can count. I generally have a very difficult time just "leaving it well enough alone" and abandoning the person I'm arguing with to wallow in their own irrationality. It just doesn't *feel* right... I know that sounds emotionalistic, but what I mean is that it somehow seems excessively cruel to give up oon that person, no matter how much they would deserve that. Sometimes, for me at least, it's difficult to distinguish between intentional irrationality and muddle-headedness resulting from years upon years of having false ethics and false epistemology pounded into their heads.

You should always keep in mind that convincing other people is only so valuable to you, but I don't think there's any value at all in making *no* attempt to penetrate someone's irrationality and make them see reason. You may not be able to force them to wake up, but they're only less likely to wake up if you let up on the pressure and leave them be.

So I would say keep at it for as long as you care to, and give up when you feel your efforts are no longer worth it and you are not really helping. But, after all, the less someone deserves a good talking-to to set them straight, the more they need it. (I'm sure pulling *me* out of a couple holes has taught you this.)

And welcome to the FORUM! I'm having a blast here. Even though I don't post that often. And even though I make a fool of myself sometimes. But everyone's very nice, so that doesn't matter.

Hope that helped,

Ex-o'ist*

*Stephen Speicher helped me to realize recently that this is maybe not the best handle, given my patchy understanding of Objectivism (*Sigh*, I admit it.) To the forum in general: is there a way to change my handle, or do I have to register a new account?

[Ed from OC 0]

I wouldn't conclude so quickly that the people in question are refusing to listen to logic. In fact, as the question is stated, I agree with them. At least, I don't think there's any commandment forbidding the husband to steal the drug, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences afterwards.

1. I agree, and it is important to note the qualification in the last sentence. There may be very rare and exceptional cases, in emergencies, in which it can be moral to violate the rights of others. But, if one is willing to do so, and if one still sees individual rights as an absolute, then one must accept the consequences of doing so. For example, Roark blew up the housing project he designed, even though it was not his property. Yet, he voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities and pled his case in court.

2. Yes, many people make decisions without regard to reason. But I'd keep in mind that people can also make mistakes in their thinking, reach conclusions based on insufficient or wrong facts, and reach conclusions based on facts that you or I may not be aware of. I'd reserve making judgements about people acting out of a rejection of reason for those few, very clear-cut cases in which you and they know the same facts, have seen arguments on both sides, have presented your view clearly, and still see them persist in their views.

Some topics, such as religion, are inherently irrational and people who cling to those views are, well, "out to lunch." If their viewpoint is in principle irreconciliable with reason and reality (such as claims to knowledge based on faith), and the speaker understands that and still protests, then it is time to end the discussion. If someone takes a principled stand against reason or reality (i.e., as a matter of principle, not just an off-the-cuff remark), then there is no way for logic to reach them; they've just told you so.

Yet, as bad as things are today, I don't think the majority of people in America are like that. For those few who are, I won't waste my time. But most people are just plain ignorant of philosophy and an objective approach to abstract, conceptual thinking. The more concrete the issue, the better they tend to handle it; the more abstract and theoretical, the closer their brains become to mush.

So, I've found it wise to have patience when discussing abstract topics, but know where the boundaries are to conversations, that is, at what points further discussion is futile and it is time for you to exit the conversation.

[pianoGeek 0]

Some topics, such as religion, are inherently irrational and people who cling to those views are, well, "out to lunch."

I disagree with this example. I know some very religious people who are very definitely not "out to lunch."

So, I've found it wise to have patience when discussing abstract topics, but know where the boundaries are to conversations, that is, at what points further discussion is futile and it is time for you to exit the conversation.

Right. Sometimes a conversation is getting a little too emotionally heated, or the other party too stubborn, for the discussion to usefully continue.

Sometimes, though, the end of a conversation doesn't signify the end of the discussion. It might also be wise to come back to that person and discuss it with them further, when things have calmed back down. Or not, if they're, like you say, completely "out to lunch."

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Sometimes a conversation is getting a little too emotionally heated, or the other party too stubborn, for the discussion to usefully continue.

A discussion is a verbal interchange between two or more individuals who are seeking a solution to a problem. For example, the Marketing, Engineering, and Manufacturing departments of your company may be having problems coordinating their schedules. Representatives meet to discuss the problem: What is the problem? How can we solve it in a way that works best for the company? Someone makes suggestions. Another person asks questions. Still another person points out possible pitfalls. They are all looking for a solution.

Discussions are never emotionally heated. Debates sometimes are emotionally heated. Power struggles often are emotionally heated. Discussions are not.

Of course, discussions can become debates -- verbal exchanges for the purpose of winning some prize --or power struggles involving psychological or organizational conflicts.

[Ed from OC 0]

I disagree with this example. I know some very religious people who are very definitely not "out to lunch."

I meant that for very religious people, the topic of religion is out of bounds for rational discussion. They take it as a premise beyond question that God exists, and any evidence for or against is irrelevant. OK, that's their view. That means trying to use reason to persuade them otherwise is futile.

Of course, they may compartmentalize and be worth dealing with in different contexts; maybe one of them owns the corner grocery, for instance, and you buy things there.

Then again, maybe I misunderstood your comment. By "out to lunch," I mean substantially irrational, which by definition is something people of faith not only embody, but embrace as a virtue. If that's their wish, so be it, and I'll treat them accordingly. Do you mean that some "very religious people" that you know are rational and reality-oriented?

[pianoGeek 0]

A discussion is a verbal interchange between two or more individuals who are seeking a solution to a problem. For example, the Marketing, Engineering, and Manufacturing departments of your company may be having problems coordinating their schedules. Representatives meet to discuss the problem: What is the problem? How can we solve it in a way that works best for the company? Someone makes suggestions. Another person asks questions. Still another person points out possible pitfalls. They are all looking for a solution.

Discussions are never emotionally heated. Debates sometimes are emotionally heated. Power struggles often are emotionally heated. Discussions are not.

Of course, discussions can become debates -- verbal exchanges for the purpose of winning some prize --or power struggles involving psychological or organizational conflicts.

Thank you for the clarification; my wording was not very careful.

I meant that when a discussion becomes a debate, or a power-struggle, it is no longer useful to go on. However, it may be good to come back and start another discussion later, to continue the topic.

[pianoGeek 0]

I meant that for very religious people, the topic of religion is out of bounds for rational discussion. They take it as a premise beyond question that God exists, and any evidence for or against is irrelevant. OK, that's their view. That means trying to use reason to persuade them otherwise is futile.

The religious people I am talking about are not like this. True, they accept the existence of God as beyond question. That doesn't make discussion of any kind impossible. You should consider that maybe the religious person you are talking to knows something you don't or has experienced something you haven't. Just because *you* see no evidence of a God does not throw the concept into the garbage bin of the "arbitrary," nor does it make that person "out to lunch."

Then again, maybe I misunderstood your comment. By "out to lunch," I mean substantially irrational, which by definition is something people of faith not only embody, but embrace as a virtue.

"Faith" is not the same as "irrationality," and can be defined differently than the way Ayn Rand does, just like a perfecly rational person can use the word "selfish" to describe a bad quality.

If that's their wish, so be it, and I'll treat them accordingly. Do you mean that some "very religious people" that you know are rational and reality-oriented?

As near as I can tell, yes. They are certainly not "substantially irrational."

[adriaticfish 0]

I wouldn't conclude so quickly that the people in question are refusing to listen to logic. In fact, as the question is stated, I agree with them. At least, I don't think there's any commandment forbidding the husband to steal the drug, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences afterwards. No proper moral principle can demand that a man sacrifice such a crucial value. That would be altruism.

I agree. I would steal the drug, and gladly accept the consequences. I would smile all the way to the gallows if that were the result - knowing I saved my wife. Notice I don't claim the right to the drug (for free OR at any price). I simply say I would steal it and readily accept my fate. It seems a simple question to me. There's no way I'm letting my wife die, and prison is a small price to pay to keep her death from happening.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

...is there a way to change my handle, or do I have to register a new account?

If you write to me privately, by email or private message here on THE FORUM, as administrator I can make the change to your account.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The religious people I am talking about are not like this. True, they accept the existence of God as beyond question. That doesn't make discussion of any kind impossible.

It is true that people can, at least for a period of time, compartmentalize their ideas to the extent of making rational discussion possible in some areas, but impossible in others. In ordinary discussion, the key to discerning whether discussion is possible or not is usually related to the degree that the person remains open to reason, or not.

You should consider that maybe the religious person you are talking to knows something you don't or has experienced something you haven't.

To what extent do you advocate such an approach? If someone claims there is a little man inside of your head that controls everything you think and do, is the proper approach towards that someone to consider they know something or have experienced something you have not? Do you not have some standard, or, at least, some minimum requirement in dealing with others before accepting their views as worthy of serious consideration? If so, what is your standard?

Just because *you* see no evidence of a God does not throw the concept into the garbage bin of the "arbitrary,"

In regard to someone stating a proposition, what does "arbitrary" mean to you and how do you apply it?

"Faith" is not the same as "irrationality," and can be defined differently than the way Ayn Rand does ...

Since this is an Objectivist forum, and since Objectivism holds reason as man's sole means of cognition, it is crucial for sustaining any rational discussion on THE FORUM that we all agree on this as fact. If you do not see faith as being opposed to reason, then faith must mean something different to you that it means to most of us. So, for the sake of being able to have any discussion, exactly what do you mean by "faith?"

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Just because *you* see no evidence of a God does not throw the concept into the garbage bin of the "arbitrary," [...]

The word "God" -- like the word Santa Claus -- is a proper name (of a fictious being), not a label for a concept. There is no concept "God."

On the other hand, the word "god" labels a (pseudo) concept, just as "leprechaun" does.

"Faith" [...] can be defined differently than the way Ayn Rand does, [...]

For a long-term project, I collect definitions of faith and reason. How do the religionists you talk to define "faith"?

[ADS 0]

There may be very rare and exceptional cases, in emergencies, in which it can be moral to violate the rights of others.

Wouldn't it be more exact to say that there are some instances where rights simply do not apply? My understanding is that rights are moral principles, and are therefore absolute (inalienable) in whatever context they operate. In lifeboat situations, killing innocents in war, etc., I would argue that the person having force applied against them does not have a moral claim against the force, and therefore does not have a right in that context. To quote OPAR: "A right is a prerogative that cannot be morally infringed or alienated" (351; emphasis in original).

I don't think it makes sense to speak of an alienable right -- i.e., a moral principle that it would be moral to violate.

[Ed from OC 0]

Wouldn't it be more exact to say that there are some instances where rights simply do not apply?

Good question. I'd have to think about it some more.

One question is: whose context are we talking about? What might be an emergency to me may not be for someone else who is involved. Does morality apply or not? I think moral principles do apply, but one might choose to violate them and face the consequences afterward. Of course, if such were the norm, moral principles qua principles would be meaningless, so these contexts are emergencies.

In lifeboat situations, killing innocents in war, etc., I would argue that the person having force applied against them does not have a moral claim against the force, and therefore does not have a right in that context.

I agree, but not all lifeboat situations involve criminal action. A loved one in danger due to an accident might, if no option is available, lead me to commit a crime to save her; for instance, stealing medicine. Yes, I'd pay the price, and yes, the theft would be immoral and criminal; but I'd not regret my choice.

[ADS 0]

"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost.

Is this even a real possibility, absent some kind of force at work behind the scenes?

I'm not sure if it's available anymore, but for a while ARI made an introduction to Objectivism video downloadable for free on their site. In this video, Peikoff said explicitly that, in a free society, the phenomenon of innocent people dying through lack of charity is an "unreal situation": private charity is always forthcoming. And this seems right; has anyone ever heard of the above story coming true, again absent one living under socialized medicine or whatnot? I often hear of people on the news who easily make tens of thousands of dollars by fradulently claiming to have terminal cancer.

Also, Peikoff addresses a virtually identical story to the one Megan referenced in his Ford Hall Forum talk, "Assault from the Ivory Tower: The Professors' War Against America." He brings up other good points that would seem to render this scenario a fantasy, such as the question of why the seller of the drug wouldn't lower his price to make more money. (Although, I should note that in this talk, Peikoff does not say either way whether he thinks this scenario is a real possibility.)

I'm certainly not denying that there are emergency situations where it is proper to steal or kill. But I think it's important to not let these examples be artificially manufactured, in defiance of the facts of reality.

[RayK 0]

I would like to highlight the conversation going on between Alex and Ed.

A moral code is that which one applies to achieve or maintain thier values. So, how could it be considered immoral to keep your loved one alive, as long as you are willing to pay the cost. The cost in this situation is jail time and as long as your loved one is more valuable than your short-term loss of freedom I would say that it is moral.

But, I also agree with Alex in highlighting that this situation would most likely not happen in a capitalistic society. Ayn Rand has talked or written about this many times, that being that emergency situations are not how someone goes about setting a moral or ethical code.

[ADS 0]

Wouldn't it be more exact to say that there are some instances where rights simply do not apply?

Good question. I'd have to think about it some more.

I'm glad you also find the question interesting, as I'd like to think it through more as well.

One question is: whose context are we talking about? What might be an emergency to me may not be for someone else who is involved.

Perhaps this is a good example of what you have in mind (as I do not think the case that Megan provided is valid as stated). Someone who has been stranded at sea for many days finally washes up on land, in a remote area. He needs food so desparately that, after not finding anyone available to help him, he breaks into the nearest house and steals whatever he needs to stay alive. So, here, the person who broke into the house was in an emergency, whereas the homeowner (who we can say was not home at the time) was not. So, the question is: assuming this person was right to break into the house (and I would certainly say he was), did he violate the rights of the homeowner?

In answer, I would still say "no." I don't see how it is either useful or correct to ascribe a right to someone that it would be proper to violate. It still seems the same as two people being in a lifeboat, and one having no option but to kill the other and use him for food in order to stay alive. The person who was killed did not have any rights in that context.

This does raise at least one big question, though. What role does the law play in these sorts of cases? I would definitely say that the man who broke into the house has a legal obligation to make the homeowner whole again, but can this be squared with him not having broken any rights to begin with? Again, I think so. By analogy, the government is not violating the rights of someone that they subpoenia before court, and yet one could plausibly argue that the government (or perhaps the prosecution or the defense) has a legal obligation to pay this person's lost wages (assuming their employer is not already contractually obligated to pay them). And, if the government (or whomever) refused to pay his wages, then they would be violating his rights -- but not a moment before.

Does morality apply or not? I think moral principles do apply, but one might choose to violate them and face the consequences afterward.

But moral principles are defined with reference to what furthers your life. So, can there be a situation where a moral principle applies and tells you to do one thing, but self-preservation demands that you do another? I don't see how.

A loved one in danger due to an accident might, if no option is available, lead me to commit a crime to save her; for instance, stealing medicine. Yes, I'd pay the price, and yes, the theft would be immoral and criminal; but I'd not regret my choice.

Again, why do you describe it as immoral? As for criminal, I think that's a big question: is the aforementioned man who broke into the house a criminal? Should objective law make exceptions for such cases and not prosecute, as long as restitution is provided? And as for restitution, how would that apply to the man who killed his partner in the lifeboat in order to eat him?

Again, I certainly don't claim to have all the answers here, but I hope the above stimulates discussion.

[jedymastyr 0]

At least, I don't think there's any commandment forbidding the husband to steal the drug, so long as he is willing to accept the consequences afterwards. No proper moral principle can demand that a man sacrifice such a crucial value. That would be altruism.

I am not fully satisfied with my analysis on this subject, but I think I have a perspective that's not been addressed yet so I would like to state it.

The relationship the wife is a social relationship--as such, it can only have value in the context of social interactions. A fundamental principle underlying proper social interactions is the non-initiation of force principle. Wouldn't stealing the medicine be violating a fundamental principle on which the wife's value to the husband rests?

In lifeboat situations, you are in a situation where the fundamental principles of ethics do not apply. In this case, you're violating a principle underlying social interaction--for the sake of maintaining a social value.

It seems like a (fallacy of the stolen concept)-type argument.

Note that none of this applies if the woman steals the medicine herself...I am not sure about that at this point.

[Ed from OC 0]

Someone who has been stranded at sea for many days finally washes up on land, in a remote area. He needs food so desparately that, after not finding anyone available to help him, he breaks into the nearest house and steals whatever he needs to stay alive. So, here, the person who broke into the house was in an emergency, whereas the homeowner (who we can say was not home at the time) was not. So, the question is: assuming this person was right to break into the house (and I would certainly say he was), did he violate the rights of the homeowner?

In answer, I would still say "no." I don't see how it is either useful or correct to ascribe a right to someone that it would be proper to violate.

"To violate" -- what? The homeowner's property rights.

Notice that, as I mentioned, it matters to whom the emergency exists. Certainly it is not an emergency for the homeowner, who therefore should expect his rights to be protected. If anyone coming along claims his emergency trumps the rights of others, how is that different from saying that the needs of one person are a claim on the rights of others? Is it just the existence of the emergency? In my view, the stranger is in the wrong, tries to make amends, and accepts his punishment. I see that as the more consistent position. In a just world, his context would be taken into account, and a sentence would be lenient.

The stranger doesn't have the right to trespass. If he respects the rights of others, then he acknowledges that he is in the wrong and accepts the punishment.

This does raise at least one big question, though. What role does the law play in these sorts of cases? I would definitely say that the man who broke into the house has a legal obligation to make the homeowner whole again, but can this be squared with him not having broken any rights to begin with? Again, I think so.

How? I don't see it, if I understand your position correctly.

But moral principles are defined with reference to what furthers your life. So, can there be a situation where a moral principle applies and tells you to do one thing, but self-preservation demands that you do another? I don't see how.

That's partly in the nature of it being an emergency. While the goal is to return as soon as possible to a normal, life-promoting context, that doesn't mean one has carte blanche to do absolutely anything, does it? Surely the nature of the emergency shapes the extent to which the normal rules of morality apply. Lying may be appropriate at the point of a gun, but not if one is starving on the beach. So, I'd argue that emergency situations do not mean morality completely disappears.

Again, why do you describe it as immoral? As for criminal, I think that's a big question: is the aforementioned man who broke into the house a criminal? Should objective law make exceptions for such cases and not prosecute, as long as restitution is provided? And as for restitution, how would that apply to the man who killed his partner in the lifeboat in order to eat him?

Maybe we should stick to one concrete, and the starving-stranger-on-a-beach case is good. If a decent man in such a situation broke into my home and fed himself, then when confronted fessed up and offered full restitution, I don't think I would even press charges. Certainly the legal tradition of ranges of sentences take into account the various contexts. I don't know, though, that there should necessarily be a legal exception, (1) because it is an emergency situation, and (2) because

BTW, do you see a parallel to Roark's dynamiting of Cortland? I do.

(Great discussion, but it's nearly midnight. Arrgh. Well, to be continued...)

[Ed from OC 0]

Posted too soon!

Certainly the legal tradition of ranges of sentences take into account the various contexts. I don't know, though, that there should necessarily be a legal exception, (1) because it is an emergency situation, and (2) because

... I'm concerned about opening a Pandora's box of exceptions, with every defendant trying to claim it was an emergency and therefore he's innocent. But, I'm not a legal scholar, and this implication isn't my main interest in this discussion.

[ADS 0]

"To violate" -- what? The homeowner's property rights.

Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that there was any violation of anything going on. Rather, I was saying that if one posits rights (which I'm currently not), then one is positing rights that it is proper to violate. This still strikes me as a contradiction that I do not see how to resolve. And if you resolve it by saying that the man was immoral when breaking into the house, then this leads us back to the question of how one can be immoral for doing what one needs to do in order to preserve one's life (which I readdress below).

Notice that, as I mentioned, it matters to whom the emergency exists.

I still don't see why.

If anyone coming along claims his emergency trumps the rights of others, how is that different from saying that the needs of one person are a claim on the rights of others? Is it just the existence of the emergency?

Yes. This being an emergency makes it fundamentally different from an altruist who says, "I need food so you have an obligation to feed me."

In my view, the stranger is in the wrong, tries to make amends, and accepts his punishment. I see that as the more consistent position. The stranger doesn't have the right to trespass. If he respects the rights of others, then he acknowledges that he is in the wrong and accepts the punishment.

Okay, but could you provide more argument for this position? I'm still not seeing your justification.

This does raise at least one big question, though. What role does the law play in these sorts of cases? I would definitely say that the man who broke into the house has a legal obligation to make the homeowner whole again, but can this be squared with him not having broken any rights to begin with? Again, I think so.

How? I don't see it, if I understand your position correctly.

Are you asking how I can say that 1) the starving person still has a legal obligation to pay the homeowner back, or 2) that such an obligation does not imply that the starving person violated the rights of the homeowner? I gave the beginnings of an argument for the latter, although I can expand on it if you want.

That's partly in the nature of it being an emergency. While the goal is to return as soon as possible to a normal, life-promoting context, that doesn't mean one has carte blanche to do absolutely anything, does it?

Anything that you need to do to get out of the emergency, sure. It was in this sense that I was saying that normal moral principles (e.g., rights) do not apply. I'm certainly not saying that the starving man can take any irrelevant action he pleases, like going off and finding someone to rape.

So, I again ask: given that we are egoists, how can moral principles point us away from self-preservation? I think this is a crucial question that someone taking your position needs to answer. (And keep in mind that the whole derivation of moral principles is in the context of what we need for self-preservation.)

BTW, do you see a parallel to Roark's dynamiting of Cortland? I do.

In some respects, although I don't see how Roark was under an emergency. Like you said, perhaps we should stick to one example.

(Great discussion, ...

I agree! I really hope we can come to a resolution, as I find this to be a very interesting and very tricky issue.