Borderline lifeboat situations

[tommyedison 0]

In lifeboat situations, for example living under a dictatorship, men are justified to use force in order to leave the country.

In ordinary situations, for example, living under a relatively rights respecting nation, men would not be justified to use force to leave that country for a better (freer) country.

What about borderline lifeboat situations? For example, would a German have been justified to use force (if he needed to) in order to leave Germany and enter a freer country in the early 1930s when dictatorship had not been imposed but the Nazis were gaining power?

Or if a country is pushing efforts for censorship, would a person be justified in using force (if necessary) to leave that country?

[tommyedison 0]

I would like to add that by censorship in my second example in the previous post, I mean censorship of every type of content (political messages, messages "dangerous" to a country's image, etc.) and not just censorship of sexual material.

[Paul's Here 0]

In lifeboat situations, for example living under a dictatorship, men are justified to use force in order to leave the country.

In ordinary situations, for example, living under a relatively rights respecting nation, men would not be justified to use force to leave that country for a better (freer) country.

What about borderline lifeboat situations? For example, would a German have been justified to use force (if he needed to) in order to leave Germany and enter a freer country in the early 1930s when dictatorship had not been imposed but the Nazis were gaining power?

Or if a country is pushing efforts for censorship, would a person be justified in using force (if necessary) to leave that country?

What do you mean by "using force" and why would it be called a "borderline case"? You need to give more details. A person would typically try to escape, so I'm not sure what force is required that you're referring to. Do you mean killing someone who might prevent you from escaping? In that case, the answer is clearly "yes" and there is no borderline case.

[tommyedison 0]

What do you mean by "using force" and why would it be called a "borderline case"?

Country A is looking to establish censorship.

If someone stops a citizen of country A from emigrating, would the citizen be justified in using force against that "someone" to get out (i.e. before the situation in country A has turned into a lifeboat situation) or is that use of force only justified if country A has already collapsed into a dictatorship (i.e. after the situation in country A has already turned into a lifeboat situation)?

By lifeboat situation, I mean a situation where no moral choices are possible due to the introduction of the use of force.

[Dufresne 0]

If someone stops a citizen of country A from emigrating, [...]

By what means does that someone stop the citizen from emigrating?

[Paul's Here 0]

Country A is looking to establish censorship.

If someone stops a citizen of country A from emigrating, would the citizen be justified in using force against that "someone" to get out (i.e. before the situation in country A has turned into a lifeboat situation) or is that use of force only justified if country A has already collapsed into a dictatorship (i.e. after the situation in country A has already turned into a lifeboat situation)?

Would that "use of force" guarantee that the emigrant actually gets out of the country and would the country they are immigrating to accept that person if it were known what had happened?

My answer would be yes, as long as the level of force was appropriate to the obstacle, and that the use of force would not affect the person's getting into the country that he wants to.

By lifeboat situation, I mean a situation where no moral choices are possible due to the introduction of the use of force.

I still don't see how this is a lifeboat situation. Just because force is being used, doesn't mean that no moral choice is involved. It is moral to use force when confronted with the initiation of force.

[Amund Farberg 0]

If force is required to leave a country then I assume someone is already applying force to keep you from leaving - in which case retaliatory force applied to leave the country would be justified. As Paul's Here already stated, this can be no borderline case.

[RationalBiker 0]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but when Ayn Rand referred to "lifeboat situations", she was referring to emergencies. She described emergencies as follows;

An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men's primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry !and, to put out the fire, etc.).

By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.

- TVOS - The Ethics of Emergencies, both quotes.

In what way does "living in a dictatorship" fit this criteria? I realize that she is not limiting emergencies to natural phenomena, but choices still exist while living in a dictatorship (though limited) and even when borders are guarded by men with guns. As has happened many times, folks who lived in dictatorships have been able to escape by evading guards, sneaking past them as opposed to challenging them with force. The "lifeboat" situation only arises in that context when one is actually faced with the muzzle of the gun. The fact that the borders are guarded does not make every attempt to cross them a "lifeboat" situation.

[Paul's Here 0]

If force is required to leave a country then I assume someone is already applying force to keep you from leaving - in which case retaliatory force applied to leave the country would be justified. As Paul's Here already stated, this can be no borderline case.

Just curious as to how you interpret what the issue of "borderline case" actually refers to.

[Paul's Here 0]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but when Ayn Rand referred to "lifeboat situations", she was referring to emergencies. She described emergencies as follows;

- TVOS - The Ethics of Emergencies, both quotes.

Yes, you're correct.

In what way does "living in a dictatorship" fit this criteria?

It doesn't in my opinion.

I realize that she is not limiting emergencies to natural phenomena, but choices still exist while living in a dictatorship (though limited) and even when borders are guarded by men with guns. As has happened many times, folks who lived in dictatorships have been able to escape by evading guards, sneaking past them as opposed to challenging them with force. The "lifeboat" situation only arises in that context when one is actually faced with the muzzle of the gun. The fact that the borders are guarded does not make every attempt to cross them a "lifeboat" situation.

Also, the lifeboat situation applies when the nature of the emergency requires that initiation of force be used to preserve one's life. For example, if you and someone else are on a boat in the middle of the ocean and the boat is only big enough for one person, how do you decide who stays and who goes overboard? As difficult a choice as this would be, if I'm the one with the gun, it's not going to be me. In normal life, these situations just don't come up in terms of ethical choices, which is the reason why lifeboat situations should NOT be used as a basis for ethical discussions. Even within emergency situations, this type of situation is rare. Emergency situations can only be discussed within the context of an ethical code already defined for normal life.

A real life example of this was in the World Trade Center incident. I was listening to recent stories about the people trapped on the top floors. Many people who were inside were rushing to get to the windows to get air. Many people who were already at the windows were being pushed out by the people behind them who were trying to breathe.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

As has happened many times, folks who lived in dictatorships have been able to escape by evading guards, sneaking past them as opposed to challenging them with force. The "lifeboat" situation only arises in that context when one is actually faced with the muzzle of the gun. The fact that the borders are guarded does not make every attempt to cross them a "lifeboat" situation.

Regardless of what name you use, do you not think that it is proper for a man living under a dictatorship to take whatever actions are necessary to secure his freedom? If it is safer to kill the guard than to attempt sneaking around him, do you propose that the freedom-seeker take the added risk? If you do not want to call it a "lifeboat" situation, then what name do you use to justify the sacrifice?

[RationalBiker 0]

Regardless of what name you use, do you not think that it is proper for a man living under a dictatorship to take whatever actions are necessary to secure his freedom?

Of course. Nothing I said could logically be construed otherwise. I was merely pointing out that the broad idea of "living in a dictatorship" does not constitute an emergency situation as described by Ayn Rand. I was also trying to illustrate out that not every attempt to cross a border is an emergency situation. Evading a guard may easily mean you could be MILES from the nearest checkpoint, not three feet away from them.

If it is safer to kill the guard than to attempt sneaking around him, do you propose that the freedom-seeker take the added risk?

Please explain how you derive this question from my comment.

If you do not want to call it a "lifeboat" situation, then what name do you use to justify the sacrifice?

Justify what sacrifice? Who is talking about sacrificing anything????

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I was merely pointing out that the broad idea of "living in a dictatorship" does not constitute an emergency situation as described by Ayn Rand.

As I recall Miss Rand says that it is, in the Q & A of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech. I don't have the time now to dig out the exact quote, but perhaps someone else who has that speech can do so. It is in the same section where Miss Rand said that in an emergency she probably would not kill an innocent person for her life, but she would kill 10 innocent people for the life of her husband.

[RationalBiker 0]

As I recall Miss Rand says that it is, in the Q & A of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech. I don't have the time now to dig out the exact quote, but perhaps someone else who has that speech can do so.

Okay. That would appear to me to be inconsistent with the quote that I provided from TVOS. I'll see if I can find it to read the context myself.

That said, I'm still curious as to why you thought I was even hinting at sacrificing anything or that I think the person should expose themself to increased risk in their escape. I'm guessing you probably don't read much from the other forum, but I have specifically argued AGAINST being obliged to take increased risks when in emergency situations (the discussion dealing specifically with being confronted by an armed attacker).

[Paul's Here 0]

As I recall Miss Rand says that it is, in the Q & A of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech. I don't have the time now to dig out the exact quote, but perhaps someone else who has that speech can do so. It is in the same section where Miss Rand said that in an emergency she probably would not kill an innocent person for her life, but she would kill 10 innocent people for the life of her husband.

This is an example of what I call "lifeboat questions" -- ethical formulations such as "What should a man do if he and another man are in a lifeboat that can hold only one?" First, every code of ethics must be based on a metaphysics -- on a view of the world in which man lives. But man does not live in a lifeboat -- in a world in which he must kill innocent men to survive.

.... But suppose someone lives in a dictatorship, and needs a disguise to escape. If he doesn't get one, the Gestapo or GPU will arrest him. So he must kill an innocent bystander to get a coat. In such a case, morality cannot say what to do.

Under a dictatorship -- under force -- there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where the gun begins. Personally, I would say the man is immoral if he takes an innocent life. But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right -- subjectively. Two men could make opposite choices. I don't think I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger; I think I could kill ten if my husband's life was in danger. But such situations could happen only under a dictatorship, which is one reason not to live under one."

[Paul's Here 0]

The emergency situation that Miss Rand was discussing was escaping from a dictatorship, not living under one.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

That said, I'm still curious as to why you thought I was even hinting at sacrificing anything or that I think the person should expose themself to increased risk in their escape.

The following is what raised that possibility in my mind:

As has happened many times, folks who lived in dictatorships have been able to escape by evading guards, sneaking past them as opposed to challenging them with force. The "lifeboat" situation only arises in that context when one is actually faced with the muzzle of the gun.

[bold added]

I wondered if you were saying that, if you have a choice of evasion, you should always try evasion first, but then if you were actually, directly facing a gun, up close, then it is okay to kill the guard.

I see now from your statement in the first post I've quoted, that you were not hinting at sacrifice in the form of taking extra risks.

[RationalBiker 0]

The following is what raised that possibility in my mind:

[bold added]

Okay, fair enough. I was merely contrasting different methods of leaving the dictatorship, by force or by avoiding guards (not dictating which choice should be chosen), one which is not an emergency and one which is an emergency. I would agree that the method which provides the best opportunity for success would be acceptable even if that means mowing the guard down in a hail of bullets. Personally speaking, I would generally seek the path of least resistance.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

As I recall Miss Rand says that it is, in the Q & A of her 1968 Ford Hall Forum speech. I don't have the time now to dig out the exact quote, but perhaps someone else who has that speech can do so.

Okay. That would appear to me to be inconsistent with the quote that I provided from TVOS.

Miss Rand was not being inconsistent. You can think of a dictatorship as an extended emergency situation, an emergency situation instigated over time by perpetual threat of force by the dictatorship, an emergency situation for which there is no morality.

That said, I'm still curious as to why you thought I was even hinting at sacrificing anything or that I think the person should expose themself to increased risk in their escape.

You originally said:

In what way does "living in a dictatorship" fit this criteria [of being in an emergency]? ... As has happened many times, folks who lived in dictatorships have been able to escape by evading guards, sneaking past them as opposed to challenging them with force. The "lifeboat" situation only arises in that context when one is actually faced with the muzzle of the gun. The fact that the borders are guarded does not make every attempt to cross them a "lifeboat" situation.

Your words here do not accept a dictatorship as an emergency sutuation, and only acknowledge the legitimacy of using force to escape if you are literally "faced with the muzzle of the gun." Acting that way would be a sacrifice, when, for instance, a safer way might be to remove the threat of force without first being confronted with the muzzle of a gun.

[Paul's Here 0]

------------

Your words here do not accept a dictatorship as an emergency sutuation,-----------

Where does that get implied from what Rand said in the above quote? The context of what she stated pertained to the issue of escaping from a dictatorship that is the emergency situation and that no morality applied if that was one's goal. Are you implying that if someone lives in a dictatorship, it is OK to just kill the landlord's daughter when she comes to collect the rent on the house that one is living in? Perhaps if she were preventing you from escaping or was going to report one to the police for some infraction, but how is simply trying to live an "extended emergency situation"? As Rand stated, "personally, I would say the man is immoral if he takes an innocent life."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Your words here do not accept a dictatorship as an emergency sutuation [sic]...

Where does that get implied from what Rand said in the above quote? The context of what she stated pertained to the issue of escaping from a dictatorship ...

I take "escaping" as just an example, with "Under a dictatorship -- under force -- there is no such thing as morality" as the general statement. The issue is not just killing in order to escape, but lying, cheating, or any of a number of other actions would be proper in support of maintaining and protecting your life under the force of a dictatorship.

[RationalBiker 0]

Your words here do not accept a dictatorship as an emergency sutuation, and only acknowledge the legitimacy of using force to escape if you are literally "faced with the muzzle of the gun." Acting that way would be a sacrifice, when, for instance, a safer way might be to remove the threat of force without first being confronted with the muzzle of a gun.

What I said did not "only acknowledge the legitimacy of using force to escape if you are literally "faced with the muzzle of the gun"". Rather, it spelled out the facts of reality that not every escape attempt necessitates the use of force, that there are alternative methods of escape that do not have to involve being in or placing one's self in an emergency situation. What I said does not in any way advocate one method over the other, nor does it judge one method to be morally superior to the other. And as I further clarified, I would advocate the method most likely to succeed such dictatorship.

However, I still disagree that "living in a dictatorship" necessarily constitutes an emergency situation based on Rand's description, (which I agree with), though "living in a dictatorship" is certainly going to give rise to a higher frequency of encountering emergency situations at the hand of the government (and probably the citizenry as well).

[Paul's Here 0]

Where does that get implied from what Rand said in the above quote? The context of what she stated pertained to the issue of escaping from a dictatorship ...

I take "escaping" as just an example, with "Under a dictatorship -- under force -- there is no such thing as morality" as the general statement. The issue is not just killing in order to escape, but lying, cheating, or any of a number of other actions would be proper in support of maintaining and protecting your life under the force of a dictatorship.

Oh, I see what you're referring to. The general principle applies in any instance where force is being used, not just under a dictatorship. It's like lying to the IRS or a criminal in any way possible (without getting caught) in order to keep more of one's own money. The principle also recognizes that force is not a normal way of living for humans.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Your words here do not accept a dictatorship as an emergency sutuation, and only acknowledge the legitimacy of using force to escape if you are literally "faced with the muzzle of the gun." Acting that way would be a sacrifice, when, for instance, a safer way might be to remove the threat of force without first being confronted with the muzzle of a gun.

What I said did not ...

However, I still disagree that ...

Okay. We disagree.

(Note: This post is a duplicate of one posted yesterday. I mistakenly deleted that one when I intended to delete another member's post.)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I take "escaping" as just an example, with "Under a dictatorship -- under force -- there is no such thing as morality" as the general statement. The issue is not just killing in order to escape, but lying, cheating, or any of a number of other actions would be proper in support of maintaining and protecting your life under the force of a dictatorship.

Oh, I see what you're referring to. The general principle applies in any instance where force is being used, not just under a dictatorship. It's like lying to the IRS or a criminal in any way possible (without getting caught) in order to keep more of one's own money. The principle also recognizes that force is not a normal way of living for humans.

Right. A dictatorship establishes the threat of force as the normal, as the general context of living. Such a context is, fundamentally and pervasively, anti-life, and therefore not conducive to morality.

And, while the criminal analogy is valid, I would not accept "lying to the IRS" as being analogous, at least not in our current society. Although we are a mixed society, we remain a fundamentally rights-respecting nation, and as such we should be law abiding, whether or not we agree with the particular law.