So to Jon, perhaps I have a different definition of ontology than you (computer science version), but we are talking about a structure of elements that are objective to us, that lead to our preception right?
JC, I think what you are asking is, is it possible to steal from someone who actively denies property rights by their actions. So stealing is the property transfer between two parties, the legitimate owner to the illegitmate owner. For this we require restitution to rebalance things as best we can. The taking of a thugs gun, is certainly a valid form of resititution since it at least stops present predations. I would not call this stealing. To me the word stealing implies immorality just like the word murder.
OK, so, because I think that taking the antibiotics for my child is the right thing to do, I won’t call it stealing. Then it won’t fall under your definition of things that are always wrong.
See, I thought we were having a debate, where we were trying to establish whether stealing was always wrong. However, since you have built into your definition of the word stealing that the taking must be wrong, then I was mistaken. Instead, the debate is whether taking the food is stealing. However, I might suggest that loosening your definition, such that stealing means any taking without the permission of the current possessor/claimant is stealing, will make this debate more comprehensible to the general reader.
Ontology is better known as metaphysics, the branch of philosophy dealing with what entities might exist &c. The arguments are not scientific, they are pre-scientific, and are based more in logic than in observation, as they are in the first place what make observation possible (e.g. time-invariant causation.)
I think it’s more fundamental than that. It’s whether the initiation of force is ever morally justified. You could very well rephrase the problem to slavery or whatever… For instance, say the magic pill must be personalized per patient. The pharmacist refuses to serve you: would you force him to produce the pill, in order to save your child? And is it a moral act?
Well taking your looser definition of what stealing is, I think black sheep has a valid point. When you classified that person as an oppressor he was clearly defined as the initiator, to which actions of defense/restitution could be applied. Its not so much the permission of the current possessor, but the rightful owner. Now you were careful to say that the oppressor first justly acquired his gun. The moment he begins to oppress he denies the existence of a legitimate owner to anything, so taking his gun is fine.
Well, sure, the initiation of force, we can put it that way. I have held, both here and in the Animal Rights thread, that there are circumstances other than self-defense where the use of force is appropriate. But, in this circumstance, we’re talking about stealing (or taking, as you prefer) pills for a sick child. We have just seen an argument that it is okay to take from someone who displays a willingness to violate property rights. Because two wrongs make a right?
JC, you should know that eliding “violating the principle from which property rights derives” into “doing something you disagree with” is a cheap and disengenuous ploy. I was beginning to think that you were beyond that kind of thing.
JC its not that two wrongs will make a right, I doubt that is possible. I was just saying that when a thief voids someones property rights they also void their own to the same degree. Just in the interest of fairness, not personal preference. As you noted restituion is far from a simple thing, it could easily become a second wrong. If a parent says I hereby deny this pharmacy the right to these pills because I see a better purpose, and that is considered moral. Then they must also consider the pharmacist taking them back immediately to be moral as well as anyone else who believes they see a better purpose for those pills. But note this is not what they believe. They believe they can take the pills and then KEEP them or else why would they steal? Very inconsistent right?
I tend to deny the idea that value is utterly subjective. If one person has the motivation, “I have no money and my child, to whom I have an obligation, will die without this medicine and the pharmacy won’t trade it for anything I have available.” and the other has the motivation, “If I sell this medicine to someone who does, in fact, have the money to pay for it, I can go get that new DVD I’ve been wanting.”, I’m sorry, but I think it can be well established that one’s need is more dire than the other’s. I know this sounds socialistic, but I’ve said that I don’t believe government agents have a right to do this for you.
But most of us have already acknowledged we would attempt to act on this opinion by force, whether we are willing to say it’s right or not. Therefore, all I am is stating that my beliefs are consistent with both my and your actions, while you insist that you believe differently from how you would act.
This is getting repetitious, but the reply to that is to remember that if you do it by breaking into MY house, I WILL shoot you. And hopefully you’ll go to your grave knowing that I had every right to do so.
I agree that you have a right to do so, but what that means is that we have competing rights, not that one of us is wrong. And, thus, if I were on a jury, however that conflict turned out, I would convict neither party.
That statement is morally incoherent. It’s right for you to rob me, and it’s right for me to stop you using lethal force. It appears that you’re confusing, “I will do X,” with “X is morally right.”
My proposition is that a person’s actions are more representative of his (forgive me for using the traditional male, ladies) true beliefs and morals than his words. Thus, if his words and actions are in conflict, than we should take his actions as the true statement. Y’all haven’t even buckled under the weight of the immediate decision, no, you acknowledge even before that terrible choice comes about that you will act contrary to your stated beliefs.
Everyone always acts as they want to act, and people always want to act as they think they should act, regardless of what lies they tell themselves to satisfy their particular cultural shame. A person who matched the ethics you state would in fact value the property of others over the life of his child, and therefore would not steal. Psychology is complex, isn’t it?
Morals aren’t just pretty words. They only have meaning when they govern your actions. You may like the way the non-aggression principle sounds, and you certainly don’t want to be aggressed against, but when the rubber hits the road, you would be as willing to steal as a statist. Indeed, by the actions you acknowledge, you admit that as a practical matter, you would support the state for some things.
That’s leading you to confusion. By your reasoning, it’s always an oxymoron to say, “I just did something immoral.” You’re trying to do with ethics what economics does with preferences. It’s badly misguided.