And if Tom clearly and unequivocally refused, can you justify Klemm using force to gain entrance?
What makes it more worrisome for Klemm to break in while Tom is home is that Tom would now have to tolerate an intruder in his house while he’s there, whereas when he isn’t home it’s just his stuff that’s affected. As the costs imposed on Tom increase, it becomes less clear that Klemm would be justified in breaking in. If the costs are significant enough, it becomes pretty clear that Klemm wouldn’t be justified in breaking in. The same is true as Klemm’s circumstances become less dire.
The point can be illustrated in the gasoline example if we imagine that now Tom is holding the gasoline, and is about to use it to refuel a generator that he’s using to power his own dialysis machine – he doesn’t use the gasoline for the generator, he will die himself. In that case, it seems obvious that Klemm would not be justified in taking the gasoline. But if Tom is away on vacation, and Klemm needs the gasoline to save himself from a slow and agonizing death at the hands of the insect’s poison, it seems pretty clear that Klemm would be in the clear to use some. There’s not necessarily a point in between where it switches from being okay to being not okay, but it seems pretty clear that it’s not always okay and also that it’s not always not okay.
That’s why it’s a tough example. Even if it wouldn’t hurt Tom in any significant material sense to let Klemm in, and maybe we think he ought to do it, it seems pretty clear that it would hurt Tom in a significant way if Klemm forced his way into his house and refused to leave. But imagine that you’re sitting in Tom’s house when Tom refuses to let Klemm in, and Klemm darts past Tom into the house, curls up on the floor and starts crying, “If I stay out there, I’m going to die! Please don’t make me stay out there! You can tie me up! You don’t have to feed me or anything! I’ll leave as soon as it’s safe! I just don’t want to die!” Would you think that Klemm was the moral monster here? Or would you think that Tom was the moral monster for insisting that Klemm leave?
On revision, just caught this. Another non-sequitur.
Donny you clearly avoid what has stumped you:
I. Is it Tom’s cabin?
A. Yes
-
then it’s Tom’s property
-
then the inquiry is now about repercussions for by answering yes you’ve established it’s Tom’s property, so, now the inquiry is about what ought Tom do.
B. No
-
then you don’t recognize property rights
-
then you are still inquiring about property rights
II. Further steps
A. If yes, then I suggest that thread I previously linked, which I do here again for convenience.
B. If no, then I’d suggest reading up on the various books and essays that provide what natural rights are. Here’s an article to start with.
Which one? A clear yes-no outline provides clarity as to what you are even talking about, but I see you’re in numerous thought dilemmas with answers like “tough example”, etc, etc…
I try less and less to use loaded language like “moral monster”. I do find it interesting that while you argue for a nuanced opinion, you portray all of the arguments as extremist conditions
“sit down and die”,“moral monster”, “evil”, “force him to die”
This might appeal to a softer skulled audience but pages later in this thread, emotive pleas still are not ringing anyone’s bells, and I’m not sure the lurking readership will be swayed either. The sort that are susceptible to this manner of emotional manipulation (unintended I am sure) generally would not be austro-libertarians in my opinion.
Probably works kickass on the people who think that we need higher taxes to feed the poor though.
Danny, I don’t want to treat you like a child, and keep reposting the questions you are not answering, but you seem determined not to give a straight answer.
Are you going to answer my last two questions from earlier this afternoon?
They are both yes or no questions.
We’re in the same boat LS. It’s a sign Donny doesn’t have the answers or unfortunately the knowledge. I linked him some help, not to sound like knowledge is always priority, but in intellectual arguments knowledge helps.
Yes. I’m trying to remember that Danny has a lot going on, and probably a lower time preference for this thread and discussion than I do.
Quite possibly, but when I keep repeating assertions and Danny (forgot it’s with an A) continues on in the thread but skips and comments only on what he wants to focus upon, then he teeters upon intellectual dishonesty. I try though to give the benefit of the doubt. Just difficult when the same assertions and questions are skipped and he keeps on commenting within his own blinders. oh well…[:)]
When Tom is not home, Klemm does not have the ability to plead his case. There is a very real chance that Tom would take pity on Klemm and allow the use of his property, even forgive a broken lock or window, given the circumstances. Klemm is faced with the choice: break in and hope Tom will be forgiving, given the circumstances, or die. This is a much different choice than violate Tom’s rights with certainty or not. When Tom is home, he can provide a clear answer to the question of whether his property rights would be violated by Klemm’s use of the cabin.
Thanks Jack. I was hoping Danny could answer those questions. I was hoping he would answer them as you did.
@Danny, do you agree with Jack’s answers?
Both of you keep insisting that this must be a yes-or-no question that can be answered while abstracting from context. But I think the whole point of Danny’s argument is that in certain contexts our commonsense morality tells us that property rights can be infringed.
So it’s just not a black and white issue between property rights and no property rights. It’s a nuanced issue that depends on context: under normal circumstances property rights cannot be infringed without acting wrongly, but in certain cases (e.g. cabin example) it is not wrong to infringe them.
Lol. Lecturing a soon-to-be philosophy grad student on what to read.
Furthermore, what is the justification for an absolutist NAP in the first place?
No it doesn’t. And plenty of context has been provided. I think you inflate moral value arguments with property rights. Property rights don’t instantly mean repercussions. You’re trying to decide repercussions not property rights. Property rights mean it’s Tom’s cabin. Simple. Now what should happen to the invader is to inquire repercussions. It’s really quite simple.
Didn’t say it had to be wrong. That has to do with repercussions, not a question of who’s property it naturally is (hint: Tom’s).
Ah, yes, and wasn’t it Krugman who won the semi-Nobel Prize. Don’t give me social status as an intellectual effort. It’s not reasonable. You’re more reasonable than that. I’ve seen your posts.
I think peace is better than war. Human nature flourishes in liberty as opposed to violations of liberty. It’s a question of slavery versus freedom. NAP is a moral value that can be conflated with rights (specifically right of liberty).
The “wrong” act is the violation of property rights - to use, and in the example in this thread, actually damage, another’s property. You’re asking if this “wrong” is “justified”, given the extreme circumstances. My answer is that Klemm doesn’t need to justify his (or her? Is Klemm a her?) actions to me, nor you, nor anyone else in this thread. The actions need to be justified to Tom and only Tom. You are correct that the opinion couldn’t possibly be known by the actor, so as i said, it’s a gamble. So then, there becomes two distinct questions:
Do the circumstances make it worth it to Klemm to risk Tom’s possible wrath?
This is a question only Klemm could answer. Were I in Klemm’s situation, or if I were a friend in contact through a mobile phone or something, I would probably risk it or advise risking it, respectively. In all likelyhood, Tom’s wrath will not be nearly as bad as death from exposure.
Do the circumstances make Klemm’s actions worthy of Tom’s forgiveness?
This is a question only Tom could answer. Were I Tom, and I cam to my cabin one cold morning and found Klemm sleeping in my bunk, he’s have a lot of explaining to do. However, given the circumstances, I’d probably forgive as long as Klemm replaced or paid for the broken lock or window. If Klemm turns out to be a she, and an attractive she at that, I may even forgive the damage altogether.
If you assert that Klemm is justified in using Tom’s property after permission was denied, that is, actually told, “No,” to protect Klemm’s right to life, then yes, you are asserting a positive right to life. You are asserting that Tom has an obligation to allow, or no standing to disallow, his property to be used to protect that life. On the other hand, if the right to life is a negative right, then nature is the cause of Kelmm’s misfortune. Tom’s refusal to allow the use of his property to protect Klemm’s life is morally neutral - Tom’s actions are neither save Klemm’s life, nor are they the cause of Klemm’s death. This holds true on the dessert island, as well. The lone castaway is free from another causing his death. Nature will handle that by itself.
Not exactly, for all the reasons I gave in response to Jack’s earlier points.
It’s becoming clear that there’s some sort of disconnect between the way that you guys are thinking about morality and the way I do, not in the sense that we just disagree, but in the sense that you guys are simply not responding to the sorts of reasons that are relevant in the kinds of moral discussions I’m used to having. You keep asking me to answer questions, and then after I answer them, you find a new way to ask the same way to ask the same question and insist that I’ve been dodging your questions.
I’m not interested in going on like this. As far as I can tell, you guys have lost the argument about a dozen times by embracing conclusions that no one except lunatic wingnuts would find even remotely plausible. But obviously that won’t convince you, since you guys are those lunatic wingnuts. And that’s okay; it’s important to be able to talk to lunatic wingnuts.
But I can’t figure out what kinds of reasons you guys are looking for me to offer in defense of my position (besides those which already presuppose your conclusions and would therefore falsify mine). Perhaps it would help if you guys would offer a basic summary of what you take rights to be, and that way we’ll hopefully be able to see why you can’t conceptualize my position. And “offering a basic summary” doesn’t mean directing me to a six page rambling conversation where you think some cool conclusions were reached.
Jack, I think you may be misunderstanding what the term “positive right” means…e.g.
Wow, it’s come to name calling. lol That means you lost. You always know when somebody lost an argument. They become unreasonable.
I made a basic outline. Is it Tom’s cabin? If so, then it’s his property (so the property right has now been established - it’s Tom’s). Now the question is what should Tom (or society) do to the intruder and that’s called repercussions.
It’s really quite simple, but hey, that’s me.