A prudential analysis can’t rule out the possibility that in an emergency, the best (perhaps all) solutions may violate someone's rights. But the right which is absolute is the victims' right to dispute this, and to demand restitution after the fact at least. Then, if the solution is really an improvement, everyone can be reconciled. The victims can waive their rights ex post, or receive compensation.
This has problems in practice. Two jump out at me. One is the difficulty of getting agreement on the simple facts of the case. The other is that it calls upon the arbitrator to do something like determine the “just price” of the violation. So even if I convince you that the principle is valid, there is no way to implement it perfectly.
But that could be said about the tort system, and what can we do about it? I see it as a choice, we can either think rights are variable during emergencies, or we can think that they are not, even if the emergency necessitates violating them somehow.
I am not really happy with this solution, it just seems better than the two other options.
Just to be clear and out a final rhetorical spin on it, the options seem to be
1) never violate rights, no matter what.
2) violate rights whenever there is a good reason, no need for restitution.
3) violate rights in emergencies, only if accepting liability for restitution of the victims.
J.C. Lester has a rather complicated explanation (too long to include here) how, for example, property owners no longer have the right to exclude trespassers during a natural disaster. I’m not sure whether that is 2 or a separate option.
> if, like Objectivists, you’re both an ethical egoist and a rights-based libertarian.
God alone knows what you mean by libertarian. Rand rejects it as subjective, as meaning anything, as starting politics with an out-of-context "anti-aggression principle." There are Christian, Marxist, conservative ,Pragmatist and probably other varieties of libertarianism.
>Her moral proofs were feeble
In your short-range ,Pragmatist context for rational self-interest. Rand's long-range self-interest is discussed in "Objectivist Ethics" and "Conflicts Of Men's Interests."
The link to the debate is no longer working unfortunately. Do you know if there is another copy of it anywhere? Sounds very interesting.
A prudential analysis can’t rule out the possibility that in an emergency, the best (perhaps all) solutions may violate someone's rights. But the right which is absolute is the victims' right to dispute this, and to demand restitution after the fact at least. Then, if the solution is really an improvement, everyone can be reconciled. The victims can waive their rights ex post, or receive compensation.
This has problems in practice. Two jump out at me. One is the difficulty of getting agreement on the simple facts of the case. The other is that it calls upon the arbitrator to do something like determine the “just price” of the violation. So even if I convince you that the principle is valid, there is no way to implement it perfectly.
But that could be said about the tort system, and what can we do about it? I see it as a choice, we can either think rights are variable during emergencies, or we can think that they are not, even if the emergency necessitates violating them somehow.
I am not really happy with this solution, it just seems better than the two other options.
Just to be clear and out a final rhetorical spin on it, the options seem to be
1) never violate rights, no matter what.
2) violate rights whenever there is a good reason, no need for restitution.
3) violate rights in emergencies, only if accepting liability for restitution of the victims.
J.C. Lester has a rather complicated explanation (too long to include here) how, for example, property owners no longer have the right to exclude trespassers during a natural disaster. I’m not sure whether that is 2 or a separate option.
> if, like Objectivists, you’re both an ethical egoist and a rights-based libertarian.
God alone knows what you mean by libertarian. Rand rejects it as subjective, as meaning anything, as starting politics with an out-of-context "anti-aggression principle." There are Christian, Marxist, conservative ,Pragmatist and probably other varieties of libertarianism.
>Her moral proofs were feeble
In your short-range ,Pragmatist context for rational self-interest. Rand's long-range self-interest is discussed in "Objectivist Ethics" and "Conflicts Of Men's Interests."