From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 15:13:36 MST
James Rogers [mailto:jamesr@best.com]
Wrote:
Survival is not a binary state. Are you trying to increase
the average
survivability of all humans, or making sure that all humans
survive
minimally? Having everyone "win" could very well mean that
no one wins.
### To clarify your question - I am assuming you mean
"increase in average survivability" as a change in the average of some
measure of survival (e.g lifespan), with no effort to reduce the standard
deviation and with some persons finding themselves at the far lower end of
the distribution (the libertarian way). "Making sure that all humans
survive minimally" is then trying to reduce the standard deviation,
regardless of whether it improves the average (the egalitarian solution).
If you mean it this way then as a survival maximizer I want
to be a part of a society where persons who prove their willingness to
survive by appropriate actions (e.g. working, getting insured) will have
both a high average survival and a low likelihood of finding themselves far
away on the lower end of the distribution curve. This is not compatible with
the egalitarian solution (which tends to pull up some people but drags down
too many) but not quite the libertarian way, which in the strict sense
accepts nice folks falling through the cracks.
In practical terms, there might be a minimum standard of
survival (e.g. assured 1500 kcal of food/day, shelter - the poorhouse about
which I wrote on the list last year), as long as it is physically possible
to provide it, even if it means using taxation to do it. In the medical
access case above, a minimal standard of access (to paying customers) could
be mandated, even if it would mean forcing some persons to share a waiting
room with those he/she despises. But then on the other hand, the threat of
physical violence and death inherent in taxation or state regulations is
unacceptable if used for purposes other than saving innocent lives. You
can't take somebody's property for the sake of "justice", "equality",
"affirmative action", etc. and this is an objective standard for judging the
ethics of state action.
I feel morally comfortable with such coercive interventions
- the survival wish of an innocent person is the highest value I recognize,
and disregarding other wishes is in certain limited situations acceptable.
-------
And what is an "innocent human" in the context of survival?
### Now this is the word into which I squeeze all the
complicated issues in my ethical system.
"Innocent" means here "not guilty of intentional
infringement on the survival-wish of innocent persons". A child is born
innocent. If you murder somebody, you are as far from innocent as possible -
you are evil. I do not recognize the survival wishes of such entities. If
you use violence or the threat of violence (including state violence)
against an innocent person, you lose some of your innocent status. E.g. you
are poor but not in danger of dying. You want to have cable TV. You vote for
a politician promising to tax the rich to deliver it to you. You are no
longer innocent.
Let's say you demand food stamps because you say you have
only a few thousand $/year and not enough money for food, impacting your
survival. When you get the stamps, you use some of your income to pay for
cable. You are not innocent because in effect you demand others to
subsidize your lifestyle, not merely survival.
Let's say you could work sweeping the streets but you don't
feel like it. To avoid starvation you come to the poorhouse. You are not
innocent - you could survive on your own but you prefer to use the state
system of extortion.
Let's say you are filthy rich. An act of war displaced many
persons who were uninsured despite honestly trying to (you usually can't get
an insurance covering acts of war). With your cronies you thwart a motion in
congress to provide life-saving shelter and food for them at your expense.
You are not innocent - you value your property above the lives of innocent
persons.
A landslide destroys homes and livelihoods. The homes were
not insured because of the landslide risk but their owners bought them
anyway. Now they ask for state help to rebuild at your expense. You refuse.
You are innocent. It was their fault.
Let's say an epidemic sweeps the country. Thousands of
persons who chose to buy a car rather than health insurance are now
clamoring for help. You refuse and they die miserably, although there is
enough medication to help them. You *are* innocent! They died because of
their own negligence. They were guilty by hoping to use violent extortion to
pay for their mistakes.
There are two persons on a sinking ship and one life vest.
One of them grabs it, depriving the other of the means of survival. He is
guilty - infringing on the life-wish of an innocent person is wrong, even if
needed to save your own life. He should be shot for his crime.
But let's say both of them agree to a knife fight, a coin
toss or other means of assigning the vest. The winner is innocent even if
splattered with blood.
What if they can't decide who should have the vest, and both
drown? Well, they are innocent, and stupid, too.
I might need to use more such examples to better describe
the multidimensional shape that is the concept of innocence but I hope you
are getting a flavor for it. It does imply nonviolence, responsibility for
yourself, caring for others, and other elements.
Let me reiterate my moral axioms:
1 Innocent life wish may not be thwarted.
2 Truth may not be denied except to serve 1
3 Freedom may not be infringed, except to serve 1 and 2
Practical applications of these axioms yield in my mind a
system resembling a soft-core form of libertarianism.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:03 MST