pug846

Glory said:

No, it’s not. Depraved indifference murder involves doing some affirmative act that shows substantial disregard for human life. If you shoot a gun into a crowd not necessarily trying to kill someone, but do, you could get charged with depraved indifference. If you drove your car 60 MPH on the sidewalk and struck someone, you could be found guilty of depraved indifference. By not doing something, you can’t be charged with a crime unless the law imposes on you a duty. By not giving water to people who are thirsty, you are committing an omission and not an act. You have no duty to save a stranger when you were not involved in the acts that put his or her life in danger. It doesn’t matter how easy it would be for you to save them.

The duress would only come into play in enforcing the contract or if they prosecuted the guy for extortion. If he just hadn’t offered to help, then he would have been fine.

This is pretty much what I had in mind with my quote, but we will go with your restatement.

You then says this:

I don’t get this at all. We shouldn’t have to fork over our property if it is in the form of money, but if it is something more tangible, we should have to give it away? I don’t understand.

I’m not sure how to make this statement consistent with your above criterion that you shouldn’t have to fork over any money. Thousands of children are starving all over the world right now, yet you buy things you don’t really need and your life wouldn’t be all that much more inconvenienced than the guy who would lose some portion of his water supply. Yet, you don’t donate every extra cent you have to charity. Do you think you are committing murder?

I went on a date last night and spent about 40 bucks on the meal and movie. I had a nice time, but it wasn’t all that imperative that I go. I could have used those 40 dollars to feed quite few starving people. I didn’t. Would you like to try me for “depraved indifference” murder? Does it matter that the people aren’t right here starving in front of me?

The standard is much more liberal than you seem to realize and it doesn’t cover the cases you would like it to.
Well, then we are all “monsters,” including yourself. Unless of course you live just enough to get buy and donate all of your “splurge” money to help feed the starving of the world. Somehow I doubt that.

Do property rights ever outweigh the right to “life and liberty?” That is really what we are dealing with here.

Silent Acorns

The problem with using market economic analysis to find a "fair price" is that it assumes at least two things:

1) all costs and benefits are borne by those making the transaction
2) no single party can dominate transactions

The basic difference between economic right-wingers and left-wingers is whether or not they believe these assumptions mirror reality. The right-winger says it's "close enough" while the left-winger says it's "nowhere near".

The desert scenario fails on account of (2). As such, there is no such thing as a "fair market price" in this situation. Simply put, this isn't a proper market.

On a morality level, the desert example presupposes that an individual's property rights superceeds another individual's right to live, and I agree with Glory that such a position is monstrous.

Silent Acorns

Vesica, could you please explain to me what it means to "sometimes" have "absolute soveriegnty"?

99Percent

I am going to start from the opening post.

I had discussed this problem about a year ago with someone else here who was an adept anarchist. At the time I wasn't so clear in my arguments. I am glad that Alonzo brings it up again.

Now, according to a strict property-rights theory, this water belongs to this man, and he has a right to sell it for whatever price he can get. Nobody may legitimately use for or fraud to against him as a means of getting him to transfer his property to those who are less fortunate. The only legitimate means of transaction is the market, and the buyers have a choice to either meet his price or do without.

This is an extreme example of capitalism that seems to put at a crux. I like extreme examples of an ideology because its where you can tests it limits. At first glance it would seem to be very unfair. The good predicament of the man who built his little paradise in the middle of the desert and holds a monopoly on all the water there contrasts sharply to those unfortunate airplane crash survivors who are dying of thirst. The man holds all the cards in his hand and he seems to be able to extract all what he wants from the survivors, including sex-slavery for example. But can he really? Would he really want to?

Remember, we are dealing with human beings. And the argument fails because human beings are rational people. We reason. This man can certainly abuse his economic power but it is not on his long term rational self interest to do so. It would be of much greater benefit to him if he finds a fair trade, not an abusive trade with his new companions. He will gain their good will and if he helps them out at the begining these people will produce a lot more on their own which will then they will be able to offer for trade much more valuable things of their own production than raw slave-like labor, because these would be produced out of the good free will instead.

How satisfying can sex-slavery be if you can instead have willing sex partners arising out of being fair and reasonable?

Its all a matter of being reasonable. If you cannot see that people can reason out on their own what is fair and instead think that things must be resolved by force (say by taking the water owned by this man with force) then you cannot see how capitalism can work.

Glory

Legally? Perhaps not. I am not a legislator, a lawyer, or a judge, however. My standards, which are the only ones I can speak of, are different. It is monstrous to let someone die if they don't want to be your slave and it is most definitely depraved. Regardless, I still believe a case for depraved indifference could be made.



If things were different they wouldn't be the same. He did offer to "help".



Our man doesn't have to give up his water and take a loss. He could ask for fair compensation and would very likely get it. In the example given, the man has not asked for fair compensation.



I do what I reasonably can to help others. I can't possibly help everyone so I don't try to do so. Can you not see the difference between the masses of people all over the world and several people dying of dehydration on your doorstep? Saving the passengers is something that could be done only by that man at that time in that place. He has what they need and can get it to them when they need it. I cannot do that for all the hungry people of the world. I do not have what they need, and I cannot get it to them in a timely fashion and I don't mind helping them out but I can't do it by myself. Does your inability to save everyone release you from your obligation to save anyone under all circumstances?





You misunderstand my meaning. I am not a person who goes about saying, "there oughtta be law!". I recognise the trouble caused by trying to legislate morality. That was the point I was trying to make. A moral imperative does not constitute a legal imperative and morality is not limited to the law. That is why I answered the question the way I did. No, the government should not require one to act to save the life of another in all or even most circumstances.



Are you the authority on greed? Or do you just figure that if you aren't forced by the government to help someone it is okay to sit on your assets and let someone die on your doorstep?



Yes, I believe I said as much. I have answered. Would you like to give it a try?

Glory

Glory

I have posited before that immoral behaviour is against self interest.

Personally, I can see how capitalism can work but I have also seen it fail miserably. The fact that it can work does not insure its success. People can be and often are unreasonble.

Glory

Vesica

Vesica, could you please explain to me what it means to "sometimes" have "absolute soveriegnty"?
Hmm. On re-read that does sound a bit schizo. I meant 'Yes an individual can have absolute soveriegnty over a poss/prop...however we can argue enternally what constitutes possession. An individual can not just claim ownership to something and then excersise the rights of said ownership....at least that is what I was trying to get at with the sometimes.

Do property rights ever outweigh the right to "life and liberty"? Specifically can the man charge whatever, fair price or not, for the water the dying people need?

Some questions about this:
1)Is there one fair price? Would it be fair if the man charged everyone 1/4 of the amount they had on them? And those with nothing paid nothing and that guy from first class paid $60??

2) Is any price fair? Surely the passengers would argue that this man should give freely and the charging is crass!

3) Does it change if we learn that some of the passengers are wanted for crimes? Crimes against other people? In its most basic form, are all worth saving by virute of existance?

4) How about if the plane was military and not civilian? If the plane had been spying on the man (who is oddly living in the middle of nowhere)?

5) Does the man really lose nothing by sharing? Is he putting his own welfare at risk by giving of his limited resource (it is water in a desert)? If he had that water carefully budgeted to last him a certain amount of time before the next delivery would he still be morally compelled to share? Even if it meant dooming them all to death, not today, but next week when the water did run out?

Glory

</strong>

Why not simply require that his resource be replaced? I see no reason the guy should make profit.

</strong>

Surely? There is nothing in the scenario which indicates the passengers are assholes.

</strong>

I don't feel it's my place to make that judgment nor do I think it is the guy's place.

</strong>

If the passengers are not passengers? Soldiers are doing a job and are not the man's true enemy in this scenario. They don't deserve to become slaves or die.

Is there no way to get extra water? Bad planning on the guy's part. That would man he has no plan for unforseen water consumption or loss.

If he can illustrate that sharing the water he has on hand would be detrimental to his existence than he doesn't have to save them. If he is prepared to take them on as slaves, though, and hence must give them the water, it is hard for him to illustrate that detriment.

There is nothing in the example which indicates that the man cannot communicate with the outside world to, say, order more water and tell someone to come get these people out of the dessert. There is no reason to assume that the passengers intend to stay on in the dessert and become the guy's neighbors. All they seem to want is to survive their ordeal and get on with their lives. In order to justify not helping them, it seems to me that you have to construct elaborate circumstances( they are actually spying on him ) and assume things not in evidence( they won't compensate him at all ). The resonable thing to do is to help them and go on about your life. I really don't see why that is so difficult. Why do so many people assume that they must not only do well, economically, they must conquer everyone and control everything? A Billion dollars isn't enough for the Sam Waltons of the world. They must make billions more than any one could possibly need and they are willing to do it at the expense of everyone else who isn't willing to take advatage of those who are weaker than them. Their battle cry seems to be, "Anyone not crushed under our bootheel is a threat!" Actually helping their fellow man seems anathema to them. Why?

Glory

Vesica

I was just asking..Personally I would give the people water, freely and happily. However I don't see any obvious right in this action, nor do I see why there is one right answer to whether or not the man in our example should give them water or not.

Even from your replies it seems we are moving away from a hard 'Yes/No' answer. There are any number of circumstances in which the man would be justified in not giving the people water. There are any number of circumstances in which he would be a monster to deny them water.

I think the big conflict here is coming from differing conceptions of morality. Glory, you seem to favor Yes/No answers with qualification. Personally, I abhor Yes/No answers and find morality to be determined almost entirely by context and situation...Things that are immoral in some situations are fine in others. There has been lots of psychological research on the different ways people define morality and 'the rules'...intresting topic. For years, women and 'lesser races' were thought to be morally immature because they tend not to embrace hard rules of morality...Then someone figured out the different ways morality can be approached and the flawed instruments were scrapped.

Glory

I don't see any clearly defined rights, either. I find such things to be exceedingly rare. I didn't assert that that there were any clear rights. I asserted that a man who believes he has the right to charge whatever he wants for something regardless of the effect his practices have on the community is a monster. History is full of such monsters. A man named Pullman comes to mind. He hired people to build railcars. Perhaps you have heard of the famous Pullman Cars. Anyway, Pullman went so far as to build a town for his employees. The only problem was that his employees had to live in the town all the while paying his rents, shopping at his stores and putting their money in his bank. It was a fiefdom right here in the US. He may technically have had the legal right to do all this, but it was certainly immoral as is any attempt to take advantage of desperate people.

I disagree that there are a million possibilties within the "guy in the dessert" scenario. All those possibilties become moot when he decides he wants to enslave the people. If he can do that, he has eschewed all reasonable options and the circumstances are clearly defined. He can spare the water. He simply has decided not to unless his price is met. I stand by my assessment that such behaviour is monstrous.

Glory