Here it is:
"A cloud of toxic gas is headed towards a town of 45,000 people and the only way to escape is underground. A real estate magnate owns an underground city nearby that can fit around 250,000 people, but only those who have membership are allowed in there. The skin-burning acid causes death after about 45 seconds of excruciating pain. Is it morally justifiable to violate this man's property rights in order to save the people of the town?"
Frankly, I've seen much better constructed "lifeboat ethics" scenarios described, but this is apparently the level of intellectual discourse in America these days.
For those not so familiar with anarcho-capitalist debates, this is supposed to show the futility of trying to embrace the NAP or "Non-Aggression Principle" which is the cornerstone of the ancap philosophy.
The point of this being posted up is that it's supposed to reveal the ancap as a hypocrite who would violate another person's property rights, or an ideological fool who would let thousands die for an abstract concept of property rights.
And while this example is particularly dumb, there are more plausible ones that do come up from time to time. Like whether it's okay to run across a person's property while fleeing a fire even if there is a "no trespassing" sign posted. Or if it's okay to steal bread to feed a child. Or can you jump in someone's idling car and take off so as to escape a street gang that's chasing you.
 |
| Stealing bread is okay only in French novels. |
Notice first that even these "more plausible" examples are themselves somewhat implausible. Certainly unlikely. That's because in all cases they are emergencies. Unusual things not likely to happen in anyone's day to day existence. That's why they're "unusual".
In fact, one not only can go their whole life without encountering any situations like those, 99.99% of us do.
But what's the answer? The answer lies in a little known concept called "force majeure" which is Latin for "overwhelming force". It's usually a clause inserted into contracts which let a person out of what they said they would do if something major and unforeseen took place that stopped them.
Like if they agreed to manufacture 70,000 widgets in their plant in Haiti and then ship them to France within 10 days, but a hurricane hit and the plant was down for a week. In this scenario, the force majeure clause would excuse them from being penalized for failing to have the widgets there within 10 days.
However, that does not mean that they cannot be in trouble for not having them there in 17 days, that being the amount of time they said they needed plus the delay time.
Force majeure can only be invoked in certain situations. The event must be large enough to actually impact the activity that was to take place. It must be something unusual that could not reasonably have been expected. And the person claiming it must make the other person as whole as possible and as soon as possible.
While this most often finds itself in contracts and contract law, the concept applies to any kind of contract, including social contracts and implied contracts.
It is ordinarily understood that we will not trespass where it says not to. But it is also understood that if a person is fleeing a fire that cutting across a property line is not to be punished. It's also generally understood that a person might be in a position where the stealing of bread is needful, but this is looked at much more carefully, and will most likely only mean that the punishment for theft is lighter.
As to leaping into an idling car, that is going to be looked at even more suspiciously.
Which brings us to another point about force majeure. If it really is, then it should be so obvious that everyone knows it. If you live in a city where street gangs run wild, then it won't be surprising if you have to jump into such an idling car. If you live in some devastatingly poor economy, it may be no surprise to a jury that you had to steal bread for your kid.
Getting back to the fantastical example, we can see that there are three mistakes being made.
One is in lifeboat ethics situations being fallacious. You cannot judge an entire moral system by an extreme so contrived, so out there, as to hardly be likely to ever be seen. That one can use words to describe a situation that the laws of reality do not forbid is NOT the same as that situation then having any relevance to anything. "Would it be okay to swear at your mom if an alien landed and said he would blow up Earth if you did not?" Who cares?
Two, is in not grasping the principle of force majeure and how it could apply to the contrived situation. Where the folks in danger simply rush in, to avoid being gassed to death, but then leave as soon as the danger is over, compensating the owner for any damages or loss. Or you swear at your mom and apologize afterward.
Three is in - as is usual in lifeboat ethics problems - overlooking the fact that there are usually moral ways of dealing with an emergency that do not involve force majeure. Like leaving the town without going underground, by simply going out whatever side the gas was not coming in from. The author said the "only way" was by underground, but in reality, that is as unlikely as that alien wanting your mother swore at.
This type of thing is seen over and over again. The man stealing the bread could have asked for it as an act of charity, or offered to work for it, or sought aid from church or family or friends or got a loan from a bank or a payday loan or a title loan or by donating plasma or by collecting cans on the side of the road or going to a pawn store or panhandling or having a yard sale!
Theft is a thing to be found only at the end of a very long list of options, and if it is claimed those things can't be done, it would involve the person having made a remarkable variety of mistakes beforehand, which then invalidate force majeure. Because force majeure can't be invoked if it was your fault.
Like if you build your plant over and over again by a river that floods every year without fail. Or if you get fired, run off all your family and friends with your abusive and irrational behavior, leave church, and destroy your credit - you don't then get to cry that theft is necessary. Or if you're daring street gangs to chase you past idling cars!
The case for theft being necessary would involve a set of circumstances very contrived and not to be found in any part of Earth save for where massive amounts of war or natural disasters had very recently hit. And honestly, not even then, in the vast majority of cases.
Thus when you see any kind of "lifeboat ethics" question, you may always dismiss it by citing it's improbability, or showing that there were errors made leading up to it, or that if there were not, force majeure - and the immediate compensation afterward - is a perfectly moral response.
No comments:
Post a Comment