🚀 go-pugleaf

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:
>>So any law, including zoning laws, should be viewed from the angle of whether
>>or not they violate someone's rights.  Some cases are obvious, others are
>>not.  If someone builds a 30 story building covering the lot next to your
>>house, it seems evident that they have violated your rights in some manner.
>>Maybe "the right to sunshine", or "the right to not have your property
>>devalued by having a huge building next to your house".  Something like
>>that.  Granted it is sketchy, but clearly you have been infringed upon.
>>Zoning laws are generally supportable along these lines.  Regulating that
>>companies have child care centers can in no way be supported in this manner.
>>If they do not have such centers, who will they be infringing upon?
>
>My claim is that the presence or lack such facilities effects me to
>as great, or an even greater degree than does the building of a 30-story
>building that blocks out my access to the sun.  If you can conceive of
>a ``right to sunshine'' as within the realm of reason, why should I not
>have rights which govern the affect of development on the nature of
>my community.

I think the distinction is clear.  Laws are only supportable when they
protect people.  When a 30 story building goes up beside your house,
you are losing the sunshine that you once had.  You cannot insist that a
company have daycares, because they have not taken anything away from you.
Before the company located near you, you didn't have the daycare facilities.
Why should you afterward?  You should just be glad they employed you.  And
if laws are put forward demanding daycare and the like, you can be sure the
company *will not* locate near you.

The daycare you are talking about is clearly an extraction.  And aside from
being unsupportable, it is rude (frankly) and intrusive.  When do such
demands of other people (and the companies they own) end?  With such demands
you are forcing yourself on other people.  You must agree that, in the very
least, that is offensive.

>Surely the sociological circumstances in which I exist
>are as important as the physical ones.

Yes they are - to you.  Anti-abortion people claim that they can interfere
with other peoples' business because they are upholding "morality" (their
sociological circumstances).  I would guess that you do not support such
behavior - nor do I.  You cannot demand an environment, including a pattern
of thinking, from people.  You can only demand that they fulfill their
contracts and leave you alone.

If you do not like the sociological environment in which you exist, you can
always find another.  And what makes you think that your social vision is the
best one?  As a parent, I for one think that daycares are horrible places to
put a child.

>How can it be illegimate to
>block out the sun from my view, but quite acceptable to take actions
>which cause my community to deteriorate?

Blocked sunlight is a physically demonstratable loss.  "Community
deterioration" is a perception that is completely arbitrary.  Using such a
nebulous justification you can support anything you wish.  From keeping out
"undesirable races" to outright socialism.  There is very little difference
between the bigots of old and modern day politically correct socialists who
think they too know what is best for everybody.

"Community needs" obviously run roughshod over individual liberty.  What if
I simply do not wish to participate in the social system supported with such
claims of need?  Will I be forced?

>The question of ``violation of rights'' is really a question of cause
>and effect.  Every action taken affects many people.  Some effects are
>immediate and direct and so we find it easier to create rules and
>regulations which define when the effects of person A have sufficiently
>interferred with the life of person B that we impose some limitations
>on how person A may act.  But I see no justification in this to ignore 
>effects which are indirect or have an impact at some time in the future.

They must be ignored, because causality cannot be demonstrated, and thus
responsibility cannot be determined.  If these nebulous "effects" are used 
as justifications, arbitrary decisions will be rule of the day.

Further, there are many actions which people engage in that affect others but
which involve no harm.  If I decide to sing AC/DC songs loudly in Stanley
Park, I may annoy some people, but I will harm no one.  But such issues of
taste can become legal concerns if "impact" is considered.  If a company does
not build a daycare they have not harmed you, they have simply denied you
something that you would "like".

>>There is just one: "Stay the hell out of my way."  More specific versions can
>>be extrapolated from this.  The general theme, as I stated, is to protect
>>people from other people.
>
>On whose authority do you proclaim this as being the ``correct''
>fundamental axiom for society?

Mine.  I want people to stay out of my way.  Would you suggest that I not 
be allowed that?  I am not proposing a fundamental axiom for society, I am
proposing a fundamental axiom for me.  Everyone else can pick their own
(as long as they don't violate mine); I am sure that most will choose
something similar to mine.

>The point I was making in asking the question is that we have NO
>ultimate authority to appeal to.  Society is, in effect, its own
>ultimate arbiter and we can collectively ascribe to whatever set
>of rights we please.

I have done just that.  By myself.  I don't need society's help.

>You and I may differ on the set of rights which we consider useful.
>There is no absolute mechanisms for judging one better than the other.

Certainly.  You can decide you have the "right to stand on your head all
day".  I don't care, as long as you don't violate the rights I have
chosen for myself.

[To make sure there is no confusion, I have previously referred to rights 
as things universal to humans.  This is merely a short-hand I employ 
because most people will choose the same basic set; like the "right not to be
killed".  But some people, in some situations, may not want even that one.
It doesn't matter what people choose, as long as they don't violate other
peoples' choices.  And it is the task of laws to prevent this.]

The only flaw with my self-chosen rights is that I cannot physically 
defend them against a large crowd of people.  I am relying on the decency of
people.  If they aren't decent, then we are talking fascism or communism, or 
a milder version like Canada.

>The only means for judging them at all is to present them within 
>the context of what sort of society they are intended to create and
>then attempt to determine how successful they would be in achieveing
>that goal.  If we differ in our view of what rights should exist, then
>we either differ in the type of society that we find appealing,
>or we disagree on the mechanism for achieving it.  If the former,
>its really a matter of ``I like broccoli and you don't''.  No amount
>of well reasoned argument will be convincing regarding the gastronomic
>desirability of particular garden vegatables.

I agree with your reasoning, and I will take it to it's full extent.  Since
the sort of society each of us wishes to see is purely a matter of taste, the
only way we can possibly come to a broad general agreement is if we reduce it
down to the lowest common denominator: leave each other alone.  Anything else
is presumptuous and intrusive.

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) further writes:
>buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
>>On the contrary, I have certain fundamental rights (to life, liberty
>>and the pursuit of happiness) by virtue of my existence as a human.
>>A society is good or bad depending on how well it recognizes and
>>protects those rights.  There is plenty of room for argument on how
>>a good society may be achieved or operated, and on what makes one or
>>another society appealing, but not on the basic criteria according
>>to which a society may be judged just.
>
>On what authority do you assert that these are fundamnetal?  Do 
>you have some manner of proof which shows that these rights exist?
>Or do you perhaps mean that you would dislike a society not based
>upon these rights?

I agree entirely with Tony on this from a purely instinctual position (you'd
think we were related or something).  But certainly such instinctual support
is weak at best.  If you look at the animal world (the other animals), you
don't see deer running around claiming their rights as wolves chase them.  So
human rights would seem to be a construction made possible with our thinking
capability - which would make them quite arbitrary.  And since god has died
(as pointed out by Nietzsche), we can't claim that any higher authority
supports our moral codes (although much of this century has been about various
groups trying to fill that void).  So it would seem that (nihilist reality)
it doesn't really matter, and anything can go.  Or so I thought (even with my
natural dispositions) until I heard Dr. David Gauthier (a philosopher) speak
at the Vancouver Institute on "A Rational Basis for Morality".

I wrote the following segment after hearing his talk.  I did not take notes
during the talk, so I can only hope I have relayed his thoughts accurately.

Dr. Gauthier started by describing the state of philosophy during his student
years [he covered this quickly so I may make mistakes with the nomenclature -
I have also embellished it somewhat with some of my limited understanding of
the period].  During the middle of this century philosophy was still reeling
from the full appreciation of the existential reality of things.  God was
clearly dead, so all absolutes had vanished.  Many groups had abandoned
rational thought altogether, thinking it unsupportable in the absolute
sense.  Even those committed to rational thought had to acknowledge that only
the simplest facts could be stated with any certainly ("This is green.").
Dr. Gauthier, because of his rebellious nature, was drawn to the less popular
group, those who still supported rationality.  At that time most philosophers
were Existentialist/nihilist types.  Dr. Gauthier became a Logical
Positivist.  They supported the idea that only simple facts could be stated
with certainty, and that more complicated ideas like ethics inevitably rested
on personal feelings or views.  This was often called the "Boo-Hurray" school
of thinking.  Stealing... Boo!  Human rights...  Hurray!  From these
primitively founded premises an entire system of ethics could be logically
developed.  At the end of the day these ethics could not be conclusively
supported however as they rested on value judgements.  As Nietzsche pointed
out, there is no good and evil, these are human constructions ["good and
evil" perspective is my addition].  When a lion kills it is simply killing.
This was true of early humans as well, and arguing that there was a sudden
shift to a "moral truth" is equivalent to arguing that there was a sudden
shift to humans having souls.  There is no reason to think either happened.

A result of all this is that, since morals are not absolute, they are based
entirely on the feelings of each individual supporting them.  You cannot
reasonably argue that one moral system is better than any other.  You can
attempt to convince others to adopt your basic beliefs (particularly your
children), but you cannot prove absolutely that they are any better.  This
reality leads to moral relativism, and it produced a school of thought called
Emotivism (ethics based on emotions).  Emotivism moved into the social
sciences, and we are all currently suffering the results of that.

Dr. Gauthier and a number of others were not happy with this state of
affairs.  They began seeking a "rational basis for ethics", and the following
is what they came up with.  It is not based on any religious position, or
even a semi-religious "respect for humanity" [a socialist basis for justifying
the elimination of peoples' rights].  Thus one can pass it on to ones'
children without the fear that they are simply being contaminated by your
prejudices.  The system stands on its own and is based entirely on the
logical result of pursuing ones' healthy self-interest.

To begin with, ethics (morals) are those rules which guide how we behave when
the actions generated by our self-interest cause us to collide with others.
They deal exclusively with how we interact with other people.  When you are
completely alone in the middle of a forest which belongs to you, you cannot,
try as you might, do anything amoral.  You can do stupid things, but someone
else has to be there before you can do immoral things.  What we are after
then is a basis for moral behavior (towards others) which has a rational
foundation.

Consider a business deal [I found his "classic" example awkward, so I use my
own here].  Some time ago I went up snowboarding.  On my way to the lift
lineup a fellow stopped me and offered to sell me his five day pass (with one
day left on it) for $25.  Buying a regular ticket would have cost me $42.  So
if I bought it from him I would save $17 and he would make $25.  In this case
we would both win.  But that was not my best option.  My best option was to
take the pass and give him a phony check for $25.  That way I would save $42
and he would lose a pass worth $25 - his worst option.  On the other hand his
best option was to sell me the pass and then report it stolen.  He would make
$25 and get a day of skiing in.  I would endure my worst option - arrest.  If
we both refused to make the deal, fearful of our worst case options, we would
both get our second best deal.  He wouldn't make $25, but he wouldn't loose
his pass.  I wouldn't save $17, but I wouldn't get arrested.  Obviously it
was best for both of us if we cooperated.

This type of problem is illustrative of a wide class of situations where
cooperation benefits all of the participants.  These problems are prevalent
in human interactions and apply even in extreme cases.  If we all agree that
murder should not be allowed, we may not get to murder someone who really
pisses us off, but we also need not live in constant fear of arbitrarily
being murdered.  These types of problems have been analyzed using Game
Theory, and the benefits of cooperation have been proven.  Thus you have the
rational basis for morals.  If, as a group, we adopt a code of ethics, we
must all sacrifice our full self-interest, but overall each of us benefits in
the long run.  We may be forced to accept a loss on some business contract,
but if contracts oblige us all, we are protected from others opting out when
they are forced to accept a loss.

An important point to be made at this juncture is that a moral code must be
agreed to by all.  That is, it must be fully accepted by participants who are
all rational and well informed.  They must all understand that the code is in
the best overall interests of each of them, individually.  All of them must
experience an improvement in their lot, and be aware of that improvement, or
they will not be motivated to follow the code.  This rules out coercive codes
based on "social goals" that exploit certain groups.  It in fact reduces a
code of ethics to a minimal set that basically protects people from each
other and supports contracts.  To such a code all rational people will agree.
This does not mean that the code will provide everyone with the same rewards -
it simply ensures that each person can improve their lot without negatively
affecting others.  Everybody gets something.

How can it be ensured, in an arrangement, that both sides have agreed to a
contract that both will support?  They should bargain over the arrangement.
In a bargain both sides interactively work out an arrangement that both think
will improve their lot.  Otherwise they would not agree to the contract.  The
extensions to the Free Market are obvious.

Justice systems ensure that everybody adhering to the ethical codes gets
their return.  That is, justice systems enforce the code and make sure that
everyone gets the benefits of participating ("Treat others as you would have
them treat you").  If this enforcement does not occur, people will no longer
support the code and unbridled self-interest will prevail.

There are many situations however when it is not appropriate for a justice
system to intervene.  Such occur when infractions are too small or when
someone is only mildly exploiting others - not harming them.  How are these
situations dealt with, and how does this system prevent entirely
self-interested individuals from running roughshod over those naive fools who
adhere religiously to the code?  There are a number of mechanisms.  In small
communities those who exploit others rapidly develop reputations.  In
organizations, professional and so forth, individuals are monitored and
identified when they transgress the code.  In general, there are any number
of ways in which people are identified as "sleazes".  It is certainly in the
best interests of society to make these identifications.  When sleazes have
been identified, they are no longer able to interact in the cooperative
system - much to their own loss.  Thus their unrestrained profiteering has
a limited duration at best.

As individuals we are trained from early childhood to identify sleaze and
thus to protect ourselves from exploitation.  Consider all the signs you
attend to when engaging in a risky bargain.

An interesting aside to all this is that, in general, people can trust their
relatives more than any other group - it is a small community.  With a higher
level of trust possible, more cooperative arrangements can be made to the
benefit of everyone in the family.  This is clearly behind the success of
close-knit immigrant groups.

Now comes the really beautiful part.  Consider the fellow who sold me his ski
pass.  Now in reality there is no way that anybody would accept a personal
check in such a situation, so if he made the sale he was certain to be
getting cash.  In this case there was really no risk to him.  If he made the
sale he could either consider accounts settled with the $25, or he could go
for his best possible option by reporting the pass as stolen.  In either case
his lot would be improved.  But to make either of these improvements he had
to sell me the pass however.  So he had to convince me that he is a man of
integrity.  Only when I was so convinced would I engage in the deal, because
only then would I not be concerned about my worst case option of arrest.  So
to be an effective participant in a cooperative society you must be able to
convince others that you have integrity.  The very best way to appear as if
you have integrity - to put on the best facade as it were - is to actually
have integrity.  You will put on the most convincing, consistent display.  So
humans who have high levels of integrity should be very successful throughout
their lives as they will often be included in lucrative cooperative
arrangements.

Now if integrity benefits a human, one would expect that over time humans
would evolve natural mechanisms that predispose them to behaving with
integrity.  They will do better individually, and a large group of them will
also do better.  Do such mechanisms exist?  We all seem to have an innate
sense of decency and fairplay do we not?  Ayn Rand argues that money has its
own justice [Ayn Rand perspective is my addition].  Money is the quantified
expression of the fruits of your labour.  If you have ill-gotten gains, money
that you did not earn fully, you will feel that your wealth has no integrity
associated with it.  Ayn claims that these feelings make people act
self-destructively, they reject materialism (consumer and physical) and
become irrational, often socialist, idiots (the people who claim "it is only
money" - of course it is if you haven't earned it).  We are all familiar with
such behavior (from welfare abusers to Hollywood celebrities), could it be
the product of innate integrity mechanisms needling these people?

Nietzsche goes beyond the idea of innate mechanisms.  He proposes that the
great human mind, with it complex long-term memory, and its dedicated will in
completing tasks, is specifically designed to allow us to make co-operative
arrangements.  Our minds provide us with the planning ability to make such
arrangements, as well as the concentration and mental endurance necessary to
follow these arrangements through to completion.  And with this ability we
can produce civil-izations where we can all prosper, as individuals and as a
group.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca