trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/25/83)
Response to Stan the lep hack:
It is irrational to violate someone else's rights, so people who are being
rational will not *intentionally* (IE under their control) violate the rights
of another. I believe that the term I used previously was "outside their
control", rather than merely "outside causes", as the only possible way of
a rational person violating the rights of another. If one does not suspect
that some action is going to harm another's rights, one cannot be reasonably
expected to avoid that action on those grounds. Unwittingly stepping on an
weakened bridge, causing it to collapse and kill someone, is an *accident*,
even though one has triggered it. (This does not excuse reckless actions,
since recklessness generally implies that one *should* reasonably have
suspected the harm that could be caused.)
And it is questionable, to my mind, if the circumstances are outside
one's control, that one can be said to have *really* violated the other's
rights. The idea of a right implicitly involves the *responsibility* of
one person to respect the things th other has a right to. Events outside
one's control are exactly those that one is not responsible for.
Now, you *might* question my premise above - that it is irrational to violate
someone else's rights. But I have already posted my explanation of that.
One respects the rights of others because (a) one wants others to respect
yours, (b) the rights are real, and it would be evading reality (which is
to say, being irrational) to violate them (c) rights arise from humanness,
so to deny them to another human is to deny that one's self has them; and
rights *are* worth having.
In the case of the car with the "fatal flaw" - if one were assuming that
there was no way to reasonably detect the flaw, then the manufacturer has
not intentionally violated rights. One is always taking a risk when one is
"one of the first buyers" of a totally novel product. Despite the best tests
and so forth, errs in the design are possible. Having a government prescribe
tests does not automatically make a new product safe. You state that it was
rational for the manufacturer to drop the test that (presumably) would have
found the fatal flaw. From the above discussion, and from the fact that they
*were* experts, they are responsible for showing good cause for dropping the
test, based upon their knowledge up to the time of the sale. Since you say
it was a "ridiculous test", I presume that they could show this, and it was
therefore outside their control. And as I also pointed out above, this might
not even be considered a rights violation.
However, the fact of the damage - the death of the person involved -
is real. One cannot correct one's "mistake" - though in fact, I dont
think that the word "mistake" is really applicable. "Mistake" generally
means "flaw in reasoning or action, based upon known facts" - and in this
case, one did not have sufficient facts to avoid the accident. However,
as I pointed out above, if the manufacturer was acting responsibly,
having one more "ridiculous" test is not very likely to prevent deaths.
The situation you have outlined, is in that sense, somewhat contrived.
When one generalizes the implicit idea, the result - "ridiculous, government-
imposed tests are valuable enough to justify government intervention", is
absurd, since such tests will generally benefit no one.
One of your questions was, effectively, "How can a non-expert be a rational
consumer?". If one is buying a highly technical product, one should try
to get expert opinions. This will not shield one from every possible
flaw, but will help reduce the risks. If more people would do this, there
would be more businesses like "Consumer Reports" (Supply and demand),
and so there would be a better chance of flaws being caught. Of course,
having the government take the "consumer advocate" role effectively
prevents most such possible businesses, and also encourages people to
think that they are safe "because the government is taking care of it".
As to your request for an example of a rational human: I have already
posted a note ("A full glass of rationality, please") which describes
the idea that rationality is a capability possessed by most all people,
and which is fulfilled by them to varying degrees. Are you asking me
for an example of someone who is fully rational? And by that do you
mean "is now, was always, and will be until death"? In fact, rationality
is a trait that must be developed, though the capability to be rational
is born in. And even if one has developed it quite well, occasional
imperfections are possible - though the rational person will correct
such mistakes when they are detected. When I use the term "rational",
as I just did, I am meaning a person who has developed the rational ability,
and makes a habit of using reason, and of acting upon rational decisions.
While I will not name people I know, I will simply point to Ayn Rand and
Dr. Leonard Piekoff, both of whom have publicly given evidence of their
rationality in their writings. These are two for whom I have a good deal
of respect, but I am not intending to imply that one must somehow "measure
up" to them and their accomplishments in order to be considered rational.
Tom Craver
houca!trc - note the change of address