Chapter 5: Where do your rights begin?
Vollmann states that “involuntary attachments are not binding” and “voluntary attachments may be withdrawn at any time” (I, p. 263). Both conditions may be overridden and one will return to the state of nature with the exception that “the Golden Rule should always be respected” (I, p. 265). Following the logic of this idea, Vollman discusses the idea of the consent of the governed. If the authority fails to respect the Golden rule and is increasingly involuntary, then the regime approaches upon illegitimacy. I believe that these statements are true up to a certain point: they fail to consider the element of force. An involuntary attachment IS binding if there is sufficient force to back it up. Perhaps one if physically forced, but morally free. It is interesting to consider the blurred lines between physicality and morality.
Section 6: Means and Ends
Vollmann begins by discussing the autonomy of the self: the right to defend or fail to defend oneself and the right to end oneself. The idea of defending oneself once again brings up the idea of illegitimate governments and rising up against them. On the flip side of this argument, it may very well be that “the nation that I was once a part will invoke self-defense to hunt me down and kill me” (I, p. 268). This unearths a whole host of moral questions.
Vollmann asserts that ethics is the evaluation of justifications and justifications are the links between ends and means. Using this logic, Vollman finds issue with Sergey Nechaev’s statement that “everything is moral that assists the triumph of revolution” (I, p. 269). Nechaev is essentially arguing to only consider the ends, i.e. the revolution.
Next Vollmann claims that “an inconstant end is a sure sign of a deceitful or outright evil expediency” (I, p. 272). I agree that the end goal should remain consistent or why bother fighting for it in the first place? Vollman states, “fix the end; lock it; raise it; present it; preserve it. If it is truly good, be faithful to it.” Additionally, violence without an end is never justifiable while violence for a noble end is debatable. This assertion calls into question what causes are just and noble. This leads us to Vollman’s next analysis of when people or movements are justified in rising up.
The notion of rising up is one that Vollmann considers to be a right insofar that it is justifiable: “we are upright animals. When we rise up, when we stand up, we come into our own, we come into our rightful and natural inheritance.” This echoes the sentiments of the right of revolution: the duty of the of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause.
It is also important to weigh the costs and benefits of rising up in an attempt to gain more control over one’s life. There is the potential to ascertain more self sovereignty, but on the other hand “what goes up will only come down the harder.” This is in direct contention with Gandhi’s assertion that “one must scrupulously avoid the temptation of a desire for results.” Does one take half a loaf of bread when he/she stands to lose/gain the whole loaf? Gandhi would likely agree that holding out for the whole loaf is better because it is impossible to know the consequences of one’s actions. Yet it is to my understanding that Vollmann is playing the long game and believes that compromising the means due to anticipated consequences is at times acceptable as long as one does NOT compromise the ends.
Vollmann then undertakes the lofty goal of attempting to rank the fairness of harming another human being. He ranks the justifications in decreasing order of fairness:
- What you’ve done
- What you are: allegiance
- What you haven’t done
- Whom you associate with
- What you might do
- What you are: biological, religious, or ideological identity. What you have.
- The fact that you are.
I cannot say that I agree with the assertions of six and seven. The gloomy conclusions provide a justification for killing Jews on the basis of being Jewish or killing a person on the basis of existing. Vollmann qualifies his argument by saying that ethics are quite subjective in practical application because “the very same means, in the service of the very same end, may well produce different and even opposing results.” This perhaps explains why Vollmann includes so many case studies throughout history, literature, and philosophy. “One of these soldiers will live; one will die. One regime gains the victory, one the bondage.” This is perhaps the only claim that Vollmann makes that I believe is 100% correct: that in practice there are so many different conditions that muddle the results so it is difficult to assert a theoretical framework to analyze all means and ends.
— PK