A Fine Line

A Fine Line
by Eric Rockwell

Imagine a world in a parallel universe, a world quite similar to ours. In it, there is life very much like human life; life that survives by means of reason. These thinking beings call themselves “men.” A great philosopher of that world determines that for man to live according to his nature, he must accept the metaphysical truth that existence exists and that reason is his means to knowledge. Further, this great philosopher defines with astounding clarity a vibrant and heroic ethical system based on rational self-interest. And he does all this while standing on one foot. Imagine that.

To elaborate on his ethic of rational self-interest, the philosopher set forth principles which were deeply rooted in the idea that man must treasure and protect his values, the greatest of which was his own life. One of the philosopher’s most compelling ideas came in response to the observation that man occasionally initiated force against other men. This, the great philosopher knew, was an essential evil that had to be reckoned with.

In response to his repudiation of the initiation of force, the philosopher derived what he called the Principle of Retaliatory Action. This was designed to act as a guide to rational men in protecting their greatest values when they are confronted with force or fraud. Basically, it said that the initiation of force against another man was criminal and must be redressed; retaliatory action must be taken in response. To fail to respond against the initiation of force, this philosopher maintained, was to sanction and appease evil.

This Principle of Retaliatory Action was to serve the purpose of protecting, maintaining, and advancing one’s own interests. This retaliatory action might come in the form of taking an offender to court and suing him for damages, or in returning physical force in kind. It could be applied to individuals or to whole nations. The failure to respond to evil, the failure to take retaliatory action, was seen by the philosopher as inimical to life; the philosopher went so far as to say that when this principle is violated, you become an accomplice to your own enemy. When you are attacked and do nothing in return, it is not merely an act of cowardice, but of self-destruction.

Now, you may disagree with this philosopher and his Principle of Retaliatory Action. Many people in the parallel universe did, too. They accused him of being simplistic and viewed his arguments as lacking nuance.

But there were those, albeit a very small minority, who embraced the philosophy. One of them, whom we’ll call Smith, understood the entire philosophy deeply, developing a full appreciation for how each and every principle was derived.

Then there was a man named Jones. In contrast to Smith, Jones accepted many of the principles espoused by the philosopher, without fully understanding the wider context of which they were meant to serve. Jones fervently believed in the Principle of Retaliatory Action. History in this parallel universe had been filled with bloodshed, and the prevailing philosophy of “turn the other cheek” had clearly promoted that horror. In opposition to that, Jones held fast to the retaliation principle, regarding it as a hard and fast rule. For him, it was an ironclad commandment. For Jones, to be moral meant one had to always obey the principle. When attacked, Jones would retaliate without a second thought.

One day, a thug approached Jones, carrying a deadly weapon. The thug grabbed Jones and stole his money. Even though Jones had no weapon, while the thug did, Jones felt he wouldn’t be true to his principles unless he put up a fight. Though he knew he’d be putting his life in danger by doing so, Jones made a fist and proceeded to obey the commandment of retaliatory action. The thug, reeling from the blow, pulled out his gun and fired two shots at Jones, leaving him crippled for life.

Smith looked at Jones with pity and disdain. His fellow traveler and follower of the iconoclast philosopher had misunderstood and misapplied the principle. Smith saw clearly that Jones had basically taken part in crippling himself by foolishly slugging an armed criminal. But Jones held his wounds as a badge of honor, “Even when others might have done nothing just to save their own skin, I stayed true to the Principle of Retaliatory Action,” he said with pride.

Smith’s approach to life and to the application of principles couldn’t have been more different. Smith believed that the principle was there only insofar as it would serve the higher purpose of advancing and protecting his values. He knew that principles were more than mere rules, and required careful consideration of context.

Late one night, the same thug who’d shot Jones came after Smith. Because Smith found himself without a weapon, and was aware of the irrationality and danger of this predator, he remembered to consider first and foremost his own life and how much he valued it. He peacefully handed the money to the thug, no gun shots were fired, and unlike Jones, Smith was left intact. Then the thug came back again, two days later. This time Smith was prepared. After the thug made an attempt to grab his wallet, Smith fired his gun, killing the enemy. On both occasions, Smith felt that he had been true to the Principle of Retaliatory Action.

Jones was confused by this. He congratulated Smith for shooting the thug, but viewed Smith’s his earlier account to be passive and cowardly, the very opposite of what it meant to hold your life as the highest value. “You seem to only practice the Principle of Retaliatory Action when it’s convenient,” Jones jived. In response, Smith said, “You are confusing principles with rules.”

The next day, Smith was pondering some epistemological questions when a gang of men approached. He recognized them as being in the same gang as the thug whom he’d shot. Smith reached for his gun, but upon seeing the size of the gang, thought again. He ran. He hid. Again, he had saved his own life. “But next time I might not be so lucky,” Smith thought.

He made a plan designed to prevent any future threat against his life. Late at night, he would creep into one of the gang’s dwellings and, finding the criminal defenseless, shoot and kill them then and there. This way, he would one day be free to live without fear of attack. Each night brought another pre-emptive and justified killing. “I do not feel guilt,” Smith thought, “As I’m holding my life as my highest value, and these men were after me.” One by one, the gang of thugs were killed off, leaving only one last gang member left for Smith to deal with. It was a bleak and chilling evening when things went terribly wrong. The thug heard the sound of someone creeping through his window, reached for his gun, and shot Smith, crippling him for life.

Jones and Smith sat in their wheelchairs contemplating what had transpired. Smith was certain that Jones had misapplied the Principle of Retaliatory Action by making it into a rule, evading the process of thought and decision.

And Jones felt Smith had forgotten the principle altogether. Smith had done whatever seemed right in the moment. When faced with an attack, Smith would run in one instance, kill in the next, or hide, or hand over his money, or take pre-emptive action. “Why was there even a need for a principle,” thought Jones, “if ultimately you will just act on impulse? The only principle you’ve stayed true to is pragmatism.”

This need not concern us too much, since it’s all taken place in a parallel universe. But one wonders who was right, Smith or Jones? Did either of them stay true to the principle they held to be so full of wisdom and truth? Or in opposite ways, did they both abandon it? As to how this may apply to those of us in this universe, it seems there may be only a very fine line between devotion to a principle and the betrayal of it.

Discuss this Article (13 messages)