This article came up in a different discussion entirely. First, I still assert that in every case, a non-violent solution may have existed but was not discovered. I understand the epistemological problem in that claim. At the same time, I agree that sometimes evil finds you unprepared for deep thought and your forceful reply may well be overwhelming. The moral responsibility for the violent response rests with the initiator. The claim that some other alternative existed is based on volition: you are not always causally required to respond to violence with violence. Also, hindsight being perfect suggests that foresight might have prevented the situation. Second, we have had discussions about NIOF, Non-Initiation of Force. In The Constitution of Galt's Gulch, Wolf Devoon points out that without the initiation of force, witnesses and other evidence might never be produced for a trial. I suggest that jury duty might be restructured to paid professions offering a service, but here and now, certainly, jurors are also subjected to the initation of force to compel their attendance. (Yes, we are lenient in the enforcement.) Courts work by threatening the innocent. If we adhere to strict NIOF, injustices might go unremediated: (1) no witnesses equals no trial; (2) the innocent accused are deprived exculpatory evidence. Perhaps we could live with that. In "Galt's Speech" Rand says that the anti-life mind-haters always offer only a zero, a loss, suffering, as their motive. Whether or not the victim deserved their plight, the fate of the victim is the blackmail threat to extract values from the productive. I have no resolution to the problems, but I recognize their existence. (Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/30, 5:57am)
|
