| | If I saw an adult torturing a child I wouldn't wait for the cops to arrive -- though I would call them after I personally initiated force on the adult. I wouldn't be defending myself -- I would be in no danger and would have no personal emergency -- yet I would initiate force.
There's a contextual issue involved in the statement that it's always wrong to initiate force. I wouldn't call it sloppy communication, but it does fail to capture actual occurrences where it's moral to initiate force on others.
In the playground as a child, I got picked on by an obese kid, Judd. I was an innocent kid who was considerate of others and I didn't deserve to be picked on.
Then I got this tough friend, Mike, who had already spent time in 'kiddie-jail' for doing bad things. Mike stuck up for me. So, when Judd pushed me down on the ice, then Mike pushed Judd down even harder. When Judd's overweight body crashed into the ground, he was really hurt and he started to cry (I think he hurt his tailbone). Judd never pushed me down again, however.
It was moral for Mike to harm Judd like that (even though Judd had never done anything wrong to Mike). You might joke and call it "playground morality" or "sandlot morality" -- but it is deeper than that. Here is a quote explaining why it was moral for Mike to cause bodily injury to Judd (i.e., moral to initiate force). Emphasis mine:
In this paper I have used several different definitions of natural law, often without indicating which definition I was using, often without knowing or caring which definition I was using. Among the definitions that I use are:
- The medieval/legal definition: Natural law cannot be defined in the way that positive law is defined, and to attempt to do so plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom. Natural law is best defined by pointing at particular examples, as a biologist defines a species by pointing at a particular animal, a type specimen preserved in formalin. (This definition is the most widely used, and is probably the most useful definition for lawyers)
- The historical state of nature definition: Natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular the law that historically existed (in so far as any law existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians that overran the Roman Empire.
- The medieval / philosophical definition: Natural law is that law, which it is proper to uphold by unorganized individual violence, whether a state is present or absent, and for which, in the absence of orderly society, it is proper to punish violators by unorganized individual violence. Locke gives the example of Cain, in the absence of orderly society, and the example of a mugger, where the state exists, but is not present at the crime. Note Locke's important distinction between the state and society. For example trial by jury originated in places and times where there was no state power, or where the state was violently hostile to due process and the rule of law but was too weak and distant to entirely suppress it.
- The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our nature.
Utilitarian and relativist philosophers demand that advocates of natural law produce a definition of natural law that is independent of the nature of man and the nature of the world. Since it is the very essence of natural law to reason from the nature of man and the nature of the world, to deduce “should” from “is”, we unsurprisingly fail to meet this standard.
--http://jim.com/rights.html
So, it is in our nature to get justice. It's not wrong to get justice. Ideally, we contract out the serving of justice to 3rd-party folks like cops and courts. But when we can't or don't have access to cops and courts -- such as kids on a playground -- it can be moral to initiate force on others (by "individual unorganized violence").
However, you could still say that collective or organized initiations of violence are always wrong (always evil). That's not sloppy. That's more refined. It's more completely -- if not, entirely -- correct. It means that slugging someone isn't always the wrong thing to do, but that taxing someone -- taxation being something collective and organized -- is always the wrong thing to do (taxation is always evil).
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/20, 4:55pm)
|
|
