killing for a slap

In Letter VII of Pascal's Provincial Letters, Pascal lambasts a fictional Jesuit Father who claims that "it is morally licit to kill someone who intends to sleap or hit you, when this cannot be avoided in any other way." Aside from it being an outlandish hypothetical, I'm wondering what Objectivists think about this claim.

Jordan

Post 1

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 3:53pm

Objectivists would agree that being slapped can be a violation of individual's rights, and that the offender must, to some degree, give up their rights in doing that slap, and that the victim has a right to defend themselves.

In the hypothetical, it is reasonable to say that the rights given up by the offender are proportional to the rights violation engaged in. We have this parallel in criminal law where we grade the degree of various offenses and mete out punishment in proportion.

We also, in the law, have the individual context (like first-time offender gets off easier than repeat offenders), and we look at the secondary purposes of a response (like just punishment, retribution on behalf of victims, deterrence, etc.) These things are considered in determining, inside of some general range, what is appropriate as a response.

If the person being slapped threw up his hands to defend himself, and the offender was startled by that, slipped and hit his head and died... that would be very different from calmly pulling out a gun and killing the offender a while after the slap.

I'd say that the proportion of the offense should be the measure of the intended response for the following reason: It is only the violation of a specific individual right in a specific fashion (which will have a specific measure of actual or threatened damage) that can guide us in determining the degree of the offender's individual rights that he forfeits. Meaning that the offender still has un-forfeited rights that must be observed. There is still a range of acceptable responses within that general measure that vary by individual context. So, if someone defends themselves against a slap, even with a good right hook, they should be okay. But if they purposely kill the offender, they violated a right that hadn't been forfeit. The offender gave up his right to avoid being slapped around, or hit, or to be free of a fine or reasonable jail sentence, but he still has the right not to be killed.

Now, let me ask you a question. You offer good value to this forum with civil and often interesting posts, yet, you aren't an Objectivist, and I'm curious as to why you pose these borderline issues. Are you giggling over your keyboard as you type in conundrums? Are you attempting to formulate good arguments against Objectivists to serve some particular agenda? Just curious :-)

Post 2

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 7:55pm

Hi Steve,

In the outlandish hypo, killing is the only option for defense against the slap. Because killing is a disproportionate response, should then the "slapee" just suck it up and take it? And to be sure, let's say there's no subsequent opportunity for the slapee to demand compensation for the offense, although I'm not sure that is significant.

*

Thank you for the compliment, and I appreciate the questions. It's hard to sort out the amalgam of reasons for my posting here, but I'll try.

I'm highly curious by nature and starved in the bricks-and-mortar world for philosophic discourse. I have no agenda. I just need my philosophy fix. This forum kindly offers me that benefit and has done so for many years, dating back to when it was SOLO, and to when I was more in tune with Objectivism.

It'd be nice to find a forum with a broader purview, but it's difficult to find one that also comes with an elegant set-up and good discussers. I've searched, and I keep searching, and to little avail. But even if I find another forum, I'm not sure I'd leave here. In the end, whatever best satisfies my penchant for philosophy will win the day.

How bout you?

Jordan

Post 3

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 8:09pm

Re this - might wish to look up Hallmark Hall of Fame 1961 production of "The Joke and the Valley"...

Post 4

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 12:05am

Jordan,

You said, "In the outlandish hypo, killing is the only option for defense against the slap. Because killing is a disproportionate response, should then the "slapee" just suck it up and take it?"

Anyone, not just Objectivists, should just reject that as a false hypothetical.

Let's say we live in a hypothetical world where everything I write is true, given that, wouldn't you agree with all of my posts? :-)
-----------

My reasons for coming to ROR: I like solving problems that involve applying philosophical principles. I like exercising my ability make my thoughts clear to others. I enjoy it when I see that someone else appreciates a post of mine. I enjoy reading the posts from those brighter or better informed or more eloquent than I as they make a point I would otherwise have missed. I like experiencing a degree of philosophical and political community. And I like advocating for principles that I believe important.

Post 5

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 12:53am

Jordan wrote,

In the outlandish hypo, killing is the only option for defense against the slap. Because killing is a disproportionate response, should then the "slapee" just suck it up and take it? And to be sure, let's say there's no subsequent opportunity for the slapee to demand compensation for the offense, although I'm not sure that is significant.

A very interesting question! It had not even occurred to me before you mentioned it. Yes, I see the issue very clearly.

The other person has no right to slap you, which means that you have a right to stop him, if you can. But if the only way you can stop is to kill him, then it follows that you have a right to kill him, because you have a right to stop him and killing him is the only way you can do it. The premise implies the conclusion. If you want to reject the conclusion -- unpalatable as it is -- then you must reject the premise that under those circumstances you have a right to stop him -- a right to defend yourself. But that's a premise that is undeniable. And so, therefore, is the conclusion. The Jesuit Father was absolutely correct, and Pascal, incorrect.

That said, I might find the prospect of killing him so repugnant that I would elect to endure the slap rather than kill him to prevent it.

- Bill

Post 6

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 8:53am

Warning: Currently in that "transcendental" state when I'm just waking up ... and first feeling the coffee kicking in (which would show up on an EEG as a rare mix of concurrent alpha, theta, and beta brain-waves) ...

I'd let my mood dictate the outcome. If it's rainy ... and Wednesday ... I'd probably kill the guy. It'd also change things if I were allowed to 'psychologically assault' (actually: respond to) him after he slapped me. Sticks and stones may hurt, but what words can do can often be more permanently effective.

:-)

Sometimes I let fools do things that they shouldn't do (rather than quickly reacting), only to civilly lambast them about it immediately aftwerwards -- in order to try to capture a "teaching moment." I'd be the type of parent to let his kid touch the burner on the stove (if his own curiosity seemed to demand it). The kind of a parent who produces offspring highly capable of dealing with the world on their own.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/22, 8:55am)

Post 7

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 9:47am

The Jesuit priests claim: "it is morally licit to kill someone who intends to sleap or hit you, when this cannot be avoided in any other way."

This statement is about what you have a right to do to PREVENT someone from slapping or hitting you. It says nothing about "payback" for a slap or hit. If somehow my attempts to prevent you from slapping or hitting me result in your death, so be it. If I sidestep and punch you or throw you into a wall or over a cliff or in front of a bus to prevent being hit by you, you are the cause of your own death. If that's what it takes, if nothing else will dissuade you from hitting me, then it is moral for me to kill you. Just like it is justified for a police officer to shoot and kill a person who will not cease their aggressions against the officer. If that's what it takes, so be it. Physical aggression against a human being is and very much should be very very dangerous.

Post 8

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 10:48am

NJ law either does or used to authorize an escalating response to a threat. If an unarmed man threatens a police officer, the police officer may respond with a sublethal weapon. If an armed man threatens a police officer, the police officer may respond with a deadly weapon. That seems neither irrational nor impractical. If you want to nuke the slapper, feel free, and hope you get a sympathetic jury.

Post 9

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 2:44pm

Jordan,

I don�t mind crazy hypotheticals, but they are impossible to discuss unless everyone has in mind the exact same crazy hypothetical.

The only way to prevent the slap is to kill, I think that�s clear enough.

What I am not sure about is whether to the victim knows that it will be only a slap. Does he KNOW this, or is he fearful that more could be in store as the threatening hand approaches? I assumed the former, but some posters seem to be assuming the latter.

Post 10

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 4:48pm

If you hear me say: "I'm going to slap you," then you can reasonably assume I will.

By the way, the Jesuits gave this example in a time and place where dueling was frequent -- and the challenge to a duel generally consisted of a slap. This may provide some context for their choice of this example.

Post 11

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 5:28pm

Hi Kate,

I�m not sure if your first sentence is in response to my request for clarification of the hypothetical.

In any case, to clarify my question: I do assume the victim-to-be is correct in knowing that at least a slap is coming in the next moment.

My question is: Does the hypothetical stipulate that he knows that ONLY a slap is coming, or is he concerned that it could be more, that he could be injured or killed?

If the latter, then killing would be fine. If the former, then it is murder.

Post 12

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 8:54pm

Jon,

Let's say the slapee can reasonably assume he'd get a slap but nothing more.

To add more context to what Kate already provided, Pascal used this example to bash Jesuit casuists, to show how far Jesuits strayed from Christian proscription against killing. As it turns out, this Jesuit viewpoint was fleeting, which is likely why he had to invent a Father to argue it.

Jordan

Post 13

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 11:25pm

Re:

"Does the hypothetical stipulate that he knows that ONLY a slap is coming, or is he concerned that it could be more, that he could be injured or killed?"

I assume that the victim (whom I'll call "A") has no reason to expect *only* a slap from the assailant ("B"). Therefore, "A" reasons as follows:

"B has just stated that he 'merely' intends to slap me. If B believes he has a right to slap me, then he very likely believes he has a right to do more. This reminds me of John Galt's speech: the part mentioning that medieval warlords sometimes demanded ridiculously small tributes -- a silver spoon from the vanquished -- because conceding such seemingly insignificant items automatically conceded the warlord's 'right' to anything else the warlord wished to take. In the same way, if I concede to B the right to slap me today, I have automatically conceded to him the right to kick or stab or shoot me tomorrow."

Post 14

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 12:27am

Jon wrote,

My question is: Does the hypothetical stipulate that he knows that ONLY a slap is coming, or is he concerned that it could be more, that he could be injured or killed?

If the latter, then killing would be fine. If the former, then it is murder.

Jon, I thought I explained in Post #5 why, even if he knows that only a slap is coming, it would still not be murder to kill the slapper if doing so were necessary in order to prevent it. As I said,

"The other person has no right to slap you, which means that you have a right to stop him, if you can. But if the only way you can stop is to kill him, then it follows that you have a right to kill him, because you have a right to stop him and killing him is the only way you can do it. The premise implies the conclusion. If you want to reject the conclusion -- unpalatable as it is -- then you must reject the premise that under those circumstances you have a right to stop him -- a right to defend yourself. But that's a premise that is undeniable. And so, therefore, is the conclusion."

- Bill

Post 15

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 9:59am

Bill,

The problem with the formulation in your last post is where you said, "But if the only way you can stop is to kill him..."

That portion of the hypothetical flies in the face of common sense assumption. The conclusions drawn from this hypothetical are only applicable in the same fantasy world that it describes - one where only lethal force can stop a slap.

And, in terms of common sense, which is usually absent from hypotheticals, one usually doesn't know that they are about to be slapped until it is too late to do anything about it. Yet this hypothetical is written as if it is to speak about defense.

If you strip away the intellectual masturabatory pleasures of hypotheticals there isn't a lot of value left.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/23, 10:03am)

Post 16

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 10:59am

Hi Steve,

Outlandish hypos can be quite worthwhile, as I think this one is. They aim to isolate a small number of factors in order to glean basic principle. When I read nutty hypos like this one, I try to figure out what principle(s) are being questioned or investigating. Here, I think the question is whether we may parry minor force with major force when we lack other parry options -- an important question.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 8/23, 11:00am)

Post 17

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 12:03pm

Jordan,

Common sense gave me the answer to that question in a fraction of a second, and it took very little time to formulate the principles which validated that.

Common sense says, you use whatever force you need to but no more. Practically speaking, the circumstances determine what amount of force is needed to give you a margin of error without going overboard.

The moral principle is that the degree to which your individual rights are threatened, is the measure of the rights the offender has given up by making the threat. The rights he has given up measures the degree of force that can be used against him. These are the principles, and no precise measurement is needed. The attacker is the one initiating the moral transgression, and loses some of his moral protection. So if there is a benefit of the doubt as to whether the defender could have used less force, it goes to the defender.

Post 18

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 2:33pm

Steve,

I agree with Jordan. He has it exactly right. This outlandish hypothetical is almost certainly never going to occur, so it is, for all practical purposes, a fantasy. But its point is not intended to refer to a likely scenario; rather it is posited simply to question in the clearest possible terms whether it is legitimate to use lethal, or substantially greater, force in order to stop a substantially force if that is the only way one can do it.

You wrote,

Common sense gave me the answer to that question in a fraction of a second, and it took very little time to formulate the principles which validated that. Common sense says, you use whatever force you need to but no more. Practically speaking, the circumstances determine what amount of force is needed to give you a margin of error without going overboard.

The point of the example was to question whether there is some limit on how much force you're entitled to use in order to stop a degree of force that is relatively minor. If common sense were sufficient to provide the answer, then why is it that Jon concluded that killing the person is murder? I don't think the answer is as obvious as you suggest. I think that it requires one to recognize that not to justify the use of whatever force is necessary (even if it happens to be lethal) is in some small measure to sanction the initiation of force.

The moral principle is that the degree to which your individual rights are threatened, is the measure of the rights the offender has given up by making the threat.

Yes, assuming that no greater force is necessary.

The rights he has given up measures the degree of force that can be used against him.

Doesn't this beg the question? How does one determine the rights he has given up if one doesn't know how much force to use in retaliation?

These are the principles, and no precise measurement is needed. The attacker is the one initiating the moral transgression, and loses some of his moral protection. So if there is a benefit of the doubt as to whether the defender could have used less force, it goes to the defender.

I agree with this last. So, if I understand you correctly, you and I agree that it is proper to use even lethal force, if doing so is necessary to stop a relatively minor transgression.

- Bill

Post 19

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 3:41pm