killing for a slap

A child rolling over my foot with his tricycle would hurt just as much, maybe more.

Murder to prevent a fleeting stinging sensation—when perfect safety to you is STIPULATED beforehand. Unbelievable.

I wouldn’t risk a stroll in the woods with you, Bill.

Post 21

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 9:13pm

Jon, don't make to slap Bill, and you'll have nothin' to worry about. :-P

Of course in actuality, Bill would undoubtedly have other options if you slapped him. But really, even if he didn't, I'll bet he wouldn't kill you for a slap, since that *would* be murder under the law.

Jordan

Post 22

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 9:21pm

Of course, in a world as warped as the one described here, I'm sure the laws would be adjusted to account for those godlike beings only capable of lethal action, and those only capable of slapstick violence. I'm not sure where the child on a tricycle would be in stupid arbirtrary assertion land. Does the philosophy change if the slapper is a werewolf and the killer guy is a magical unicorn in human form?

Post 23

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 10:00am

Jon wrote,

A child rolling over my foot with his tricycle would hurt just as much, maybe more.

Murder to prevent a fleeting stinging sensation—when perfect safety to you is STIPULATED beforehand. Unbelievable.

I wouldn’t risk a stroll in the woods with you, Bill.

The child's rolling over my foot with a tricycle would be an accident, of course, and not a malicious or an intentional initiation of force, and even it were malicious or intentional and the child could be held morally responsible for it, it would not be something that could only be stopped by killing him. Further: even if, in some fantasy land, the child were morally culpable and his action could only be stopped by killing him, I still wouldn't do it and neither would any other normally sane individual.

But the issue here is whether or not one would have a right to prevent such a minor initiation of force by killing the perpetrator if that were the only way it could be prevented. If you think you would NOT have that right, then you need to show what is wrong with my argument.

The argument, once again, is that if you do not have a right to do what is necessary to stop the initiation of force (in this case, killing the perpetrator to prevent it), then he does have a right to initiate it (since you have no right to stop him). However, since (as I'm sure you would agree) he does not have a right to initiate force, it follows that you do have a right to stop him.

Stated formally:

If you do not have a right to do what is necessary to stop him (not-RS), then he has a right to initiate the force (RI).
He has no right to initiate the force. (not-RI)
Therefore, by the rule of modus tollens, you have a right to do what is necessary to stop him. (RS)

~RS --> RI
~RI
∴ RS

If you want to challenge the argument, then you need to challenge the premises, because the logic is valid.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/24, 1:27pm)

Post 24

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 4:40pm

“Further: even if, in some fantasy land, the child were morally culpable and his action could only be stopped by killing him, I still wouldn't do it and neither would any other normally sane individual.

“But the issue here is whether or not one would have a right to prevent such a minor initiation of force by killing the perpetrator if that were the only way it could be prevented. If you think you would NOT have that right, then you need to show what is wrong with my argument.”

One thing that is wrong is that you acknowledge that one would NEED TO BE insane to defend himself in a particular case. It’s a right—this right you insist exists—which one could NEVER exercise unless one were INSANE. And; Someone else gets whacked, by one while one is insane. Together, those two make one problem with your argument.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 8/24, 5:10pm)

Post 25

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 4:43pm

Someone needs to check his premises.

Post 26

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 12:32am

Characterizing my argument, Jon wrote,

One thing that is wrong is that you acknowledge that one would NEED TO BE insane to defend himself in a particular case. It’s a right—this right you insist exists—which one could NEVER exercise unless one were INSANE. And; Someone else gets whacked, by one while one is insane. Together, those two make one problem with your argument.

Good observation, Jon! Yeah, that does seem to weigh against my argument. And yet, as I've shown, the right to defend oneself is incontrovertible. So how do we resolve this paradox?

One thing that could be said in defense of my position is that it is not always wise (or sane) to do that which one has a right to do. For example, if one is being held up at gunpoint, one has a right to retaliate against the mugger, but it may be unwise -- perhaps even suicidal -- to do so if it poses too great a risk to one's health and safety. The fact that one has a right to do something does not mean that it is always a good thing to do or even something that a reasonable person would want to do.

I have the right to engage in a (voluntary) duel with someone who insults me, but it would be a stupid thing to do, and no reasonably sane person would attempt it.

I have the right to kill my beloved my pet and eat him for dinner, but most people would question my sanity if I were to exercise that right.

One could multiply examples. The fact that I have a right to kill another person if doing so were necessary to prevent him from slapping me does not mean that it is something that a reasonably sane person would do if that unlikely scenario were ever to occur.

Ted wrote,

Someone needs to check his premises.

Yes, and I wonder who that someone might be! For your information, Ted, I just had a premises technician out to my house yesterday, and everything checked out just fine!

You Objectivists are getting a bit too picky. Why just last week, an Objectivist vacuum cleaner salesman paid me a visit. He was trying to sell me something called the "Axiomatic." Said it checks your premises before it cleans them. He made me an offer I couldn't refute, and since then my premises have been impeccable.

- Bill

Post 27

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 6:56am