Can I design algorithms that way? My algorithm will work except for cases a, b and c, which I will refuse to admit ever happens.
I’ll re-ask the question assuming the maximum amount of force you feel comfortable admitting is justified. How does the motive of the aggressor affect in any way your response? When you are fully in control, the way society is with a convicted criminal about to be sentenced, you have the luxury of making these distinctions, but you don’t in the heat of the moment.
Ok, so when you’ve got a person outnumbered 150:1 and his gun doesn’t work anymore, then pacifism can work. Gotcha.
Unless he starts kicking you to death one by one. Because if six of you jumped on him while he was kicking the first one, your would be making things worse.
That’s not what I said. But then, you knew that.
Sure I do. “Deserving commendation; serving as an example; commendable.” (It can also mean serving as a warning," but I’m sure you don’t mean that sense and I shan’t pretend otherwise.) I simply disagree with you that an absolute refusal to kill fits any of the defintions proffered above.
You were saying that not all situations require somebody getting killed to be resolved?
Your cited that situation as support for the statement that “You have to jump through all kinds of hoops to reach a point where lethal force is ‘the only way’.” Had the gun not jammed you’d have ended up with 20 dead people, assuming that lethal force wasn’t used. Picking a situation where the killer is outnumbered and his gun jams is jumping through all kinds of hoops to reach a point where lethal force isn’t a drastically better solution to the situation.
So your code has error handlers specifically for meteor strikes? I mean, those happen.
It doesn’t. Only his actions and the immediate effects thereof are relevant, not the why.
This is where I would stop.
I’ve bolded the bit I intend it to mean, and I’ve already explained at length why I think that. That you do not agree with the strategy, does not change the intent, and the word is perfectly applicable. Gandhi and Tank Man serve as examples to me, so I consider their behaviour exemplary, and I intend my behaviour to do the same.
Forgive me for jumping in late, but I’m curious. Do you only intend to cover common cases? You seem to be saying “since that’s very rare, I don’t have to worry about it—my ethical system has nothing to say in such situations.” If that’s accurate then it’s only a short hop away from “in extraordinary circumstances violence may be justifiable.”
The uncharitable conclusion I’m tempted to draw is that you simply don’t want to deal with circumstances in which the result of nonviolence is undeniably bad. So: say that a madman is coming at me with a knife, I’m backed into a corner and happen to be holding a stick. It’s fight back or die. What do you say? Should I hope against odds that he has a change of heart? Or is that situation simply so uncommon that ethics can prescribe no action?
hdc_bst
I personally don’t think actions can be divided into acceptable and unacceptable. Everything is a judgement call about what will be most likely to create the greatest happiness and the least harm. But I do try to divide ideas into true and untrue. So in your example, there is no point in that scenario where the actions are unacceptable. Where it becomes unacceptable is when the person after beating his attacker into submission, turns around and tries to justify his actions with claims of self-defense or pretending that he had no choice.
I’m not sure I understand.
I’ll agree that a person in my scenario cannot pretend that he had no choice, but I’ll assert that the choice is always submit or escalate. What confuses me is your inclusion of ‘claims of self-defense.’ Under what light is the scenario as presented not self-defense?
For the record, I personally think that actions can definitely be divided into acceptable and unacceptable, although that division is very strongly context based.
That’s not true. Twenty people might have been killed. It’s not ‘jumping through hoops’ to imagine standers-by jumping the guy before he gets all the rounds off. You watch too much tv.
Oh of corse, it’s self-defense. The claim I’m speaking of is that self-defense creates an exception where harming another person, somehow ‘doesn’t count’. It’s harmful when they attack you. It’s also harmful when you choose to defend yourself violently. Harming any other person, even if they’re attacking you, does not serve the goal of the greatest possible happiness and the least harm.
One thing I think people here continue to miss is that violence has consequences far beyond the immediate pain and suffering of the subject of that violence… as does any claim that such actions are justified. It increaces the degree to which all people have to expect future violence. People then use that expectation, as is visible in this very thread, as a justification for their own violence, which then makes things worse again, and again and again.
I think it’s important to distinguish between complete non-violence and a refusal to kill (non-lethal). Barring possession of a gun or explosives, I think that a scenario needs to be very contrived to differentiate between someone following non-lethal pacifism and someone following kill-only-as-last-resortism.
In your scenario I think the standard outcome for either philosophy would be to flail at the attackers limbs with your stick and beat feet as soon as possible.
So, how about a new resolution…
Resolved:
From the perspective of utilitarian kill-only-as-last-resortism, another individual’s non-lethal pacifism philosophy is irrelevant as long as that individual:
Do you admit that there are varying degrees of harm? If so, I think you should ammend the last sentence to:
Harming any other person, even if they’re attacking you, does not always serve the goal of the greatest possible happiness and the least harm.
In fact, on further thought I think that in many situations involving potential force, the judicious use of violence very directly serves the goal of the greatest possible happiness and the least harm.
Back to my scenario. We consider the closed system of Mugger/Lunatic A and Theater Patron B.
In one possible world, B exercises violence and kicks A in the shins, then runs away from the hobbling A.
Net Happiness: A (reasonably happy) + B (mildly unhappy)
Net Harm: A (slightly winded) + B (slight limp)
In another possible world, B only attempts to run and gets stabbed in the back by A.
Net Happiness: B (very happy)
Net Harm: A (dead)
Now unless B’s extreme joy at a successful kill is so great as to outweigh’s A’s death, I think it is quite clear that A very ably served the goal of greatest possible happiness and least harm through the use of violence.
And I think that in my example above, the societal expectation of violence is reduced by A’s shinkicking violence, which probably is heard of only by A’s close loved ones, rather than A’s pacifistic death which would almost certainly make the evening news.
Of corse there are varrying degrees of harm, but I doubt there’s any situation where the choice of violence can prevent more harm than it causes. And even if there were such a situation, I’m pretty sure that there’s no reliable method of judging such a thing.
I’m sure you know closed systems like this don’t exist in the real world but whatever, I’ll go along with it for now.
I think you’ve gotten A and B confused here. Couldn’t serve the point more perfectly.
The mugger/lunatic certainly thinks his joy at a successful kill outweighs the death of his victim. If not, why would he he do it? The victim will obviously disagree but what makes the victim’s assessment of the situation superior to the attackers?
So A think’s his violence will do more good than harm, and B thinks his own violence will do more good than harm. It doesn’t matter at all which is which. So how is this dilemma solved? Under the current system, the formula for solving these problems is might=right. Simple in it’s application but unless you think you have god on your side to help you smite your enemies I don’t see how you can really expect it to solve anything.
I really can’t imagine how that could be. How could one persons choice of violence possibly lead people to expect less violence?
You’re forgetting the mugger himself, I’m sure he’d remember, and be more likely to expect violence from future victims. This MIGHT make him reconsider his career as a mugger, or it might just lead him to attack future victims with greater brutality so they don’t get the chance to kick. I personally think there are more reasons not to be a mugger than the threat of my victims fighting back. If the mugger could be made aware of those reasons, this might affect his future behavior without the risk of escalating the violence.
Thank you. I agree.
All the better reason to kill the mugger. He can’t victimize anyone else if he is dead.
Now let’s look at this from the POV of the mugger. It’s easy to create hypothetical scenarios with cartoon villains who twist their mustaches and plot the slaughter of infants for no reason, but in the real world, people do the things they do for a reason.
Unless the mugger is a member of the bourgeoisie, he could agrue just as much as his victims that he ‘has no choice’. He is the victim of Structural violence. Should he submit to this? Or should he fight back?
The problem with using ‘prevention of violence’ as a justification for violence is that it also serves as the justification for the very violence you are trying to prevent.
Unfortunately it’s an even better reason for the mugger to kill his victims.
The point isn’t the number. The point is that everybody there was extremely lucky that lethal force wasn’t required to stop it from getting much worse. Had his gun not jammed and he had killed one more person, that’s a point in favor of lethal force.
This whole thing has gotten way too technical. Let me make a relatively simple supposition. As far as I can tell, the main thrust of the pacifist argument here is that if everyone were to adopt a nonviolent attitude, the world would be a better place. So, let me suppose two hypothetical worlds.
World A: Everyone is a pacifist. Nobody engages is violence ever.
World B: Everyone only engages in violence as a means of self-defense in response to violence from others.
A simple question: what is the difference between those two worlds? As far as I can tell, both would lead to pretty much the same outcome.