a man walks in front of a bus...

[dsayers]

Whether the man is blind, attempting suicide, or unknown, we hear this moral question fairly regularly in regards to what is force and what is violence. I'd like to see a discussion on the ins and outs of this scenario, recognizing in full that it simply never happens.

 

I used to argue that to pull such a man back is the initiation of the use of force. Of course were it a blind man, he'd thank you, there'd be no complainant, and life would move on whether your act was immoral or not. In the case of the man who was committing suicide, I used to argue that it was an intentional violation of his self-ownership.

 

I had an epiphany earlier and now I don't see things the same way. If nothing else, man vs bus is still going to result in the bus being damaged. Stopping such a person, even in the event of attempted suicide, is akin to interrupting somebody swinging a bat at somebody else's car. This much I'm clear about. It's the other ideas I had that I was hoping we could talk about.

 

If person A is stopping person B from stepping in front of a bus for the purpose of willfully terminating the life he has ownership over, could it be considered defensive force considering that:

 

a) the bus driver would be forced into involuntary manslaughter, complete with all the emotional and psychological trauma therein?

 

b) bystanders would be similarly traumatized, as well as exposed to blood borne illness?

 

c) somebody would be forced to clean a mess up that they did not create?

[ribuck]

There's no doubt that pulling the man away from the bus is initiating force against him. So if you do that, you need to understand that you did initiate force and there might be consequences.

 

But realistically, the aggression is incredibly slight, and therefore the consequences would be incredibly slight. You have moved a person a short distance. In every crowded place, people bump into others all the time and move them a short distance, normally without any problem. On the other hand, there is a good chance that you will be hailed a hero, by onlookers and probably by the man himself. So, naturally, most people will pull the man away from the bus.

 

In the rare case where it was the man's genuine intention to die, well he'll need to make his next attempt away from potential rescuers won't he?

[y2k1]

You actually raise a good point about the NAP. You can't use it as fundamentalism. Hopefully restriction free euthanasia will exist and as such someone jumping in front of a bus will always be presumed as accidental, thus eliminating conflict.

[LanceD]

I hate these scenarios because they all seem to assume that we are incapable of decision making. Do we really require a strict rule book that lays out our precise to response to every possible scenario? Can't we just decide on some principles to live our lives by and rely upon our decision making skills?

[ribuck]

LanceD, people present these scenarios in response to claims by others that there is some universal principle. Any universal principle ought to be, you know, universal, which means it can be applied even to these scenarios.

[TheRobin]

@ribuck: I don't quite understand your rebuttal. As far as I get dsayers claim, the man would be the one initiation force (or attempting to) against the busowner, so pulling him away would be purely defensive.

[ribuck]

@ribuck: I don't quite understand your rebuttal.

 

That's probably because it wasn't a rebuttal!

 

If you read it as commentary rather than rebuttal, let me know at what point it doesn't make sense. Note that I'm not addressing aggression against the bus. I've yet to hear of someone who threw themselves in front of a bus in order to damage the bus.

[TheRobin]

Ah makes more sense as a commenary then, just seems a tad out of place though in my opinion. (Whatever my opinion's worth ofc)

 

But to address your point then, I didn't say people's actions are motivated by damaging the bus, but that's still what's gonna happen. So how would that matter in regards of who initiated force first?

Empirically, motivation counts for nothing as it's not something you can measure in the moment anyway. But seeing how an action results in property damage is objectively true, regardless, so if a person takes that action, he or she has initiated force at that point. Or where do you disagree here?

[ribuck]

TheRobin, if motivation counts for nothing because it is immeasurable, then surely we must also disregard potential future damage to the bus. Not only can the potential damage not be measured when we pull the man out from in front of the bus, but we can't even approximately estimate it.

 

It's nothing more than speculation to consider that a person initiates force against a bus when they step out in front of it.

[dsayers]

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How much you weigh can be used to calculate the force your couch, chair, or the ground is exerting upon you right now. Creatures are made of high contents of liquid, so they display the effects of physical trauma much greater than objects fashioned for the sake of structural integrity, such as the body of an automobile. Nevertheless, the exact same amount of force will be applied to the automobile were it to strike an animal as is applied to that animal.

 

I tried to address this point up front by pointing out that somebody swinging a bat at a vehicle is no different than standing in front of a moving vehicle in terms of predictable property damage. The amount of damage isn't relevant if the vehicle you are damaging is owned by somebody else and therefor not yours to choose to damage.

[cab21]

the person walking in front of a bus is the one who initiates aggression if the bus had the right of way.

the question is who had the right of way according to the rules of the owner of the road.