EricBaker.Linux Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 When is self defence ethical? IMO it is only ethical to use the amount of coercion necessary to keep yourself safe from an aggressor. If, and ONLY if you are in immediate, life-threatening danger, may you use deadly force in response to coercion. Additionally, I think it is only ethical if you have exhausted all other options. (if possible you could try: escape, disguise, hiding, bribery, acting(playing dead, or pretending to be stronger than you are), trolling, compliance, avoidance, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Stephen Mangan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I pretty much agree, and it's kind of what I'm addressing here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40487-succinctpracticle-upbdo-unto-others/. Let me know what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuger Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thanks for reposting, ericshaw.linux! Self defense should be commensurate with aggression being experienced. Lethal aggression, lethal defense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 The "only option left" argument is entirely irrelevant to self-defense. No one can tell another, what options they have or don't have. There's just no way to assert it. There's only statistics and intuition. Any self-defense instructor will tell you that. [i practiced Krav Maga.] The only reason we don't kill a person who "only" slaps us, or that cops are not being shot on a daily basis, is that we don't want to suffer the consequences. Those people definitely violate the NAP, and are a real and evident threat against us, but we do not want to take the risk of defending ourselves against them. So, let's be honest here. Morally, cops, and anyone who makes a threat against the life of another person, not in immediate self-defense, deserve killing. Does a traffic cop, who only gives tickets, carry a gun? A taser? If they don't have weapons, then meh, but if they do, then we all know that they are meant to use them for hurting people, and not only in their self-defense. I recently wrote about Why Do We Murder, wherein I explored the logic behind taking life.My personal conclusion is that self-defense is ethical, whenever it actually defends the person. If acting in prevention means getting a worse assault, then it's not really self-defense. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBaker.Linux Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share Posted July 13, 2014 My personal conclusion is that self-defense is ethical, whenever it actually defends the person. If acting in prevention means getting a worse assault, then it's not really self-defense. that's a good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuger Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The only reason we don't kill a person who "only" slaps us, or that cops are not being shot on a daily basis, is that we don't want to suffer the consequences. So we are entirely justified in shooting someone dead for slapping us, no matter the circumstances (age, sex, mental ability), because they are violating NAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Even in today's statist world, I am allowed to use deadly force to protect another human life, even if they are a stranger to me. I am well within my right to shoot (and kill) someone who is assaulting a victim whose life or well-being is in jeopardy. I am not obligated to help, but I may choose to do so if I am able. In actual practice, I would only use deadly force to protect myself, a family member, or a friend because who wants to have to pay for a lawyer due to protecting a perfect stranger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The consequences are real. Cop-killers usually don't make it to jail alive. If they survive long enough to get arrested, there's still a huge burden coming. The justification for using lethal force is to prevent the imminent death or grave bodily harm of the innocent. If you make the positive claim that you were right to break the law the burden of proof shifts to you. If a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what you knew at the time, would do the same thing you did (as determined by the jury), you could conceivably win. Perhaps you will not spend more than $50K on your criminal defense (triple that for the civil one). Radically more if you engage good lawyers and expert witnesses. The social cost, which will be cruelly exacted by the press at every opportunity, is incalculable. Thus, if the cop was imminently going to kill you for no good reason you might have a chance in court. If the cop was just wandering down the street, arresting someone else, or even arresting you for any of the innumerable but articulable crimes they have on tap, you have zero chance. Just look at the Zimmerman/Martin case and you can see how badly it can go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 So we are entirely justified in shooting someone dead for slapping us, no matter the circumstances (age, sex, mental ability), because they are violating NAP? The reality is that most people would, first, be too shocked to do anything. However, in a weapon-bearing society, how many random-slappers do you think would come out alive of such situations? I don't know much about The Wild West or about Feudal Japan, but I'd bet my safety that slapping any gun-slinger or katana-wielder would result in very-much-expected-and-socially-accepted dire consequences. The NAP doesn't tell people what to do. It tells them what not to do. People tell people what to do. So, this issue depends entirely on the relevant society and its' norms. For example, I'm sure that slapping a government official will result in worse punishment, than slapping some random person in the street, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 As an aside, for people that don't understand the need to STFU when you are talking to police, detained, or arrested just look at all the videos of the District Attorney in Texas who escalated her own situation by being aggressive with the responding officer. Cops are trained to detain and arrest people that escalate situations because people like that are more prone to violence. She was the DA, far more used to deference to her authority than really was warranted in this situation. They respond to DUIs and face violence a great deal more than any of us may realize, including her. That is not the time to make a stand. Raising the stakes is what they expect and are ready to respond to. The time to make a stand would have been in a public forum, looking presentable, and not when one is being booked making faces, threats, and acting out. The jury is going to see that, and she sure as hell knew it. However, I suppose it can be considered a wimp-out. What I consider is the fact that I came from a home where yelling (and, yeah, spanking) was commonplace, so I developed a condition where I contain myself until I reach a boiling point and explode in a torrent of emotion, usually anger (and, oddly, yelling, aren't you shocked?). So maybe I have incorporated this quirk in my advice. I accept this criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 As an aside, for people that don't understand the need to STFU when you are talking to police... Cops are trained to detain and arrest people that escalate situations... The time to make a stand would have been in a public forum... However, I suppose it can be considered a wimp-out... Sounds like reasonable and evident advice, to me. Self-defense isn't about "winning"... It's about defending yourself, when threats arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 So we are entirely justified in shooting someone dead for slapping us, no matter the circumstances (age, sex, mental ability), because they are violating NAP? The reality is that most people would, first, be too shocked to do anything. However, in a weapon-bearing society, how many random-slappers do you think would come out alive of such situations? I don't know much about The Wild West or about Feudal Japan, but I'd bet my safety that slapping any gun-slinger or katana-wielder would result in very-much-expected-and-socially-accepted dire consequences. The NAP doesn't tell people what to do. It tells them what not to do. People tell people what to do. So, this issue depends entirely on the relevant society and its' norms. For example, I'm sure that slapping a government official will result in worse punishment, than slapping some random person in the street, right? Holy Crap Phuein, what are you arguing for here? I have debated with statists who put forward these kinds of arguments. What does the reality of weapon bearing cultures have to do with ethical/moral behavior? which is by definition universal. that means everywhere, anytime. Its not OK to shot someone who slaps you, or kill women for not being virgins, or whatever other kind of insane behavior is practiced by different societies and promoted by the ruling class. You say "people tell people what to do." The point of philosophy is to show us that we should act according to what is right, and ethical and rational instead of going along with whatever cultural or religious propaganda is fed to us by the oligarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Wearing a uniform isn't an act of aggression itself and preemptively attacking someone because you think they are going to attack you or someone else in the future is not self-defense. Yes, self-defense against the aggression of a cop is justifiable from a moral standpoint, but is it sane in today's world? No, and anyone who advocates it is putting others in danger and making the movement look crazy to those who think police have a vital role in society. Simply put, there is nothing productive or noble about getting yourself killed in a suicide-by-cop situation. You are just putting an abstract principle above your own survival. The only reason we don't kill a person who "only" slaps us, or that cops are not being shot on a daily basis, is that we don't want to suffer the consequences. Those people definitely violate the NAP, and are a real and evident threat against us, but we do not want to take the risk of defending ourselves against them. What? The reason I wouldn't kill someone who slaps me is because it's not a commensurate use of force... Does a slap mean that someone is trying to take your life? Absolutely not. (If that was their intent then they would be acting differently) So shooting them is not self-defense. The reason ethics is so complicated is that the circumstances matter. (things like avoidability or degree) There is a right to defend yourself but that doesn't extend to, for example, blowing your wife away if she slaps you out of anger... and the fact that your post is getting upvoted is scary to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuein Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Holy Crap Phuein, what are you arguing for here? I have debated with statists who put forward these kinds of arguments... What does the reality of weapon bearing cultures have to do with ethical/moral behavior?... You say "people tell people what to do."... Wearing a uniform isn't an act of aggression itself and preemptively attacking someone because you think they are going to attack you or someone else in the future is not self-defense... What? The reason I wouldn't kill someone who slaps me is because it's not a commensurate use of force... This is, on the one hand, a moral & practical issue, and on the other hand, it is also a social issue. I'm not saying that people should simply obey others, in their social context. I was referring to this topic being a social issue, as in: After the philosophical value had been decided, then the judgement is made in the context of that society. This is why we won't attack single mothers on gov' subsidized money, but rather look at society that enables and encourages the whole shabang, right? And my previous post being upvoted shouldn't scare you. I'm no statist or fascist, and there is clarification to be done here. I am arguing for philosophical self-defense, here. A self-defense that actually intends to defend the person or people, rather than get equal with the aggressors. Which is why fighting with cops is generally a really bad idea - even if they started it. We all agree that a society, in which people in costumes are exempt of morality, doesn't make sense, and works very badly. However, in a society where all are equally morally responsible, who is to say what is reasonable behavior, in a situation of threat or attack? The NAP had definitely been bypassed, and it is up to the locals to judge the case, in their own self-defense. How do we know that a threat won't become an assault? A slap won't become a bashing? A punch won't become a knife or a gun? The reality is that abusers escalate, if not stopped. Their goal is to abuse, and the more you let them, the more they will take from you. The main reason why a cutpurse doesn't rob banks is because of the higher risks involved. This is like that old joke... Man [to Woman]: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars? Woman: Sure. Man: How about for ten dollars? Woman: What do you think I am? Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price. We've already established that the person, currently, does not abide by the NAP, and so we know that it won't stop them. Let's say I wear a KKK uniform, clearly stating that I am a member of the KKK, knowing that this organization attacks non-whites, and considers this a good thing. By simply walking around with this uniform, am I stating a clear threat against the non-whites around me? Of course I am. It's equal to shouting every minute, "I will attack people of color!" If I go up to a black guy, and tell him that I will find him, his family, his friends, and attack them... Does he have the right to defend himself, against my threat? Even though it's only verbal, at the moment. Universally so, he does. We all do. That's why people use witnesses or recordings of threats, to defend against aggressors. Weapon bearing cultures show us what happens, when strength is not limited only to numbers or size. Self-defense is a universal, but the ability to defend yourself is not! To spout philosophy by value, without philosophy in practice, is what leads to people attacking cops, thinking that it's a wise thing. Just look at the fascist leaders of invading empires; they only stop, when physically stopped (Germany vs Russia), or the threat is overwhelming (Nuclear threat). Otherwise, they will do anything, in order to conquer others (USA in in the Arab world / China in Tibet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyD Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Self defense is about safety. The safest thing with police is to obey and do nothing; don't talk much, don't even smile. If you're dealing with a random aggressive person, just run away. If you can't run away, don't let them close enough to be able to slap you - kick them in the balls. If you're serious about learning self defense I recommend Krav Maga. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I can't see my posts, are they being posted? Yes, came through fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts