Nick900 Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 In an Anarchist society the only acceptable use of force is to defend ones self (right?). I have a couple of scenarios I would like to consider: 1. Someone tries to attack you with a gun - clearly you can use self defence 2. Someone tried to attack someone else with a gun - does this still come under self defence to assist them? Now thinking about how the state justifies their actions: 3. Could war against a country be classed as self defence? 4. Is there a moral difference between proactive self defence and reactive self defence (on a state and personal level)?
shirgall Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 In an Anarchist society the only acceptable use of force is to defend ones self (right?). I have a couple of scenarios I would like to consider: 1. Someone tries to attack you with a gun - clearly you can use self defence 2. Someone tried to attack someone else with a gun - does this still come under self defence to assist them? Now thinking about how the state justifies their actions: 3. Could war against a country be classed as self defence? 4. Is there a moral difference between proactive self defence and reactive self defence (on a state and personal level)? The circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. You may defend the person in #2 if you know they are innocent of initiating the aggression. A state could claim self-defense in the face of a declared war or apparent invasion. A state could claim self-defense if its innocent citizens were being attacked. And the moral difference between proactive and reactive lethal force goes back to my very first statement. 1
Nick900 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 The circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. Could this not be a justification for invading Iraq or some other country a terrorist is coming out of? (assuming no ulterior motive) Terrorists are attacking state-xyz so state-xyz goes into the terrorist country to defend themselves.
dsayers Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 2. Someone tried to attack someone else with a gun - does this still come under self defence to assist them? I find it helps to look at these things in terms of property rights. When person A initiates the use of force against person B, they are voluntarily creating a debt to that person. If that includes irreversible acts such as bodily harm or death, it is reasonable to expect that person B would give their consent for others to collect upon that debt if they could. As such, it is morally justifiable for persons C, D, and E to intervene. Does that make sense? 3. Could war against a country be classed as self defence? You need to define your terms. What do you mean specifically by "war"? Also, countries do not exist, so you can not engage in behaviors directed at them. It's this sort of obfuscation by way of language that allows these horrific behaviors to be carried out at all.
Nick900 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 I find it helps to look at these things in terms of property rights. When person A initiates the use of force against person B, they are voluntarily creating a debt to that person. If that includes irreversible acts such as bodily harm or death, it is reasonable to expect that person B would give their consent for others to collect upon that debt if they could. As such, it is morally justifiable for persons C, D, and E to intervene. Does that make sense? I don't fully see how a debt is created when A initiates force against B? When I say war I mean using force and when I say country I mean group of 2 or more people to protect 1 or more people (i.e., father goes off to defend child, soldiers go off to defend citizens (group membership)) ... Although when stated like this you could probably be morally justified in going after a specific group of people who have aggressed against you but certainly not carpet bombing an entire country, however it creates a new problem of whether collateral damage is ever acceptable?
Will Torbald Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 In an Anarchist society the only acceptable use of force is to defend ones self It's not society what determines what is moral, it's philosophy. This weasel way of making questions ignores basic etiquette of discussion. We do not live in an anarchist society and I doubt you would agree to someone pointing a loaded gun at you anyway.
Nick900 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 It's not society what determines what is moral, it's philosophy. This weasel way of making questions ignores basic etiquette of discussion. We do not live in an anarchist society and I doubt you would agree to someone pointing a loaded gun at you anyway. I'm not intentionally trying to be a weasel, I get that we don't live in an anarchist society so it's a bit of a grey area, I'm just trying to think about how to counter the arguments of (the many) people who think war is necessary for self defence. I guess the easiest way to do this is just to argue the side of the statist and see if the position can be defended.
shirgall Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Could this not be a justification for invading Iraq or some other country a terrorist is coming out of? (assuming no ulterior motive) Terrorists are attacking state-xyz so state-xyz goes into the terrorist country to defend themselves. You can justify lethal force against people that are actively taking steps to kill you, sure, but everyone around them that may be uninvolved? No.
Mister Mister Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I'm not intentionally trying to be a weasel, I get that we don't live in an anarchist society so it's a bit of a grey area, I'm just trying to think about how to counter the arguments of (the many) people who think war is necessary for self defence. I guess the easiest way to do this is just to argue the side of the statist and see if the position can be defended. It's easy to see war as one country attacking another country, but you have to realize that first, the country has to terrorize and propagandize and steal from it's OWN citizens, in order to fund the military, and fill it with obedient young men who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for a peace of dyed cloth. Do these people argue that offensive wars are necessary for self-defense? A defensive force would look way different and be way cheaper than modern State militaries.
Koroviev Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 The way I see it this is a simple question: 1. is the "self-defense" funded through the initiation of the use of force? 2. is there actual evidence for the need of "self-defense"? 3. is the self-defense actually self-defense or is there an ulterior motive? 4. does the "self-defense" actually work? 5. if not who is held accountable
Nick900 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 It's easy to see war as one country attacking another country, but you have to realize that first, the country has to terrorize and propagandize and steal from it's OWN citizens, in order to fund the military, and fill it with obedient young men who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for a peace of dyed cloth. Do these people argue that offensive wars are necessary for self-defense? A defensive force would look way different and be way cheaper than modern State militaries. These are pretty great points, will give them a go next time I'm in a discussion
dsayers Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 I don't fully see how a debt is created when A initiates force against B? If I steal your bike, I voluntarily create a debt to you in the amount of the value of your bike, plus whatever resources you would need to put into settling that debt. When I say war I mean using force and when I say country I mean group of 2 or more people to protect 1 or more people (i.e., father goes off to defend child, soldiers go off to defend citizens (group membership)) ... Although when stated like this you could probably be morally justified in going after a specific group of people who have aggressed against you but certainly not carpet bombing an entire country, however it creates a new problem of whether collateral damage is ever acceptable? When you ponder whether collateral damage is acceptable, it's unclear if you're talking about reality or made up "rules." Your language isn't very precise, so I'll try one more time to help by pointing out that "crowd" is a concept. People exist. If you want to know what's acceptable amid a crowd, you must look at what is acceptable between individuals. Because individuals don't fundamentally change based on proximity to other individuals. The language you're using seems to assume that the State is valid, which it is provably not specifically because of the un-universifiable violations of property rights that it is predicated upon.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 The problem here is that you focus on the wrong thing. You are focused on specific scenarios rather than the principle. If the force is defensive then it's justified. That's it. Trying to figure to what degree if any some scenario that involves state violence may or may not be justified is besides the point. Generally when there's a state involved then the only choices left are evil ones.
LibertarianSocialist Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 I wonder if ancaps will ever have insurrectionary anarchists/illegalists?
Recommended Posts