How can I believe that you and I have the right to shoot and kill criminals when my assertion is that rights are absolute and no one can lose their rights for any reason? What I have said before, and still believe, is that rights are absolute, and they do not overlap (by which I mean I have no right to do anything that would violate YOUR rights). Where does that leave my contention?
Well, when someone chooses to commit a true "crime", they have initiated force, either physically or economically. I have the right to act in self defense. In order to complete my self defensive act, the person who chose to initiate force may well get injured or killed. I did not set the acts in motion so it is not my fault. I am not killing an intruder; he is killing himself by setting a train of events into motion. Gravity does not kill a "jumper"; his own act of jumping off a balcony brings a logical conclusion that will kill him unless certain precautions are taken, or unless conditions save him. Neither gravity, nor the balcony, nor the ground below should feel any guilt (if they could) for his death. The same holds true for an innocent person who kills an attacker. You did not violate his rights, he violated his own rights at the same time he violated yours. You did not seek him out; he took a risk and lost, and society is richer for the outcome.
This is easier stated as "your rights end where mine begin". Most people can understand that without the need for additional explanation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will admit that your explanations are far more interesting.
Kent, that's hackneyed at best. Your analogy between you shooting a criminal and someone jumping off a balcony is horrid. The ground does not choose to enforce the law of gravity, but a pacifist may decide not to retaliate against an aggressor.
ReplyDeleteYour account, like the traditional account (that a criminal "surrenders" his rights when he commits a crime), does not integrate the principle of freedom of choice.
OK. I will think about this more, then.
ReplyDeleteI think that a pacifist is abdicating his right to self defense, but he still has them. Is retaliating the same as resisting? Maybe, but I don't consider them the same. I am just thinking that a criminal chooses to set into motion a certain chain of events that can, and should, unfold in a certain way. As I said, the jumper may be saved by circumstances and the attacker may be saved by pacifism, but the basic law of nature still holds.
Still, if you think it is that flawed, I will keep trying.
I'm not saying your reasoning is flawed, I'm saying it's incomplete and that your analogy is flawed, which may perhaps be leading you in wrong directions.
ReplyDelete"I think that a pacifist is abdicating his right to self defense, but he still has them."
Well see, that's also the problem I have with the standard account. What does it mean to abdicate or surrender a right? I can understand this in a context of trade, although it would be impossible to completely give up a right (if only because one cannot be outside of his own body). One can abdicate from the *expression* of a right for unrelated reasons while still retaining it fully. I think a pacifist would be in that category.
"I am just thinking that a criminal chooses to set into motion a certain chain of events that can, and should, unfold in a certain way."
Well, that's true of everything. Everything is determined by the laws of causality. That doesn't mean that it should have bearing on our judgment.
"As I said, the jumper may be saved by circumstances and the attacker may be saved by pacifism, but the basic law of nature still holds."
In a general sense I agree. But we're talking about moral judgment, and we cannot presume that what is natural is just unless we prove it. Certainly the natural is the given, and we must take it into consideration in all our actions and beliefs, but it's not automatically moral.
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that a pacifist is abdicating their right of self-defense. What they are doing is shirking their responsibility to the society in which they live.
The way I see it, with each and every Right, comes an equal Responsibility. Not only do we each have a responsibility to see that our practice of our Rights does not infringe upon another's rights, but also to assist our friends and neighbors through proper adherence to those Rights.
A criminal is a person who harms or causes harm to come to another person. Yes, taking property causes harm. Property is purchased by means of the only commodity any of us have, our time. In essence every thing that I own is a part of my life as I have had to sacrifice a certain amount of the time I have on this Earth to acquire each object. Therefore, by taking that item you are taking the same amount of my life.
With that being said, back to the matter at hand.
We all have a "God" given Right to self-defense. If a criminal attacks me and I kill him then I have fulfilled my Responsibility as well. Not only have I stopped him from completing his plan to harm me, I have also stopped him from harming ANYONE else. By abdicating the Right to self-defense a pacifist has pushed that responsibility off on someone else, which I think is unconscionable.
Freedom is really not an easy thing when you get right down to it.
Your position that pacifists are shirking their responsibility to stop criminals is not an argument I am sympathetic to. How is this responsibility accrued? One can easily prove that rights exist, but I have yet to see proof of such responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWhere a right exists, it casts a shadow. That shadow is called "responsibility".
ReplyDeleteI do feel there is a responsibility to protect the innocent. You may not. Maybe it is my freedom of choice that makes me feel that way.
There are certain responsibilities that come as a result of being born human. I think that shirking these is as bad a "choice" as making the choice to murder innocents. I am not saying you can't make these choices, but that to do so is wrong.
Do we have to necessarily accept everything that comes with the state of nature? Or can we, as individuals, make our own choices in life?
ReplyDeleteChoices can be made within the confines of nature, but to reject nature is what got us into a lot of the messes we are now in. You might prefer to be a gazelle rather than a naked ape, but that doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about something as absurd as thinking you're a gazelle, of course. I'm talking about not feeling a duty towards the burdens of nature.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the fact that natural selection operates on the basis of reproduction does not mean that we all have a duty to reproduce in order to be "successful." Our notion of success can, and will, be different from that of an impersonal natural process.
Reproduction, eating, drinking, and self defense are not burdens to most living beings. They are simply part of being alive.
ReplyDeleteReproduction is probably the least important one in the group, followed by self defense. They are still functions of being alive, however.
To be successful in the biological sense you must do all these things, both personally and as a part of a species.
To be individually successful you still must do these, with the possible exception of reprodution, to some extent or you will be dead.
Self defense is not exclusively used against attackers of your own species, but any threat to your survival. The threat could be an attacker, a disease, or accidental mechanical damage.
So far I'm following you...
ReplyDeleteI think self-defense is a personal decision, and we each must use our own set of morals to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteIf someone breaks into my house to rob me, I will shoot them. However, it is important to note that I am not shooting them for stealing from me. I am shooting them to protect myself from being physically harmed, since it is reasonable to assume that, if all they wanted was property, they would break in when no one was home. Breaking in while knowing I am in my home is, in my opinion, an indication that they intend me physical harm. Since I am a petite middle-aged woman, I would not wait to see how much physical harm they intended before taking defensive action, since if I do that, I may not live to defend myself.
However, if someone snatches my purse in the mall parking lot, they are no longer a serious threat to my life and safety as soon as they run away, so I will not shoot them (although admittedly I would be angry enough to want to do so).
I simply do not view stealing property as taking part of my life. Property can be replaced. A life - whether mine or the thief's - cannot be replaced.
I do see what you're getting at, in that my failure to shoot the purse snatcher leaves him able to victimize someone else, but at the same time, I believe it is excessive force to shoot someone who is not a clear and present physical danger.
I see nothing wrong with someone being a pacifist, since a necessary part of freedom is the right to follow one's own conscience. Pacifists therefore have every bit as much right to practice pacifism, as I have to practice self-defense.
Kent - When you get Mr. Tremblay into a discussion of rights you best be careful. I agree with him about the poorness of the analogy. I'd be curious his take on Rothbard in this regard.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a case in the MSM cable news about the guy ( in TX ?)who shot the neighbor's thieves ? Curios your take on that then.
Also, one should never discount the credibility of sheer stupidness of those who break into homes to steal. They may not realize anyone is home.