I don't believe you have.
Even if your captor is not the one who originally captured you and is being "nice" and bringing you food and water I think you are justified in using any level of force required to escape. Some people may be squeamish about this. They may have friends and family who are helping imprison people, and may not enjoy thinking of these people as bad guys. Then, there are lots of prisoners who are not behind any bars but who are no less captives.
Think about it.
.
The logic seems true enough. But it's a slippery slope. Beware.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know. That's why I posted it here. Writing it out helps me clarify my thoughts and allows others to tell me I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteAn even harder question is allowing yourself to become a (literal) captive in the first place. One might argue it is reasonable to do so if a system is in place that can reliably sort the wrongdoers from the moral. But what if that is not the case? Must one submit to a system notorious for railroading the innocent?
ReplyDeleteYep. More food for deep thought. I admit I am a little militant in my views on resisting or escaping captivity. I feel it is almost the duty of a prisoner to attempt to escape. "Resisting arrest" is not, in my mind, a "crime", but a natural human reaction.
ReplyDelete"Must one submit to a system notorious for railroading the innocent?"
ReplyDeleteWell, did you consent to the system, or was it forced upon you? If you consented, it's your own damn fault and nobody else's.
If your captor is being nice you should warn them. "Hey, I'm glad you're not pointlessly sadistic and all, but I have a right to be free, and I'm willing to use whatever means I need to enjoy that right." If they don't help you, they've knowingly committed to the system, and the food makes them less bad - not good.
If your friends and family are helping imprison people, then you should warn them to stop, because it's not illegitimate to kill the hell out of them to escape. I think they should get some leniency due to ignorance. Principle: specialization of labour. We shouldn't demand everyone be an expert philosopher, which means they have little or no way of knowing how far in the wrong they are. Ignorance only goes so far before it becomes wilful, however; once you tell them, it starts being a whole different ball game.
Alrenous- Excellent thoughts, as always.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I likewise need to write stuff down to make sure my thoughts actually make sense. In theory I should know what I actually think without writing it down, but apparently that's too impractical.
ReplyDeletehttp://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/some-considerations-on-consent-part-22/
ReplyDeleteFrancois- I remember reading that when it was written. Obviously the guy in the well is a captive, and as soon as the other guy finds out about it he should try to help. It's like Alrenous was saying above about ignorance only getting you so far, but once that ignorance is gone you have a choice to do the right thing or become a bad guy. Even if you didn't cause the situation.
ReplyDelete"Well, did you consent to the system, or was it forced upon you? If you consented, it's your own damn fault and nobody else's."
ReplyDeleteNot sure how to answer this. When I was young I believe the system worked, as well as any human institution could (that is, imperfectly). I simultaneously thought there were a lot of crimes that shouldn't be. I was a philosophical mess, as are most kids who went through the indoctrination centers.
Now of course I am completely cynical about it, and think any occasional, actual bad people that are separated from society are just PR for their real task which is enslaving us, or helping us enslave ourselves through fear.
"Informed consent" is a reasonable concept. There may be a lot of consent out there, implicit consent anyway, but I bet most of it is not informed.
What consent? No one can consent to the system as it exists, since there is no viable alternative. Show me the viable alternative!
ReplyDelete