moral calculus
I'm a big fan of revenge movies; the Death Wish franchise, Dirty Harry series, The Star Chamber, Thriller: a Cruel Life, the whole lot of them.
Tonite, I was watching a recent attempt at one (Already Dead; more Star Chamber than Death Wish, but alright as far as it went) when I had a thought.
Now then, we all here agree on the propriety and reasonableness of self-defense in exigent circumstances. If you or your family were faced with the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, I don't think any of us would hesitate to use any and all means at our disposal to defend what we hold dear. Perfectly fine as it goes.
But what if, for whatever reason, we couldn't use that deadly force at the time to prevent such harm? What if, instead, our wife or child or sibling or parent or whatever, was harmed (let's say killed) and we were unable to prevent such an occurrence. Let's also speculate that we could know, at some time in the future, with 100%, no error, beyond any shade of a doubt, who the perpetrator was, but the police were unable to apprehend them for whatever reason. With that in mind, pretend that you found them before the police did (by chance or otherwise.) What is wrong with killing them now? If you were perfectly within your rights to kill them before (when you failed to do so for whatever reason) what, morally speaking, removes that right from you after the fact when we know beyond doubt the harm that was actually caused by this person? Before, when you're legally privileged to use self-defense up to and including deadly force, you were acting on mere assumptions of the danger that could be wreaked upon you and yours. Now, in the place of assumptions and guesses, we have actual knowledge. What is the justification from removing from you the executive authority, so to speak, of using such force against that same person when you have MORE knowledge and facts to base your decision on, not less? Is it mere time? Is it the loss of exigency? Is it something else?
Remember, in my hypothetical, we know beyond doubt and with perfect accuracy that this person is the one and the same that harmed your [insert person of significance here] so a mistaken ID is not to be considered as a factor as it normally would be. Why is extreme force acceptable when acting on imperfect knowledge and what might happen but not when based on irrefutable facts of what did happen and the real harm that was committed as opposed to that which might be?
Tonite, I was watching a recent attempt at one (Already Dead; more Star Chamber than Death Wish, but alright as far as it went) when I had a thought.
Now then, we all here agree on the propriety and reasonableness of self-defense in exigent circumstances. If you or your family were faced with the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, I don't think any of us would hesitate to use any and all means at our disposal to defend what we hold dear. Perfectly fine as it goes.
But what if, for whatever reason, we couldn't use that deadly force at the time to prevent such harm? What if, instead, our wife or child or sibling or parent or whatever, was harmed (let's say killed) and we were unable to prevent such an occurrence. Let's also speculate that we could know, at some time in the future, with 100%, no error, beyond any shade of a doubt, who the perpetrator was, but the police were unable to apprehend them for whatever reason. With that in mind, pretend that you found them before the police did (by chance or otherwise.) What is wrong with killing them now? If you were perfectly within your rights to kill them before (when you failed to do so for whatever reason) what, morally speaking, removes that right from you after the fact when we know beyond doubt the harm that was actually caused by this person? Before, when you're legally privileged to use self-defense up to and including deadly force, you were acting on mere assumptions of the danger that could be wreaked upon you and yours. Now, in the place of assumptions and guesses, we have actual knowledge. What is the justification from removing from you the executive authority, so to speak, of using such force against that same person when you have MORE knowledge and facts to base your decision on, not less? Is it mere time? Is it the loss of exigency? Is it something else?
Remember, in my hypothetical, we know beyond doubt and with perfect accuracy that this person is the one and the same that harmed your [insert person of significance here] so a mistaken ID is not to be considered as a factor as it normally would be. Why is extreme force acceptable when acting on imperfect knowledge and what might happen but not when based on irrefutable facts of what did happen and the real harm that was committed as opposed to that which might be?
0
-
"Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord". Therefor it would not be my vengance to do. I would just be acting as the Lord's tool. With my background I KNOW there are ways to do this and others have no inkling of where it came from or who it came from. 1,000 meters is a long way out there.
Lance0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
I think everyone is missing the point; I'm not asking what you WOULD do in that circumstance, I'm asking what the moral or philosophical underpinning is for such disparate treatment in the various settings.
Of course, I should have known better than to ask for a little bit of intellectualism from this bunch.[:p][}:)][;)]
Nemesis - I am going to have a go at your challenge to my intellect...I ain't never been afraid to make an idiot of myself!
Philosophically speaking I think that the "disparate" treatment emenates from the fact that there is no physical threat to you should you seek retribution at a later date. The premeditation that it would take to act at a moment far removed from the origional situation allows you the "luxury" of having the authorities carry out sentence via jurisprudence.
I use your terminology of "morally" as a polar opposite of "philosophically"
Morally you open this up to a much more interpretive and emotional response...morally speaking you can justify any action as morals are very fluid ideals when comparing from one person to another.
Thanks for leting me think. I just wish I could type fast enough to keep up!
OK, but that still doesn't solve the dilema I posed: in the first instance when deadly force IS justifiable (eminent likelihood of danger) we are acting on imperfect information, incomplete facts and in a fast-moving and unpredictable situation. In the second, we know beyond doubt the harm that WAS caused. If it is acceptable to use such extreme measures in a setting of so many variables and unknowns, what removes from us the right to use it in a situation with PERFECT knowledge?
I think you're close when you talk about "premeditation;" i.e. it looks like a revenge killing, which if frowned upon. But so what? If we measure the propriety or reasonableness of the use of force by the knowledge at our disposal (which is how we meausure the reasonableness of almost every other undertaking we involve ourselves in every day) why is it verbotten to use it when we have MORE, not less, information with which to make an informed decision?
This is not an easy question and I'm not sure it even has an answer.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
OK, but that still doesn't solve the dilema I posed: in the first instance when deadly force IS justifiable (eminent likelihood of danger) we are acting on imperfect information, incomplete facts and in a fast-moving and unpredictable situation. In the second, we know beyond doubt the harm that WAS caused. If it is acceptable to use such extreme measures in a setting of so many variables and unknowns, what removes from us the right to use it in a situation with PERFECT knowledge?
I think you're close when you talk about "premeditation;" i.e. it looks like a revenge killing, which if frowned upon. But so what? If we measure the propriety or reasonableness of the use of force by the knowledge at our disposal (which is how we meausure the reasonableness of almost every other undertaking we involve ourselves in every day) why is it verbotten to use it when we have MORE, not less, information with which to make an informed decision?
This is not an easy question and I'm not sure it even has an answer.
You're over thinking it. Just shoot the S-O-B.0 -
the question (it's taken me a week to just figure out his question):
why is it ok to use deadly force in the heat of passion (as it were) when you are NOT aware of all "exigent" circumstances but not ok to use it when you have had time to consider the evidence fully and act on it?
wow...great question.
by the way...I blew my first attempt to defend my intellect.
The answer is as simple as human nature. Society is willing to grant you some "wiggle" room in recognition of the passionate and emotional nature of percieved self preservation.
HAH...do I pass perfessor?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
the question (it's taken me a week to just figure out his question):
why is it ok to use deadly force in the heat of passion (as it were) when you are NOT aware of all "exigent" circumstances but not ok to use it when you have had time to consider the evidence fully and act on it?
wow...great question.
by the way...I blew my first attempt to defend my intellect.
The answer is as simple as human nature. Society is willing to grant you some "wiggle" room in recognition of the passionate and emotional nature of percieved self preservation.
HAH...do I pass perfessor?
That's a good guess, but I still think we're missing some fundamental principle at work here.
My mind is percolating exactly what that is. check back periodically to see if I get it.0 -
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]
so it is a sociological reason for the double standard?
I disagree p3...and I am loathe to do so as you are one of the people I value here.
I can kill a guy that I THINK is going to do me, or my family harm. But I cannot kill him if I KNOW he did it....in retribution. Nem's hypothesis has nothing to do with the degree of harm our perp has done.
I still think it has to do with human nature's need for instinctual self preservation...a natural propensity to continue one's existance.
ps...I am gonna shoot the crap outta the pilot in a parachute...he is the enemy and will get back in the plane and kill some more of my peeps...unless you think he is going to be honor bound to become a pacifist 'cause I let him live.0 -
Yes, it seems the question is shaping itself.
This is not moral calculus it is legal algebra
Legal use of force in self-defence or the defence of others varies from state to state but the basic right is to use force (including deadly force) to prevent eminent serious harm to youself or others when avoiding the perpetrator is not possible or not considered necessary (ie. in most if not all states you don't need to run away if you are in your house)
eminnent harm means a reasonable person would feel a that they or someone else would be seriously hurt in the next few moments and the situation can not be avoided. Once the threat is gone the use of force is no longer defencable. If you shoot the perp and he runs away you can't shoot him in the back, you shoot the perp after he is down you are going to have to explain that you were too emotionally charged to stop shooting and even then you better hope the jury thinks the perp is useless human trash it better not be just some misguided child of a middle class family.
To the law, the point is not to allow you to kill someone who is going to do a bad thing but to allow you to use reasonalble means to prevent an innocent someone from being severly harmed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]
so it is a sociological reason for the double standard?
I disagree p3...and I am loathe to do so as you are one of the people I value here.
I can kill a guy that I THINK is going to do me, or my family harm. But I cannot kill him if I KNOW he did it....in retribution. Nem's hypothesis has nothing to do with the degree of harm our perp has done.
I still think it has to do with human nature's need for instinctual self preservation...a natural propensity to continue one's existance.
ps...I am gonna shoot the crap outta the pilot in a parachute...he is the enemy and will get back in the plane and kill some more of my peeps...unless you think he is going to be honor bound to become a pacifist 'cause I let him live.
Tacking,
This is the philosophical reason as I understand it from my readings, not nessesarily what I would do. If I happened upon someone after harm had been done, my basic instinct would be that that someone could continue to harm others or myself in short order. That would require immediate decisive action to prevent. Once "Society" has the evildoer in custody, he is protected by law and custom.
As for the pilot, if it looked like he would evade capture and make it back to his lines, it would be justified in my mind that he was shot while escaping.
We live in a country governed by the rule of law. It is far from perfect and juries usually recognize the human factor to a greater or lessor extent. One need recall Ellie Nesler (?) killing her son's sexual abuser in a California court room and drawing only a seven year sentence.
To live in perpetual revenge cycles would reduce us to a lifestyle similar to those living in the Middle East.
Just my thoughts on the matter.[:)]0 -
The reason Pilots do not shoot other Pilots who have ejected and are chute borne is that they all know that one day they maybe the one hanging from the chute. Even if ordered to attack other pilots in chutes they would hesitate. The only combatants who would wisely order their pilots to shoot the chute borne pilots are the ones who depend on a large supply of poorly trained pilots, if you have a small number of highly trained pilots you wish pilots in chutes are given a pass. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]
so it is a sociological reason for the double standard?
I disagree p3...and I am loathe to do so as you are one of the people I value here.
I can kill a guy that I THINK is going to do me, or my family harm. But I cannot kill him if I KNOW he did it....in retribution. Nem's hypothesis has nothing to do with the degree of harm our perp has done.
I still think it has to do with human nature's need for instinctual self preservation...a natural propensity to continue one's existance.
ps...I am gonna shoot the crap outta the pilot in a parachute...he is the enemy and will get back in the plane and kill some more of my peeps...unless you think he is going to be honor bound to become a pacifist 'cause I let him live.
Tacking,
This is the philosophical reason as I understand it from my readings, not nessesarily what I would do. If I happened upon someone after harm had been done, my basic instinct would be that that someone could continue to harm others or myself in short order. That would require immediate decisive action to prevent. Once "Society" has the evildoer in custody, he is protected by law and custom.
As for the pilot, if it looked like he would evade capture and make it back to his lines, it would be justified in my mind that he was shot while escaping.
We live in a country governed by the rule of law. It is far from perfect and juries usually recognize the human factor to a greater or lessor extent. One need recall Ellie Nesler (?) killing her son's sexual abuser in a California court room and drawing only a seven year sentence.
To live in perpetual revenge cycles would reduce us to a lifestyle similar to those living in the Middle East.
Just my thoughts on the matter.[:)]
The question is getting to be seeing a forest or trees....no one has a problem with the necessity of weaving a social fabric consisting of laws to prevent anarchy and chaos. Plato to Judge Judy we recognize the need for a judicial/legal system to maintain order and to keep us from being knuckle dragging neanderthals.
I THINK nemesis is having a hard time with justifying the MORAL underpinning of the duality of the situation.
as for the parachute - If the goal of war is to eliminate an enemy then if there is any supposition that he will return to harm that goal, he should be eliminated.0 -
After applying Kant's a priori perspective I would have to conclude that the act would have no moral value due to the self-serving motivation of the will that willed the action. This act would not conform to Kant's Universal Imperative either because the act itself would be allegedly justified by administering justice but outside the confines of due process. However, the fact that the criminal in question committed an act that denied your loved-one of his or her own right to life/liberty/happiness WITHOUT due process is the very basis of that justification. Properly applied reason would cause you NOT to will something like this to happen since it does not conform to the Universal Imperative. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]
Plato advocated totalitarianism......what exactly is your point?0 -
quote:Originally posted by idsman75
After applying Kant's a priori perspective I would have to conclude that the act would have no moral value due to the self-serving motivation of the will that willed the action. This act would not conform to Kant's Universal Imperative either because the act itself would be allegedly justified by administering justice but outside the confines of due process. However, the fact that the criminal in question committed an act that denied your loved-one of his or her own right to life/liberty/happiness WITHOUT due process is the very basis of that justification. Properly applied reason would cause you NOT to will something like this to happen since it does not conform to the Universal Imperative.
Ids Daddy:
I think the answer lies in your reference to Kant and I bow to your ability to reference him. I had not been able to plow that far ahead of the tractor. I will, with clear conscience blame it on three children!
So tonight I drag out the textbooks and see if I can get the jello to harden.
Nem - I am getting ticked at you for throwing this big ole fish in the boat and jumping overboard[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Plato settled this over 2000 years ago.
If you want moral or philosophical underpinning, try this;
We live is a society governed by laws. To ignore them destroys the fabric of which we live. One may kill is self defense of self and family (and sometimes, others), however one may not kill when a threat has passed as then there is no justification for it.
If an evildoer has harmed a loved one to the point of death, he may harm them no more so the justification is no longer valid. At this point societies' law must assume the task of punishment.
Put another way, we don't shoot pilots in chutes even if they just strafed us. They are no longer a threat.
We don't shoot surrendering combatants as they are no longer bearing arms against us. Of course this is done fairly often because not everyone has read Plato. [;)]
Plato advocated totalitarianism......what exactly is your point?
Not exactly. He said people are unable to rule themselves for the long term. History seems to have proven him correct. With over 225 years in these United States, we are one of the longest lived democracies in the history of the world.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
quote:Originally posted by idsman75
After applying Kant's a priori perspective I would have to conclude that the act would have no moral value due to the self-serving motivation of the will that willed the action. This act would not conform to Kant's Universal Imperative either because the act itself would be allegedly justified by administering justice but outside the confines of due process. However, the fact that the criminal in question committed an act that denied your loved-one of his or her own right to life/liberty/happiness WITHOUT due process is the very basis of that justification. Properly applied reason would cause you NOT to will something like this to happen since it does not conform to the Universal Imperative.
Ids Daddy:
I think the answer lies in your reference to Kant and I bow to your ability to reference him. I had not been able to plow that far ahead of the tractor. I will, with clear conscience blame it on three children!
So tonight I drag out the textbooks and see if I can get the jello to harden.
Nem - I am getting ticked at you for throwing this big ole fish in the boat and jumping overboard[:)]
Actually, I'm about 5 classes from my Bachelor's degree but I'm only taking one class at a time so I can stay flexible for my ever-changing work schedule. Right now I'm taking PHIL 330 "ETHICS". We finished Aristotle 2 weeks ago and I'm on my second week of Kant now. I hit 95% with Aristotle and I'm batting 100% with Kant. I hope that "Utilitarianism" comes to me as easily as Kant (once you get past his difficult sentence structures).0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments