Does the non-aggression principle give someone the right to use violence in self defense against someone other than the aggressor, if doing so would cause the aggressor to disappear?
Here's a situation I was thinking of: 100 people are locked in a prison cell on trumped up charges after voicing dissent against the state, or using drugs, or tax evasion, or any other unjust conviction. They have all been sentenced to public execution. They hatch a plan to kill one of the prisoners which would attract the security guard into the cell, at which point they kill the security guard, take his keys, and run. For this example, assume that this is the only way the prisoners can escape. If no one volunteers to be killed, are the prisoners justified in picking one prisoner and killing him against his will so that the other 99 can live?
As an unreconstructed idealist, you submit to an unjust execution in the belief that you will be avenged or that your name will be cleared.
Thinking as a pragmatist, it's a lifeboat situation. All bets are off, aren't they? Surely they could just beat someone relentlessly. In the hopelessly idealistic vein, again, my unjust execution does not justify the murder of a man we already know is innocent.
As the non-aggression principle is not a religion, we can not expect anyone to accept martyrdom or to impose death on them, can we? Granted, if that situation were to play out, someone would die. I wonder if all these kinds of questions aren't really about the situation described so much as the fundamental, "how far do we carry principle?" question. Pick any lifeboat situation. You die, I die, they die. We take their boat, they take ours, do we fight back, to we kill them before they kill us? I don't think it's about that, really. It seems to be the exploration of one aspect of human nature: how far can I go, is it right or wrong to go as far as I need to? Are my principles so lofty that I'd kill for them, or worse die for them?
CaptainMurphy:Does the non-aggression principle give someone the right to use violence in self defense against someone other than the aggressor, if doing so would cause the aggressor to disappear?
Block has made the argument that one can take out "human shields" in defense of one's own life. I don't fully agree, but he does have an argument that needs to be addressed.
But you're talking about completely innocent third-parties: killing a by-stander to distract the aggressor so you can take him out. I would respond that non-aggression is meaningless if it isn't absolute. In the case you mention, the act of killing a fellow-prisoner makes you a murderer and, ironically, justifies you're remaining incarcerated.
--Len.
I agree with Len. Anyone willing to kill an innocent to survive deserves himself to be destroyed.
Inquisitor:I agree with Len. Anyone willing to kill an innocent to survive deserves himself to be destroyed.
So can I extrapolate from this that you believe under no circumstances do the ends justify the means?
What Inquisitor said. I'd add that unjust means are never "justified" (which means "made just") by a desirable outcome. "Justice though the heavens fall."
Which isn't to say that I might not steal if I were starving. When I admit this, I'm admitting to human weakness; I'm not justifying theft. That's what makes "sin" a useful concept, by the way. When a libertarian aggresses, instead of attempting to justify it he confesses that he has committed a crime, and accepts the consequences. That's off the topic slightly, but it has a role in society: it's what prevents crime-and-retaliation from degenerating to an infinite cycle of "gotcha last."
Inquisitor:You can "extrapolate" that taking the life of an innocent to preserve one's own life is always immoral.
At a 1:1 ratio, that seems clear cut. I'm more curious about taking the life of one innocent to preserve the lives of many innocents. Say, in my example, it is not the whole group that decides to kill one prisoner, and it is only a single individual who decides to do this, so the other 98 people remain innocent. Is it worth sacrificing one innocent individual so that 98 innocents can escape death? Or what if it was the whole world? Would it be worth sacraficing one innocent person so six billion innocent people (assuming for this scenario that everyone except the captor has thus far always respected private property rights) could be spared the death penalty? Or is the number of innocents that can potentially be saved entirely irrelevant?
At a 1:1 ratio, that seems clear cut. I'm more curious about taking the life of one innocent to preserve the lives of many innocents.
Block is way ahead of you: he has already put forward the hypothetical case in which space aliens demand the head of a single human being, or else face sterilization of the entire planet. He affirms, and I agree, that compliance would be murder. He proposes the following "solution": a volunteer kills the victim and delivers his head to the space aliens. The people of earth throw him a ticker-tape parade, and then execute him for his crime. Without commenting specifically on his suggestion, I'd point out that it's a lot better than declaring murder acceptable when the stakes are high.
How just is it for the 98 to sit by and watch an innocent man die so they can live? The number of innocents doesn't make a difference. I can't say that at any point does it matter, that at some fixed number, let's say four billion, does it suddenly become justified.
RiflesReady: How just is it for the 98 to sit by and watch an innocent man die so they can live? The number of innocents doesn't make a difference. I can't say that at any point does it matter, that at some fixed number, let's say four billion, does it suddenly become justified.
Well the assumption is that the murder happened without the knowledge of the other 98. But I've come to disagree with myself anyways. The way I see it now, if no one is willing to take the fall so that 98 innocent people can go free, they don't deserve any freedom that would come at the expense of violence against an innocent person.
Len Budney:Block is way ahead of you: he has already put forward the hypothetical case in which space aliens demand the head of a single human being, or else face sterilization of the entire planet. He affirms, and I agree, that compliance would be murder. He proposes the following "solution": a volunteer kills the victim and delivers his head to the space aliens. The people of earth throw him a ticker-tape parade, and then execute him for his crime. Without commenting specifically on his suggestion, I'd point out that it's a lot better than declaring murder acceptable when the stakes are high.
This is a flawed analogy, in that in the whole human race there are always some who deserve to be executed, having done some horendous crime. To say that there are only innocents in the population is an erroneous assumption. But I understand the concept he is trying to get across. In the case of the 100 innocents, What makes you think that the guard is himself the aggressor? He may have no opinion concerning the matter and is just doing the job for which he was ordered to do. Killing him is likewise immoral just for being the tool of the real aggressor.
CaptainMurphy:Here's a situation I was thinking of: 100 people are locked in a prison cell on trumped up charges after voicing dissent against the state, or using drugs, or tax evasion, or any other unjust conviction. They have all been sentenced to public execution. They hatch a plan to kill one of the prisoners which would attract the security guard into the cell, at which point they kill the security guard, take his keys, and run. For this example, assume that this is the only way the prisoners can escape. If no one volunteers to be killed, are the prisoners justified in picking one prisoner and killing him against his will so that the other 99 can live?
No. Not only that, they aren't justified even if one prisoner does volunteer to be killed - because it's wrong to kill the guard. A few points:
1-The world is ultimately ruled by ideas, not force of arms. Presumably, these people want to advocate for freedom. They cannot do that by murdering innocents. They are destroying the idea and proving only that they cannot succeed on their own premises.
2-How long do you plan to live? 100 years, 120 at the most? A drop in the bucket. The loss of 80 or 100 of those years for a principle like not murdering is really much smaller than it seems. They are going to be executed - and probably martyrs to the cause. Instead of this happening, they could have sneezed while driving and been killed that way.