You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Just War - Just a Way to Excuse Soldiers
Whether killing can be ethically valid rests on whether the killed violated the consent of another or presented a reasonably imminent threat to do so.
In the non aggression principle, how is the 'reasonably imminent threat' decided?
Who decides? (after the event, I mean).
A court of law, on case by case basis?
('he was looking like he was gonna kill me', kind of thing, not 'he had a gun pointed at me kind', of thing...)
"Reasonable" is necessarily a squishy term, but there has to be a threat that can be articulated and that the average person in the same given situation could construe as "this dude is about to kill me!" So, for example, mean mugging is not reasonably imminent. Even holding a gun in one's hand is not reasonably imminent. Holding a gun after declaring their intent, or manifesting intent in such a way as there would be no reasonable doubt as to it, would be a reasonably imminent threat. The reason that the term "reasonably" is used, both in current legal doctrines and from a philosophical point of view, is because judging whether a threat was imminent will always have some measure of subjectivity. That's also why reasonableness is measured from the view of the victim, though, and not the perpetrator.
Ultimately, the person who has to decide whether a threat was imminent is the arbitrator for the dispute. As it stands now, that's the factfinder in a trial, usually a jury for this kind of case. In a stateless society, I expect it would still be a jury for the most part, or it would be the arbitrator of the dispute himself or herself.
My preferred short-hand is action + manifest intent. I'm all about keeping yourself safe first, but there has to be some broadcast intent to harm coupled with some action to make that intent a reality.
Ok, I understand, but which is which? In some cases- the person shot by mistake without intent to harm, or the person about to be harmed (from his perception).
A psychopaths/ sociopaths/personality disorder's, wet dream...
Yeah, except sociopaths in a voluntary society are confined primarily because people cease taking their shit. Arbitration is the process of deciding who is right and who is wrong in a given case. There's a myriad of ways to do this without requiring a state, and they all center on arbitration. I don't see any reason why the majority of arbitrators would resort to deciding unilaterally on a case, as the jury system is well-established and has overwhelmingly more support in the minds of individuals. So, second point first.
What do you mean which is which? No one is shot without intent to harm; if someone is shooting, they intend to harm their target. If you're saying that the person intended to shoot someone else, who cares? The person doing the shooting is morally responsible for their actions. To the second perspective, that's why the jury decides whether it was reasonable or not. When I say that there is some level of subjectivity, I mean that what is reasonable is a rough average of what the average person would perceive in a given situation.
Which is also why I use action + manifest intent. In some cases, the action provides the manifest intent, i.e. pointing a gun at me is a demonstration of your intent to harm, and anyone in the same situation would not be acting irrationally if they thought the same thing.
Cool.
I agree - jury systems are the best way to adjudicate.
(A state only gets in the way of justice, from how I see it.)
Apart from the fact I do not really see a totally voluntarist society as a reality (more of an ideology), the pathology of psychopathy and sociopaths camouflages itself seamlessly within any societies.
These people are better 'hiders' than are the 'searchers' talents- as history more than highlights. (and why we are in the problems we are in now, today).
( 4% of the population - give or take - and one the reasons I find weakness in the voluntarist ideology argument.)
'They' -the 4%- will 'play' at voluntarism- perfectly camouflaged within societies - until it is time to change...
Using a voluntarism ideology against voluntarist ideologues would be child's play for these manipulators of men.
( or any ideology actually, as can be seen in communism. I'm not conflating voluntarism to communism! lol),
Interestingly over this last week, I am seeing patterns of behavior just like communists - when offering critical responses to the voluntarist.
( Which is very depressing).
Intolerance in people of any ideology seems to be a real weakness.
I'm pragmatic.
I don't disagree about the ability of a sociopath to blend into society. I'm well aware of what they can do and how they can do it.
However, if the world view of the majority of the population is "violation of property and consent are always wrong, even if the person is wearing a fancy uniform" the effective scope of a sociopath to cause real harm is practically reduced, and it's reduced to a large degree. The state is the vehicle by which sociopaths effect their greatest mistreatment of human beings. Why is that the case?
Because the state occupies some magical status whereby it is not morally responsible for its actions, all the while you are. Sociopaths won't magically disappear absent a state, but they will have lost their greatest tool for abusing other people.
As for intolerance of any ideology, can you expand on that?
Possibly - but I see social anonymity as the main vehicle for the 4% to proliferate their negative influence...
Ostracizing of old, doesn't work in today's world..
Very interesting point....
I'll need to think about that aspect and get back to you. ( I never really thought about it in those terms...and it's getting late here...)
I just posted this - as a direct response to my criticism of aLarken Rose post..
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/voluntarists-are-just-the-same-as-communists
Social anonymity does not account for the fact that if the general consensus among a given population is "if you try to force me to do something, I'll defend myself" it very much lessens the impact a sociopath could have, as they would have to use means that, ultimately, aren't even immoral. We might all decry high-pressure salesmanship or quid pro quo, but there's nothing inherently immoral about either of these personal practices. Compare this to the men and women who comprise the state, who can use coercion to gain compliance and socialize the cost of doing so. Ostracism still works, boss.
So I understand a little where you're coming from, though your premise in the linked post is flawed (just like not all states are equally bad, not all ideologies are equal). Since not all ideologies are created equal, it is extremely helpful to sort out those that believe things diametrically opposed to reality and who can't universalize their ethics, as those are people who are going to waste your time. Aside from the fact they're provably wrong in their assertions, they're going to spend most (if not all) of their time with you trying to prove you wrong.
It's one thing to embrace an ideology and be completely uninformed. Happens across the spectrum. But you shouldn't welcome everyone with open arms. I'm not going to work together with communists, even if we happen to have crossed purposes in the moment. They can do their thing, and I'll do mine. If that ends up helping us separately, cool. They're still hopelessly backwards in their thinking and should rightly be considered an enemy to humanity.