If you have not read at least the second post on The Art of Violence and Justice then please do so before reading this or you will be lost.
In answer to the first hypothetical scenario of my last post the prisoner would always be morally right in not killing the guards in his attempt to free himself. Such an individual would be a martyr of a sort. If the prisoner kills the guards then it is my belief that he does not become evil even with the fact that the guards are good individuals. The reason for this is when one does evil then one’s right to not have evil inflicted upon one in return is nullified. The guards, even unaware of this, have opened themselves up to the possibility of retaliation against themselves by their actions and choices i.e. holding an innocent man captive. The prisoner is, of course, taking his own chances in this moral system by escaping. In the guards’ reality the prisoner is the evil one forfeiting his right not to be harmed by what they believe he has done and by inflicting harm upon them in an escape attempt. So in the end no one is doing any wrong here as far as the prisoner and guards are concerned.
While I do not make the claim that killing is purely good in this instance of the guards and prisoner I do make the claim that it is morally acceptable or neutral. Killing in self-defense I should think would be viewed in much the same way as the defender does not likely enjoy having killed his/her attacker but deemed it as necessary to his/her wellbeing and in line with an individuals moral rights.
The essential rule of this moral system is demonstrated in the following example. Suppose one is attacked by another individual and that individual is intent on killing you. You would be on sound moral ground if you killed that individual. Now suppose that you had the option of instead of killing this individual in return to merely subdue him with a reasonably high chance of success say around 99.99%. By taking the action he has this attacker has forfeited his right to not be killed but the defender has the option of killing the attacker or sparing his life. So killing the attacker would be a neutral action because he has forfeited his moral rights but sparing his life would be a good action because it was not necessary but went a step further.
Acts considered evil in one instance and neutral or good in another lead us to the conclusion that it may possibly be that the end justifies the means. This is not supported at all as the moral system here is situational but also governed by a rule system. When one is committing evil acts one is morally open to them being inflicted upon oneself. While those acts may become neutral and forgiven in the end (or after the fact) when the results are clear the present shows them to be immoral and unjustifiable. It may be entirely up to moral luck as to whether or not the end result comes out as something good as well. So when one does evil one is essentially taking a gamble with one’s essence as to whether or not one is good or evil in existence and not just taking one single wrong action. This brings in the situational aspect. When one has other options it is inherently wrong to do evil therefore the ends do not justify the means as long as there are other means.
Now as to the second example the person involved is free. As such this individual has other options than to initially kill the guards and help the prisoner escape. Following this moral system the individual should exhaust all other means to free the prisoner before killing the guards. Though if all other means are exhausted then such an action would be acceptable.
These examples unlike in the original post of The Art of Violence and Justice do follow true justice as all actions happen merely to establish equity and give those wronged back what they had lost or were threatened with losing. The original post dealt with an example of a person without options other than vengeance and possibly vengeance with equity. I’m not entirely sure I made that distinction well but it was meant to be there as that individual was meant to be recouping loss rather than merely inflicting it back upon others.
I believe I have sufficiently answered these moral dilemmas and introduced the system of moral rights. I intend to go more in depth with this system in later posts.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Art of Violence and Justice 2
In my previous post The Art of Violence and Justice I discussed a hypothetical scenario involving an individual who was in an irreconcilable situation from which there was no apparent escape without the use of violence. In the end of the line of thought I found that violence was unnecessary even in that airtight hypothetical situation. However, I also found that the individual was left with the options of defeat or committing illegal acts. Illegal was found not to be the same as immoral. I also wrote that even though this hypothetical situation did not pan out to leave the individual with a violent option as the only recourse to extricate one from one’s problems, it was conceivable that there were other situations in which one might be forced to do violence without having violence first done to oneself. Since writing that post I have continued to think on the subject and have come up with a couple more hypothetical situations.
The first situation is one in which an individual is falsely accused of murder, tried, convicted and imprisoned. The individual is not on death row as that would mean the possibility of violence would be visited upon him first and doing violence in self-defense to escape that would make a certain moral sense. The question in this case is if a person has a right to harm or kill others to secure one’s own freedom. Most specifically when one has done no wrong yet has been imprisoned. We’ll say that in this hypothetical society in which he exists he has no hope for an appeal or chance to be proven innocent and released. Suppose that this individual is held in a maximum security prison yet one day finds himself in a position with the chance to escape in a transfer to a new facility of equal security. The only problem is that to do so he would have to kill a couple of guards. In other words, he won’t get as lucky as Harrison Ford in The Fugitive and have them die of their own accord. This presents something of a paradox since in order to escape he must become a murderer even though he wasn’t a murderer to begin with. One might question whether or not killing these guards would be murder since they are in fact serving an immoral justice in keeping this individual imprisoned. But that begs the question of whether these guards are evil or not. It is not immoral to destroy evil so if the guards are evil then they may conceivably be killed without tarnishing one’s soul. It leaves the prisoner with having to judge the moral fiber of the guards. In this case, I will simplify the situation and say that one can be good and still serve evil though I think one would have to be almost totally deceived by it to do so. So the guards appear to be good individuals who have wives and go to see their children’s school plays. Our prisoner is not going to be able to get out of this one and still remain a good person. He is left with either suffering in his existence or becoming a murderer. Yet this again confuses our problem entirely because the individual is only seeking something good for himself and if anyone knew the truth of his predicament they would most surely seek his release. Yet we also are saying he cannot do it because by committing one (or two evil acts if you count it separate for the death of each guard) would make this individual evil. Maybe he escapes to a tropical island and has a pleasant existence for the rest of his days and isn’t caught during his escape attempt. It may very well be that after killing both guards the individual escapes and never kills/murders anyone ever again. So we are brought back to the problem of the guards committing evil acts without knowledge of doing so. We are working from the premise that one can be good even while one is or has in the past committed evil acts so that would mean that it is entirely possible our individual could still be a murderer and a good person. The other option is that acts matter and if you engage in certain ones then you are automatically evil. In the first case the individual could get away with murder because he isn’t evil though he might feel deep regret over doing so and in the other case he could kill the guards without pangs of conscience because they are evil by the fact they are committing evil acts. It seems that in this case violence is unavoidable save the individual taking upon himself another’s punishment till the time at which his dismal existence ends. This problem is deeply complex and I am unsatisfied with any of the options available.
The second situation is one in which an individual knows another is being held against his/her will yet to free him/her one would need to kill many innocent people. We’ll say there are guards at the prison who think this second person has committed murder. The guards are merely doing their jobs but they are undoubtedly committing an evil act by keeping this individual imprisoned. The free individual has a moral obligation to see that the other individual is not imprisoned against his/her will. Yet to carry out on that obligation one is forced to commit seemingly evil acts. As you can see we are left with the same quandary in this situation as the first one. The answer to these situations is in the distinction between evil acts and evil existences as well as good acts and good existences.
Finding the difference between these things is a complex task which I have set for myself. However, it is a vital question to morality and yes I have come to some conclusions about it. I ask that anyone who reads this thinks upon the problem of these hypothetical situations and once having given it some thought, then read my next post.
The first situation is one in which an individual is falsely accused of murder, tried, convicted and imprisoned. The individual is not on death row as that would mean the possibility of violence would be visited upon him first and doing violence in self-defense to escape that would make a certain moral sense. The question in this case is if a person has a right to harm or kill others to secure one’s own freedom. Most specifically when one has done no wrong yet has been imprisoned. We’ll say that in this hypothetical society in which he exists he has no hope for an appeal or chance to be proven innocent and released. Suppose that this individual is held in a maximum security prison yet one day finds himself in a position with the chance to escape in a transfer to a new facility of equal security. The only problem is that to do so he would have to kill a couple of guards. In other words, he won’t get as lucky as Harrison Ford in The Fugitive and have them die of their own accord. This presents something of a paradox since in order to escape he must become a murderer even though he wasn’t a murderer to begin with. One might question whether or not killing these guards would be murder since they are in fact serving an immoral justice in keeping this individual imprisoned. But that begs the question of whether these guards are evil or not. It is not immoral to destroy evil so if the guards are evil then they may conceivably be killed without tarnishing one’s soul. It leaves the prisoner with having to judge the moral fiber of the guards. In this case, I will simplify the situation and say that one can be good and still serve evil though I think one would have to be almost totally deceived by it to do so. So the guards appear to be good individuals who have wives and go to see their children’s school plays. Our prisoner is not going to be able to get out of this one and still remain a good person. He is left with either suffering in his existence or becoming a murderer. Yet this again confuses our problem entirely because the individual is only seeking something good for himself and if anyone knew the truth of his predicament they would most surely seek his release. Yet we also are saying he cannot do it because by committing one (or two evil acts if you count it separate for the death of each guard) would make this individual evil. Maybe he escapes to a tropical island and has a pleasant existence for the rest of his days and isn’t caught during his escape attempt. It may very well be that after killing both guards the individual escapes and never kills/murders anyone ever again. So we are brought back to the problem of the guards committing evil acts without knowledge of doing so. We are working from the premise that one can be good even while one is or has in the past committed evil acts so that would mean that it is entirely possible our individual could still be a murderer and a good person. The other option is that acts matter and if you engage in certain ones then you are automatically evil. In the first case the individual could get away with murder because he isn’t evil though he might feel deep regret over doing so and in the other case he could kill the guards without pangs of conscience because they are evil by the fact they are committing evil acts. It seems that in this case violence is unavoidable save the individual taking upon himself another’s punishment till the time at which his dismal existence ends. This problem is deeply complex and I am unsatisfied with any of the options available.
The second situation is one in which an individual knows another is being held against his/her will yet to free him/her one would need to kill many innocent people. We’ll say there are guards at the prison who think this second person has committed murder. The guards are merely doing their jobs but they are undoubtedly committing an evil act by keeping this individual imprisoned. The free individual has a moral obligation to see that the other individual is not imprisoned against his/her will. Yet to carry out on that obligation one is forced to commit seemingly evil acts. As you can see we are left with the same quandary in this situation as the first one. The answer to these situations is in the distinction between evil acts and evil existences as well as good acts and good existences.
Finding the difference between these things is a complex task which I have set for myself. However, it is a vital question to morality and yes I have come to some conclusions about it. I ask that anyone who reads this thinks upon the problem of these hypothetical situations and once having given it some thought, then read my next post.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Student's Paradox
The Student’s Paradox
1. If you know a subject (S), then you waste your time going to a teacher of S in order to learn S from her. [p(remise)]
2. You shouldn't waste your time (i.e. do less valuable things when you could be doing more valuable things). [p]
3. Therefore, if you know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S. [1,2]
4. If you don't know S, then you take an unreasonable risk (of acquiring false beliefs) in going to a "teacher" of S in order to learn S from her. [p]
5. You shouldn't take unreasonable risks. [p]
6. Therefore, if you don't know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S.
7. But there are only two possibilities: you either know S or you don't know S. [p]
8. Therefore, either way, you should never go to a teacher of any subject. [3,6,7]
This paradox is an old favorite of mine since it proves why one should never attend class. It was part of the first lesson of my ancient philosophy course. Fortunately for my professor everyone still attended pretty regularly for the rest of the semester so he still gets paid. This paradox works well enough that my entire philosophy class failed to refute it and we moved on to other things later in the week. For my part, I haven’t really tried since I was amused the entire time watching my professor argue with his students about why they shouldn’t attend his class. So I think I’ll take up refuting this paradox now. 1, 2, and 3, are all fairly reasonable arguments since if you know something you’d be wasting your time going to a teacher to learn it. The key to the paradox is in part 4 where learning from a teacher is put forth as an unreasonable risk of being taught something which is false. If risking learning a false belief is unreasonable then the paradox is true. If the risk, however, is reasonable then it fails to be a paradox. The problem for the student is that in going to a teacher to learn a subject, he places himself at risk of learning false information. The student has no way of judging the validity of any information from the teacher because he has no prior reference from which to judge the truth of the information. It seems to me that in order to be taking an unreasonable risk the student would have to be learning from an individual who has shown no prior indications of trustworthiness, or worse, indications of being untrustworthy. The student could judge whether or not to believe what the teacher tells him based upon what the teacher tells him about what he already knows to be truth. A teacher who is in agreement with the student about what the student already knows to be truth is thereby trustworthy and learning from him/her is not an unreasonable risk. Another method might be to compare the instruction of several scholars who claim to know the truth. If they agree then they are either all right or all wrong but one has a 50/50 chance to learn true beliefs from them. This is better odds than visiting a casino (unless you are betting on black or red at the roulette table or card counting at Blackjack) so I wouldn’t consider it an unreasonable risk to learn something from a teacher when all teachers are in agreement. In the case where teachers do not agree on the truth then the safe bet is to bet against all of them that they are all wrong and to not learn from any of them. There can be only one truth but there may be many falsehoods. Out of 30 different answers from 30 different scholars only one may be right i.e. 1/30 chance of picking the right one to learn from. This leaves 29/30 false beliefs one could acquire. Trying to find the one true belief out of 30 scholars is an impossibility with no prior knowledge of the subject. This leaves us with what we do know for certain and that is 29/30 have to be wrong. Also, it is a possibility that even 30/30 could be wrong since we have no way to judge the validity of the 30 different truths. I think this satisfactorily demonstrates the difference between unreasonable risk and reasonable risk. While writing this I’ve thought about its application to religion. It could be said that it is entirely unreasonable to believe in any religion because there are many, many different religions each with its own truth. The person trying to decide which religion to believe in has no prior knowledge of the truth of any of them. This is why in order to believe in a religion one is said to have faith. To a mathematician this mean, you are taking your chances. By my calculations those are probably something like 1?/2600 the question mark meaning that with no prior knowledge to judge even the one religion that is supposedly right could really be wrong. So lets make it something like 0/2601. That is as good as saying the truth, if such a thing even exists, hasn’t been found yet. Which makes the agnostics right, so far. Good luck, in your own searches for truth. Until next post, keep thinking on this.
1. If you know a subject (S), then you waste your time going to a teacher of S in order to learn S from her. [p(remise)]
2. You shouldn't waste your time (i.e. do less valuable things when you could be doing more valuable things). [p]
3. Therefore, if you know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S. [1,2]
4. If you don't know S, then you take an unreasonable risk (of acquiring false beliefs) in going to a "teacher" of S in order to learn S from her. [p]
5. You shouldn't take unreasonable risks. [p]
6. Therefore, if you don't know S, you shouldn't go to a teacher of S.
7. But there are only two possibilities: you either know S or you don't know S. [p]
8. Therefore, either way, you should never go to a teacher of any subject. [3,6,7]
This paradox is an old favorite of mine since it proves why one should never attend class. It was part of the first lesson of my ancient philosophy course. Fortunately for my professor everyone still attended pretty regularly for the rest of the semester so he still gets paid. This paradox works well enough that my entire philosophy class failed to refute it and we moved on to other things later in the week. For my part, I haven’t really tried since I was amused the entire time watching my professor argue with his students about why they shouldn’t attend his class. So I think I’ll take up refuting this paradox now. 1, 2, and 3, are all fairly reasonable arguments since if you know something you’d be wasting your time going to a teacher to learn it. The key to the paradox is in part 4 where learning from a teacher is put forth as an unreasonable risk of being taught something which is false. If risking learning a false belief is unreasonable then the paradox is true. If the risk, however, is reasonable then it fails to be a paradox. The problem for the student is that in going to a teacher to learn a subject, he places himself at risk of learning false information. The student has no way of judging the validity of any information from the teacher because he has no prior reference from which to judge the truth of the information. It seems to me that in order to be taking an unreasonable risk the student would have to be learning from an individual who has shown no prior indications of trustworthiness, or worse, indications of being untrustworthy. The student could judge whether or not to believe what the teacher tells him based upon what the teacher tells him about what he already knows to be truth. A teacher who is in agreement with the student about what the student already knows to be truth is thereby trustworthy and learning from him/her is not an unreasonable risk. Another method might be to compare the instruction of several scholars who claim to know the truth. If they agree then they are either all right or all wrong but one has a 50/50 chance to learn true beliefs from them. This is better odds than visiting a casino (unless you are betting on black or red at the roulette table or card counting at Blackjack) so I wouldn’t consider it an unreasonable risk to learn something from a teacher when all teachers are in agreement. In the case where teachers do not agree on the truth then the safe bet is to bet against all of them that they are all wrong and to not learn from any of them. There can be only one truth but there may be many falsehoods. Out of 30 different answers from 30 different scholars only one may be right i.e. 1/30 chance of picking the right one to learn from. This leaves 29/30 false beliefs one could acquire. Trying to find the one true belief out of 30 scholars is an impossibility with no prior knowledge of the subject. This leaves us with what we do know for certain and that is 29/30 have to be wrong. Also, it is a possibility that even 30/30 could be wrong since we have no way to judge the validity of the 30 different truths. I think this satisfactorily demonstrates the difference between unreasonable risk and reasonable risk. While writing this I’ve thought about its application to religion. It could be said that it is entirely unreasonable to believe in any religion because there are many, many different religions each with its own truth. The person trying to decide which religion to believe in has no prior knowledge of the truth of any of them. This is why in order to believe in a religion one is said to have faith. To a mathematician this mean, you are taking your chances. By my calculations those are probably something like 1?/2600 the question mark meaning that with no prior knowledge to judge even the one religion that is supposedly right could really be wrong. So lets make it something like 0/2601. That is as good as saying the truth, if such a thing even exists, hasn’t been found yet. Which makes the agnostics right, so far. Good luck, in your own searches for truth. Until next post, keep thinking on this.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Art of Violence and Justice
The key question to any philosophy of morality is "When, if at all, is it permissible to do violence to others?"
In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.
What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.
However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.
So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.
Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.
While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.
The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.
So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.
Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.
Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.
In one of my earlier posts I discussed the idea of self-defense as being a reasonable instance in which one can morally do others harm. When one attacks another physically one is breaking the compact of "do no harm to others" and therefore leaves the protection granted by that moral clause and can be harmed in turn.
What I failed to discuss in that writing was any sort of case where an individual is harmed not by physical means but by social, economic, or bureaucratic means. In such a case would it be permissible to resort to physical violence? Most people would probably answer no, but then no one would think that it would be impossible to solve such problems by non-violent means.
However, let us make an example of such a case where communication and bargaining will not work. Let us say that there is an individual who's boss hates him. This could be for a variety of reasons, perhaps he is of a different race, perhaps he is gay, or perhaps he simply refuses to cover up a mismanagement of funds by the department(not embezzlement just poorly managed). Suffice it to say that the man is hated by his manager to the extent that manager makes his work a living hell and will eventually fire him if he can't force him to resign. The man has clearly done nothing wrong to the company but he is none-the-less at the mercy of his manager. Because he is such a hard working individual he will put up with all the indecencies of being moved to the office by the toilets and getting stapler stolen. In the end he is fired. The higher ups he appealed to were all friends of the manager and ignored his please that he had done nothing wrong. They had trumped up charges of insubordination and lack of positive work ethic to fire him on. The next day he sets out to find a new job and in the coming weeks realizes that his previous employer has spread his name around town as someone who is not to be hired. He can't find a job and in the meantime the rent is coming due. He has no money left with which to hire a lawyer to fight his employer in court over his unfair firing. He is up a creak and will have to move elsewhere to find a job probably in a city several states over and he will have to sleep in his car until he can afford to pay rent again. Those who did him wrong get off without so much as a filed lawsuit.
So there is our conundrum, what is our individual to do? Should he go do some massive property damage to their vehicles? Or maybe rough one up in an alley some night for payback? Perhaps he should stick to non-violent means and spread vicious rumors about his employer to get him fired? But what about the lawsuit that is sure to follow since he has no proof that his employer did anything wrong... they'd end up taking his car and the shirt on his back too. Our options seem to come down to some sort of vengeance.
Most people would likely say that vengeance is wrong, an eye for an eye leaves all men blind etc. etc. But in the end there is no justice left for our poor evicted employee. Sure some might say that there will come a final justice after death but I'm not one for counting on that. After all we didn't wait for Hitler to die to try to make him pay for his crimes why should we wait for someone much easier to punish? Just a few slices of some tires or maybe a baseball bat and our dear friend will have taken back his loses or well... at least inflicted them equally upon those who have done him harm. This seems to be the key difference between vengeance and justice. Vengeance inflicts similar harm upon others while justice lends itself to retaking that which has been taken. So for our dear individual in order to engage in justice would need to do something other than bash in a few windshields.
While vengeance can be somewhat cathartic what seems to make it immoral is that one is not trying to achieve equity but instead inflict the same inequity upon others. This can be a difficult distinction for one to make especially in moments of injustice being inflicted upon oneself. One's anger can often get the better of one. This brings us back to figuring out what options our homeless individual is left with that do not lead him down the immoral path.
The answer I have come up with is quite simple but may be difficult in execution none-the-less if one wants justice sometimes one cannot follow the letter of the law. The law and justice do not always coincide as many unfair convictions of people who were thought to be rapists attest to(Thank you DNA testing). Essentially, our man would have to commit grand theft auto and take his employer's vehicle to the local chop shop. Upon his arrival he will be paid a sufficient enough sum to move to another town pay for an apartment with his restitution money and find a new job. Hopefully, it will be one with a kind individual as a boss. This is justice and not vengeance for the pure reason that our man takes no violent action against his employers or their property. In stealing his boss's car he gets restitution for the harm that has been done him not some cheap thrill of merely bashing a few windshields. All in all, it is the round about way of getting what would have come to him if he would have had a lawyer to fight his employers in court and a fair trial which would have seen through his boss's underhanded dealings.
So my answer is that there seems to be ways out of impossible situations of injustice without resorting to violence. Such situations may only be solved by violating the law but are none-the-less just in their outcomes. Perhaps, there is some impossible situation I haven't thought of where there is no way out but vengeance yet I do not think that is the case. One just has to think outside the box and outside the rules sometimes.
Another case which comes to mind is that of our forefathers. When Britain began overtaxing Americans and violating the property of the colonists they felt it necessary to break away from the mother country and say no. One might think that they could have waged a war of civil disobedience instead of one of guns but the British weren't adverse to making examples of those who disobeyed them. This being the case I have to conclude that outright war was inevitable since defending oneself while being disobedient might have required offing a few redcoats in self-defense. This would have lead to outright war or cowering colonists taking the abuse they were given and probably eventually giving in. It seems to me that civil disobedience while proven relatively effective in the past when demonstrated on a united front has lead to many individuals being sacrificed as examples. This is why I'm not a pacifist. If someone is beating you then you should beat them back. Turning the other cheek while still resisting peacefully only gets you hit again, probably harder, and most likely until your skull fractures and you die. My point, I guess, is that when violence is finally used by one party then the time for peaceful resolution is over.
Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear any impossible philosophical problems you guys can come up with where pure vengeance is the only option left. Good night.
Friday, February 09, 2007
The Third Question Answered
In an earlier post I discussed the nature of God. There were three main questions/objections posed to his existence. I answered the first two then but left third for a later time. The problem of evil is what I will discuss here in this post.
How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?
A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.
This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.
That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"
The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"
The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"
If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.
How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?
A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.
This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.
That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"
The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"
The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"
If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Two of the Three Questions Answered
I am taking a philosophy of religion class. So far, we are going over the three main traits that God is generally thought to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. We've covered some of the problems with each of these and a few possible answers but none of the answers have been satisfactory. Eventually during the class I want to get up yelling "No, no, no. That is not how you should think about it! Look, try this." It doesn't take me long to come up with solutions for the drawbacks to each answer. I don't like in class speaking so I'll just write my solutions here. Maybe I'll print it off and hand it to her one of these days.
The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.
The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.
The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.
The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.
The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.
The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The Reason of Existence
I hope to recieve a great amount of feedback on this so that I might improve the argument and/or make it easier to understand. This is the first part of a larger work.
To start off on this philosophical writing I think I shall begin with the beginning. The first question is: Does anything exist? One might wonder whether an answer to this question can ever really be obtained. I can’t give a definitive answer other than we must operate on the premise that ourselves and the universe exist. In explanation, existence is a state of being and for something to have value/meaning it must first exist. In order for an action to take place something must commit the action. Nothing refers to that which does not have existence. Something is the opposite of nothing therefore if an action is committed that which commits the action must exist. No actions can be caused by a state of nonbeing or nonexistence if you prefer. If I did not exist then I could not be committing/have committed the action of writing this. Continuing this argument from a different angle: If the universe we perceive does not truly exist then it cannot have value. The same can be said of ourselves if we do not exist. Even if I am incorrect in believing that for actions to be committed something must first exist to commit them I prove my point here that we must operate under the premise that we and the universe exist. This is because if nothing exists then nothing is of value/meaning. I would be curious if anyone could come up with a convincing argument from the premise that nothing exists to explain why anyone should or should not do anything or why things appear to be as they are. I believe from my previous argument I have shown our universe exists or rather that we have no choice but to believe it does but I think I have left out showing how value follows from existence. This brings me to my second question: What is value? Value is made up of properties. As an example of something that exists and has value let us take a piece of printer paper. We can identify an object as printer paper or as not printer paper by perceiving its value in the form of properties. The paper is thin, has four sides, is smooth, and is the color white. All these properties make up the paper’s value. We perceive these things about a piece of printer paper as necessary to it being a piece of printer paper. The properties are intrinsic to its existence. We attach instrumental value to the piece of printer paper because it has the useful purpose of being able to be used as printed media for reports. One might argue that these properties are merely based upon our perception of them and our perception may be false. I contend that one cannot reasonably make this argument since it is essentially the same as believing that nothing is what it seems. If one believes that one’s perception is flawed then that which is perceived could be an infinite number of other things. If one believes a single object to not be as it appears then it is possible that all other things perceived are not what they appear to be either. An infinite number of unknowns issues forth from this argument and just like the argument for the existence of nothing one cannot operate under the acceptance of this argument and find any value/meaning. Thus we are forced to accept our perception of the universe as “real”.
To start off on this philosophical writing I think I shall begin with the beginning. The first question is: Does anything exist? One might wonder whether an answer to this question can ever really be obtained. I can’t give a definitive answer other than we must operate on the premise that ourselves and the universe exist. In explanation, existence is a state of being and for something to have value/meaning it must first exist. In order for an action to take place something must commit the action. Nothing refers to that which does not have existence. Something is the opposite of nothing therefore if an action is committed that which commits the action must exist. No actions can be caused by a state of nonbeing or nonexistence if you prefer. If I did not exist then I could not be committing/have committed the action of writing this. Continuing this argument from a different angle: If the universe we perceive does not truly exist then it cannot have value. The same can be said of ourselves if we do not exist. Even if I am incorrect in believing that for actions to be committed something must first exist to commit them I prove my point here that we must operate under the premise that we and the universe exist. This is because if nothing exists then nothing is of value/meaning. I would be curious if anyone could come up with a convincing argument from the premise that nothing exists to explain why anyone should or should not do anything or why things appear to be as they are. I believe from my previous argument I have shown our universe exists or rather that we have no choice but to believe it does but I think I have left out showing how value follows from existence. This brings me to my second question: What is value? Value is made up of properties. As an example of something that exists and has value let us take a piece of printer paper. We can identify an object as printer paper or as not printer paper by perceiving its value in the form of properties. The paper is thin, has four sides, is smooth, and is the color white. All these properties make up the paper’s value. We perceive these things about a piece of printer paper as necessary to it being a piece of printer paper. The properties are intrinsic to its existence. We attach instrumental value to the piece of printer paper because it has the useful purpose of being able to be used as printed media for reports. One might argue that these properties are merely based upon our perception of them and our perception may be false. I contend that one cannot reasonably make this argument since it is essentially the same as believing that nothing is what it seems. If one believes that one’s perception is flawed then that which is perceived could be an infinite number of other things. If one believes a single object to not be as it appears then it is possible that all other things perceived are not what they appear to be either. An infinite number of unknowns issues forth from this argument and just like the argument for the existence of nothing one cannot operate under the acceptance of this argument and find any value/meaning. Thus we are forced to accept our perception of the universe as “real”.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Read More About Stem Cells
Sometimes I wonder if people even know anything about the subjects they see in the news. If anyone bothered to do a little fact finding there would be no debate about stem cell research. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells it is necessary to destroy the embryos. This bothers many people because they happen to believe that doing so is killing a human being. This belief is irrelevant to whether or not we should conduct embryonic stem cell research. Many embryos are created as byproducts of invetro fertilization. These embryos are frozen and eventually will be thrown out when they are no longer viable. They will never be implanted into a womb to grow into children. Since not one of these embryos will ever achieve any usefulness or a long and healthy life they are going to waste. Using these embryos for research that could help people is far better than treating them as junk to be thrown out. People who argue against the use of these embryos are not advocating saving a life but are condemning the embryos to death in a trash heap. They argue not to allow them to contribute what little they can to the world in the form of useful research. If these people argued for the end of invetro fertilization, which creates these wasted embryos, I might agree with them but their position is illogical. It would be a far better position for them to ask doctors to end the practice of invetro fertilization and for the women who hold this position to volunteer themselves for implantation with these embryos so that they can grow into healthy children.
Monday, September 19, 2005
The Thug and the Fairy
I've been told that people find this amusing so I decided to keep it posted.
In this writing I discuss killing in self-defense. I believe most people can agree with the idea that it is ok to kill a person if they are actively trying to kill you. However, there is a gray area of just how much force you can respond with if the person's intentions are unclear. Police officers face the decision to use deadly force more often than the majority of people. I have read many reports in newspapers about police officers shooting an individual who appeared to be carrying a weapon but was actually unarmed. Some of these shootings result in the death of the suspect others do not. In the cases where the individual has died I read of much public outrage against law enforcement. In most cases where the individual has been killed and the public blames the officer and other local law enforcement I read that the person was fleeing the police or resisting arrest. In many cases the person had committed the crime for which the police were chasing him or her. If the person had not done these things the police would have had no reason to think they were dangerous and required the use of force. It is because of this that I believe it is mostly the individual's fault for getting him or herself killed. I do not believe that this means that police shootings should not be investigated because there are some corrupt officers who do shoot people illegally. However, I do believe that there is an overreaction in this country against the use of force by police. A person fleeing from the police and appearing to reach for a weapon, even if they have not committed a crime, is still fleeing from the police and is acting in a dangerous manner. It is unfortunate that an innocent person is sometimes shot because they acted suspiciously and fled but if they had behaved in an innocent manner they would not have been risking harm to themselves. I believe that I have adequately addressed the matter of police officers killing in defense of the law and their own person. I will now introduce a hypothetical situation in which a person is not in danger of being killed but may still have the right to kill to defend himself. Once, in a land far away there were many people living in a kingdom. On a street corner at night a fairy is dancing in the moonlight. In the shadows is a thug who is observing the fairy. The fairy continues to dance for much of the night while being observed by the thug. Without warning the thug springs upon the unsuspecting fairy. The fairy has three possible courses of action: it can do nothing and be beaten to a pulp, it can kill the thug, or it can try to outrun the thug. In this kingdom it is a sport among thugs to smash fairies into the pavement as hard as they can. Smashing the fairies will not kill them because they are durable magical individuals who can only be killed by things that pierce them. However, smashed fairies are badly injured individuals who will likely never be able to move at any great speed again. This is because their wings and limbs are very fragile and will break like twigs with enough applied force. The fairy chooses to flee but is not fast enough. Unlike most thugs this thug is extremely quick and capable of matching the fairy's pace. This leaves the fairy with the other two options. Should the fairy allow itself to suffer harmful injury rather than commit the seemingly evil act of killing a being, which does not have the intent to kill and cannot kill it? I believe the answer to this question is simple. The fairy should kill the thug. The thug has already committed an evil act against the fairy in attempting to violate its person by smashing it. The thug had no right to do this and therefore is open to action by the fairy to prevent this. The only action the fairy can take to prevent the evil thug from smashing it is to kill the thug. This is because the thug is so large compared to the fairy any other form of restraint is impossible for the fairy to accomplish. In explanation of how a fairy can kill a thug let us return to the story. The fairy flew at the thug's face and drilled through the thug's eyeball. Upon reaching the thug's brain it commenced to dig through it until the thug was dead. This hypothetical situation demonstrates how in our world a small person could be justified in using a firearm to kill an unarmed attacker but only if the attacker was so much more powerful than them physically that they could not fight them off in any other manner. An argument against killing the thug could be much like the following. The fairy did not have a right to kill the thug because the amount of harm it inflicted was not equally to the harm it could suffer. I refute this because in another example it is much like saying a slave does not have the right to kill his masters to be free. The slave's masters commit an evil act by keeping him in bondage. If he attempts to escape the masters capture and return him to his slavery. His masters are not extremely cruel because they keep him well clothed, fed, housed, and ask only that he clean the house once a week. However, he is not free to leave their service and if he refuses to work he is whipped. The slave will never be free until he kills his masters. To say that the slave cannot kill his masters because he would be causing them more harm than they cause him by his enslavement is the same argument as that against the fairy killing the thug. I believe I have done a satisfactory job of explaining the reasoning behind my arguments but if something seems unclear feel free to comment and I will try to explain myself more thoroughly.
In this writing I discuss killing in self-defense. I believe most people can agree with the idea that it is ok to kill a person if they are actively trying to kill you. However, there is a gray area of just how much force you can respond with if the person's intentions are unclear. Police officers face the decision to use deadly force more often than the majority of people. I have read many reports in newspapers about police officers shooting an individual who appeared to be carrying a weapon but was actually unarmed. Some of these shootings result in the death of the suspect others do not. In the cases where the individual has died I read of much public outrage against law enforcement. In most cases where the individual has been killed and the public blames the officer and other local law enforcement I read that the person was fleeing the police or resisting arrest. In many cases the person had committed the crime for which the police were chasing him or her. If the person had not done these things the police would have had no reason to think they were dangerous and required the use of force. It is because of this that I believe it is mostly the individual's fault for getting him or herself killed. I do not believe that this means that police shootings should not be investigated because there are some corrupt officers who do shoot people illegally. However, I do believe that there is an overreaction in this country against the use of force by police. A person fleeing from the police and appearing to reach for a weapon, even if they have not committed a crime, is still fleeing from the police and is acting in a dangerous manner. It is unfortunate that an innocent person is sometimes shot because they acted suspiciously and fled but if they had behaved in an innocent manner they would not have been risking harm to themselves. I believe that I have adequately addressed the matter of police officers killing in defense of the law and their own person. I will now introduce a hypothetical situation in which a person is not in danger of being killed but may still have the right to kill to defend himself. Once, in a land far away there were many people living in a kingdom. On a street corner at night a fairy is dancing in the moonlight. In the shadows is a thug who is observing the fairy. The fairy continues to dance for much of the night while being observed by the thug. Without warning the thug springs upon the unsuspecting fairy. The fairy has three possible courses of action: it can do nothing and be beaten to a pulp, it can kill the thug, or it can try to outrun the thug. In this kingdom it is a sport among thugs to smash fairies into the pavement as hard as they can. Smashing the fairies will not kill them because they are durable magical individuals who can only be killed by things that pierce them. However, smashed fairies are badly injured individuals who will likely never be able to move at any great speed again. This is because their wings and limbs are very fragile and will break like twigs with enough applied force. The fairy chooses to flee but is not fast enough. Unlike most thugs this thug is extremely quick and capable of matching the fairy's pace. This leaves the fairy with the other two options. Should the fairy allow itself to suffer harmful injury rather than commit the seemingly evil act of killing a being, which does not have the intent to kill and cannot kill it? I believe the answer to this question is simple. The fairy should kill the thug. The thug has already committed an evil act against the fairy in attempting to violate its person by smashing it. The thug had no right to do this and therefore is open to action by the fairy to prevent this. The only action the fairy can take to prevent the evil thug from smashing it is to kill the thug. This is because the thug is so large compared to the fairy any other form of restraint is impossible for the fairy to accomplish. In explanation of how a fairy can kill a thug let us return to the story. The fairy flew at the thug's face and drilled through the thug's eyeball. Upon reaching the thug's brain it commenced to dig through it until the thug was dead. This hypothetical situation demonstrates how in our world a small person could be justified in using a firearm to kill an unarmed attacker but only if the attacker was so much more powerful than them physically that they could not fight them off in any other manner. An argument against killing the thug could be much like the following. The fairy did not have a right to kill the thug because the amount of harm it inflicted was not equally to the harm it could suffer. I refute this because in another example it is much like saying a slave does not have the right to kill his masters to be free. The slave's masters commit an evil act by keeping him in bondage. If he attempts to escape the masters capture and return him to his slavery. His masters are not extremely cruel because they keep him well clothed, fed, housed, and ask only that he clean the house once a week. However, he is not free to leave their service and if he refuses to work he is whipped. The slave will never be free until he kills his masters. To say that the slave cannot kill his masters because he would be causing them more harm than they cause him by his enslavement is the same argument as that against the fairy killing the thug. I believe I have done a satisfactory job of explaining the reasoning behind my arguments but if something seems unclear feel free to comment and I will try to explain myself more thoroughly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
