The Art of Violence and Justice 3

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.

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 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.

Danish Fleas and Arabian Sledgehammers

It seems to be almost an understatement to say that much of the Arab/Islamic world is illogical. Recently, a Danish newspaper ran cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Some of them in a less than good light. This has led to some very illogical and disgusting behavior by many Arabs.

"The backlash led to street protests, threats to Scandinavians in the Palestinian territories and a boycott of Danish goods, including Lego."- Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet
By David Rennie in Brussels Source

Sending death threats to the cartoonists and even people who have nothing to do with these offensive cartoons is like hitting a flea with a sledgehammer. It seems like this is a standard reaction by Arabs to many similar events. Whenever a film comes out that is in opposition to their ideology they send death threats to the producers. If the Arab world acted logically they would have just demanded an apology from the newspaper, which published the cartoons. This is what a European country would have done. What I find even more amazing is the lack of conceptualization of the idea that these cartoons were created and published by an independent news agency. It seems like Arabs think that one newspaper printing insulting cartoons is the equivalent of an entire country doing so and treat both the same when they are not the same at all. I suppose that I can't blame Arabs for being ignorant of the idea of free press. I just hope a few read this and spread the idea that one newspaper does not equal an entire country. The most important thing I wish the Arab world would learn is that if someone picks a fight with you in words then you should end it with words not sledgehammers.