Timeline for When is violence appropriate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2022 at 5:28 | comment | added | dave | @JohnConnelly you have heroic patience. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 14:25 | history | edited | Joseph Weissman♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 259 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2011 at 16:25 | comment | added | John Connelly | You initiated force against my life, liberty, or property in the scenario you have given. You did so by taking my property according to mutually agreed upon terms, and then did not fulfill your end of the bargain. That is a form of force, because you took my life, liberty, or property without my consent. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 16:24 | comment | added | John Connelly | Yes, they would be justified in using force to either return the property to me, make you attend court, etc. Why wouldn't they? | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 10:11 | comment | added | boehj | How about if you and I do a deal. I buy your house for $100 000 and we agree that I'll take the house now, but give you the money a year from now. A year passes and I haven't given you any money. Does the state have a justification to use force to put me in jail or make me attend court? Or is this use of force unjustified? | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 4:04 | comment | added | John Connelly | However, I am not entirely dead set against the concept that preemptive force could be another justified category of force. It would certainly have to be exclusive of aggression, and merely constitute a response of early defensive force in cases where it is a matter of certainty that your opponent is indeed in the process of initiating force against you. In which case, it begins to sound a lot like defensive or retaliatory force, which we've categorized already. | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 3:56 | comment | added | John Connelly | So I would argue that if you have credible intelligence that an opposing force is gathering for an invasion, and you decide to drop some bombs on their ass first, that this would be an example of defensive force. | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 3:55 | comment | added | John Connelly | been shot yet, and I am going to engage in defensive / retaliatory force and shoot them first. | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 3:54 | comment | added | John Connelly | Jeff - one area of contention with this concept is whether or not there should be a fourth category of force, preemptive. In that case you would have defensive, retaliatory, aggressive, and preemptive. I think a good argument could be made that most examples of preemptive force would ultimately fit into the categories of defensive or retaliatory force. It would depend upon the particular scenario. For example, if two guys kick my door in in the middle of the night wielding shotguns, I believe they have ALREADY begun to initiate force against me, despite the fact that I haven't actually... | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 3:51 | comment | added | John Connelly | Boehj, yes, I believe it would be unjustified for the state to lock you up in that scenario. | |
| Jun 20, 2011 at 1:21 | comment | added | Jeff | It is fairly common throughout history to see one nation attack another preemptively in order to gain the upper hand, under the assumption that they will be attacked themselves. e.g., Japan and Pearl Harbor, or the US invasion of Iraq... Probably not the best examples, but couldn't this be justified? One agent initiates force, but claims to be acting in defense under the circumstances. | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 23:39 | comment | added | boehj | OK, fair enough. Now switch the players. I am a person with psychosis. I haven't committed any crime as yet, but my doctor has informed the authorities that I should be detained. You are the state. Is it unjustified for you to initiate force against me, in particular against my liberty, and lock me up? There's no guarantee that I'll harm anyone. My doctor has estimated that I will. | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 16:40 | comment | added | John Connelly | Once we agree that it is wrong for us to INITIATE violence / aggression against one another, and that it is our right to defend ourselves from the same, then we can go about the business of trying to determine and define the exact precise moment at which an act comes to constitute the initiation of force. | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 16:38 | comment | added | John Connelly | is something that can be complex...but we would do well to start with this principle as a foundation and a goal that governs all of our ethical conclusions pertaining to social behavior. | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 16:37 | comment | added | John Connelly | Secondly, defensive or retaliatory force is justified. Defining the precise moment when force is initiated is not as simple as waiting to be hit. Once a man advances upon me in a threatening manner I am going to assume that he has already made the decision to initiate force against me and I am going to respond appropriately. This, taken to its conclusion, illustrates the difficulties and complexities with agreeing upon how these principles are implemented, but they do not invalidate them. Agreeing on the non-coercion principle is logically required of us...agreeing on how to implement | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | John Connelly | Sort of, but the analogy is not very strong for a couple of reasons. Number one, and most obvious, is that we are engaging in mutual combat, similar to a dual. Due to the fact that we are both willing participants, there is no initiation of force against life, liberty, and property. There is no aggression or coercion. Just as mutual consent turns an act that would otherwise constitute theft into trade, it turns what would otherwise constitute murder or assault into a duel or an athletic contest. | |
| Jun 19, 2011 at 1:38 | comment | added | boehj | Let's say we are both boxers. Are you saying that it is always unjustified for you to throw the first punch? | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 19:49 | vote | accept | Joe Flynn | ||
| Jun 18, 2011 at 17:38 | history | answered | John Connelly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |