The recurring question without an answer

[OKComputer]

Any and all lives lost are.the fault of.those.who.choose.to.take.them.in the case of the 4000 that fault lies squarely with the terrorists.

They are, but you still should try to save whoever you can instead of letting everyone die.

 

[macska]

Perhaps I should state it more simply, to help us proceed in this discussion:

• one may defend oneself or a person unjustly aggressed against
• one who aggresses, whether he is culpable of it or not, aggresses.
• one who defends, may do so only to the extend to which defense requires. He may not pursue his defense beyond what is necessary to repel the aggressor’s actions
• therefore, one may defend against any aggressor, albeit only sufficiently to repel the aggression, whether the aggressor is culpable of the aggression or not

See? Simple analysis.

OK. Let’s use it. The questions which need to be settled are:

1. What does “innocent” mean?
2. What does "aggressor? mean?

In my world “innocent” means, without malice.
“Aggressor” means acting intentionally, out of malice.
As such, innocent aggressor is an oxymoron.

But not the analysis of the problem. The so-called “aggressor” is innocent of malice. He or she places others into lethal jeopardy without intending to do so - by simply “being there”. There is no “just” or “unjust” about it, it is simply an unlucky set of circumstances.

Of course if you wish to declare that anyone is an aggressor, who puts others into lethal danger, then your problem is “resolved”, but the solution comes at the expense of rational definition. The word aggression implies malice and intent. The problem was stated in simple terms: There are two basic principles:

1. Defense against attack (NOT just intentional aggression) is allowed.
2. One should not kill “innocent” people.

Which one is the “primary” principle? Just answer this simple question if you can.

 

[o_mlly]

In my world “innocent” means, without malice.
“Aggressor” means acting intentionally, out of malice.
As such, innocent aggressor is an oxymoron.

In your world, you would likely be dead.

Situation: Man puts gun to macska’s head and chambers a round.

macska to man: "Hey, hold on. Let’s talk about this. Before I act, I need to know if you’re innocent or an aggressor!

man to macska: “Bye.”

Do you see the nonsense of your definitions? The aggressor is identified in the act, not the intention. Read the posts. Your question has been answered but it appears you just don’t read.

This is the third post, re-post of #105.

If the person is in the act that imminently threatens the lives of innocent others and if you are one of the innocent “others” then you may use force, even lethal force to defend your life. No need to call Dr. Phil in for a sit-down with the aggressor. The aggressor is defined by his/her act, not the intention.

I write in the act as one may not act preemptively against a perceived threat. Nor may one kill an innocent whose threat is real but only so because he/she exists.

 

[macska]

Do you see the nonsense of your definitions? The aggressor is identified in the act, not the intention.

Of course the “act” as you call it is “simply being there” in the case of a disease carrier.

I will ask again:

There are two basic principles:

1. Defense against attack (NOT just intentional aggression) is allowed.
2. One should not kill “innocent” people.

Which one is the “primary” principle? Just answer this simple question if you can.

 

[Gorgias]

This thread sure has gotten a lot of hits for a Catholic site…

You haven’t taken part in threads on evolution or the ‘trolley problem’, have you?

my take on the 3 bullet points is

culpable and guilty

Yep.

otjm:

not culpable and not guilty by reason of insanity - they did the act but have no legal (and possibly no moral) guilt

Your “not guilty” here really means “not culpable”. What’s interesting, though, is that although you agree that they’re guilty of the act – I mean, you literally wrote “they did the act”! – you call them “not guilty”. That works in a courtroom context, and is the exact way that the legal system would declare it, but we have to remember that they’re not in the business of declaring innocence. Ever. They’re just in the business of declaring culpability. So, this “not guilty” really is “not culpably guilty”.

otjm:

culpable and not guilty - because the case could not be proved in its entirety

No. That would still be “guilty”. If you want to create another category – guilty but unable to be proved guilty – be my guess, but that’s not really in play in a discussion of morality and culpability. No, here I really meant “innocent of the act.” Not “guilty but not culpable” or even “guilty but unproven” – literally “innocent.”

macska:

1. What does “innocent” mean?
2. What does "aggressor? mean?

In my world “innocent” means, without malice.
“Aggressor” means acting intentionally, out of malice.
As such, innocent aggressor is an oxymoron.

Fair enough. But, that’s not how I’d define it, in the context of my post. I’d say “innocent” doesn’t speak to lack of malice, but of lack of act. “Aggressor” would be the person acting in a way that harms another. So, “malice” doesn’t come into these two definitions at all. Therefore, there’s no “innocent aggressor” in this context at all. There is a non-culpable aggressor. I would assert that one can defend oneself or others against him (not with intent to kill, but (following Aquinas) merely an attempt to stop the aggression).

macska:

He or she places others into lethal jeopardy without intending to do so - by simply “being there”. There is no “just” or “unjust” about it, it is simply an unlucky set of circumstances .

No – this isn’t a “wrong place at the wrong time” situation – the aggressor really is participating in an evil act. He just isn’t culpable of it.

macska:

Of course if you wish to declare that anyone is an aggressor, who puts others into lethal danger, then your problem is “resolved”

There ya go!

macska:

but the solution comes at the expense of rational definition.

and to think you were sooooo close!

macska:

The word aggression implies malice and intent.

That’s your definition. And, if you’re gonna define words in a non-standard way, then you’ll reach non-standard answers. Therefore, standard answers will begin to appear “irrational”. “Mambo dogface to the banana patch” much, mačka?

 

[macska]

I’d say “innocent” doesn’t speak to lack of malice, but of lack of act.

“Aggressor” would be the person acting in a way that harms another.

Does not “act”, simply exists. The mere existence can be harmful… even if the person is not aware of it. Try again. Here is the dilemma, in case you forgot it:

There are the two basic principles:

1. Defense against attack or danger (NOT just intentional aggression) is allowed.
2. One should not kill “innocent” people.

Which one is the “primary” principle? Just answer this simple question if you can.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course the “act” as you call it is “simply being there” in the case of a disease carrier.

Nope. “Innocence” is the default category for all human beings until they act.

An aggressor is one whose act immediately (no mediating causes exist) harms an innocent person. That is, in the causal chain, a reasonable person sees that the imminent harm is proximate to the aggressor’s act.

The primary principle is love God. Second, love neighbor as self. All Catholic morality flows from these two principles. Intrinsically evil acts acts offend God and are never permitted. The direct killing of an innocent is an intrinsically evil act. An innocent killing an unjust aggressor is not intrinsically evil and is not only permitted, it is sometimes a duty. Pretty simple and awesomely rational.

 

[Gorgias]

Does not “ act ”, simply exists. The mere existence can be harmful… even if the person is not aware of it.

Fair enough. But, in that case, it’s not “existence” that’s in play – it’s that he has made himself present, in a way that puts others at risk. That’s an ‘act’, too.

I still don’t see the dilemma. One never approaches self-defense in the mode of “I’m going to kill someone”; rather, it’s “I’m going to defend someone with the appropriate actions and/or levels of force.”

If one must take the life of an aggressor in order to defend against the harm that they would otherwise do, then that’s a morally acceptable act.

Why do you keep suggesting that (1) there’s no answer and (2) no one has informed you of the answer? The answer’s right there!

 

[macska]

Fair enough. But, in that case, it’s not “existence” that’s in play – it’s that he has made himself present, in a way that puts others at risk. That’s an ‘act’, too.

If that someone is not aware of this predicament then there is nothing to blame. To be at the wrong place at the wrong time is NOT an aggressive act. The two facets are “unknowingly” and “unintentionally” and both must be taken into consideration.

Of course if you say that in this scenario it is acceptable to use lethal force - preemptive killing - , then I will agree - after all this is what I was arguing.

 

[Gorgias]

To be at the wrong place at the wrong time is NOT an aggressive act.

However, to place yourself in a position in a way that endangers others is an act, even if done unknowingly or unintentionally. And, the person whose health or life is endangered by that act does have the right to defend himself against harm.

Still not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.

 

[macska]

However, to place yourself in a position in a way that endangers others is an act, even if done unknowingly or unintentionally. And, the person whose health or life is endangered by that act does have the right to defend himself against harm.

I agree with this. A preemptive killing against an innocent person is acceptable. Took a long time, but finally we have agreement.

 

[Gorgias]

A preemptive killing against an innocent person is acceptable. Took a long time, but finally we have agreement.

We’re defining terms differently here. If you were lethal at 20 yards, then shooting to wound you, at 25 yards, as you walked toward me, and in order to prevent you from harming me, wouldn’t be a “pre-emptive strike”. It would be self-defense against the harm you would cause to me.

 

[Patri]

would offer the example, and it may be a fairly lurid one, of a crazed, mentally deficient person who gets hold of a gun and many rounds of ammo. He runs up and down a crowded, busy street, menacing everyone and shooting people at random. He has just enough intelligence to keep reloading and firing, and thinks it’s a funny game. I have a gun too. Merely disabling him (shooting him in the foot or leg) isn’t an option because he doesn’t have the intelligence to know how badly he’s been hurt, and shots to the extremities are more likely to miss. I’m also liable to injure him just enough to make him angry but not to stop him. So, regrettably, I have to go for core body mass, the heart if I can, and kill him. That wouldn’t be a good thing, but if he isn’t stopped, he will just keep killing and killing until he runs out of ammo.

You can shoot his arm and he will let go of the gun. There is no need to kill him. I think all options should be exhausted before taking a life.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

would offer the example, and it may be a fairly lurid one, of a crazed, mentally deficient person who gets hold of a gun and many rounds of ammo. He runs up and down a crowded, busy street, menacing everyone and shooting people at random. He has just enough intelligence to keep reloading and firing, and thinks it’s a funny game. I have a gun too. Merely disabling him (shooting him in the foot or leg) isn’t an option because he doesn’t have the intelligence to know how badly he’s been hurt, and shots to the extremities are more likely to miss. I’m also liable to injure him just enough to make him angry but not to stop him. So, regrettably, I have to go for core body mass, the heart if I can, and kill him. That wouldn’t be a good thing, but if he isn’t stopped, he will just keep killing and killing until he runs out of ammo.

If that would stop him, absolutely. But if you miss, or if you’re not a good enough shot to place it “just so”, then more would unfortunately need to be done. It might be well to note that someone crazed like that is moving precipitously and no single shot could be all that accurate. It could well be that you would aim for his arm, as you note, and end up firing a lethal shot to his torso.

In a scenario like that, you’d just have to do the best you could, with what you have to work with, and hope for the best (or the “least bad”).

 

[otjm]

You have watched way, way too many cowboy movies.

In all seriousness, you need to get yourself to a gun range - you don’t even need to be a participant - and watch one of the various timed shooting contests. Watching it on Youtube doesn’t count as the likelihood is it is filmed of top shooters - those in the top percentile. The average shooter may be able to hit center of mass. and the emphasis is on “may”. Check into how many rounds miss in incident where the police - trained to shoot - miss entirely. In most instances, there is a volume of shots made with only several hits to the individual.

In a situation such as many if not most of the above situations in this thread, the armed defender will likely have less than three seconds to engage the aggressor - meaning from the point of starting the draw to firing; and it may be less than half that amount of time.

I would invite you to do a bit of research and find any - even one single - weapons instructor - military, police and/or civilian instructor - who teaches anything other than center of mass response. And I am not talking about sniper training, but rather pistol/revolver.

And anyone who has hunted can tell you that even a lung shot (relatively center of mass)is not immediately fatal.

 

[otjm]

Your “not guilty” here really means “not culpable”. What’s interesting, though, is that although you agree that they’re guilty of the act – I mean, you literally wrote “they did the act”! – you call them “not guilty”. That works in a courtroom context, and is the exact way that the legal system would declare it, but we have to remember that they’re not in the business of declaring innocence. Ever. They’re just in the business of declaring culpability. So, this “not guilty” really is “not culpably guilty”.

Comes from having practiced criminal defense law.

 

[Annie]

The problem is with the understanding of the word innocent in these instances. Basically, innocent in this context means “doing no harm.” If one is endangering others, issues of intent, state of mind, etc., are not what render the person not-innocent, or guilty, it is his endangering of others that causes him to be not-innocent.

 

[Patri]

that would stop him, absolutely. But if you miss, or if you’re not a good enough shot to place it “just so”, then more would unfortunately need to be done. It might be well to note that someone crazed like that is moving precipitously and no single shot could be all that accurate. It could well be that you would aim for his arm, as you note, and end up firing a lethal shot to his torso.

In a scenario like that, you’d just have to do the best you could, with what you have to work with, and hope for the best (or the “least bad”).

I just don’t want to go for the worst option from the start. I don’t want to give zero importance to that life. Maybe because I don’t live in a country that people don’t own guns, I just can’t imagine shooting someone. I would hope to be able to save the innocent without killing the guilty. I also hope never to be in such a situation.

 

[Freddy]

Fred, did you, like a true consequentialist, throw the switch on dear old mom?

No. In the normal scenario all the people are strangers. If you have a close connection with any of them (especially familal connections) then genetic rules apply. Close family over distant family. Distant family over strangers.

There are similar problems when someone is told that their child will die unless they push a button. The button will save the child but will kill a random stranger. Almost everyone would do it. Then you can start increasing the number of strangers to see at which point the person would not do it. Hours of fun for the whole family…

macska:

Situational ethics means that under these conditions, “this” principle is to be used, and in those conditions “that” principle is to used. I agree with this approach.

What principles? There is but one principle in situation ethics: Do what you think is best.

So you would do something that you thought…wasn’t the best? That’s odd to say the least.

 

[Rau]

However, to place yourself in a position in a way that endangers others is an act, even if done unknowingly or unintentionally. And, the person whose health or life is endangered by that act does have the right to defend himself against harm.

Still not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.

I cannot understand why he doesn’t get it either. The aggressor may not know he is such, and he may commit no moral evil, but those at grave risk may take grave measures in self-defence.