-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"all else equal"
It's a thought experiment and not that big a stretch. Let's say you would have bought the car if the other person hadn't.
Is civilian warfare self-defense?
Posts
Total:
78
-->
@Savant
"all else equal"It's a thought experiment and not that big a stretch. Let's say you would have bought the car if the other person hadn't.
There is no car.
The diagnostic is not an alternate history. Since you're getting all contract lawyer on me I'll will be more precise:
Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party and all their property was rendered invincible to all combatants and the person is unable to acknowledge that there is any conflict much less join it.
They cannot spy.
They cannot be traumatized.
They cannot be used as cover (the bullet goes right through, they are transparent to combatants)
They continue to do normal productive things and do all the trades they would otherwise have done.
They would have gone to critical jobs like nuclear reactor oversight (if that was their job).
Unless their job is in someway contributing to the war effort, in which case they no longer make any contribution. If the person was a general, it would be as if you had lost a general.
This occurs at the instant you or your enemy take an action that would violate the person's rights in any way.
If you gain advantage, then the violation of the innocent person's rights would be the aggressor's sin.
If they gain advantage, then the violation of the innocent person's rights would be your sin regardless of whether you are on the right side of the conflict.
Now that you've forced all of this silliness that should have been obvious from context; apply the diagnostic question to your hypothetical and determine the guilty party.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party and all their property
Okay, then they're renting the car. Similarly to Palestinians in hospitals using the hospital but not owning it. It's really not that different, if that person never existed, you would have access to the car/be able to bomb the hospital without killing civilians.
-->
@Savant
Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party and all their propertyOkay, then they're renting the car.
GOT YOU!
If you mean to steal a rented car then the victim is the rental company, and they all become invincible.
We can go back to being serious any time you want.
Similarly to Palestinians in hospitals using the hospital but not owning it.
Somebody built it, and I doubt it was Hamas.
It's really not that different, if that person never existed, you would have access to the car/be able to bomb the hospital without killing civilians.
It is different in the relevant way I have described. Israel doesn't need a hospital to beat Hamas, your guy needed a car to catch the enemy.
The reason for this difference is in the value systems that are implied. A combatant who did not value human rights would not be impeded by stealing or using human shields (holding hostage any human right).
Stealing is never justified, but collateral damage (killing human shields) is so long as you are not the original aggressor.
The razor lets you quickly identify which situation is occurring.
You are thinking of it like "Ok so something happens and now I can violate rights in order to win". All your examples of "something I need to win" have been theft.
I am saying that is wrong, it is never ok to violate rights; but under some circumstances some violations of rights must be seen as being committed by the more indirect party.
In other words "he left me no choice", not as an open ended excuse which depends on your subjective opinion; but based on the objective nature of the warfare.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
GOT YOU!If you mean to steal a rented car then the victim is the rental company
You also shot them though to get the car. They're still a victim and shooting them isn't self-defense.
your guy needed a car to catch the enemy
Yeah but you don't need them. I'm talking about them action of shooting the person to get to the car. That specific killing isn't self-defense.
-->
@Savant
GOT YOU!If you mean to steal a rented car then the victim is the rental companyYou also shot them though to get the car.
No, you got neither them nor the car. They are both invincible and inaccessible to you as a combatant.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it's your car that you own and rented to them.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tbh, your stance sounds a bit like the doctrine of double effect, which is one route to justifying self-defense but tends to have more limitations on it than other justifications. One formulation argues that "the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect," so I think on most interpretations it would still be subject to a utilitarian calculus.
-->
@Savant
Then it's your car that you own and rented to them.
...
"Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party could not have their rights violated in any way because an omniscient omnipotent super-intelligence which is absolutely and eternally tasked with the sole goal of enforcing this rule by whatever means are most elegant and cunning prevents said violation of rights."
Double infinity + 1, I win.
"the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect"
That's utilitarianism, root fallacy: the presumption that quantitative moral analysis is possible without providing any moral theory that would define such a quantity.
We may say colloquially "worse" or "better" but when you drill down we're talking about values within someone's chosen value system which are not necessarily universal, and very often are qualitative and not quantitative.
Without an objective formula to create a universal quantitative value system this is, in practice, subjectivism rebranded.
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I am categorically not saying that the enemy is so bad that stopping them is more good than hijacking and murdering is bad.
I notice that your link claims it is consequentialist, which it is, utilitarianism is by definition consequentialist, but it goes further by claiming consequences can be compared quantitatively and thus summed, and that the sum is what has moral implications.
I would say that as everyone has a duty to the moral principles of their own values, an army that values innocent life and liberty would have a duty to take risks and expend resources in order to cause less collateral damage.
Just like the severity of punishment, this is where fuzzy logic and vague value quantification has room to maneuver.
Notice how this is bounded by well defined borders. No diversion or mercy can be a duty that would require losing to the aggressor. You aren't obligated to firebomb Tokyo, but you are justified in doing it, not to save the lives of your own men or the lives in hypothetical future generations but because they attacked you.
If someone attacked you and stole a little pebble that has no use to the rest of the world but sentimental value to you, and if everyone else in the world lined up in front of your attacker to prevent your counterattack, they all forfeited their lives.
You can see from that extreme example how very non-utilitarian my asserted principle is.
A moral system where rights can be denied if enough people would rather die than see a right enjoyed is self-contradictory. That is not a right, it's a privilege contingent on the decision of others to side against you.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party could not have their rights violated in any way because an omniscient omnipotent super-intelligence which is absolutely and eternally tasked with the sole goal of enforcing this rule by whatever means are most elegant and cunning prevents said violation of rights."Double infinity + 1, I win.
The opponent still loses their advantage, because you would somehow be able to get the car without harming the person. And the car isn't their property in this scenario. Shooting the person is a needed to access the car, just like collateral damage is inevitable with bombing the enemy location. In either case it would be convenient for you if the other person didn't exist and had never rented your car or been near the terrorist base.
Even if the distinction didn't exist, it's far too slight to actually impact what the definition of self-defense is. Some strategies for self-defense inevitably involve other things. Just as I have a prima facie right to self-defense, I have a prima facie right to throw a javelin at an empty field, right? If an innocent person occupies that field, and I throw a javelin and kill them, am I just exercising my right? Or have I overstepped the bounds of that right?
if everyone else in the world lined up in front of your attacker to prevent your counterattack, they all forfeited their lives.
I don't think most collateral damage involve people intentionally putting themselves near the terrorists. With children and wounded people in hospitals, it's a given that they don't really have a say.
-->
@Savant
Babies are always a good emotional argument.
Babies learn quickly and soon acquire a corrupted brain...Like we all do.
Though corrupting data is often specific.
And so every Hamas fighter was once a cuddly wuddly baby, that was taught to be specifically discriminatory and violent.
-->
@Savant
The opponent still loses their advantage, because you would somehow be able to get the car without harming the person.
If the person's rights weren't violated then there is no controversy.
Shooting the person is a needed to access the car
and after a lot of wasting time we've refined the razor so that this would be impossible.
When we compare the situation without the god-enforced to the one with the god-enforcer then we see that you are unable to gain an advantage.
From a purely tactical analysis you would prefer that there was no enforcer-god. That means that the action in question (murderous hijacking) would be your fault and not the fault of the enemy, even if the enemy is the bad guy.
just like collateral damage is inevitable with bombing the enemy location
but if the IDF could make children invincible, they would. They are advantaged by the innocent being out of harms way. Your hypothetical hijacker is not. He needs a car to steal, a person to murder, a rental agreement to break (which is a harm quantity not withstanding).
In either case it would be convenient for you if the other person didn't exist and had never rented your car or been near the terrorist base.
No, you introduced a spurious element; a resource that magically existed, free to be taken if innocent people could not be harmed (have their rights violated).
If you had a car, you wouldn't need to steal it. If it had been rented and the guy renting it never existed then it wouldn't be rented anymore.
You basically said "yea but what if I had a car, that's an advantage."
You were abusing the razor with asymmetric scenarios and I suspect you know it.
it's far too slight to actually impact what the definition of self-defense is.
I was just using "self-defense" as a stand in for "justified violence". That's the interesting concept and if "self-defense" means something else it's probably irrelevant.
Back when I wrote my ideal bill of rights I said "defense of rights", not "self defense".
"self defense" implies that if you saw someone getting raped you could not defend them because they aren't yourself. Nobodies moral system works that way and mine doesn't either.
The aggressors act like wild animals and its open season on them when they prove themselves philosophical savages. All moderation beyond that is at the convenience and safety of the civilized.
There is no right to single combat, which is what a literal interpretation of "self-defense" as a moral root would be.
As for this field non-sense, the general formulation is you have a right to do anything you want so long as it doesn't violate the liberty of others (other moral actors, the civilized). Since getting murdered is a violating of liberty, throwing a javelin at an empty field is morally distinct from throwing a javelin at a field containing an innocent person.
The ongoing trade war between American and Europe can it lead to a total war
-->
@kingrichie
It's like we have to tolerate Putin.
So we have to tolerate Trump.
Just as the Mexicans and the Canadians have to.
The difference being, that Putin is a typically paranoid Russian old man, and Trump is ............Old man Trump.
-->
@kingrichie
There are like five threads about this. Why pick the one which isn't?
-->
@Savant
But not so much the non combatants...
How can Israel know that people that shelter Hamas are helping to kill Israelis, or unwilling hostages? Self-defense doctrine has to assume the first especially if ample time was allowed for those Palestines to get away from the combat.
Additionally, the man that works in the factory making a bomb is as much a combatant as the person setting it off. If there is no price people pay to build and support an offensive military, then they will continue to do so. That was the reasoning behind the 911 attacks.
-->
@Greyparrot
That's why you solve for babies first. If you can drop bombs on babies you can drop bombs on anyone. If you can't drop bombs on babies then the bad guys have already won (because they will drop bombs on babies).
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We literally won WW2 by bombing the shit out of Dresden, which declared every person working a factory as a combatant.
Same with fire-bombing Tokyo and the nukes. The childish moral view of innocent Palestines only ensures no end to that war.
Yikes 🤮
-->
@zedvictor4
Babies are always a good emotional argument.
It's a practical argument. The babies Israel bombs are not willing assistants or members of Hamas.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As for this field non-sense, the general formulation is you have a right to do anything you want so long as it doesn't violate the liberty of others (other moral actors, the civilized). Since getting murdered is a violating of liberty, throwing a javelin at an empty field is morally distinct from throwing a javelin at a field containing an innocent person.
Okay, so you have the right to self-defense as long as it doesn't violate the liberty of third parties. I think you're applying a different standard to this javelin case than you were before.
-->
@Savant
I think you're applying a different standard to this javelin case than you were before.
I am not. I am saying that it is the guy in the field throwing a javelin at you that has violated the liberty of a person right next to him should your counter-javelin hit the innocent.
I am asserting a right to not be in a battlefield where collateral damage is a major risk.
It is no different than asserting that there is a right to not be in wilderness so choked with toxic pollution that it represents a threat to your health or an the equivalent of a denial of area attack on your freedom of movement.
The only question I am answering here is: Who is at fault for the battlefield?
If somebody lights your house on fire and the fire department puts it out the arsonist is at fault not only for the fire damage but also for the water damage.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am asserting a right to not be in a battlefield where collateral damage is a major risk.
Why does the guy lose his right to be in the battlefield because the person next to him throws a javelin? You're violating that person's liberty by killing them because he wouldn't be dead without you taking action.
Right to self-defense is basically "you have the right to do anything unless it harms anyone unless that person is an aggressor." From that perspective, an empty field is equivalent to a field with an aggressor in it. Adding an innocent person to that field has the same effect in each case of causing an NAP violation if you throw the javelin.
-->
@Savant
I am asserting a right to not be in a battlefield where collateral damage is a major risk.Why does the guy lose his right to be in the battlefield because the person next to him throws a javelin?
Nobody loses his rights except the aggressor.
You're violating that person's liberty by killing them because he wouldn't be dead without you taking action.
He wouldn't be dead if the aggressor didn't violate rights.
The way this works is you follow the chain of last necessary cause for each event until you find the aggressor, and he or she is the one who violated anyone's rights who were violated at any point in the chain.
Right to self-defense is basically "you have the right to do anything unless it harms anyone unless that person is an aggressor."
That's more general than self-defense, it's the right to liberty. I didn't use the word "harm" I said "violates rights". Harm is often violating rights, but people think they're entitled to feel harmed and that is not objective. i.e. dumping your life partner harms them, but they don't have a right to keep you against your will.
The other thing about rights is that it by definition excludes aggressors. Aggressors already violated rights and thus any 'rights' they may have are practical mechanisms to avoid injustice and rapidly end ongoing threats to the rights of anyone.
Adding an innocent person to that field has the same effect in each case of causing an NAP violation if you throw the javelin.
Why?
You're not saying "X is similar to Y in this way so it must be similar in all ways" right?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's more general than self-defense, it's the right to liberty.
Self-defense is derived from from the right to liberty.
He wouldn't be dead if the aggressor didn't violate rights.
The aggressor directly violated your rights but didn't directly violate his. Rights violation implies harm of some kind. The guy wasn't harmed until you retaliated. Your choice to retaliate affects whether the third party lives or dies and directly harms them.
If the aggressor turned and shot the person next to them, that would be violating their rights even further. So there is still room to violate that person's right by throwing a javelin, which is what you are doing.
chain of last necessary cause
Retaliation isn't necessary, though, it's a choice.
You're not saying "X is similar to Y in this way so it must be similar in all ways" right?
Again, self-defense is part of the right to liberty, so the same rules apply.
Aggressors already violated rights and thus any 'rights' they may have are practical mechanisms to avoid injustice and rapidly end ongoing threats to the rights of anyone.
Hence, empty field is basically the same as a field with an aggressor, from perspective of right to liberty. Again, you don't have an obligation to defend yourself, it's just allowed like anything else unless it harms a third party.
-->
@Savant
Just to be clear, self defense definition is:
"Action which must be taken to preserve self".
It is usually understood in a way of "I must do A, because if I dont do A, then I die."
There is also defending of interests, but thats different from defending one's life.
Not all interests fall under self defense category, otherwise everything would be self defense.
In case of defending interests, it is usually gaining maximum out of everything, but this is not usually thought of as self defense.
-->
@Savant
self-defense itself is just a framework (or structured lie) that , most of us try to justify what we've done , self-defense is only an ethical on papers and in our imagination ,
in reality self-defense is just a kind of harm or danger of harm , in which u harm other and then u justify that u make it done for self-defense or for ethical purpose
But i like to say : Stronge do what they can and weak suffer what they must
Israel just kill civilians of states ( states that exist but sometimes not exist according to Israel ) and then israel justify it on the name of self-defense ....
its not about Israel every F*** stronge do that against weak
-->
@Savant
That's more general than self-defense, it's the right to liberty.Self-defense is derived from from the right to liberty.
Yes
The aggressor directly violated your rights but didn't directly violate his.
The proposition that it is impossible to indirectly violate rights is destroyed by many ad absurdum.
Rights violation implies harm of some kind.
You can make that claim, but you may end up in semantics about harm; I have learned to avoid vague words in deeper debate for that reason.
The classic example is "has sex with someone in a coma", against their rights but undetectable harm if they don't know.
The guy wasn't harmed until you retaliated.
Which is irrelevant.
Your choice to retaliate affects whether the third party lives or dies and directly harms them.
Yes
If the aggressor turned and shot the person next to them, that would be violating their rights even further.
Yes
So there is still room to violate that person's right by throwing a javelin, which is what you are doing.
Correct
chain of last necessary causeRetaliation isn't necessary, though, it's a choice.
When an event is caused by more than one thing it can be an sum of causes (for quantitative causation) or a set of necessary causes.
I was not claiming the event was necessary, but that there are necessary causes for the event to occur.
Identifying the last necessary cause which a reasonable person could perceive to be the last necessary cause (and thus be able to predict the event) is the baseline algorithm for determining responsibility.
I am saying this algorithm is modified by acts of aggression such that when you attempt to violate someone's rights you take responsibility for events downstream from your aggression even though you are no longer making the choices.
Which events? Those defined by the razor; which is a precise and objective determination of the "human shield factor", the innocents you put in danger (even if only of loss of property) with your aggression.
You're not saying "X is similar to Y in this way so it must be similar in all ways" right?Again, self-defense is part of the right to liberty, so the same rules apply.
That does not follow at all.
Hence, empty field is basically the same as a field with an aggressor, from perspective of right to liberty. Again, you don't have an obligation to defend yourself, it's just allowed like anything else unless it harms a third party.
The difference between an open field and a field with an aggressor in it is that the field with the aggressor in it is a threat to your rights.
If there was a dangerous creature that wasn't sapient and therefore not a moral actor in the field it might be just as dangerous as a javelin throwing man, but it wouldn't be a threat to your rights.
When choosing relative risk to the moral actor, it would be a trolley problem situation; the resolution of which depends upon personally chosen values.
-->
@Savant
Unfortunately human nature is such that it becomes an Impractical argument.
If Hamas cared about it's babies and children it would disarm and seek a peaceful solution to ideological and cultural differences.
Instead it sees the slaughter of agricultural workers as a practical solution.
And if non-militant, peace seeking Palestinians were to openly challenge Hamas's aggressive political strategies, they would probably be slaughtered too.
As ever, collateral damage is the consequence of human clever stupidity.
And we are all to blame.
-->
@Savant
Babies are always a good emotional argument.It's a practical argument. The babies Israel bombs are not willing assistants or members of Hamas.
The bombing of women and children by the IDF is proof the Jews are afraid of women and children supporting Hamas.