Preemptive Self Defense

@Charles phil,

Charles wrote:

The guilt, if any for over-reaction, rests primarily with the one/those who threaten, not the person/people who respond to that threat.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I'll illustrate with an example:[INDENT]EXAMPLE: I drove past a lemonaide stand yesterday on the way home from the store. As I passed, a boy of about 10 years old made a hand gesture to me. He says he was waving at a potential customer but I know better. So I pulled over, beat him and his friends to a pulp then went and burnt his house down. Later, I hunted down the relatives of this diseased clan and reaped my just vengeance upon all them and their progeny. Fortunately, after reading in the philosophy form that I'm not responsible for my over-reactions to perceived threats, I was able to avoid prosecution.
[/INDENT]Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I'll illustrate with an example:
[INDENT]EXAMPLE: I drove past a lemonaide stand yesterday on the way home from the store. As I passed, a boy of about 10 years old made a hand gesture to me. He says he was waving at a potential customer but I know better. So I pulled over, beat him and his friends to a pulp then went and burnt his house down. Later, I hunted down the relatives of this diseased clan and reaped my just vengeance upon all them and their progeny. Fortunately, after reading in the philosophy form that I'm not responsible for my over-reactions to perceived threats, I was able to avoid prosecution.
[/INDENT]Thanks

Wonder why you would consider a "hand-gesture" a threat...much less, one from a 10 year old? Too silly to engage.

@Khethil,

Khethil's above example may be extreme, but he does have a point. For the aggressor to pass the blame off to the victim because he perceived the victim to be a potential threat is really just denial of accountability. And when we talk specifically about Iraq, let's all face it, Iraq was invaded precisely because it was not a legitimate threat to the U.S. or its allies. Real threats to the U.S. would at least manage some measure of counter-attack when invaded. And why would the U.S. invade someone who could actually hurt them in retaliation anyway? Seems kinda dumb. Invading Iraq was never about eliminating a threat; it was about flexing a little muscle to put the fear of God (Uncle Sam) back into the Arab world.

@Solace,

You may be right. My point is that one can not make threats and than claim the person/nation they threaten should not have taken their threat seriously...that is, the one initiating a threat shares some responsibility for the consequence.

@Charles phil,

Hey Charles,

The silliness of the example is exactly the kind of reason that ethical stand is dangerous. What you perceive as a "real" threat may or may not be. But being that as it may, anytime someone "over reacts", as you put it, they should bear the responsibility of that over reaction. Should we all - including the reactor - be responsibility for our actions?

Good luck with this, Cheers!

@Khethil,

Please do not take this as abuse, I am not trying to offend either but during the mid to late eighties a series of movies came out called American Ninja. While the star of the show was off defending American interests in some jungle some where they killed his wife and child, if I recall. The next series, same scenario except this time, his brother is killed. They hit six in the series, I was surprised he had more relations but the moral of the story is not about retribution or any other nonsense somehow related. It is about the Constitution.

You being an average white Joe, blow the car horn at a car that is jamming up traffic. Out jumps an African American who walks your way. You can see the gun in his waist band, draw yours and square off, you shoot as he draws and the court hears of his prior misdemeanors. Is that pre-emtive self defense. I don't want your opinion or your belief. Give me a verdict.

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

... You can see the gun in his waist band, draw yours and square off, you shoot as he draws ...

Without other details to mitigate the situation: Justified

EDIT: I just realized how this was written. If you drew yours first as a reaction to his coming towards you; it's real iffy. If you shot as he drew then I'd say justified. The act of pointing a gun at me, to my mind, is justification for drawing mine (imminent danger). If I drew first, by that same principle, he'd be justified.

@Khethil,

Nice to see confusion. Makes it easy to swing a verdict. Technically you shot a policeman who was undercover and the rap sheet was a cover. The scenario is too close for comfort. Pointing the gun should read a guilty verdict, that is full stop but what do you do.

@urangutan,

Not sure what you mean by that, but its a good example of the murky area of such an ethical issue. And for reference, if an undercover cop aims a gun at me he's still putting himself at risk for lethal means of defending against imminent danger like anyone else Smile

To me (like most ethical issues), preemptive self-defense has its cases that one might judge clearly-justified, clearly-unjustified and those which could go either way. Like a scale traversed, absolutes are exceedingly rare.

As I illustrated with the silly example a few posts back, basing culpable responsibility on perception is fine, but only to a point. But then again, one can't wait until a bullet's in clear-flight to act. Both extremes are absurd, almost as absurd as "...the perceiver is not responsible for over-reaction".

Another large factor in this equation is the role cultural standards play. Although I'm not sure such a thing would relegate the issue necessarily since reaction to perceived danger isn't contingent on social construct.

Good discussion

@Khethil,

I didn't particularly want to discuss the topic. Once I read it, I couldn't help but pose a situatioin that came immediately to mind. All scenarios rely on the variables and I really can't get over the readiness that most posters have expressed. I wouldn't say eagerness but from a different culture, I would say others may see this. I was tempted to go that way.

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

I didn't particularly want to discuss the topic. Once I read it, I couldn't help but pose a situatioin that came immediately to mind.

Fair enough - and I'm glad you did. Thanks Smile

Philosophy Forum

Preemptive Self Defense

Quick Links

My Account

able2know