Bogdan

I wrote this really short story, I thought I should share it. The Brute of January 6th

As I thought, our disagreement resides at a more fundamental level - metaphysical, causality to be more specific. This should be discussed in another topic, in the appropriate forum. But since I have the feeling that we're not getting anywhere anyway, I'll throw in a few lines. You're wrong. Here is why: Someone's action is the cause of something only if the entire subsequent chain of effect/cause triggered by that action is purely metaphysical (I use the term 'metaphysical' in the sense given by Ayn Rand when she made the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). Therefore, A's monetary offer does not cause B to kill C. The cause of C's death is strictly B's action to shoot. The actions of both A and B are man-made, but only that of B triggers a chain of purely metaphysical events. In our case, B's volition represents the causation. Indeed, B's choice to shoot is not made in a vacuum, but in a context. That context however is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the cause of C's death. At best it can only offer a social/psychological/economical reason for why B did it. But B does it. It's not a question of B stopping the process of killing initiated by A, but a question of whether B decides to initiate it. I will not continue to reply to this topic in this direction.

This is why I brought the argument that B has a choice. If by "action" you mean "the killing of C", then I disagree: The action cannot be traced, as a cause, back to A. It stops at B. To instigate someone to kill C is not the same as to shoot a bullet toward C.

I find it interesting that you use 'Ordering'. This seems to be an attempt to circumvent the fact that B is a human with a choice. Somehow, because he was ordered, he is absolved of guilt, just like the bullet in a previous example. In fact, now that I admitted I can't yet prove my point, I can address other issues raised in this thread. One is that I should have stayed away from the Hitler analogy/example. That's because 'orders' are different from other types of persuasion such as money, or virgins in Paradise. That's because (on Objectivist grounds) orders, correctly defined, apply only to military, police and other enforcement agencies that belong to the government. In this case the executor may properly assume that the action ordered is morally right. Not only that, but the superior explicitly assumes responsibility for the action (which does not apply to the Mafia boss and the thug).

A indeed initiates something, but not force. It could be a conversation, a plan, a plot, a conspiracy, etc. But not force. B is the one who initiates force. Incidentally, this is different from the case whereby A fires a bullet and then claims that it was the bullet that initiated force. That's because, as opposed to the bullet, B is a human being who always has a choice not to hurt (or threaten ) C.

DonAthos, I believe we can reach a conclusion: We disagree :-) . The way I see it, a thief who returns the stolen object is still a thief. His punishment might be reduced, but he WILL be punished, since the crime was committed, the damage was done. However, I see a big, essential difference between a thief who returns the object and the guy who plans a theft to the last detail but never commits it. The latter never used force. He only threatened to use it. You, on the other hand, argue that the planning itself IS force, since it's a threat. The withdrawal of the threat is the same as the return of a stolen object. I have no new arguments to support my view. And, as I said before, on Objectivist grounds you're right. So, until I do (or someone else does) find new arguments, this round belongs to you. But I will keep thinking about it, because I feel I am right and usually my feelings turn out to be correct. I'll let you know :-)

I probably shouldn't say anything about this since I really have not information to go on.... So here it goes. It's difficult to define rich and poor, and those who do define them usually have hidden agendas. The lines of separation between classes are also unclear and shift according to the point to be proven. I am sure statistics have also a lot to do with this. Here are a few examples starting with a base year in which a rich guy makes $1 million and a poor guy makes $10000 and next year the rich guy gets richer by more than the poor guy. - Next year they make $2 million and $20000. The poor guy is poorer only relatively, in fact he is richer. - Next year they make $1.1 million and $15000. The poor guy is 50% better off, while the rich guy is only 10% better off. Since you mentioned Thomas Sowell, you probably read this argument in one of his books (quite possible "Cosmic Justice"): To say that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer is like the guy in that joke where a friend of his says "In New York a pedestrian is hit by a car every 12 minutes" to which he replies "Poor pedestrian! He must look awful". Which is to say that the 'rich' and 'poor' are almost never the same people throughout the years. Most of the poor move to the middle class and some of those in the middle class become rich. Some of the rich die, and the new people in the poor class are usually the young who finish school and have lots of debt and immigrants looking for a better life.

I totally agree that it's only the actions that we need to look at. Bear in mind though that the moral (or legal, if you will) evaluation of the actions is made at step 3, when B2 is on his way to C's house, carrying a rifle in his hand and all the required information in this head. And I think this is where we disagree. The action of the others of handing to B2 the rifle and the layout of C's house, of patting him on the back and wishing him good luck are equivalent to backing down from their initial threat. When they say to B2 "May God be with you", they're in effect saying "You are in it. We're out! We don't support you, we don't drive you, we don't call you, we don't do anything from this moment on.". This doesn't make them 100% not-guilty. Their amount of guilt is determined based on their action of planning to commit murder AND the action of backing out. This is very important to my case, since it makes B2 aware that his guilt is much greater than that of the others. From his point of view, it's 100%. They get a slap on the wrist, he gets the chair. It's not enough to build trust, to make him feel some kind of conspiratorial bond. Just to clarify: In my OP when I say "A is not guilty! At all! Only B should be punished by law" I am referring to the action I mention in the paragraph just above "the ones who actually pull the trigger". My argument applies to all types of A - the priest who identifies the abortion doctor, purchases a gun and puts in the hand of a religious zealot; the husband who pays a killer to murder his rich wife. And of course it does not apply to the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery. I must emphasize that I am not saying that this is the way it is, now and here, that this is what the current law holds. I say that this is the way it should be. The fact that, just like you, I have no legal/criminal expertise is not relevant, since I am making my case on moral grounds: The action of killing is much worse that the action of just planning murder and then backing out.

DonAthos, First - yes, I am making (or at least this is my intention) my case on Objectivist grounds. I am now trying to pinpoint where we disagree. The topic has shifted to a more fundamental level than it was originally intended. Consider again the gang who plan to kill someone and then draw straws. I say that the action (or rather non-action) of the ones who didn't draw the short straw and stay home is morally equivalent to that of the 'aggressor' who withdraws the threat. I am not sure whether you agree with this or not. I think you do, but while I say that this would render them not-guilty, since no force was actually used, you argue that, since the threat itself is initiation of force, they remain guilty, possibly to a lesser extent. I deliberately left out many details (for example by 'not-guilty' I don't mean 100%) which I thought would get in the way. Is what I say above correct?

Weird, huh? I am quoting myself... In fact the above is somewhat explicit when she says in The Objectivist Ethics

This approach doesn't allow for the case whereby the person who threatens to use force, subsequently withdraws the threat, apologizes and goes home. It may be that to consider that he's done nothing wrong is exaggerated but surely the threatened man is no longer entitled to 'self-defense'. Some 'retaliation' is in order, but certainly not to the same extend as if the threat was still active. Equating a threat, which is a potential use of force with an actual use of force would mean that the same 'defensive' actions maybe taken at any moment after the initiation regardless of what the perpetrator does later on. The actual use of force does damage. The threat itself (while it may do some damage such as emotional trauma) might very well end in no damage being done. So, yes, the group, as an entity, is guilty Monday and not guilty Tuesday, since they have changed their minds. All the information they have gathered, all the tools and weapons they have purchased, all the planning they have done - they have decided not to put it to use. For all practical purposes they no longer represent a threat to their previous target. Previous, get it? It is not the case with B2, obviously. He has decided to go ahead and use the weapons, tools, plan, etc against his target. Well, what can I say? According to Objectivist standards you got me here. It's there, black on white. However, I believe that Ayn Rand didn't go into details of this subject, because it's not really a philosophical issue, but more of a legal/criminal one. If she had, she would have probably made a clear difference between 'self-defense' and 'retaliation'; she would have mentioned that the self-defense sometimes, or should I say 'in most cases', is properly performed by the threatened person with no delegation whatever; and she would have rephrased the quote above to the more cumbersome form "... those who initiate its use or a threat to use it". But, hey, these are just speculations, right?

Up to the last paragraph I agree with you almost completely, with a small note: It's not about initiation of actual force, but of a threat to use it. The threat is real, it's directed at me, which entitles me to defend myself and hit you first, or have you arrested or whatever. It might not matter for this thread though. Not quite. Your conclusions are too bundled up. Here is my take, assuming that the scenario you describe actually takes place. I will break it in a few steps. 1. The group starts planning to kill C. When the plan has gone far enough (just like you I won't go into the details) the initiation of a threat to use force against C has indeed occured. What's important though is that they are acting together, as a group. Therefore they are all guilty. C is entitled to preemptive action against them all (or against any of them). 2. They draw straws and B2 is the designated hitman. As far as your scenario goes, B2 is the only one that will actually perform the killing, while the others in the group will just sit back, relax and watch the show. They will not act in any way. At this point they are still all guilty. Nothing has really changed. 3. The day of the hit arrives, B2 picks up the rifle and takes position. The others in the group turn the TV on and wait for the news. And this is the point where it all changes. In fact, this is the moment we can actually talk about an A and a B. Up to this point, there was no A. There was only a bunch of B-s. So at this point the rest of the group becomes innocent and B2 is the only guilty one. The delegation of responsibility has occured. B2 is the only one against whom defensive action may properly be taken. It's pointless to arrest or shoot B3 who is taking a shower and, as you might have guessed by now, is laughing at the stupidity of B2. (Yes, the police might get information from B3 about the details of the hit and stop B2, but that's an insignifficant sub-scenario). As I previously said, if B2 goes ahead and kills C, if he is caught, he is the only one going to jail. The other members of the group are off the hook. If B2 changes his mind and walks away, the guilt is again shared by all, just like in the first 2 steps. So... Steps 1 and 2 are really outside of this topic. We are talking about a criminal gang who, together, are planning to kill someone. Since there is no A, we don't discuss them. My original post never claimed to rid once and for all of all crime. Criminals, alone or in groups, will still exist. Step 3 however, is exactly what the topic is about. And my take is that as soon as he draws the short straw, B2 says to himself "Screw this, I am going home". How the hitman is determined, whether he was paid, brainwashed, convinced or selected at random is irrelevant. Above I assumed that the scenario you describe actually takes place. I don't think it will. Or if it does, it will be partially. All the Bs are initially thinking "I'm going to go with this because I really hate C and there is one chance in ... that it won't be me to actually do it". But it's obvious for all that they're all thinking this. So they won't even start planning. They'll just turn the TV on and wait for the news that C has died of natural causes.

All of the above, true as it might be, is superfluous. You're only stating how things are here, today. The point of this topic is how it should be. And I say that in all the 3 cases the only guilty person should be the killer. Not the priest. Why? It's difficult to explain... let me think... Oh, how about this: because only the killer initiated force.

As incentive, the police might offer a reward to anyone with information - A in this case. ("WHOAA!!" - I can hear the readers of this screaming with indignation. "Not only A is off the hook, he also makes money off of it!!"). Yeah, well, it will happen only for a few cases, get over it. While I could agree that my view is simplistic, you're presenting a very specific case. A has a list of people to kill and he must have a verifiable history of relationships with hitmen. B, on the other hand, desperately needs to trust A so that he can sleep well at night after committing murder. It's true that A's testimony might not be enough for a conviction. But, really, that's a detail. What's important is that B simply cannot trust A. This is not a little love secret shared by a teenage girl. This is life in jail, or electric chair, or lethal injection.

I agree with DonAthos. It may be that his choice to use "outside" was unfortunate, but his point his very clear: "...initiation of force" which is the same thing as "the violation of someone's rights.". He doesn't say that the violation involves force, as riding would involve a bicycle. But that it is. What you said in the quote above is a slippery and dangerous slope. A man who kills a doctor who performs abortions is not an innocent victim of his priest. We don't put the priest in jail even though he might have triggered the chain of events. I was hoping we wouldn't get into the definition of physical force. Someone who steals money from someone else's account by hacking into that account, is physical force, even though the account holder doesn't shed a single drop of blood. It is taking someone's property without his approval. With that in mind, the 3 types of crime you mention are, at one point or another, perpetrated by someone directly initiating force. And that's the action that is immoral and he's the guilty person. No one else. And that's also the case with the 4-th type, the subject of this topic. Um... it might be overkill. Any other suggestions, something I could do in, say, a couple of hours, maybe... ?

I know nothing about this theory, so I'll just answer the question: No, I don't.

The principle is that in a free society anybody is allowed to do anything he wants as long as he does not initiate physical force against anyone else or their property. Again - physical force. Not orders, or rewards. I have read pretty much everything, but my memory is letting me down lately so I might have forgotten. So, what does she say about it?

B says "No, thanks, I have better things to do". It's obvious to him that it's obious to both X and Y that if they do anything to him, wife, children, etc. they're in trouble since A is off the hook and only X and Y are initiating force. Kicking the can to the end of the alphabet is not going to avoid the main point: When any of these guys think "I'm going to use force", the next thought that goes through his head is "If I do, I'm alone in this. At best I will live in fear for a while until one of them decides to tell on me and end up in jail anyway. Just me." And he won't do it. None of them will. That's the way it works today. B is afraid of X and Y, who are afraid of J and K, and so on. That's the case because they're ALL in this. There is a sense of conspiracy which gives them incentive to go ahead and use force. They're all thinking "He won't tell on me, 'cause he's in trouble as well if he does".

No, it's not purely pragmatic. Initiation of force is evil because it is the only way to not allow a person to use his rational faculty. It's the ONLY way. Nothing else can. Including paying, convincing, asking, etc. somebody else to do it. When A hires B to kill C, no matter how convincing A is, for how long he pleads or how much he is willing to pay, C can continue to lead a happy life. C becomes involved in this only when B acts, because only B is using force. All the arguments that I bring in my post are intended to show that the implementation of a policy which only punishes B would work. But that's only the practical side. Such a policy should be implemented not because it works, but on principle. As far as I know, Ayn Rand has never said anything about this violence by proxy. I think this was later added by others who just couldn't figure out a solution to the hitman problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I re-read my answers to your questions, and you might still find them evasive. Please allow me to summarize: When did Hitler initiate physical force against someone? - Never. Is Hitler guilty of anything? - Yes, of issuing orders to kill innocent people. Is issuing orders an initiation of physical force? - No, it isn't. Didn't you say that the ONLY thing that is evil is initiation of force? - Yes, I did. Isn't that a contradiction? - No, because the statement is true only in a context that does not apply to Hitler. I don't think I can do better than this.

Hitler's orders to kill people were immoral, even though this is not initiation of physical force. This is because the context then was different. The statement "What is evil is ONLY initiation of physical force" is true. However, as any other truths, it is contextual. The context in which it is true is one whereby objectivist principles are already established, which was not the case in Germany during WWII. In a non-objectivist society there might be cases where initiation of force is not immoral, and cases where things other than initiation of force might be immoral. The morality of the actions in those cases is, in my opinion, debatable. For instance I say that the action of a policeman arresting a drug dealer who never hurt anyone is not immoral, even though it is initiation of force. What's immoral in this case is the law forbidding drug dealing and empowering the police to arrest the dealers. I find this a very interesting subject, but it would be part of a different topic.

Sorry, I pressed the wrong button. I am new to this....

I'll reply first to points 2 and 3: Nothing that A offers is worthwhile. That's the whole point from a practical view. As I said in my original post - if the payment is to be done after the killing, A is much better off to just turn B in as soon as C is dead. And it is the more so, the better the offer. B is well aware of that, so his only viable option is to demand to be paid in advance. But A would never agree to that, since nothing guarantees that B will do his job. Therefore no agreement can be reached. C is safe! And now point 1: I would DEFINITELY let A go unpunished. Not only that, but the case MUST be widely publicized. It must be very well known that the case of the murder of C was solved, B is the murderer, his reason was financial reward (which, incidentaly, he never received) and the case was solved mainly through the contribution of the person who promised the reward and who wishes to remain anonymous. Again as I said before, it would take only a few cases like this for the hitman profession to disappear. I know it sounds ludicrous. It sounded like that to me the first time I thought about it. I got so used to it by now that I can't understand how others don't see this way. To me it's the opposite: "Hey, B! Kill C and I'll give you $10,000!" And you would put someone in jail just for that?

1-Hitler DOESN'T fall into the A category. He WOULD only IF the law had been as I suggested. But it wasn't. Hitler's actions took place in a certain context. To judge them based on a proposed law that would have completely changed that context, means dropping it. 2-Correct. But I never presumed that there was any doubt that A wants C dead. He really does! They both benefit only if A pays. Which, in most cases, he wouldn't. Chances are, and the game theory still applies, that if B kills C only A benefits, and B goes to jail. 3-The profession will soon disappear. It takes only so many hitmen to go to jail to realize that it's just not worth the trouble.They don't need to be that rational, or even smart. It would be obvious to anyone.

Ok, please disregard the reference to the law and consider only my first sentence. Yes, Hitler was "Guilty of giving the order to have many innocent people killed". I fear your next question will be something like "Didn't you say that giving an order is not immoral and therefore Hitler cannot be guilty of it"? Oh, yes, I feel it coming....