Is it ever OK to hit someone?

[ex_banana-eater]

Yes, the same principle contained in the statement "if you play with fire you'll get burned."

Also, the principle saying, "People can initiate force against others based on their whims at the time."

[D'kian]

Also, the principle saying, "People can initiate force against others based on their whims at the time."

Hitting someone who is disturbing you is not a whim.

[RationalBiker]

If your words or actions are designed to make someone angry, then you should expect negative consequences from that anger towards you.

That no way, no how constitutes consent for being physically struck, despite the fact that being physically struck may be a consequence. A person walking down the street counting a wad of $50's in his hands may be "asking to be robbed", but that does not give another person the right to act on that robbery. He may be being stupid, and often times being stupid comes with consequences, but being stupid does not allow other people to make decisions and take actions which would be violations of your rights.

The euphemism "asking for it" cannot be literally interpreted as a form of consent. When it's just words, with NO indication of threat, your whim does not give you a right to haul off and slug someone no matter how good it might make you feel, that is unless you subscribe to some philosophy where morality is based on your emotions.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, the same principle contained in the statement "if you play with fire you'll get burned."

Except that fire is not an entity that makes choices or takes actions. As such, fire cannot violate a person's rights. Stupidity does not give another person the right to violate someone else's rights.

[D'kian]

That no way, no how constitutes consent for being physically struck, despite the fact that being physically struck may be a consequence. A person walking down the street counting a wad of $50's in his hands may be "asking to be robbed", but that does not give another person the right to act on that robbery. He may be being stupid, and often times being stupid comes with consequences, but being stupid does not allow other people to make decisions and take actions which would be violations of your rights.

Exactly. Such an idiot (yes, that's the right word) would be fully entitled to go to the police and demand the police try their best to aprehend the robber and, if possible, recover his money. He would not be entitled to a drop of sympathy, though, precisely because he was an idiot doing something massively stupid.

When it's just words, with NO indication of threat, your whim does not give you a right to haul off and slug someone no matter how good it might make you feel, that is unless you subscribe to some philosophy where morality is based on your emotions.

You should try being the unending target of such abuse, all day long, for months on end, without any form of relief, before you make that judgement.

[RationalBiker]

You should try being the unending target of such abuse, all day long, for months on end, without any form of relief, before you make that judgement.

I have to laugh at this because as a police officer I have been the subject of such abuse. LOL!!!! Many people really don't like being arrested and they are often very verbally abusive on the ride downtown.

So if that is the objective measure of me being qualified to make such judgement, I'm qualified to make such judgement.

He would not be entitled to a drop of sympathy, though, precisely because he was an idiot doing something massively stupid.

But the OP's question was not about whether the person deserved sympathy, it was about whether or not it can be morally right to assault someone. I dont think anyone here has been discussing sympathy so I'm not sure how this response fits in this thread.

The answer (assuming Objectivist ethics) is that if no threat of physical force is present, then no, a person does not have a moral right to assault another person just because what they are saying is upsets them.

The answer (assuming emotional ethics) is that you can do whatever you want to the loud-mouthed SOB. In that case, other people who feel differently could be justified in going further than simple assault.

[Jake_Ellison]

The key question is whether the hitting constitutes force. If it doesn't cause any injury to the person, and he has been "asking for it" with his behavior, then the case can be made that he had implicitly consented to being hit.

It doesn't make sense. Why would you assume that someone who's insulting you wants to get punched, when it would actually be a lot easier to consent explicitely, or to start a fight a la "Fight Club.

I don't think someone who's insulting people is planning to get punched at all, he is merely expressing his anger in non violent ways. Whether he is right or wrong to be angry is another thing, but he's going about it the right way. (as long as he isn't physically threatening of course)

You should try being the unending target of such abuse, all day long, for months on end, without any form of relief, before you make that judgement.

Why should he? He is capable of integrating principles which tell him what the right course of action is. If someone is insulting you, the right course of action is to either walk away or insult him back. In a school setting, it's to insult him back. If that becomes impossible, walking away is the next option.

Walking away is never impossible, unless force is involved.

[Greebo]

Exactly. Such an idiot (yes, that's the right word) would be fully entitled to go to the police and demand the police try their best to aprehend the robber and, if possible, recover his money. He would not be entitled to a drop of sympathy, though, precisely because he was an idiot doing something massively stupid.

You should try being the unending target of such abuse, all day long, for months on end, without any form of relief, before you make that judgement.

D'Kian - what you are basically saying is that either it's moral for the person being annoyed to initiate force - OR that the constant being annoyed by someone else constitutes an initiation of force, and that it's moral for you the individual to retaliate against that initiated force.

Do you need it explained why both positions contradict Objectivist ethics?

[2046]

What about in prison? There are different rules there, no?

If you can project that if you don't stike somebody with some sort of physical violence for something like approaching you with the wrong attitude or prison ettiquite will result in you becoming someone's bitch or getting raped (wait, are the two the same?) is it moral to use force in such a setting?

Are there different ethics in prison (or a prison-like setting such as boot-camp) at all?

[fountainhead777]

correct me if im wrong but isnt force only justified in self-defense? so if you have a justified reason to suspect force being initiated on you then you can retaliate.

[RationalBiker]

correct me if im wrong but isnt force only justified in self-defense? so if you have a justified reason to suspect force being initiated on you then you can retaliate.

Yes, but a couple others have been saying one would be morally justified to use force just because someone upset them with their words when no threat of force is present.

[RationalBiker]

If you can project that if you don't stike somebody with some sort of physical violence for something like approaching you with the wrong attitude or prison ettiquite will result in you becoming someone's bitch or getting raped (wait, are the two the same?) is it moral to use force in such a setting?

If it was reasonable to believe that you were going to have force used against you (become someone's bitch (a slave) or getting raped) why must the ethics be different?

The contention lies in words that upset someone without the threat of force involved.

Edited October 31, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Capitalism Forever]

What does the extent of the injury have to do with it?

The extent of injury, nothing. The absence of injury, everything. Read carefully what I wrote:

The key question is whether the hitting constitutes force. If it doesn't cause any injury to the person, and he has been "asking for it" with his behavior, then the case can be made that he had implicitly consented to being hit.

"asking for it"??? implicitly consented??? really???

First of all, for the record, I don't agree with D'kian's reckless-driving analogy at all. If you have an accident through your own fault and there is no second party involved, then there is no second party involved, so no potential rights violation to talk about and no one to give consent to.

Normally, random strangers are not given implicit consent to touch you anywhere on your skin or clothes, but in certain situations such touching does customarily happen. For example, suppose that you are standing somewhere and somebody comes from behind you, but you are blocking his path. He says "Excuse me" but you don't seem to notice--so he gently taps your shoulder. Was this an initiation of force on his part? I would say no, because by being in a public place, you have implicitly consented to things that customarily happen in public places, such as strangers wanting to get past you and tapping your shoulder if you don't notice them. The shoulder tap is, in effect, a form of communication, in a context where verbal communication fails.

Now, if you seriously insult someone, the insulted party might want to communicate to you that your insult has been successful (so to speak), and he might find that the most appropriate way to communicate this is to slap you on the face. Again, he does not intend to cause any injury, he just wants to tell you that he disapproves of your conduct; he is using the slap on your face as a form of communication. By offering you an insult of a serious kind, the person has implicitly consented to what he knows is often the response to insults of that kind.

Let me stress that I am not saying this is universally applicable, only in certain contexts. I am not positing as a general rule that you can hit whomever has said something you don't like--just like you can't walk up to any random stranger and grope him (her?) after saying "Excuse me." It's all in the context.

[Capitalism Forever]

There is certainly a situation in which you should use pre-emptive force.

I am not sure what people mean when they say "pre-emptive" force. I first heard it applied to the retaliation against Saddam, and I suspect that it was meant to insinuate that the U.S. was initiating force in that conflict, which of course is total bunk. Anyway, let's proceed to your example:

Those people that walk right into your face, with their nose right next to yours, have invaded your space so greatly and are showing that they are such an extreme risk to you, you need to defend yourself from them. If you just let them hit you first, there is really no possibility that you could defend that swing. Good boxers keep people on the outside, they know that it's really hard to defend a punch if someone closes the space.

So is the person in question acting threateningly? If yes, a threat of force IS an initiation of force, and you have every right to use force in self-defense.

[eficazpensador]

The extent of injury, nothing. The absence of injury, everything.

Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone is not physical force?

Now, if you seriously insult someone, the insulted party might want to communicate to you that your insult has been successful (so to speak), and he might find that the most appropriate way to communicate this is to slap you on the face. Again, he does not intend to cause any injury, he just wants to tell you that he disapproves of your conduct; he is using the slap on your face as a form of communication. By offering you an insult of a serious kind, the person has implicitly consented to what he knows is often the response to insults of that kind.

A slap in the face is a way of communicating? This whole thread deserves one big 'LOL.' You guys need to think about the principles involved in what you're saying! Is physical pain a proper way of communication? Of course not. My wish to communicate my disapproval of something doesn't entitle me to smacking someone in the face! Hitting is physical force. End of discussion. I can't believe this crap exists on an Objectivist forum.

[Capitalism Forever]

Yes, but a couple others have been saying one would be morally justified to use force just because someone upset them with their words when no threat of force is present.

"A couple" ?? Vern, I honestly hope you don't think I have been saying anything like that.

[freestyle]

Is it ever OK to hit someone?

Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation?

Yes.

(some bad language) In my opinion, this guy waited way too long to hit the punk. Edited October 31, 2009 by freestyle

[2046]

Yes.

(some bad language) In my opinion, this guy waited way too long to hit the punk.

I disagree. It's not any verbal or "psychological abuse" that gives the guy the right to hit the punk, it's the fact that the punk got in the guy's personal space, threatened him, and made physical contact. If the punk was five feet away (for example,) on permissible property, and didn't utter any threats of violence, then the guy would not have the right to hit him, no matter what he says.

Edited October 31, 2009 by 2046

[Capitalism Forever]

Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone is not physical force?

A slap in the face is a way of communicating? This whole thread deserves one big 'LOL.' You guys need to think about the principles involved in what you're saying! Is physical pain a proper way of communication? Of course not. My wish to communicate my disapproval of something doesn't entitle me to smacking someone in the face! Hitting is physical force. End of discussion. I can't believe this crap exists on an Objectivist forum.

LOL, calm down. I can assure you, I'm not planning on hitting you. Not even if you say much stronger words than "crap" !

I knew my position would cause a stir, which I'm afraid is the result of what I consider to be a very serious misunderstanding of what Miss Rand meant by force. It is the kind of misunderstanding that makes people wonder if Roark had a right to "rape" Dominique, or perhaps even if he had a right to break Mallory's figurine.

Perhaps it would be useful if those who are shocked by my position could give their definition of the concept of force. Also, if you hold that it means something different, I would appreciate it if you gave the differentia for "physical force" as opposed to just "force." Conceptual clarity is an essential part of stopping crap from existing on Objectivism Online, and you can make a difference by doing your part!

[freestyle]

I disagree. It's not any verbal or "phsychological abuse" that gives the guy the right to hit the punk, it's the fact that the punk got in the guy's personal space, threatened him, and made physical contact. If the guy was five feet away (for example,) on permissible property, and didn't utter any threats of violence, then the guy would not have the right to hit him, no matter what he says.

Disagree with what? I just said he waited too long. The guy already pushed him, grabbed his neck, was in his personal space, etc, etc. I think violating personal space and private property, combined with intensely threatening words and gestures is enough to make it "OK" to clock the person in self defense. Self defense doesn't mean you have to actually allow yourself to be hit. If someone starts a swing at my head (but was going to just fake it and stop), am I wrong to move to block and throw a punch with the intention of connecting?

[RationalBiker]

"A couple" ?? Vern, I honestly hope you don't think I have been saying anything like that.

Well, that depends on whether or not you agree that an unsolicited battery is force. I'm not of the opinion that force necessarily requires injury. Some people comply sooner with a physical compulsion in order to avoid injury, but they are complying due to force.

It seems that you are trying to argue that certain comments are an implicit consent to being struck, I just disagree. Perhaps I would understand better if you gave more specific examples of what kind of comments morally justify a slap in the face.

Now, if the person says something like, "Go ahead asshole, hit me" or "I bet you want to beat my ass don't you pussy", perhaps I would entertain that argument.

Edited October 31, 2009 by RationalBiker

[2046]

Disagree with what? I just said he waited too long. The guy already pushed him, grabbed his neck, was in his personal space, etc, etc. I think violating personal space and private property, combined with intensely threatening words and gestures is enough to make it "OK" to clock the person in self defense. Self defense doesn't mean you have to actually allow yourself to be hit.

I was assuming you were responding "Yes" to the question you quoted: "Can any form of verbal or psychological abuse, such as an extremely offensive oral statement, ever justify physical retaliation?" In which case, I disagree. The "verbal" or "psychological abuse" of the punk is irrelevant to why the guy should have hit him.

If someone starts a swing at my head (but was going to just fake it and stop), am I wrong to move to block and throw a punch with the intention of connecting?

No, you are perfectly justified.

[Capitalism Forever]

It seems that you are trying to argue that certain comments are an implicit consent to being struck, I just disagree. Perhaps I would understand better if you gave more specific examples of what kind of comments morally justify a slap in the face.

Actually, as far as morality is concerned, I think the most important thing to say is that a virtuous person would simply try and avoid contact with the kind of people who exhibit such behavior. I have been addressing the legal aspect (although now that I notice that this is in the Ethics forum, this may not be what the original question was about).

Now, as for examples, basically what you wrote:

Now, if the person says something like, "Go ahead asshole, hit me" or "I bet you want to beat my ass don't you pussy", perhaps I would entertain that argument.

is a good pointer in the general direction; these are examples of obvious provocation, where the person saying them is clearly looking for a fight. Now, if the same kind of person uttered the same kind of monologue with the same kind of body language, but omitted the explicit calls for physical confrontation and made more subtle hints in that direction instead, would you still consider entertaining the argument? E.g. suppose that person A makes salacious comments on the lady in the company of person B, calls person B a weakling and a coward, and suggests that the lady would be better off in his (person A's) hands--and generally makes it obvious that he is challenging person B to a fight, without ever verbalizing it as such.

[RationalBiker]

-and generally makes it obvious that he is challenging person B to a fight

How is it obvious that he is challenging person B to a fight? What are his physical actions if his words are not more explicitly communicating a threat? Why can't person B walk away or call the authorities (or say the management of the establishment)?

By the way, I've not disputed that you can respond to someone's words IF you reasonably think a physical threat is present. Where are you going with this if you not establishing that the instigator is posing a threat?

I have been addressing the legal aspect

That's easy then. You still have an unlawful battery, perhaps contingent upon jurisdiction. You may know this, but an assault involves a battery with injury or an attempt to injure whereas a battery is simply an unwanted (unlawful) touching. People have a right, legally, not to be intentionally touched by another person, though they do not have a right not to be incidentally touched (as say on a busy sidewalk passing other pedestrians). Whether or not the person is convicted of battery depends any number of factors, not the least of which are; 1) is the person charged in the first place and; 2) does the judge recognize the 'victim's' actions prior to being battered as acts of provocation. I think we all know the law does not always coincide with the moral.

But yes, I think the question was about the moral implications, not the legal implications.

Incidentally, I think if my wife and I were in such a situation as you describe she would probably respond verbally by insinuating some deficiency in his manliness.

Also, I have to add that I have spent the better part of the last 24 years of my life regularly distinguishing between overt threats, subtle threats, threats communicated by body language and mere insults. I have responded to each these different situations sometimes with words alone and sometimes with physical force. It is part and parcel of what I do for a living. I've been on the deciding end of shoot / don't shoot several times and fortunately I've never thought that shooting someone was necessary. My point being, this particular kind of decision-making is nothing new to me.

Edited October 31, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Q.E.D.]

In some cases verbal abuse may constitute implied initiation of force. These cases are generally referred to as harassment, wherein a culprit utilizes implied physical force to emotionally harm a victim. Its harassment if an assailant makes it impossible to escape repeated verbal abuse (without engaging in violence). In many valid cases harassment is equivalent to stalking.

If rational thought leads you to believe that you must defend the pursuit of your values from physical force, by physical force, I think it is moral. Usually this moral sanction falls upon the police.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Q.E.D.