AndrewSternberg Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Is there a distinction to be made, separating self-defense from retaliation, or do these words refer to the same concept? I think of self-defense as the broader concept, and retaliation as a subcategory of it. To me, retaliation has a element of time connected to it; it is a self-defense after and in response to force that has already been initated against you. Is this distinction valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Is there a distinction to be made, separating self-defense from retaliation, or do these words refer to the same concept? I think of self-defense as the broader concept, and retaliation as a subcategory of it. To me, retaliation has a element of time connected to it; it is a self-defense after and in response to force that has already been initated against you. Is this distinction valid? Self defense refers to repelling a current or active threat whereas retaliation refers to attacking even though the threat is no longer there. They are not the same concepts. VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewSternberg Posted October 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Self defense refers to repelling a current or active threat whereas retaliation refers to attacking even though the threat is no longer there. They are not the same concepts. Is it that self-defense is for preventing a rights violation from taking place, while retaliation is for restoring the status quo after the rights violation has already taken place. The purpose of both is to keep people's 'rights-bubbles' intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Is there a distinction to be made, separating self-defense from retaliation, or do these words refer to the same concept? I think both terms fall under the broader category of rightful action. It is right to protect yourself pre-emptively or while being attacked, when you are confronted with the threat or use of force. To me, that is self-defense. It is also right to respond in kind when your rights are violated. If someone takes something from you through the use of force, then it is proper for you to use force in claiming that or a similar value from him, whether it be a single penny or a life. That, I believe, is retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewSternberg Posted October 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I think both terms fall under the broader category of rightful action. It is right to protect yourself pre-emptively or while being attacked, when you are confronted with the threat or use of force. To me, that is self-defense. It is also right to respond in kind when your rights are violated. If someone takes something from you through the use of force, then it is proper for you to use force in claiming that or a similar value from him, whether it be a single penny or a life. That, I believe, is retaliation. Yes, I agree completely to your formulation of these concepts. The "rightful action" is a more objective term than my "rights-bubble" which represented me groaping for that same concept. Thank you for your less 'cloudy' mind. I'm still trying to fine-tune my use of words/concepts, hence the purpose of this question in the first place and other similar linguistic/coneptual categorization questions. So, an individual has the right to protect his values in the face of initiated force or threat of such force. The victim of a rights violation is able to fight back before before, durring, or after the violation. But when an individual lives in a society, Objectivism says that he must delegate to the government the 'before' and 'after' part of his right, if anarchy is to be avoided. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Mechanic Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I think both terms fall under the broader category of rightful action. It is right to protect yourself pre-emptively or while being attacked, when you are confronted with the threat or use of force. I don't buy the concept of "pre-emptive." If your rights have not been violated, you are infringing on the rights of another individual by "pre-emptively" attacking him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I don't buy the concept of "pre-emptive." If your rights have not been violated, you are infringing on the rights of another individual by "pre-emptively" attacking him. Let's reduce this to basics: if a person is trying to kill you, say with a knife, then are you saying that you have no right to defend yourself until the knife penetrates your skin? That is, you should never protect yourself until after your rights have been violated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I don't buy the concept of "pre-emptive." If your rights have not been violated, you are infringing on the rights of another individual by "pre-emptively" attacking him. Your rights have been violated as soon as someone threatens you through his actions or words. Threats can obviously coerce someone into involuntary action, just like any physical force. Example: You live in Nazi Germany and the government tells you they will kill you and your family unless you fight for them in the war. They have not hurt you physically yet are controlling you through coercion since you have no choice but to enter servitude or risk death at their hands. Let's reduce this to basics: if a person is trying to kill you, say with a knife, then are you saying that you have no right to defend yourself until the knife penetrates your skin? That is, you should never protect yourself until after your rights have been violated? Although you're illustrating a very good point, I think we should stay away from saying "after your rights have been violated" when talking about this particular subject. I know what you mean though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Is it that self-defense is for preventing a rights violation from taking place, while retaliation is for restoring the status quo after the rights violation has already taken place. The purpose of both is to keep people's 'rights-bubbles' intact. Objectivism does not recognize a "right" to retaliate to restore equilibrium. That role is supposed to be delegated to the government. This is addressed in VOS in the section on Government I believe. So, an individual has the right to protect his values in the face of initiated force or threat of such force.Yes. However, having the right as an individual and having a legal right may be two different things. The victim of a rights violation is able to fight back before before, durring, or after the violation. Being "able'" to and having a right to are two different animals. Objectivism says that he must delegate to the government the 'before' and 'after' part of his right, if anarchy is to be avoided. I think you have to be more explicit in terms of the "before" part. There are many things that can rightfully be done before a rights violation occurs in an effort to prevent that violation that would be acceptable with Objectivism in mind. Barring the windows of a house to prevent a burglary is a "before" action. However, the after action is distinctly not in keeping with Objectivism, for the basic reason you mention. The individual is far less likely to objectively determine parity in restoring the rights violation than would a neutral third party or parties. That, as I understand it, fits with the philosophy of Objectivism. If you want to justify having a right to retaliate, you won't be able to use Objectivism as that justification. VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Objectivism does not recognize a "right" to retaliate to restore equilibrium. That role is supposed to be delegated to the government. I'm still having trouble with this concept. In order to be able to delegate a right to government, you must have that right in the first place. If you are required to delegate the right, its not really yours, is it? The only solution I can see to this is that individuals would be able to choose to use their retaliatory right if they wanted to, but would still be subject to the ultimate authority of government. So for example if someone stole your car, you could go and steal it back. If the original thief accused you of theft, the police would investigate. If the evidence showed the car really was yours, you would not be punished. But if you stole the wrong car back by mistake, you could be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'm still having trouble with this concept. In order to be able to delegate a right to government, you must have that right in the first place. If you are required to delegate the right, its not really yours, is it? The only solution I can see to this is that individuals would be able to choose to use their retaliatory right if they wanted to, but would still be subject to the ultimate authority of government. So for example if someone stole your car, you could go and steal it back. If the original thief accused you of theft, the police would investigate. If the evidence showed the car really was yours, you would not be punished. But if you stole the wrong car back by mistake, you could be punished. I didn't use the term "right" in reference to the government. ANY power held by the government is by the will or delegation of the people, and is not a right as such. I said the "role" of the government. In your example of car theft, it may not require you to use force against the thief to retrieve your property. No use of force against the thief means no "retaliation". You have the right to get into your car (your property) and drive off. And in the US, cars are registered to owners so proof of ownership is, in the vast majority of instances, easily proven. My point was, if one wants to justify a retaliatory "right", Objectivism (as in the philosophy of Ayn Rand) is not the tool to do it. The question then becomes, on what philosophy or basis are you determining retaliatory force to be a "right"? VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Although you're illustrating a very good point, I think we should stay away from saying "after your rights have been violated" when talking about this particular subject. I know what you mean though. Just to make it clear to Quant, Banana's statement that the threat is a rights violation is utterly right. So if we suppose otherwise -- that you knife has to actually hit the flesh -- then the concept of rights reduces to an absurdity. I'm hoping that Quant will see why this is so, and that rights are not fundamental and axiomatic: they are a means of accomplishing something. I think that making the foundation of rights explicit would help Q to see why threats are as good as actions. Let's see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I don't buy the concept of "pre-emptive." If your rights have not been violated, you are infringing on the rights of another individual by "pre-emptively" attacking him. I see your point, I think. Let me try to be clearer. If we understand that one can use force by merely threatening physical harm, then there should be no misunderstanding of my use of "pre-emptive." By pre-emptive, I mean that you pre-empt the physical violence. I don't mean that you are pre-empting the initiation of force. The attacker has already used force by threatening violence. Does that make sense? You can use force without actually hitting somebody. A threat is the use of force. It is kind of like how you can use your money without actually handing it to someone. You can say, "Alright I'll give you five bucks for that bike." Well, you have just used your money to make the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Mechanic Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 I see your point, I think. Let me try to be clearer. If we understand that one can use force by merely threatening physical harm, then there should be no misunderstanding of my use of "pre-emptive." By pre-emptive, I mean that you pre-empt the physical violence. I don't mean that you are pre-empting the initiation of force. The attacker has already used force by threatening violence. Does that make sense? You can use force without actually hitting somebody. A threat is the use of force. It is kind of like how you can use your money without actually handing it to someone. You can say, "Alright I'll give you five bucks for that bike." Well, you have just used your money to make the deal. How can the threat of force be objectively defined as the initiation of force? I understand how fred and theft are indirect uses of force, but threatening someone? As far as I can tell, in a rational society things would be simpler. If someone threatens you on your own property, then obviously your rights have been violated already. But if me and another guy are in some medium not owned by either of us, how does his threatening of me constitute a rights violation> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 How can the threat of force be objectively defined as the initiation of force? I understand how fred and theft are indirect uses of force, but threatening someone? Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? It's pretty threatening, and it's a threat of force that usually compels (or forces) people to do things they would otherwise not choose to do, like give their wallets to complete strangers. No actual physical force need be used. Do you consider a robbery of that nature to be a rights violation? VES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 9, 2004 Report Share Posted October 9, 2004 How can the threat of force be objectively defined as the initiation of force? I understand how fred and theft are indirect uses of force, but threatening someone? Just focus on what initiation means. To initiate an action means to begin an action, not to complete the action. Since man is a volitional being, once a thief begins to shoot you in the head, you can imagine a scenario where he will abruptly change his mind and not complete the action. We cannot see into the future, so we cannot know whether the action will be carried through. All choices are based on what we know, and therefore if we are to survive we must act on the basis of what we know -- that he will kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Mechanic Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Just focus on what initiation means. To initiate an action means to begin an action, not to complete the action. Since man is a volitional being, once a thief begins to shoot you in the head, you can imagine a scenario where he will abruptly change his mind and not complete the action. We cannot see into the future, so we cannot know whether the action will be carried through. All choices are based on what we know, and therefore if we are to survive we must act on the basis of what we know -- that he will kill you. Thanks for the reply. Before I accept this, I only have one more question. Is the initiation of force necessarily equivalent to the beginning of an action that may result in force? The gun example is fairly clear-cut, but what if I'm standing on a street and some guy is 20 feet away waving a knife at me saying something like, "Ima gonna cut you good!"? To what extend I am justified in causing this man physical pain? How is it objectiviely determined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 The gun example is fairly clear-cut, but what if I'm standing on a street and some guy is 20 feet away waving a knife at me saying something like, "Ima gonna cut you good!"? To what extend I am justified in causing this man physical pain? How is it objectiviely determined? Fact: Man has a knife. Fact: Man is waving it around Fact: Man claims he is going to violate you with that knife By what reasoning do you dismiss these facts and claim they are not an 'objective' identification of reality? Put simply, these facts clearly indicate that your LIFE has been threatened. As such, the 'extent' you may go to protect your life goes up to and includes depriving the knife weilder of his life (but of course does not REQUIRE you to go that far). This is "objectively determined" by the fact that the weilder HAS threatened your life - not to mention has exibited the means of carrying out that threat. In other words, the man who threatens to violate your rights has placed himself outside the realm of rights. He presents himself as a mindless, rightless animal. And, just as you would with a charging lion or other deadly animal, you do what you can to prevent it from succeeding in its attack upon you. You do what you can to SAVE your life. There is no question about 'what extent are you 'justified' in causing a lion pain' in order to save your life. There is no question about how the 'extent' of pain to the lion may be objectively determined when you save your life. One stops the attack from occuring. One saves one's life. Period. (Note: the example you provide is one of immediate self-defense. In such an instance, one cannot rely upon one's delegated agent of self-defense, and must engage in that defense one's self. ) Regardless of all this, though, I am curious what it is you are waiting for before you accept "this" idea - the idea that one cannot tell the future and thus can only go by facts in evidence. What about these questions do you think changes either of those facts of reality? The extent one responds to force does not change the fact that one cannot tell the future. The objective standards one uses to determine that extent does not change the fact one can only act in accord of the facts in evidence. Simply put, your questions do NOT change these facts, and as such, are not reasons to hesitate in accepting the ideas in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Before I accept this, I only have one more question. Is the initiation of force necessarily equivalent to the beginning of an action that may result in force? The gun example is fairly clear-cut, but what if I'm standing on a street and some guy is 20 feet away waving a knife at me saying something like, "Ima gonna cut you good!"? To what extend I am justified in causing this man physical pain? How is it objectiviely determined? They are not exactly equivalent, and this is the epistemological quagmire of threats. The essential question is whether the facts that you know reasonably lead to the conclusion that the person does indeed intend to harm you. A 7 year old kid holding a stick saying "Bang, bang, I'm gonna shoot you" is not the same as an 18 year old punk in a dark alley saying "I'm gonna shoot you". I would tend to think the 7 year old was horsing around and the 18 year old was dead serious, but that could change if the 18 year old was a (stupid) friend trying to scare me and the 7 year old actually had a gun. Taking the case you describe, I'd say that leaving the scene is a good option, all else being equal. I certainly would be very disinclined to dust off my ancient martial arts knife-disarming skills (which have never been put to the test in the real world) by getting close enough to the jerk to take his knife away from him and make him eat it. My life, and the life of my loved ones, is primary. If I were armed with a pistol (and if I were a fair shot), I might clarify the fact that I was armed and that he had 2 seconds to drop the knife and lie on the ground. His refusal to clearly, unambiguously and absolutely renounce the threat against my life in that case would confirm, in my mind, that his plan is to kill me. To preserve my own life, I would be justified in shooting him. As a magnanimous act of charity, I might not aim to kill -- except that I'm not a good enough shot that I can be certain that a second shot would definitely stop him, so I would probably assume the worst. I'm willing to be magnanimous, but not self-sacrificial. Whereas if you know that the person isn't going to hurt you and you are just using this as a pretext to beat someone up for for chuckles, that is an immoral act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantum Mechanic Posted October 10, 2004 Report Share Posted October 10, 2004 Thanks again for the replies. I am now fully in agreement with you, and I believe that my problem was stemming from a few epistemic quirks that are currently being ironed out. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.