Defense of others

[CastleBravo]

I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. If i were to walk up on a man raping a woman, would it be immoral for me to walk away? Lets say a crazed gunman opens fire in a crowded cafeteria; Would it be moral for me to draw or try and find the nearest exit?

My basic principle is to run when possible. A firearm is an absolute last resort. I never want to have to end a human life. By letting an aggressor take innocent life am I sanctioning his action? Am I trading innocent life so that an evil life may live? Do I have a moral obligation to protect those that can not protect themselves from an immediate threat I have the power to stop?

Running from such situations strikes me as very anti-human, though I am unsure of my thinking.

[DavidOdden]

I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. If i were to walk up on a man raping a woman, would it be immoral for me to walk away?

Why did you walk away? Is it because you couldn't be arsed to put an end to the attack, or was it because he posed a credible threat to you? That's a kind of important fact that we need to know. You have no moral obligation to refrain from shooting the bastard, so if you allowed him to continue to violate the woman (I assume it's a stranger and not your wife or daughter), I could only imagine it would be because of some immoral pacifist code that you were adhering to.

[Jake_Ellison]

What's your level of training with that weapon and have you seen any combat? If you're ex military or a cop, with combat/street experience, you're pretty likely to win a gunfight with a criminal, so, depending on the situation, you might want to step in. Just make sure you know the laws of the state or country you're in, before you do.

Otherwise, your own life should definitely be your first concern, over the lives of strangers. Just as you have bothered to obtain a license and buy a gun, so could have they. The fact that you're better prepared doesn't mean you owe them to risk your life for theirs. You shouldn't let the fact that you have a gun put your life in more danger, instead of the reduced danger I assume you planned to have it in.

[Zip]

I'm not sure if immoral is the right word. I think it would be morally reprehensible to walk away from a rape or to leave unarmed people to be killed by some madman when you have the ability to end what is a truly immoral act (the use of force). I couldn't just walk away, but then again I'm trained (and have lived) that way.

[CastleBravo]

What's your level of training with that weapon and have you seen any combat? If you're ex military or a cop, with combat/street experience, you're pretty likely to win a gunfight with a criminal, so, depending on the situation, you might want to step in. Just make sure you know the laws of the state or country you're in, before you do.

Otherwise, your own life should definitely be your first concern, over the lives of strangers. Just as you have bothered to obtain a license and buy a gun, so could have they. The fact that you're better prepared doesn't mean you owe them to risk your life for theirs. You shouldn't let the fact that you have a gun put your life in more danger, instead of the reduced danger I assume you planned to have it in.

This is more to the point of what I was trying to say. In the case of our victim being raped in the park, I would probably react without even thinking. There is little danger to me and no reason whatsoever to walk away and let an initiation of force continue. The way I see it, any man firing a gun in a public place is a direct threat to my life. He has demonstrated an absolute lack of respect for any human life and there is no reason to think he respects mine. So in the case of a cafeteria shooting, I would draw down.

I currently have no training outside of a basic safety course. I have only practiced the "front sight; press" mantra. One of the first things I plan to do is get into a defensive pistol course as soon as money allows. I am aware of the value of training and am not blowing it off.

[DavidOdden]

I'm not sure if immoral is the right word. I think it would be morally reprehensible to walk away from a rape or to leave unarmed people to be killed by some madman when you have the ability to end what is a truly immoral act (the use of force).

What is the difference? Is being morally reprehensible better that being immoral? I just don't see that there is a difference.

[Jake_Ellison]

This is more to the point of what I was trying to say. In the case of our victim being raped in the park, I would probably react without even thinking. There is little danger to me and no reason whatsoever to walk away and let an initiation of force continue. The way I see it, any man firing a gun in a public place is a direct threat to my life. He has demonstrated an absolute lack of respect for any human life and there is no reason to think he respects mine. So in the case of a cafeteria shooting, I would draw down.

Well, yes, if a guy starts shooting people indiscriminately, you don't exactly have a choice. But the odds of that happening are quite small. Chances are, it's a robbery or a targeted attack against someone there. If your life is not at immediate risk, pulling a gun on an armed man, without training and experience, is a sure way of placing it at risk. If Call of Duty taught us anything, it's that dying sucks. (especially fifteen times in ten minutes, the way I just did.)

I currently have no training outside of a basic safety course. I have only practiced the "front sight; press" mantra. One of the first things I plan to do is get into a defensive pistol course as soon as money allows. I am aware of the value of training and am not blowing it off.

Guns are tricky, you absolutely should take the course as soon as you can afford it. In a real situation, it's important that using the gun be an automatic action, so that you can focus on other decisions, such as what to shoot, what's behind that person, etc.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

If I remember correctly, Ayn Rand had a whole essay about this in The Virtue of Selfishness. It essentially said - mind you, I'm paraphrasing - that contrary to many widely-held beliefs, the Objectivist ethics do not forbid an individual from helping others when you are able to do so. Ms. Rand was careful to explain that one should never live their lives under the impression that they will have to encounter and save a drowning child, or rescue an old man from a fire. But, in the case that one did happen to encounter such an unfortunate situation, if a moral individual is the only thing saving an individual from death, it would not only be perfectly acceptable to help this person (if you are not risking your own life to do so), it would also likely bring about an enormous sense of accomplishment to the savior. If one truly values life, then saving a stranger from trouble such as rape or murder could be a gigantic expression of one's virtues.

That being said, there is a lot of context involved with cases like these, so to make a definitive statement without the proper context would be inappropriate.

[Zip]

What is the difference? Is being morally reprehensible better that being immoral? I just don't see that there is a difference.

I never said it was better. Hitting a person (initiating force) is immoral. Watching a person be hit (not initiating force) when you have the means and ability to do something about it is not immoral but is morally reprehensible.

If you are going to take the stand that "if you can do something about a situation but don't, you are being immoral" then you fall into a situation where you must act for the sake of others disregarding your misgivings (which the OP commented on) or be considered immoral. That's altruism.

[Dante]

I never said it was better. Hitting a person (initiating force) is immoral. Watching a person be hit (not initiating force) when you have the means and ability to do something about it is not immoral but is morally reprehensible.

If you are going to take the stand that "if you can do something about a situation but don't, you are being immoral" then you fall into a situation where you must act for the sake of others disregarding your misgivings (which the OP commented on) or be considered immoral. That's altruism.

I disagree with the first part, for the following reasons (not necessarily the second part).

The well-being of strangers carries an objective value for an individual. This objective value is, to quote Rand, "...the generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents - until and unless he forfeits it." (The Ethics of Emergencies)

If you happen upon someone who is being hit, and you have the means and ability to do something about it, you must make a judgment call. You must weigh the value you would get from stopping this abuse (which is based in the objective value of the stranger's well-being) against what you think the costs will be of jumping in. If you determine that you would gain some net value from stopping the abuse, you are morally obligated to stop it, for the same reason that you are morally obligated to pursue any other objective value. Moral ambitiousness and integrity demand that you stop it.

Altruism goes wrong because a) it assumes strangers have value to you beyond their potential value and the value stemming from general benevolence and goodwill (value for their own sake), and b ) it asks you to disregard the potential costs to yourself, when in fact you must take them into account. Thus, I agree with your second statement, where you decry the moral necessity of acting for the sake of others disregarding your misgivings. That is indeed altruism. However, if you take your misgivings into account, and still find value in getting involved, consistent devotion to your heirarchy of values demands that you get involved.

This obligation is not altruism, because it derives from the selfish virtues of pride and integrity, and it only kicks in when you take the context into account and determine that there is value in getting involved. However, it's still an obligation.

Watching a person get hit and not stepping in can be immoral, or not, depending on the context, but there is no separation between morally reprehensible and immoral. It is either both morally reprehensible and immoral to stay out of it (if you pass up some net value in helping the stranger) or both morally reprehensible and immoral to get involved (if you determine getting involved would be a sacrifice on your part). They go together.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Dante

[DavidOdden]

I never said it was better. Hitting a person (initiating force) is immoral. Watching a person be hit (not initiating force) when you have the means and ability to do something about it is not immoral but is morally reprehensible.

But my question was, what does "morally reprehensible" mean? As far as I can tell, it refers to "being immoral", and a person who is "immoral" is also "morally reprehensible" and vice versa. If you had said "it's perfectly moral", or "it's morally laudible", then I would understand contrasting it with "immoral". But not with a word that is a synonym for "immoral"; hence my question.

[Zip]

@ Dante - I guess I was hung up (mentally - I know it didn't come through in my post that way) on the negative consequences that getting involved in a situation like that creates. I'm trained both as a soldier and a Black Belt and I KNOW that any time you get into a physical confrontation (including, possibly especially involving firearms) there is a significant risk to ones self.

Now having said that I acknowledge that "immoral" and "morally reprehensible" are both shades of black and there is no practical distinction between them.

So now if I understand correctly we are only left with actions that are either completely moral or completely immoral (depending on circumstances). There is no grey area, ever.

[Dante]

Yeah, the negative consequences of getting involved obviously figure very heavily in deciding, and any person with significant feelings of self-esteem and self-worth will obviously take their own safety very seriously. I've never been in a situation like what we're describing, and I really don't know how I'd react to one.

So now if I understand correctly we are only left with actions that are either completely moral or completely immoral (depending on circumstances). There is no grey area, ever.

Once you've determined which course is best for you, there is no wiggle room in following through, yeah.

[D'kian]

I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. If i were to walk up on a man raping a woman, would it be immoral for me to walk away?

Yes, because it takes little effort to call the police and get the victim some help. Which is what you should do in such a situation, whether or not you're carrying a gun at the time.

Lets say a crazed gunman opens fire in a crowded cafeteria; Would it be moral for me to draw or try and find the nearest exit?

It depends. What is the risk to yourself of trying to bring the shooter down? What is the risk to yourslef in finding the nearest exit? Do you have to turn your back on the shooter at all?

I was robbed at gun point a few years ago. I carried no weapon at the time (still don't). Had I carried a gun, I probbaly wouldn't have used it. But then that was a concrete situation, where I knew all the facts, made plenty of observations (and you'd be amazed how much you can observe in such a short time), made decisions and walked away with my life and most of my money still on me. Looking back on it the safest time to draw a gun, had I carried one, was when the robbers were getting away. At that point shooting them would have been a retaliatory act. And I say this even though I'm fairly confident their gun wasn't loaded (I just don't bet my life on being fairly confident).

[L-C]

Not all things are what they first appear to be. Every bullet leaving your barrel is your responsibility. The outcomes are: 1. You attack, and it turns out he really was a criminal. Hero saves the day. 2. Same, but you misjudged the situation and he was innocent/set up/whatever. You're in deep dung. 3. You walk away, and he turns out to be innocent. Good call. 4. Same, but the crime was indeed a crime. Too bad.

[RationalBiker]

If Call of Duty taught us anything, it's that dying sucks. (especially fifteen times in ten minutes, the way I just did.)

Unfortunately, a select mentally unbalanced few walk away from that thinking that life comes with a respawn button.

To the OP,

I think perhaps there are possible other factors that come into play besides one's immediate physical well-being here. For instance, if justice is a very important concept in one's life, observing a massive injustice before your very eyes, one which you would have the ability to stop, could have long-reaching effects on one emotionally and mentally. The context of the scenario is too vague, as are most. In real life there is ALWAYS more context available when faced with decisions like theses.

Let's add some possible context that might make it more desirable for a person to act even at significant risk. Let's say you live in a relatively small community. Let's say you have a teenage daughter, a wife and three sisters. Let's say news reports lately have indicated there is a serial rapist working the area and he's attacked 5 victims so far.

While I certainly understand discussing these things may have some value, life NEVER throws scenarios at you, it throws real life at you and there are always more details to consider. Conversely, there are often hidden details of which we may not be aware. As unusual as it may seem what if this attacker and victim were merely acting out a rape fantasy and they actually knew each other? What if you walk up on one guy beating the stuffing out of another guy and find out that the one "winning" was the victim of the guy he's beating who just attempted to rob him? As a person who has responded to many 'emergency' situations, what may appear obvious to us at first may not be what it seems. Granted, usually if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does TV Commericals like a duck, it's probably a duck. I'm just saying...

Edited March 9, 2010 by RationalBiker