Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Moral justification for preemptive violence

Rate this topic


AspiringObjectivist

Recommended Posts

I attained my first Objectivist piece a year ago, but it would be inaccurate to say that I became an Objectivist at that time; at best, I was an unschooled and undedicated casual browser.

However, I've been getting more and more interested, and I've recently run into a moral brick wall: preemptive activity.

At what point does one have the right to decide that an action which he takes is moral, even if it causes bodily harm to another?

Does it really come down to an arbitrary line between "may hurt me" and "will hurt me"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hrmmm.

Let me apply it in the way I meant, specifically, so I don't feel too out of my league in the logical distinction between morally permissable and self-benefitting..

I lead an army.

Fifty men leave my cause, promising NOT to join the other army.

Do I take the chance and allow these potentially innocent men to walk free, or do I execute them (this is at a stage where imprisonment is not an option. They will not submit to captivity), thus eliminating the very real possibility of them finding the enemy army, joining, and revealing critical information about my army that could lead to the slaughter of every man under my command.

Basically, at what point does a man's life become a morally justifiable stepping stone to your own life? How much of an obstruction to your safety must they cause? Can you kill fifty sentient, volitional human beings for the potential that ten thousand will die if you do not? Fifty thousand? Five hundred million?

I realize Rand's view on abortion and her assertion of potential vs. actual (or at least I believe that I do), but a killer's knife can always turn away at the last moment, too - that's a potential.

Clarify for me, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no “potential” evil in someone who has shown disregard for him life – you need only to become aware that he is willing to violate your rights, at which point you can deal with the threat as necessary. A killer does not have to succeed in his goal to prove that he is one.

The rules are stricter in war - but they are also known and agreed to beforehand in a volunteer army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think your example is a very good one because it leaves out too much. Let's try one from the real world:

We are engaged in two countries, Haiti and Iraq. We've sent our military to both places. We invaded Iraq; we sent "peacekeepers" to Haiti (leaving aside the morality of that). We now have a doctrine of preemption in place, so why didn't we go into Haiti with our guns ablazin' the way we did in Iraq?

Iraq was a danger to us: Saddam was a vicious tyrant who spent his looted wealth to develop dangerous weapons (whether he had them when we went in is irrelevent. He had them when he went to war with Iran and when he murdered the Kurds. It was up to him to show that he had destroyed these weapons and this he did not do.). He started a war and then breached the cease fire agreements he made when he lost. He attempted to assasinate a (past) president of the United States. He set up terrorist training camps and financed the terrorists murdering Israelis. He never ceased making overt threats to America. He was an absolute threat to this country.

Haiti, on the other hand, only threatens us with waves of illegal immigrants. They are killing no one but themselves. There is nothing to preempt.

Preemption is actually a formal military doctrine that now replaces the doctrine dictating when a country can go to war as laid out in the Peace of Westphalia. You can google this if you're interested in knowing more. I'm simply pointing out that preemption doesn't mean that we just go in willy-nilly anywhere we please. There must still be a stated justification and goal, and the rules of war governing military action still apply.

As for the morality of preemption, ask yourself if it would have been moral for France and Britain to demand that Germany cease rearming in the '30's. Hitler did so against the treaties signed after WWI. Making Germany suffer for breaking the treaties was entirely justified, both morally and under law. He tested the signatories of those treaties step by step until he knew that they would do nothing to stop him. As a consequence, we suffered the horror of WWII. Thus, it was immoral for the responsible governments not to go in before Germany had a chance to strike the first blow. The result of this breach was a mound of corpses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright.

I know that there's a section on war (and this will, I assume, make an impact of more than group vs. group since a group is just a collection of individuals, correct?) in CUI, so would that be the best for me to read at this point to better clarify your points?

I'm really trying to get past the whole "weigh unknown variables versus human sanctity" concept, which I feel quite stupid for not properly displaying in my example.

Is the line between when to respond to a possible threat (coming from an unexplored intellect) really arbitrary? I don't mean arbitrary in the sense that it's not supported by factual evidence or conclusions, but arbitrary in the sense that there's not a definitive line; seeing as I consider you both better versed on Objective thought than myself, would one of you be kind enough to articulate the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking. By all means, read the relevant article(s) in CUI, but I would also read The Virtue of Selfishness, and chapters 7 and 10 in Dr. Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. While this may help answer your question (at least what I think you're asking), it is preferrable for you to "begin at the beginning" with OPAR so that you understand the underlying premises. It is always a mistake to attempt to make a philosophical judgment about any one aspect of Objectivist thought without knowing the whole system. Unlike other philosophies, Objectivism is fully integrated. It is easy to misunderstand or misconstrue a position without at least a basic comprehension of the whole. The important thing to remember about this is that one doesn't begin by positing philosophical questions, but by examining the facts of reality that give rise to those questions. Questions about the sanctity of human life don't occur in a vacuum, but within certain contexts. It is the question of context where I don't understand what, exactly, you want to know.

Having said that, I'll try to answer what I think you are asking. There is nothing arbitrary about when to respond to a threat of physical force initiated by another, whether you know their motives or not. The key to understanding this is in the concept of initiation. Perhaps you are conflating the concept of preemption with that of initiation. For example, if a mugger pulls a gun and threatens me with it, it is sheer folly to "examine his intellect" to see if he means to use it. As Miss Rand said, morality ends at the point of a gun. By this she meant that one cannot reason with a gun. This principle applies whether you are confronted, individually, with one or more idiots waving a gun in your face, or, as a member of society, with a tyrant waving around a nuclear missle. In both cases, force has already been initiated. There is nothing ethically that says you have to wait until you've actually been shot before you may respond. This is where preemption comes in.

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the first: yeah, I'm almost there in VoS, the book that I'm currently reading, and I own the Peikoff book but haven't read it yet.

On the second: yeah, that's basically exactly what I was asking, except I'm trying to figure out a general way to discover "initiation".

A sequence of events: I am in a bad neighborhood. A man is staring at me. He walks toward me. He stands in front of me. He argues with me. He points at me. He throws a punch.

Do I wait until I've been hit with a punch to react and defend my right to safety?

Does he actually not initiate violence UNTIL he throws the finishing blow? That fist could have just as easily been a knife, or a gun, or, in the case of a military against mine, a nuclear weapon, etc. - I think you see where I'm going.

Is it at the point where they physically committ themselves to the act? Can't that be too late for you to defend yourself, in some cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While a punch is certainly physical force, a fist is not a weapon that usually kills. "He hit me first" and "He pulled a gun on me" are equal justifications. You have no way of knowing that someone is going to sucker-punch you if he is just yelling at you. You can be on your guard -- and you'll leave yourself open to a punch if you're not -- but you don't strike out first.

With a gun or a knife, on the other hand, you know without a doubt that your very life is in danger. In this situation, the initiation of force has already taken place. The threat moved from the realm of possibility into the actual the moment such a weapon was drawn and, if you are to preserve your life, you'll defend yourself accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know what the initiation of force is, in the context of fists and guns. What constitutes the threat of the initiation of force is, as far as I can tell, a matter for objective law to define and to delimit. oldsalt is incorrect in saying "you don't strike out first" as an absolute, since there are clear instances where one must. The law must state explicitly and without contradiction what the boundaries are - that is the absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feldblum, I was speaking in generalities. What happens when one is suddenly faced with physical danger is seldom within an objectively proscribed law (especially since damn few such laws exist). Nor would I wait around for such laws to be enacted. I'm old enough to know that such an idealistic view of the law of the land (speaking of an ideal Objectivist society) isn't within our grasp, nor is it likely to be in the near future. To say that we cannot objectively define for ourselves what constitutes the proper moral response to such a threat without such laws is to lay oneself open to every kind of abuse, and it will, literally, put your life in danger. The best one can do is lay down the proper thought processes so that when and if you find yourself in danger, you already know the answers to these questions.

I was once taken hostage, in my own home, by a drugged up, gun AND knife wielding felon who was on the run after a gun battle with the police. If I had had a gun, I would have had no compunction about blowing his tiny little head right off his shoulders. I didn't have a gun, so I had to use MY head instead of blowing his away. If you want to know what fear is, consider my position between this freaked out thug and a swat team. He wouldn't talk to them, so there was no negotiation (and after he had shot a cop, I've never been sure that swat was all that interested in negotiating!). I began by sympathizing with him, offering him something to eat -- and I crushed up several pain pills I had left over from a recent surgery and put it into some whiskey for him to drink. Within 20 mins., I was able to call the swat team in to haul his sorry butt out of my house. At the time, I can assure you that I had not one philosophical thought in my head, nor was I concerned about any law, objective or otherwise.

I stand by my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

(Mod's note: Merged with previous thread - sN)

is initiating force to other country when you feel the threat from this country right per Objectivisim?

it is said the current USA's foreign policy permit initiating force to other country(other society) when you feel the threat from this country.can you use force to others when you feel the threat from others?

(Mod's note: Marxist, I realize you are not a native English speaker. Please start the first word of every sentence with a capital letter. It makes the text easier to read. - sN)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is as follows:

If someone comes up to you and raises his fist and looks at you like he wants to punch you, it's appropriate to take action to defend yourself.

When a country that declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, it may be right to stop it by force.

The threat needs to be plausible and yes, objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is as follows:

If someone comes up to you and raises his fist and looks at you like he wants to punch you, it's appropriate to take action to defend yourself.

When a country that declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, it may be right to stop it by force.

The threat needs to be plausible and yes, objective.

when Nikita Khrushchev' Soviet Union declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, may it be right to stop it by force? or if other countries feel the threat from USA or USA declares itself an enemy of this country, can they have the right to develop the nuclear technology to stop the threat from USA by force?

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when Nikita Khrushchev' Soviet Union declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, may it be right to stop it by force? or if other countries feel the threat from USA or USA declares itself an enemy of this country, can they have the right to develop the nuclear technology to stop the threat from USA by force?

Any free country has the right to defend itself, even against the good old USA. Any totalitarian government has no rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is initiating force to other country when you feel the threat from this country right per Objectivism?
(Mod's note: Marxist, I realize you are not a native English speaker. Please start the first word of every sentence with a capital letter. It makes the text easier to read. - sN)

Marxist, As others have pointed out, the government of Nikita Kruchev never had any right to exist, neither did the government of Hitler, niether did the government of Mao. Thugs are thugs. May someone take it upon themselves to kill a murdering thug in such a situation? Yes, of course.

If Hongkong and Taiwan had the ability, they should have destroyed mainland China years ago. Unfortunately, they are too tiny to have the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when Nikita Khrushchev' Soviet Union declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, may it be right to stop it by force? or if other countries feel the threat from USA or USA declares itself an enemy of this country, can they have the right to develop the nuclear technology to stop the threat from USA by force?
The point that you're missing is that the question must be framed in terms of what is, not in terms of somebody's declaration or how they feel. The Soviet Union clearly was an enemy of the US and they were dedicated to the obliteration of the US, for which reason it would have been right to stop them by force. The United States does not seek to destroy peacful countries and we do not threaten other peaceful, rights-respecting nations. In fact, we regretfully also do not threaten most rights-trampling nations. Iran is an example of an oppressive aggressor regime which we do not use force against, though we certainly should. The key here is that the US government has a right to exist, as the government which does in fact protect the rights of the people of the US. The Iranian government, on the other hand, does not have any right to exist whatsoever, because it does not protect the rights of the Iranian people (in fact, it is the primary cause of violations the rights of the Iranian people). So correspondingly, the Iranian government has no right to build nuclear weapons to prevent some other nation from freeing the Iranian people. And certainly, since the Iranian government would actually use any nuclear weapons that they built as weapons of aggression against other nations, they definitely have no right to build nuclear weapons. In contrast, Ghana would have the right to build nuclear defensive weapons, as a peaceful, rights-respecting nation (though of course they have no interest or ability to build such weapons).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is initiating force to other country when you feel the threat from this country right per Objectivisim?

As an addition to the points that others have made, I'd like to point out that if the other country is threatening us, then it would not be an initiation of force to strike at them. Since they threaten us, they would be the initiators of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about two warring groups that have been fighting since before recorded history? No one knows who was the original initiator of force—the only thing anyone remembers is the last bomb blast and the dead bodies. Each side continually and openly threatens to wipe out the other. It seems to me that this kind of reasoning (defensive retaliation and/or preemption is morally justifiable) can lead to a never-ending cycle of hatred and justifiable retaliation from both sides and 2000 years of war can be justified by one side pointing to of a single threatening (or actual violent) act perpetrated by the other side. The end or war and the winner is finally determined by the principle: might is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about two warring groups that have been fighting since before recorded history?
What about them? Tribal warfare is old news -- if you mean, "who is right", then the answer is "neither". This current discussion is about real countries, not the tribal raiding that has been going on in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia for centuries. The primitive tribalists of France and England stopped fighting a couple of centuries ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about them? Tribal warfare is old news -- if you mean, "who is right", then the answer is "neither". This current discussion is about real countries, not the tribal raiding that has been going on in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia for centuries. The primitive tribalists of France and England stopped fighting a couple of centuries ago.
Real countries? What about "groups" such as Al-Quida? Isn't a country just another way of defining the people who are part of the group? There are all kinds of groups of people, couldn’t some evil dictator declare war on all Objectivists? Why does the group have to be a “real country” for the principles being discussed here to apply?

What about them? Tribal warfare is old news -- if you mean, "who is right", then the answer is "neither".
Why isn't the group that is in fact defending themselves in the right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about two warring groups that have been fighting since before recorded history?
If both sides have leaders who want to stop the violence and live peacefully, the cycle will stop. A rational person will always seek to figure out if there's a way to achieve long-term peace.

The Israeli situation is a good example where the Israelis have tried to see if negotiation can work, but it has not. I daresay there are some Arabs who would love to see peace, and -- for all I know -- some Israelis who want to kill Arabs regardless. However, after all the political machinations and philosophical battles are fought within each individual country, the Israelis have ended up with governments that have sought peace. Some of the Arabs are near that point too, but many aren't -- the ball is in the Arab court. The internal intellectual and political fight inside Lebanon is a good microcosm.

There are many examples where countries that were in a very aggressive position with respect to each other are no longer so. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. are a good recent case, with Eastern Europe now actually joining the EU. India and China went to war in the 1960's, but don't see other as much of a military threat today. I'm sure there examples of such de-escalation from all points of history and from all over the world.

So, there's conclusive proof that an ever-escalating cycle of violence is not inevitable and does not necessarily "feed on itself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real countries? What about "groups" such as Al-Quida?
They would be an example of the kind of primitive tribalists that I was speaking of. They don't have any "right" to murder innocent civilians in revenge for a government using force to prevent them from violating rights. Anyhow, the question being raised now is specifically about when one country has the right to preemptively attack another country which has initiated force by threatening to attack. The point is that the would-be victim of the planned attack wisely launches a preemptive attack, in order to protect its citizens from this aggression. A terrorist group like Al Qaida is special, since it has no right to exist anyhow.
Isn't a country just another way of defining the people who are part of the group?
No.
Why does the group have to be a “real country” for the principles being discussed here to apply?
The principle is that the citizens of a country have ceded their right to self defense to their government, whose sole purpose for existing is the defense of the rights of its citizens. There is no such principle applicable to terrorist groups such as Al Qaida, Hamas or the KKK.
Why isn't the group that is in fact defending themselves in the right?
Because they are both immorally operating outside of the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...