Are there any special circumstances under which the use of retaliatory force is warranted other than self defense against an immediate attacker?
What prompted you to ask this question? I’m not even sure how retaliatory force can be anything other than self-defense.
Yes, by the government for the purpose of exacting justice.
Retaliatory force is defensive force by definition – You are retaliating for something that has been already done. There are times, however, when defensive action does not necessarily require force to be retaliatory. For example, if someone tries to rob me I have every right to defend myself (retaliation). If someone walks up to me and starts threatening to rob me, but hasn’t actually done it yet, it is in my self-interest to initiate some action to protect myself (initiating a defensive action)
Another example would be a terrorist training camp. They have not attacked us yet but if we have intelligence that shows the group is plotting to murder a U.S. citizen, we should initiate force since it is defensive in nature. It would be suicidal to wait for a body bag to retaliate.
Are there any special circumstances under which the use of retaliatory force is warranted other than self defense against an immediate attacker?
Depends on the context.
Objectivism holds that the use of force, other than immediate self defense, ought to be delegated to a rights protecting government. So, if there is a government in place, which acts objectively to enforce a set of rights protecting laws (through the use of retaliatory force, but never the initiation of force), then the answer is no.
Otherwise, the answer is yes. In the absence of objective government action, the individual has the moral right to take such action himself. But the action must still be rational and deliberate, it still isn’t OK to just lash out against rights violators on a whim or to satisfy one’s blood lust.
Once in a while we hear stories about proactive, preventive force, such as wives killing husbands who beat them up. I think this could be at least excused, though maybe not justified, though it isn’t against an immediate attacker.
Once in a while we hear stories about proactive, preventive force, such as wives killing husbands who beat them up. I think this could be at least excused, though maybe not justified, though it isn’t against an immediate attacker.
Agreed. The victim of long term abuse can defend his or herself against a long prison sentence, for retaliating, on the grounds that her abuse made it impossible for her to exercise proper judgment.
But that doesn’t make that use of force rational, it makes the irrational action excusable (the same way “temporary insanity” might).
Are there any special circumstances under which the use of retaliatory force is warranted other than self defense against an immediate attacker?
If you live in an anarchic society. In that circumstance, if you don’t attempt to (for example) recover your stolen goods on your own it just won’t get done.
If you live in an anarchic society.
Or engage in black commerce; a black market is a little slice of anarchy. Of course, one would need a good reason to enter the black market in the first place.