Is it ever OK to hit someone?

Ethics
21

A road can’t walk away from a speeding driver. Are you seriously suggesting that a man who is taunted is just as optionless as a piece of asphalt?

I’m saying is the same evasion of reality that takes place (damage to the road in traffic accidents is usually minnimal anyway). You may drive 75 through a snowstorm. You may expect nothing bad can possibly happen. You can expect a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, too. But you won’t find a pot of gold and you’re very likely to wind up dead driving like that.

If someone you’re taunting gets msd and hits you, would you complain “but I was only trying to make him furious!”

Oh, some kids who bugged me expected me to hit them in order to get me in trouble. I suppose you’ll say they weren’t asking for it either.

22

No, we don’t. People have a right to say anything they wish, and address it to anyone they wish.

Careful. You seem to be almost suggesting that the speaker has a right to be heard by anyone they wish, which would conflict with the would-be hearer’s right not to have to listen to whatever it is the speaker wants to say.

23

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

24

Asking for it is exactly right. If your words or actions are designed to make someone angry, then you should expect negative consequences from that anger towards you.

Do you understand what principles you’re advocating?

If you say something that makes someone angry, you ought to expect physical force in retaliation to your words. Are you an Objectivist?

25

Do you understand what principles you’re advocating?

Yes, the same principle contained in the statement “if you play with fire you’ll get burned.”

If you say something that makes someone angry, you ought to expect physical force in retaliation to your words. Are you an Objectivist?

Look, even if I were to grant that it’s always immoral to react violently to any kind of non-physical provocation, lots of poeple are immoral. If you try to make someone angry chances are you’ll wind up hurt.

26

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.”

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

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.

32

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.

33

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?

34

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?

35

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.

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.