MB: Would you defend yourself against his words and influence with a bullet between the eyes? -------------------------------- CS: Would it be tit for tat if I contracted someone to do the wet work for me? -------------------------------- MB: Yes I suppose it would. -------------------------------- CS: How can I (morally) grant to someone, a representative or enforcer, rights I dont have? -------------------------------- MB: You cant ------------------------------- CS: Then I must have the right to defend against someone who paid his representative to kill me. ------------------------------- MB: His representative is not a robot, but a moral agent with the right of refusal. If the mob boss sicced his Bengal tiger on you, and had a cage full of them, you could kill him and it would be justifiable self defense. I suppose this becomes a different debate if it cant be argued that the enforcer in fact HAS the ability to refuse. ------------------------------- CS: moral agent just means capable of aggressive intent. The reason people who take murder contracts out on others are considered aggressors is because their intent is to cause the other persons death. If the mob boss pushes someone because he hopes shell fall and bump the victim off the cliff, it wasnt an accidental death caused only by a falling woman, EVEN THOUGH HE NEVER TOUCHED HIM PHYSICALLY. If I know that providing an incentive large enough will ensure that one hitter or another will NOT refuse to murder a victim, Im responsible for causing that murder, as much as the professional hitman. Im an accessory to it. ------------------------------- CS: It really makes sense to you?--that a gangster could order hits for years, and pay for them, providing whatever incentives needed to be certain it goes forward, intentionally causing the deaths of millions through his enforcers, and bear no moral responsibility for his intent and actions because he didnt pull the trigger and all the hit men in the world could turn the job down if they really wanted to? A free society would be forbidden morally to take out the leadership who ordered an assault on them? They would have to leave gang empires alone because only the actual hitter can face justice? ------------------------------- MB: Thats a more persuasive argument, though I think the push-off-a-cliff example doesnt work, since that woman didnt have the ability to refuse or decide not to bump into me. However, if someone broadcasts to a huge group of people that hell pay $10 million to the first person who kills me, his offer will likely reach those who are psychopaths, and really have no moral agency. For that matter, its likely that if he simply hires an individual to off me, why would he not choose an individual like that in the first place? Its a gray area in the very least. ------------------------------- MB: ^Sent that prior to your second post there ------------------------------- CS: Good point to point out that the bumped lady cant say no. When [rulers] use propaganda to trick their hired killers into believing they are defending freedom, its the same. They arent responsible. One point i want to make about this moral agent theory is this. If you used incentive training on a Bengal Tiger, he can choose to be trained and not kill humans ever. When the incentive appeared, capacity magically appeared. ------------------------------- MB: Where do you draw that line of culpability? Is the mob boss wife, who on some level knows what her hubby is doing, benefits from it, and does nothing, maybe even provides assistance in some indirect ways, culpable as well? The wife might be a closer analogy to a typical statist than the mob boss. Not sure I follow re: tiger. How can the tiger choose to be or not to be trained? ------------------------------- CS: Culpability is mens rea and any communication, or the placement of a pen, or pulling a trigger. You pull the trigger you know the bullet will LIKELY go forward toward a target. Some have very sophisticated means of violating the consent of others. But if the intent and any word or deed that is believed to LIKELY cause fruition of intent, theres your aggressor who initiated the entire thing. Pulling a trigger is not in and of itself the violation of a body. Its a chain reaction, initiated willfully. https://youtube/watch?v=bbGvVC568SY The tiger, like a dog, or performers at Sea World can be trained to do all manner of things, and to NOT do all manner of things, through incentives. If you introduce incentive, and capacity suddenly changes, calling it a lack of capacity was a lie. (or just false) If you are a helpless drug addict, and I offer to you one billion dollars for you to stay clean for ten minutes, and you do...helpless my ass. You lacked the proper motivation.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:56:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015