I, Bullet

[archerships]

Some lightly organized musings:

Granted that it's okay to shoot back in self defense at a soldier who is firing a weapon at you.

Does it follow that you have the right to shoot the pilot of the airplane who brought him to your land?
How about the mechanic who repairs the airplane?
What about the soccer mom whose tax money pays the salary of the mechanic and the soldier?

Is it okay to attack anyone along this chain of responsibility? If not, why not?

What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist"?

When does "resistence to oppression" become a "campaign of terror?"

Is there any moral difference between the "collateral damage" of a bombing campaign, and the "innocent victims" of a terrorist attack?

Answers--I don't have any, only more questions:

Have you exhausted non-violent means of resolving conflict?
Are you under attack now?
If you fail to attack, how likely will future attacks against you result in even greater loss of innocent lives?
Do you have a clear idea of what the attack is supposed to achieve? Will you know it when you have achieved it?

Comments

[candid.livejournal.com]

Part of my disillusionment with "libertarian ethics" (or, perhaps, with "rights") grew out of a realization that they only answered the "simplest" moral questions.

So rather than tie myself in knots trying to cram pesky moral problems into some "libertarian" framework, I decided a more sensible approach would be to (loosely) adopt the principle "Do whatever you want, as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences," and then work on making sure that "consequences" were set up to produce the outcomes I "liked."

What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist"?

Very little. Did you see this post by ikilled007?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pointer to iklled007's post. No, I hadn't seen it.

I think libertarian ethical rules (respect private property, people should be free to do as they wish, so long as they don't physically harm someone else, don't initiate the threat of force unless you have been attacked first) are good heuristics that I would be loathe to violate without a great deal of thought.

The problem is that it's often difficult to calculate what the consequences of your actions will be. Given that uncertainty, it may be better to consistently adhere to a set of ethical rules, even if at times you get suboptimal results.

Why? Because of transaction costs. If you can formalize your rules, and persuade others that you will adhere to them, then other people can better predict how you will react to their behavior. Therefore, it's cheaper to deal with you than with someone whose ethical rules are more flexible or less transparent.

[candid.livejournal.com]

While I sort of agree with this, I'd also argue that there are non-trivial transactions costs involved in trying to cram every possible situation into a "rights-based" framework.

Additionally, you're arguing for a formal ethics, but not necessarily for a libertarian ethics.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yep. I agree. I was trying to work out in my own mind why it might be valuable to pay those non-trivial transaction costs.

Additionally, you're arguing for a formal ethics, but not necessarily for a libertarian ethics.

Yes, you're right. Your critique seemed to apply towards ethical systems in general, rather than libertarian ethics in particular.

[candid.livejournal.com]

Well, in some ways, "unethical" / "ad hoc" utilitarianism is more predictable than libertarianism.

Libertarianism divides the world (sort of) into "rights" and "wrongs" but makes no real provisions for choosing among rights or among wrongs.

For example, if 5 people are dying and I can only save one, "libertarian ethics" predicts nothing about what I'll do, whereas "ad hoc utilitarianism" very well might (especially if one of the people is, say, my best friend.)

Libertarianism remains likewise silent (or at least twists itself into non-obvious knots) on questions like "how much does someone have to be stealing from me before I'm justified in shooting him?"

[chrysaetos.livejournal.com]

Without much thought involved, I'd say one important consideration in this responsibility chain is where your cause will stop having the desired effect. You are firing back at the soldier to prevent him killing you, you may well even be firing on the pilot to keep the soldiers from killing you, but after that, the causal chain rather breaks down. Shooting a mechanic will almost certainly not stop the soldier from attacking you, and likewise but moreso with the general taxpaying populace.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree--you should always ask, "at what point along the chain will I get the greatest gain at the lowest cost".