HL CHAPTER 2 Defensive Ethics THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK

CHAPTER 2 Defensive Ethics THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK
Note:2@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

I may not kill for fun, but I may kill a kidnapper in self-defense.
Note:OGNI REGOLA HA LE SUE ECCEZIONI

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

the controversy is over relatively small things, such as exactly how to interpret what counts as an “imminent threat” or whether there is a “proportionality” requirement on self-defense.
Note:LE DUE CONTROVERSIE

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

they are more like arguing over whether the speed limit should be eighty or eighty-five miles
Note:QUESTIONI SUL SESSO DEGLI ANGELI

Yellow highlight | Page: 28

all I am maintaining in this book is that governmental wrongdoers are on par with nongovernmental ones:
Note:LA TESI FORTE QUI

Yellow highlight | Page: 29

A THEORY OF DEFENSIVE KILLING
Note:Ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 29

Jeff McMahan’s Killing in War,
Note:UN RIFERIMENTO

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

Defensive killing is also restricted by a doctrine of necessity: at minimum, when a nonlethal alternative is equally effective at stopping someone from committing injustice, it is not permissible to kill him.
Note:NECESSITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

A. Shooter in the Park A masked man emerges from a black van holding a rifle. He starts shooting at children in a public park. Ann, a bystander, has a gun. She kills him before he kills any innocent children.
Note:CASO A

Yellow highlight | Page: 30

common law is in general a reliable guide to people’s moral intuitions about permissible killing. Unlike statutory law, which generally reflects bureaucrats’ or politicians’ interests,
Note:DOVE GUARDARE

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

1. The killer is not the aggressor. 2. He reasonably believes he (or someone else) is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm from his adversary. 3. He reasonably believes that killing is necessary to avoid this danger.
Note:LE TRE CONDIZIONI

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

Ann shoots the gunman in the park, her action is not wrong at all.
Note:QUINDI

Yellow highlight | Page: 31

THE HARM AND IMMINENT DANGER PROVISOS
Note:Tttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

there’s no obvious sharp line between what threats count as severe or not severe enough to warrant killing.
Note:SERIA MINACCIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

suppose a man threatens to burn down my house and destroy my car, but the only way I can stop him is to shoot him.
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

people could reasonably dispute that, especially if I’m rich and have insurance. I won’t take a stance either way here, but I just note this could be one area of controversy.
Note:NO SOLUTION

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

legal codes of most countries do not allow you to use deadly violence to defend your property; most say you can only use violence to defend people.
Note:DI SOLITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

Suppose you have been kidnapped and have good reason to think that the kidnapper will murder you on day six of captivity.
Note:L IMMEDITO PERICOLO NN VA PRESO ALLA LETTERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

a matter of reasonable dispute.
Note:SESSO DEGLI ANGELI

Yellow highlight | Page: 32

defensive killing apply equally to both private and governmental wrongdoers,
Note:QUEL CHE QUI IMPORTA SAPERE SULLQA Così N LAW

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

THE REASONABLENESS PROVISO
Note:@@@@@@@@@

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

The common law merely requires the killer to have a “reasonable belief”

Note | Page: 33

CLAUSOLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

in one famous case, a member of a gang was harassing the defender. The gang member reached into his pocket. The defender reasonably believed that the gang member was reaching for a gun and so shot the gang member dead. It turned out he was not armed and was just reaching for a pack of cigarettes.6 Nevertheless, the defender was exonerated by the doctrine of self-defense.
Note:CASO FAMOSO

Yellow highlight | Page: 33

Now some philosophers might dispute the reasonableness criterion and think it’s too permissive. For instance, they might hold that it matters not just whether your belief that you need to use violence to defend yourself is reasonable but instead whether it is correct.
Note:CORRETTO E RAGIONEVOLE

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

THE NECESSITY PROVISO
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Suppose, in the Shooter in the Park case, that Ann has three options: 1. Kill the shooter, which has a 95 percent chance of saving the children. 2. Use a smoke screen to help the children escape, which has only a 25 percent chance of being effective. 3. Try to wrestle the shooter to the ground, which has only a 25 percent chance of being effective and a good chance of getting her killed.
Note:ESEMPIO

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Suppose Ann had a fourth option: 4. Subdue the shooter in an expensive nonlethal manner, which has a 100 percent chance of stopping him, but that would cost someone (Ann, an innocent bystander, or the city) $1 million.
Note:UN QUARTO CASO

Yellow highlight | Page: 34

Ann could use non-lethal violence to stop the shooter from killing the children, but only by smashing a rare painting over his head.
Note:EEMPIOCCCCCCC

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

It’s not obvious we owe it to him to sacrifice so much wealth just to preserve his life, especially when that wealth can be used for other valuable ends.
Note:DUBBI

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

In some jurisdictions, people are not allowed to use deadly force (or any force) to protect themselves or others if they (and the others) could simply escape.
Note:FUNZIONE DELLA VIA DI FUGA

Yellow highlight | Page: 35

IS THERE A PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENT?
Note:Ttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 36

Suppose you are the aggressor and I am the defender. You try to cut off my hand, and in self-defense, I kill you. In most jurisdictions, this will be seen as justifiable homicide, and so I will not incur any criminal penalties. Yet in some of those same jurisdictions, your family might be able to collect damages against me, since I inflicted disproportionate harm; I killed you when you were merely going to cut off my hand.
Note:UN RUOLO NEI DANNI CIVILI

Yellow highlight | Page: 36

For instance, in some jurisdictions, if a woman kills her would-be rapist, she would face civil liability for damages since killing is out of proportion with rape.
Note:ASSURDITÀ

Yellow highlight | Page: 37

suppose I know you plan to tap me on the shoulder once. It seems I can swat your hand away. But suppose instead the only way I can stop you from tapping me is to kill you; I have no less-than-lethal means to preventing you from doing so. Hurd
Note:CASI IMBARAZZANTI

Yellow highlight | Page: 38

Once again, strictly speaking I take no stance on how to interpret the proportionality requirement, if there is one. My goal here is to argue that the moral rules governing self-defense against government agents are no stricter than the moral rules governing self-defense against private civilians.
Note:ANCORA E ANCORA

Yellow highlight | Page: 39

KILLING BOSSES: MUST THE THREAT BE IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT?
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 39

Mastermind Wilson is a criminal mastermind. He continually evades the police—he cannot be brought to justice. He has an army of hundreds of henchmen who do his bidding. Wilson himself has never killed anyone. His henchmen have killed others at his command. Ann knows Wilson will soon issue another kill order. But Ann—a former Marine sniper—shoots Wilson from afar, killing him before he issues his next order.
Note:UN ECCEZIONE ALL MINACVIA DIRETTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 40

MUST KILLING STOP THE THREAT?
Note:ttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 40

In Shooter in the Park when Ann kills the shooter, this stops the threat. We can sometimes kill others, though, even when killing them is not guaranteed to stop the threat they pose.
Note:ULTERIORE COMPLICAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 41

imagine that an attacker is trying to kill children in the park. He is in the process of throwing a grenade at the children. Suppose Ann is only fast enough to shoot him midway through his throw. Because she fires so late, she has only a 50 percent of stopping him from killing the children, although she has 100 percent chance of killing him.
Note:LA SITUAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 41

School Bombers Ann stumbles on terrorists who are about to bomb a school. Since there is no other effective and safe way to stop them, she kills them. Yet Ann knows there is another terrorist cell. She knows that the second cell will just bomb the same school a few hours (or days, weeks, or months) later.
Note:ALTRA SITUAZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

FURTHER COMPLICATIONS
Note:Tttttyt

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

Suppose Bob is about to answer his cell phone. Bob does not know, and let’s suppose has no possible way of knowing, that terrorists have hacked his phone. When Bob answers the phone, this will cause a bomb planted nearby to explode,
Note:LA MINACVIA DI UN NN RESPONSABILE

Yellow highlight | Page: 42

Or consider the problem of innocent bystanders and innocent shields. Suppose innocent bystanders surrounded the shooter in the park. Suppose if Ann attempts to shoot him, there is a good chance she would miss, and hence injure or kill one of the innocent
Note:SCUDI UMANI

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

SUMMARY
Note:Tttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

I introduce these complications to make readers aware of them and signal that I am also aware of them.
Note:UNICO SCOPO

Yellow highlight | Page: 43

My view is just that when government agents are nonresponsible threats, innocent bystanders, or innocent shields, you may treat them the same way you would treat civilians in the same roles.

Note | Page: 44

LA TESI

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

DEFENSIVE LYING
Note:Tttttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

Murderer at the Door Your friends, fleeing an ax murderer, hide in your basement. The ax murderer appears at your door and politely asks, “Might you be hiding people in your basement? I’d like to murder them, if you don’t mind.” Almost
Note:L AMICO INSEGUITO

Yellow highlight | Page: 44

The murderer at the door is commonly regarded as a counterexample to certain moral theories.
Note:ECCEZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

many people interpret Immanuel Kant’s moral theory as implying that we cannot lie to the murderer at the door,
Note:UN BUON MOTIVO X RIGETTARE KANT

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

Defensive lying might also be governed by a doctrine of necessity:
Note:ANALOGOA

Yellow highlight | Page: 45

whether defensive deception is merely permissible or obligatory might depend in part on whether the potential liar is in danger of retaliation or not.
Note:DORITTO O DOVERE?

Yellow highlight | Page: 46

In general, if defensive lying and defensive violence are equally effective at stopping a wrongful aggressor from harming someone, then defensive lying is justified but defensive violence is not.
Note:DISTINZIONE

Yellow highlight | Page: 46

DEFENSIVE SABOTAGE, THEFT, AND DESTRUCTION

Yellow highlight | Page: 47

suppose Ann knows the local mafia is trafficking child sex workers and routinely shakes down local businesses. Ann is a skilled hacker. She can hack into the mafia’s computers and phones. When she does so, she can disrupt its communications, for example, by deleting e-mails, sending misinformation over e-mail, and the like. She can also steal its funds, which she might then redistribute to, say, the charity GiveDirectly. By doing so, she might not be able to stop the mafia altogether but she can significantly reduce the amount of injustice it does. This seems like justified sabotage.
Note:SABOTATE LA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 47

Typically, when choosing among defensive actions, one should pick the least harmful and violent action.
Note:REGOLA GENERALE

Yellow highlight | Page: 48

EXAMPLE CASES OF RIGHTFUL DEFENSIVE ACTION
Note:TttttttttttttCASI DI LEGITTIMA DIFESA...SESGUONO ANALOGIE CON LO STATO CHE FA LE VECI DELLA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

A. Shooter in the Park A masked man emerges from a black van holding a rifle. He starts shooting
Note:IL SOLDATO CHE SPARA

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

B. Drunk Partygoer Rodney has too much to drink at a party. He runs around the house with a tiki torch, loudly yelling, “Look, everyone, I’m the Human Torch!”
Note:I BUTTAFUORI ALLE PRESE CON RODNEY KING

Yellow highlight | Page: 49

C. Health Nut Health guru John sincerely believes that caffeine is unhealthy, causes laziness, and induces people to use hard drugs.
Note:LO STRANO GURU...E IL PROIBIZIONISMO DEL VCAFFÈ

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

D. Terrorist Cobra Commander, leader of the terrorist organization COBRA, uses a combination of bribes, subterfuge, and threats to get the leaders of the United States to do his bidding. He then gets the US military to perform an unjust invasion of another country.
Note:COBRA...POLITICA ESTERA DELLA CIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

E. Mastermind Wilson is a criminal mastermind. He continually evades the police; he cannot be brought to justice.
Note:MASTERMIND...ANCORA SULLA POLITICA ESTERA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

F. Hacker The local mafia has secretly been spying on everyone, stealing their personal information,
Note:ASSANGE SGOMINA LA MAFIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 50

G. Vigilante Jailer Bob, like many people in his town, believes that Ann might be a murderer and the government acts wrongly by refusing to try her. So one day, he kidnaps Ann and holds a trial for her in his basement. Bob is a fanatic believer in due process so he makes sure the trial looks like a normal one.
Note:ESTRADIZIONE COL TRUCCO

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

H. Mafia Protection Money The local mafia does many things. It engages in criminal activities, and often hurts or kills people that get in its way. In beats down and intimidates local businesspeople to get them to pay protection money. But it also dispenses justice from time to time by punishing people who wrongly hurt its clients, and distributing significant amounts of money to poor widows and families. Ann runs a small business. The amount of protection money the mafia demands from businesses depends on how successful the business is.
Note:TASSE

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

I. Justice League Turned Bad For the past twenty years, the Justice League has protected innocent people
Note:FINO A UN CERTO PUNTO TUTTO BENE

Yellow highlight | Page: 51

Nevertheless, one day Superman, the leader of the Justice League, orders superhero Awesome Ann to use her psychic blast power to blow up an entire village.
Note:MA A UN CERTO PUNTO.....E ANN SI RIBELLA...CONTRO LA TRADIZION

Yellow highlight | Page: 52

J. Saboteur
Note:SABOTARE LA MAFIA...OVVERO LO STATO

Yellow highlight | Page: 52

L. Secret Free Trader Bob believes that buying Chinese imports is wrong. He thinks we should buy American. He announces loudly, “Henceforth, anyone who buys Chinese supplies for his or her business has to pay a fine equal to 50 percent of the costs
Note:VIETATO COMPRARE CNESE...ANN SI RIBELLA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

M. Bomber Ann knows that a particular car belongs to a local gang.
Note:BRUCIARE UN AUTO DELLA POLIZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

PARALLEL CASES WITH GOVERNMENT AGENTS
Note:Ttttttttttttt

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

A’. Minivan Shooter
Note:I CASI DELLO STATO....VIOLENZA POLIZIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 53

B’. Drunk Driver
Note:RODNEY KING

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

C’. War on Drugs
Note:PROIBIZIONISMO

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

D’. Hawk
Note:FALCHI CIA

Yellow highlight | Page: 54

E’. Chief Executive Mastermind
Note:GUERRA INGIUSTA

Yellow highlight | Page: 55

F’. The Leaker
Note:ASSANGE

Yellow highlight | Page: 55

H’. Taxes
Note:TASSE

Yellow highlight | Page: 56

I’. War Crime
Note:TRUPPE VALOROSE CHE COMMETONO ERRORI

Yellow highlight | Page: 57

Each of the cases A’–M’ is written to be more or less analogous to the cases A–M above, with the only major difference being that Ann is using defensive actions against government agents acting ex officio rather than against civilians.
Note:L OPERAZIONE COMPIUTA IN QS CAPITOLO

Yellow highlight | Page: 57

If some defensive action is permissible in any of cases A–M, we should presume the same defensive action is also permissible in A’–M’,
Note:PARALLELO

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

If someone judges that we should treat cases A–M differently from A’–M’, arguing that defensive action is right in the former and wrong in the latter cases, then we need some good explanation.
Note:GOOD AXPLANATION

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

I agree with most sensible people that violent revolution is rarely a good idea.
Note:RIVOLUZIONE E CAOA

Yellow highlight | Page: 58

advocating defensive actions against, including in some cases violent resistance to, government injustice is not the same thing as advocating violent revolution.
Note:SIA CHIARO

Yellow highlight | Page: 59

To justify revolution is to justify war. It’s one thing to assassinate a warmongering leader. It’s another to overthrow the government altogether.
Cccccccccc