Posted by SBCore on June 18, 19103 at 14:38:52:
What do you think is the motive behind retaliating to an initiator of force in accordance with the principle of rational egoism? Is it revenge? Is it to rectify the aggressor's actions in the name of the abstraction of justice? Is it to put the aggressor in a position in which he will not want to initiate the force again (lke putting a criminal in jail so that he physically cannot rob banks anymore)? Or is it to ensure that the aggressor will be discouraged from initiating force again? (Or is it a mixture of some of these reasons, all, none, or a reason I did not list?)
Please keep in mind that I am not speaking of politics only, but the wider field of ethics.
Also, here are some other questions I have: What if someone initiates force against a victim other than oneself? Can actions be taken against the aggressor even though they have not physically initiated force against you?
and: How does one judge how severe the retaliatory force should be? For example, if a child pickpockets 5 dollars from you, it seems (intuitively) as if executing the child in retaliation would be entirely too severe for two reasons: the nature of the crime (he only stole 5 dollars) and the nature of the criminal (he is a child who has not reached the stage of intellectual maturity to know the full implications of his actions). What role, if any, does the nature of the act of aggression and the nature of the aggressor play in the retaliation of force? Also, again, what is the motive behind the retaliation in the above example? To "teach the kid a lesson" (as in revenge), to discourage him from ever stealing again, to literally incapacitate him to the point where he cannot steal (ex. amputating his arms), etc.?
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS
DR. ELLIOT'S NORTH AMERICAN GREAT BOOKS TOUR--COMING TO A BOOK
STORE NEAR YOU
[Shakespeare Forums]
[Bible Forums]