Here’s a couple of excerpts from an email conversation I’ve recently had on exactly this idea:
Given that:
with proper epistemology, there is always going to be a certain amount of doubt about whether force has been initiated against you, or by whom;
that sometimes people make mistakes about the level of force they end up using;
that it’s immoral to create collateral damage that harms innocent third parties;
that it’s becoming ever-easier for people to have ever-greater amounts of destructive force at their disposal;
and that even someone who initiates force against you can potentially repent and engage in voluntary positive-sum trade that benefits you...
… then it is in every individual’s own long-term self-interest to:
try to prevent the amount of force used in conflicts from escalating;
to attempt to use the minimal amount of force required to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property;
to consider the use of greatly excessive “defensive” force to be immoral.
...
Or, to use a more concrete example—if somebody steals your ice cream, shooting them in the head is an immoral reaction, as it is possible to deal with such situations using less force, that using lethal force endangers nearby innocents without just cause, and so on. If someone else were to shoot dead an ice-cream thief, then it would be within reason for me to consider them to be a danger to myself and others, and to prepare to defend myself against them—and, depending on the situation and my abilities, to treat the shooter as if they had committed a crime and arrest them (or the equivalent, depending on the local judicial process).
Why? It seems more rational to exert enough force to eliminate the threat forever without creating new ones.
“For the good of the tribe, do not murder, not even for the good of the tribe.” (From: http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_humans/ )
Here’s a couple of excerpts from an email conversation I’ve recently had on exactly this idea:
Given that:
with proper epistemology, there is always going to be a certain amount of doubt about whether force has been initiated against you, or by whom;
that sometimes people make mistakes about the level of force they end up using;
that it’s immoral to create collateral damage that harms innocent third parties;
that it’s becoming ever-easier for people to have ever-greater amounts of destructive force at their disposal;
and that even someone who initiates force against you can potentially repent and engage in voluntary positive-sum trade that benefits you...
… then it is in every individual’s own long-term self-interest to:
try to prevent the amount of force used in conflicts from escalating;
to attempt to use the minimal amount of force required to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property;
to consider the use of greatly excessive “defensive” force to be immoral.
...
Or, to use a more concrete example—if somebody steals your ice cream, shooting them in the head is an immoral reaction, as it is possible to deal with such situations using less force, that using lethal force endangers nearby innocents without just cause, and so on. If someone else were to shoot dead an ice-cream thief, then it would be within reason for me to consider them to be a danger to myself and others, and to prepare to defend myself against them—and, depending on the situation and my abilities, to treat the shooter as if they had committed a crime and arrest them (or the equivalent, depending on the local judicial process).
This just in: shminux jailed for killing someone who borrowed his pencil without asking, in order to eliminate the thread of pencil-thieving forever.
getting jailed would count as a new threat, wouldn’t it?