If nothing has been done to you how can you claim 'self defense'? I 'thought' that person over there was too drunk for his own good, therefore I am afraid he 'MIGHT' do something that 'MAY' harm me, therefore I have the right to use violence against him. Unless you're a pre-cog from Minority Report, I don't think you have the right to use violence against someone until they actually do harm.
I'm not implying anything. I'm trying to get you to realize that we often have the right to defend ourselves from someone who is putting us in harms way, and putting others in harms way as well. Pointing a gun at your head by no means makes it certain the gunman will pull the trigger, it just drastically raises the chance of it happening. So you're trying to live in this grey area where you narrow down the point at which you can defend yourself on various criteria, while failing to realize that this is exactly what laws do.
Drunk driving is illegal because it substantially raises the possibility of killing another person. Pointing a gun at someone is illegal for the same reason. Laws aren't there just to randomly mess with you, they are there to protect others from y our actions regardless of whether they are intentional harm or not.
For instance, a man might own a factory in another state and therefore be willing to reduce costs by not controlling pollution. Everyone in the vicinity of the factory gets sick, some people die, etc... but no one had a chance to defend themselves, and the factory owner didn't intend for people to die. He just wanted cheaper manufacturing.
So can you defend yourself against a person callously spewing harmful gasses into the air because it hurts people? If I can defend myself against that, then can't I delegate that to other people? And if so, why can't delegate a requirement to prevent people from getting sick and dying? Especially one that results in everyone getting to continue on as before... that is the manufacturer can still have a factory, the people can still have non-poisoned air and no one has lost their property or their lives.
That is why we have laws and government. And why it is justified. Any just law is by proxy a defense of other people from harm.
So if someone points a gun at your head you do nothing until they pull the trigger. I guess you should actually wait until the bullet hits you, because if he misses "no harm done." Sorry, but I guess we're done here. You're well beyond any reasonable definition of self-defense.
You're implying the drunk driver has 'intent' to do you harm. I can't be certain, but I would guess MOST people who drink and drive do so with the aim to NOT hit anyone or do harm to anyone, as that would effect them as well. Where as with your example, someone aiming a gun at my head is a 'direct threat' against my well being. Therefore I would have the right to get the gun out of my face using whatever methods I saw fit.
If you can make a case for why you yourself would or should stop the driver then that's all that you need. If you won't stop the driver when you are perfectly able to do so, then why does it suddenly become acceptable for a man in a blue costume to do it in your stead?
people have their judgement clouded when using alcohol. They confuse distances, their reaction time is impaired, they may have halluciations, etc.
people are irrational to the point where they may not be conscious of their own impairment
If people are unconscious of the wrongs they may cause by driving, you have the right to stop the imminent disaster, because you will use violence to stop potential harm
Take this analogy
Someone puts a mentally retarded person in a room with 100 switches and 1 of those switches sends a nuclear bomb to a random country. This mentally retarded person doesn't know this and he doesn't know what the switches are for.
Do you not use force to get the person away from the room, if you know indeed that one of those switches poses a threat?
New dilemma: there is a person guarding the room and that person has be instructed to stop any intruders. You have to use force upon that person if he does not move. You have to use force if there are 2,3,4,5 security guys.
Of course this is the trolley problem. You did not put the mentally retarded person in the room with the switches. But to be moral you have to act morally despite the circunstances. So if that means breaking the NAP to prevent violence then yes, you should.
Now all this being said, you have to make the case that robbing everyone in the country to pay for the police when the police themselves do immoral actions without justification (like jailing people for non violent crimes) is itself moral. Which it isn't.
So if you are going to go through the consequentialism route instead of the moral objetivity route then be prepared to justify every possible consequence of an action, not just 5 lives are better than 1 (even this can be discussed as you could be killing Einstein instead of Hitler, Mussolini, etc).
So what is justified self defence? Like you said, you really don't need the bullet to be lodged in your brain for you to be able to act with violence in self defence. I guess fines are a good way to keep people from driving drunk, but otherwise I'm stumped.
The question is why can I delegate something that I don't have the right to do. If I have the right to stop the drunk driver, the answer to the question is that I do I have the right to do the things I'm delegating.
Why does it become acceptable? Because if delegation of something you have the right do is unacceptable, pretty much everything breaks down. That is, Satya Nadella needs to stop hiring people to write software and do it all himself.
If nothing has been done to you how can you claim 'self defense'? I 'thought' that person over there was too drunk for his own good, therefore I am afraid he 'MIGHT' do something that 'MAY' harm me, therefore I have the right to use violence against him. Unless you're a pre-cog from Minority Report, I don't think you have the right to use violence against someone until they actually do harm.
I'm not implying anything. I'm trying to get you to realize that we often have the right to defend ourselves from someone who is putting us in harms way, and putting others in harms way as well. Pointing a gun at your head by no means makes it certain the gunman will pull the trigger, it just drastically raises the chance of it happening. So you're trying to live in this grey area where you narrow down the point at which you can defend yourself on various criteria, while failing to realize that this is exactly what laws do.
Drunk driving is illegal because it substantially raises the possibility of killing another person. Pointing a gun at someone is illegal for the same reason. Laws aren't there just to randomly mess with you, they are there to protect others from y our actions regardless of whether they are intentional harm or not.
For instance, a man might own a factory in another state and therefore be willing to reduce costs by not controlling pollution. Everyone in the vicinity of the factory gets sick, some people die, etc... but no one had a chance to defend themselves, and the factory owner didn't intend for people to die. He just wanted cheaper manufacturing.
So can you defend yourself against a person callously spewing harmful gasses into the air because it hurts people? If I can defend myself against that, then can't I delegate that to other people? And if so, why can't delegate a requirement to prevent people from getting sick and dying? Especially one that results in everyone getting to continue on as before... that is the manufacturer can still have a factory, the people can still have non-poisoned air and no one has lost their property or their lives.
That is why we have laws and government. And why it is justified. Any just law is by proxy a defense of other people from harm.
So if someone points a gun at your head you do nothing until they pull the trigger. I guess you should actually wait until the bullet hits you, because if he misses "no harm done." Sorry, but I guess we're done here. You're well beyond any reasonable definition of self-defense.
You're implying the drunk driver has 'intent' to do you harm. I can't be certain, but I would guess MOST people who drink and drive do so with the aim to NOT hit anyone or do harm to anyone, as that would effect them as well. Where as with your example, someone aiming a gun at my head is a 'direct threat' against my well being. Therefore I would have the right to get the gun out of my face using whatever methods I saw fit.
If you can make a case for why you yourself would or should stop the driver then that's all that you need. If you won't stop the driver when you are perfectly able to do so, then why does it suddenly become acceptable for a man in a blue costume to do it in your stead?
replying to telos
Take this analogy
Someone puts a mentally retarded person in a room with 100 switches and 1 of those switches sends a nuclear bomb to a random country. This mentally retarded person doesn't know this and he doesn't know what the switches are for.
Do you not use force to get the person away from the room, if you know indeed that one of those switches poses a threat?
New dilemma: there is a person guarding the room and that person has be instructed to stop any intruders. You have to use force upon that person if he does not move. You have to use force if there are 2,3,4,5 security guys.
Of course this is the trolley problem. You did not put the mentally retarded person in the room with the switches. But to be moral you have to act morally despite the circunstances. So if that means breaking the NAP to prevent violence then yes, you should.
Now all this being said, you have to make the case that robbing everyone in the country to pay for the police when the police themselves do immoral actions without justification (like jailing people for non violent crimes) is itself moral. Which it isn't.
So if you are going to go through the consequentialism route instead of the moral objetivity route then be prepared to justify every possible consequence of an action, not just 5 lives are better than 1 (even this can be discussed as you could be killing Einstein instead of Hitler, Mussolini, etc).
So what is justified self defence? Like you said, you really don't need the bullet to be lodged in your brain for you to be able to act with violence in self defence. I guess fines are a good way to keep people from driving drunk, but otherwise I'm stumped.
The question is why can I delegate something that I don't have the right to do. If I have the right to stop the drunk driver, the answer to the question is that I do I have the right to do the things I'm delegating.
Why does it become acceptable? Because if delegation of something you have the right do is unacceptable, pretty much everything breaks down. That is, Satya Nadella needs to stop hiring people to write software and do it all himself.