Poll: Rationality in using force

[kickcatcher]

Attempt at a poll, please post a clear "yes" or "no" response before elaborating on your thoughts.

Specific question: Most people agree that you are justified in defending yourself if you believe there is an imminent physical threat to yourself. Does that belief have to be RATIONAL for it to be MORALLY JUSTIFIED? -yes or no?

i.e. I may, irrationally, believe that someone sleeping at the side of the road is about to attack me, does that justify me going over and hitting them?

Thanks.

 

[kickcatcher]

I vote "Yes"....

...there is a moral requirement that the threat percieved is rational.

 

[rutherford]

I believe in the value of acting on instinct and intuition, and have no morals.

I would have voted, if you'd actually put up a poll. But you didn't.

 

[kickcatcher]

Thank you for not voting Rutherford. If I was able to post polls I would.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes

If I understanding the question properly.

I would think to make a moral judgment you would need to be rational.

As for "acting on instinct and intuition" I agree that is a much better way to respond to an attack, but I am not sure that is an answer to the question that was posted, That may actually apply to a different question, more along the lines of do you rationalize a response to an attack or is it just instinct. And in that case I would agree morality has little to do with it. But this is just my opinion.

 

[rutherford]

I would think to make a moral judgment you would need to be rational.

I remain unconvinced that making a judgement on the good or evil of a human action is possible through reasoning alone.

I suppose it depends on your definitions.

 

[Cruentus]

It would depend on how you would set up the question for a vote.

I would say that once a situation crosses the line into a "lethal force encounter" then you don't have time to make a moral decision, you only have time to fight to the best of your ability with what you have available until the threat stops.

In actuality, in any kind of physical self-defense encounter, you won't have time or the where-with-all to make moral decisions. This is why you should have this stuff thought up of ahead of time in your self-defense plan.

Paul

 

[kickcatcher]

It would depend on how you would set up the question for a vote.

I would say that once a situation crosses the line into a "lethal force encounter" then you don't have time to make a moral decision, you only have time to fight to the best of your ability with what you have available until the threat stops.

In actuality, in any kind of physical self-defense encounter, you won't have time or the where-with-all to make moral decisions. This is why you should have this stuff thought up of ahead of time in your self-defense plan.

Paul

I may be wrong but it sounds like you are only factoring in ambush type situations where you are immediately attacked without warning - in which case the victim's believe that they are in imminent physical danger is clearly rational and therefore outside the scope of the question.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I remain unconvinced that making a judgement on the good or evil of a human action is possible through reasoning alone.

I suppose it depends on your definitions.

Actually I agree

But I would think to come to that moral decision you would need to rationalize all the other possibilities.

You asked a tough question and asked for a yes or no response based on the information given. There are considerably more parts to morality than rationality and you are also correct that is very dependant on the definition of the person answering.

 

[Cruentus]

I may be wrong but it sounds like you are only factoring in ambush type situations where you are immediately attacked without warning - in which case the victim's believe that they are in imminent physical danger is clearly rational and therefore outside the scope of the question.

I'll quote myself from the other thread because it is worth repeating, and relevent here:

There is a difference in what is called "pre-incident," "incident," and "post-incident."

So, I'll use an example:

Pre-incident: You hear a noise downstairs that sounds like breaking glass. You decide to grab your firearm and investigate while your wife calls 9-11 in the safe room. You turn on your kitchen light, and not even 15 feet in front of you is a guy with a ski mask and tire iron. You point your weapon and yell "Drop your weapon and back up, or I'll shoot! I have a gun!"

Incident: The guy runs at you swinging. You back up and fire rounds until he falls.

Post incident: Hs is on the ground bleeding. You administer first aid as best as you can now that the threat is over. Then the police arrive.

Notice how short the actual incident is. During the pre-incident, you can make logical decisions, including what kind of force would be appropriate for the situation. During the actual incident, you will no longer be able to logically make those decisions with any reliability. This is why it is unreasonable and not fitting with reality to assume that during the incident you will be able to say to yourself, for example, "I'm grappling with him and he hasn't let go of his tire iron yet, and has hit me in the head. Now that I am losing consiousness, maybe I should try to pull a kitchen knife out of the drawer..." and then perform that action with reliability.

What I am saying is that once the incident is taking place, you can't assume that you can change where you will be on the force continuem, and therefore must make the decision based on the facts available during the pre-incident.

So, it could apply to a spontanious encounter or a predicted one. Definitalty in a Predictable encounter you are more aware of what may occur during the pre-incident, and therefore can make more logical decisions. It is during the incident, regardless if it is spontanious or not, that those decisions can't be made with reliability.

Therefore, during the incident itself, there is no morality at all.

Paul

 

[still learning]

Hello, This is just my thoughts here.....I will not hit first? but IF can? I will make contact first! (Watching their movements, block,move out of the way,) than add contact! and or run away?

Sounds easy to do....but don't know if it will happen that way? ....Aloha

PS: "May the force be with you"

 

[Rich Parsons]

Attempt at a poll, please post a clear "yes" or "no" response before elaborating on your thoughts.

Specific question: Most people agree that you are justified in defending yourself if you believe there is an imminent physical threat to yourself. Does that belief have to be RATIONAL for it to be MORALLY JUSTIFIED? -yes or no?

i.e. I may, irrationally, believe that someone sleeping at the side of the road is about to attack me, does that justify me going over and hitting them?

Thanks.

You have to be a supporting member to create a poll.


Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Administrator

 

[Adept]

Attempt at a poll, please post a clear "yes" or "no" response before elaborating on your thoughts.

Specific question: Most people agree that you are justified in defending yourself if you believe there is an imminent physical threat to yourself. Does that belief have to be RATIONAL for it to be MORALLY JUSTIFIED? -yes or no?

i.e. I may, irrationally, believe that someone sleeping at the side of the road is about to attack me, does that justify me going over and hitting them?

Thanks.

Rational is a tricky word. I always, at the time, think all of my actions are rational. The same, I assume, applies to everyone else. Someone that acts irrationally in a self defense scenario will probably have a reason why. They might be metally unbalanced, poorly educated, just stupid, or just aggressive.

 

[elder999]

No. At least, not while it's going on.

It will, of course, have to be justified or at least determined to be a reasonable error, afterward.

Remember, this is a country where the police shot an unarmed man more than 30 times, and while they'll never carry firearms on the job again, they spent no time in jail because they were determined afterward to have responded in a way that was not criminal. Was what they did immoral? I don't know, you have to ask them. Was it rational? not to me, but I wasn't there, and I'm sure they feel better about being alive than they do about Amadou Diallo being dead......

Training-especially for the armed civilian, and by armed I mean martial arts training as well-is especially important, in that we should neither be trained to be slaves to our instincts, or our intellect. This episode in NYC was just one example of the inadequacy of police training-and by that I mean continuing training.

On the other hand, what would the "rational" thing been for them to do when he turned with his wallet in his hand, and they thought it was a gun? Conduct a survey or a poll? Had a focus group?

Used telepathy?

 

[CuongNhuka]

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense of you should rationally justify yourself, but at the same time you must decide is it worth the bad karma? And is it in the gray area of the law were it could be self-defense or might not depending on the judge? You should make sure that what your about to do is a threat no matter what. If someone is robbing you and they have a gun, a judge might agree that you disarming, and then restraining them is justified, another might not. Although I suppose I’m answering a different question.

John

 

[KenpoTex]

This is a qualified "yes"

I think that your actions have to be reasonable/rational based on the totality of circumstances as YOU perceive them AT THE TIME.
Take for example the incident to which Elder referred. I believe the police officers were justified in opening fire because the guy failed to heed their directions and made a sudden move consistent with accessing a weapon. The fact that it turned out that he was only reaching for his wallet has nothing to do with the fact that the officers [reasonably] perceived a threat based on the circumstances.

Yes in the sense of you should rationally justify yourself, but at the same time you must decide is it worth the bad karma? And is it in the gray area of the law were it could be self-defense or might not depending on the judge?

So in the midst of a violent encounter, you're going to wait until you've figured out whether the judge is going to agree with what you did? (bad karma? )

You should make sure that what your about to do is a threat no matter what. If someone is robbing you and they have a gun, a judge might agree that you disarming, and then restraining them is justified, another might not. Although I suppose I’m answering a different question.

If someone is robbing you and they have a gun, you would be fully justified in responding with deadly force. Acting with the intent of merely disarming and restraining them is a good way to get yourself killed.

 

[Cryozombie]

KK,

Yes, I believe it has to be rationally justifiable.

I think for it to be justifiable it has to pass the "Reasonable Person test" that is applied to investigation of certain situtaions like sexual harrassment.

A guy laying alongside the road sleeping wouldprobably fail that test. An invader in my kitchen next to the butcher block full of big pointy things may pass it.
​

 

[Hand Sword]

I say the amount of morality depends on the situation. If your dealing with a pest (a drunk) who might take a swing at you, yes, have morals, there is no need to destroy them. If your walking somewhere, and are attacked by a predator, then no, morals are out the window!

 

[CuongNhuka]

So in the midst of a violent encounter, you're going to wait until you've figured out whether the judge is going to agree with what you did? (bad karma? )
If someone is robbing you and they have a gun, you would be fully justified in responding with deadly force. Acting with the intent of merely disarming and restraining them is a good way to get yourself killed.

Am I going to sit and think if it's worth the bad karma? No, but unless I have no choice I wont fight, so I don't have to worry about it. If someone wants my wallet they can have it. I think theres about three bucks in it. Past that, I have nothing of any value to anyone. So I would throw it off to one side and run off in the opposite direction. If that person just came up and shot the person next to me, and demanded my wallet, yah then I'm going to do a disarm. But that's only because that person will kill me one way or anouther.
I have a simple way to decide if I fight back. If they are threating me, run or talk, what ever would be better at the time. If they throw a strike (disarmed), do a restraining technique, unless there is multiple. Then, break an arm, or knee, or dislocate a shoulder, or put one in a head lock and tell the other(s) to back off or there body dies. And the same with any weapon other then a gun. Exept after I disarm them, I break there arm. No questions asked. If it's a gun that's pulled, someone will die.
Or if I see someone else being attacked, I use the same procedure. If I'm being robbed, let them have what they want. It's not worth it. Money can be earned back, credit cards, I.D.s, and cars can be replaced. But life is not a computer game. After you die, you wont come back to life. YOU cannot be replaced.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John