| | I'd like to discuss more scenarios where individuals are potentially going to act in a way that will destroy their own life.
1. For example, lets say a man seems intent on committing suicide. He is in his own home, with his own gun pointing at his own head. Is it ever just to knock the gun out of his hands?
2. For example, lets say a child is about to step out into a street without first determining whether a car will hit them.
3. For example, lets say you have a bunch of adults that seems intent on dieing earlier by doing all sorts of unhealthy things to their body and putting themselves into dangerous situations.
4. For example, lets say you have a child who doesn't want to learn, but you force them to learn anyways.
1. My analysis:
If you do not know the man, his life, or the reason he is deciding to shoot himself, maybe he has temporarily gone insane or unstable, and later he would actually appreciate that you prevented him from killing himself (he may eventually look back and thank you, giving you his consent). I still think it would have been a crime for you to knock the gun out of his hand, no matter what. The question is simply how severe the punishment should be. If the man ends up consenting to it, and does not press charges, then it very well may be the case that society should not punish the use of force (since now it is not considered an initiation of force by the person force was used on).
Lets say the man is thinking logically, and consistently wants to end his life. Then there is an extremely low chance that he would at some time consent to your use of force. If you still continue to knock the gun out of his hand, I'd say you are continuously committing a severe crime.
2. My analysis:
A child about to run into the street is very much like the man in an insane or unstable state. This is because the child has yet to learn that running into the street may very well lead to its death. The child may not even realize that he can die! You can have extremely high confidence that with most children, they will eventually end up consenting to your use of force to prevent them from running into the street.
3. My analysis:
Most adults are very consistent in wanting to do such to their own bodies. It is usually not the case that an adult would end up consenting to you using force to make sure that they do not perform unhealthy acts to themselves.
4. My analysis:
Is it even possible to force someone to learn? I guess so. Learn how to tie your shoes by ten o'clock tonight, or else I'll kill you! This seems silly to me. Why not just let a person's failure to learn bring its own consequences? If the child refuses to learn how to read, don't simply read things for them. They'll still want to know what the things say, so only read things when they are associating ideas with the words, so only read things for them when they are reading/learning with you. If they fail to learn math, others will cheat them when trading. I do not see how resorting to force is in a person's advantage here. I think refusing to offer resources is an excellent form of "punishment".
Of course, if you refuse to offer resources to the point that the child will die of starvation or lack of shelter, then that would be a crime (assuming you have made a contract with society to provide these things to the child until some other capable person agrees to take the role).
|
|
