Principle of Self-Defense ("Self D”)
A is justified in killing B if B's actions for A'S life directly and immediately in mortal jeopardy, and A’s killing B is necessary to end that threat If you want to learn more check out Who won the sino japanese war?
Principle of Punishment ("Punish”) Don't forget about the age old question of Who is logan and molotch?
A is justified in killing B (fy, and only if) B has done something to deserve death (and A has the moral standing to kill B) If you want to learn more check out What are the 7 parts of a neuron?
🞼 Smith and Jones case
Why is any killing at all justified in war?
1. Nations may justifiably kill in self-defense Don't forget about the age old question of How does biomechanics improve performance?
2. Self-D: only those who pose a direct and immediate threat are justifiably liable to be If you want to learn more check out What are the 4 types of utopias?
3. In war, the armed forces of B pose a direct and immediate threat to A.
4. B's armed forces are justifiably liable to be killed by A
Don't forget about the age old question of What is the role of succinate dehydrogenase?
🞼 Here the deliberate killing of any non-combatants justified
🞼 In war, justifying deliberate killing can be done by appeal to both principles
Why? Because nations have a right to exact their own punishment on transgressors
Thus, to the extent that we appeal to punish, killing some non-combatants is justified
Kill Gully Innocent Kill
Don't kill Guilty Innocent Don't Kill
Self-defense + punishment
🞼 Jones and Smith example
Jones: depending army
Smith: attacking army
Mobsters: guilty non-combatants
Bystanders: innocent non-combatants
Jones Killing Smith → self defense principle
Revised formulation of self-d
X may be killed in self-d, regardless of X's moral innocence, if the defender reasonably detects that.
1. The requisite threshold of danger has been met.
2. Killing X will reduce that danger
3. More desirable courses of action won’t eliminate the danger
4. More desirable courses action will not reduce the danger as much as killing X
Fullinwider’s first error
In domestic concerts, causal remoteness usually means threats insufficient to permit killing in self-d because factors such as intervention by police will usually prevent need to kill the cause of the threat
In international warfare, remoteness (while relevant to the degree of threat) is less significant because there is less reason to think that other factors short of killing the cause of the threat will influence to prevent it.
You're immune from being killed in self-d if any further chance a human against is necessary for the harm to materialize
🞼 Whether someone is a cause of (a sufficient threshold of) danger is all that matters.
Sexual Offense Policies for Universities and Colleges.
E.g. person X commits a sexual offense against person Y when X engaged in sexual activity with Y without Y’s consent
⤷ explicit consent required
"ye means yes”
“Yes” can mean “no." (woman badgered, afraid, etc)
“No” mean “yes" ("ery harder to convince me")
Men and law should always assume that a woman's no" means “no”
Antioch's sexual offense policy-gives such a procedure
A1: Consent must be explicit, verbal, not behavioural (minimizes miscommunication)
A2-6: Verbal consent specific to each act for increasing levels of intimacy
A7: Not just "when in doubt, ask ... " but "always ask"
How to know whether "yes" is a "yes" (even for an explicit, verbal “yes”)
" The body sometimes speak a clear language”