Necessary and Justified; are they the same?

[avevale_intelligencer]

This arose from the previous conversation, and I'm quite startled to find that some of my friends seem to think they are, at least one way. I think we'd all agree that something can be justified without being necessary; if a courtier sends to tell me my beard is not well cut, I may be justified in responding with at least the quip modest ("Yeah? Well, you suck, so there."*), but I don't have to.

But can something be necessary without being justified? Is it possible to have no alternative but to do something you know is wrong, and which continues to be wrong even after you've done it?

I'd say it is, but I could be wrong. Certainly my attitude would lead to incapacitating guilt, if I were ever in that position, and so I'd be a lot comfier if I could say "oh well, it was the only thing I could do, so I was obviously right to do it." But given the human brain's capacity for sophistry, I would then never be able to trust my feelings again on what is right and what is wrong. Necessity is, at best, a perception; justification is, or is as near as we morally malleable humans can get to, an absolute.

I've never understood why so many people seem to admire Dirty Harry. They would say he does what's necessary, to cleanse the streets of the criminals who always seem to be able to buck the system, and of course in the fictional world the writers create for him he's always right...but the real world doesn't work like that.

In the case of murder and self-defence, having never experienced either, I have no real qualifications, and I mean no disparagement of any kind to anyone who has been in that situation and done what they felt was necessary. Certainly I would prefer that they continue to live rather than the person who, not being in mortal danger themselves, saw no sufficient reason not to kill them. Same with rape and assault: if the choice is killing the other person or being raped, and there are no other alternatives, then yes, it's necessary, and the question of justification is not for me to decide or pontificate about.

But here we get into questions of offence and defence, two more concepts that are often conflated. A gun is not a weapon of defence. A shield is, or a bulletproof vest, or in extremis one's brain, if it works well enough, but a gun is a weapon of making a hole in the other person, and while it may be true that the best defence is a good offence, what a good offence is, above anything else, is basically an offence. And in the field of armed combat, we're basically hopeless at defence, because we have this idea that striking back (or striking first) is more important than not being hit in the first place.

So should we all be trucking around in full armour? Are those people right who say that if a woman gets attacked it's her own fault for not hiring a pack of bodyguards or staying home at night? No, of course they're not. The wrong of the attack outweighs anything done in self-defence. The wrong of the attack needs to be ended, and whatever is done to end it is necessary. And this is where I writhe on the horn, because my gut feeling will not go away...the feeling that if I were in that position, if I were attacked, or saw my loved ones endangered, and did what was necessary, I should never know peaceful sleep again, nor should I deserve or wish to. I guess it's just a good thing that not many people have that. And a fantastically good thing that I am blessed enough to live in a country where the worst of weapons are firmly regulated.

But this is a whole other can of worms, and I have stuff to do that needs doing, so that's it for the moment.

*Hey, Shakespeare I'm not.

Comments

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Just to muddy things a little further, "necessary" and "I had no other option" are not the same. Necessary for what purpose? It is necessary for me to eat and drink so as not to die, but I can refrain from doing either if I choose to.

Where do I have no choice at all? It's more in the things I can't do - if I'm holding a heavy rock, sooner or later I'm going to drop it. (Possibly on top of something or someone that would have preferred this not to happen). If I can't manage to stand up, and the food and drink is inaccessible from the floor, eating and drinking is not going to happen.

The real problem isn't "necessary" v. "justified", it's when you have a choice, to do X or not to do X, and you have to compare the level of justification for each, then pick the least bad of the options. Given the choice of Person Y killing an innocent victim (me, my husband, some random yob in the street), or me doing them possibly lethal damage so as to stop them, which is the lesser of the two evils? I'm not denying that both are bad things, but this is one of those Weevil Comparison problems, as far too many other things are.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Is it possible to have no alternative but to do something you know is wrong, and which continues to be wrong even after you've done it?

Yes. You have just described the choice between bad and worse, where there are no realistic good or even neutral choices. You're veering directly toward moral relativism here; I don't know if that's what you intended.

The fact is that sometimes those situations occur. As human beings, and putative adults, we make our choices and live with them. Or DON'T make the choice, and live with the consequences. Crying, screaming, fighting to find another choice the whole way, but acting, because that's what's necessary.

These are the situations that have true believers railing at their deities, or not. I think we learn more about people when they're stuck in this sort of Kobayashi Maru than when all is well, though both are necessary to get a full picture.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I do believe in some moral absolutes, like the one I mentioned a few posts ago. That's the problem I have with this thing. I can see that there is bad and worse, but I think there is (and I believe for myself that there should be) a line marked WORST beyond which I say now that I will not go, even though I can't predict what kind of situation I may end up in that may force me to consider it.

At which point, the question becomes: do I rub out the line and move it further away, or do I accept that I have now crossed it and can never again be the man who never would? Do I pretend that the line doesn't really matter, that there are circumstances under which it can be ignored, or do I give up my whole life to the shame and remorse I believe now that I should feel--because as soon as I let that go, the line has less power over me?

It's easy for someone like me to think that there is always another way, if only you can find it; that the Kobayashi Maru test is as rigged as a Dirty Harry movie. If I'm wrong, I hope I never find out.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The "other way" in the bad-or-worse scenario almost always comes down to "do nothing" -- which itself is a choice, though perhaps more morally acceptable than the other ones available.

Everyone has their lines that they won't cross. Some are so deep in "inhuman monster" territory that they might as well not exist; others have the strength of will and defined limits that get them upheld as saints (too often after their limits get them martyred).

Only you know where your limits are, and I hope that you never get pushed up against them in your lifetime.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

You are a reincarnation of Shakespere, and just using the modern colloquialisms as he did his!

To take your last point first, because I suspect this is an important part of your not understanding.

If /you/ feel that you could not kill someone, whatever the provocation, that is your feeling (and I feel an admirable position, Ghandi for example was another who felt the same way). I would certainly not try to persuade you to feel any differently, and I hope (and if it is ever up to me, try to ensure) that you are never put in that position.

So for you to hold it as an absolute is fine, is wonderful, is a Good Thing. Please don't change (unless you want to!).

The other points...

Ooh, you've caught me. Because I said elsewhere that "pre-emptive attack" is wrong, and a gun could be taken as that used in defense (because the defender obviously isn't dead yet). I don't think that applies, though, if someone is clearly aleady shooting at me (or mine) and just hasn't hit yet. In that condition, remember that a gun is a distance weapon. You interpret that as meaning that it can't be used for defence. I disagree. In order to take out someone using a distance weapon against which you can't use a passive defence (because it isn't possible to armour every part of the body, even mediaeval knights found that -- and even modern armour is not unpierceable) the only way is to use another distance weapon.

Oh, and on your "oh well, it was the only thing I could do, so I was obviously right to do it." Justified is not the same thing as 'right'. Under Old Testament laws I would be justified if someone hit me and I hit them hack ("an eye for an eye"), but even at that time it was considered more 'right' to not retaliate. Because fighting is never "the only thing [one] can do", it is a choice to do it or not. Perhaps if you don't fight back the attacker will stop, perhaps he will kill you, but that's his choice.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I guess one question for me is "necessary for what, and in what situation?"

If it's necessary for me to kill someone in order to rob a liquor store, or escape after a robbery, no, it's not justified.

If it's necessary for me to kill someone who is threatening me to stay alive, sure, it's justified.

And of course there are grey areas. How serious is the threat, etc. Wondering whether I'd misjudged the seriousness of the threat, or whether I could have come up with a less extreme way of solving the problem, would probably keep me up at night.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

This. Cat, not surprisingly, has articulated the issue clearly.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

I'm going to follow Jane -- "least bad" takes the day. Assume (yes, I know) that evrything you do is going to be objecte dto by at least someone, and go with the one you think will do the least ill.

Then be prepared to be Somewhere Else, if you feel that's justified/necessary.