Thanks for replies. First I will like to comment on the deletion of the link to the LAW website. The reason given for this is that the moderator thinks that the link is an attempt at site promotion.
But the link is not site promotion. If I wanted to promote the website I would have chosen other media than a philosophy forum. I published the link because the website contains arguments about philosophy of law and I wanted members on this forum to criticise these arguments and hopefully refute them, so that the website becomes unnecessary and can be shut down for good. Therefore, one can not reasonable say that my intention is site promotion.
To make my point clearer: if I wanted members here to discuss Kant and had a link to arguments on another website which was essential for the debate, then publishing that link can not be viewed as a promotion of that website.
Now that it is clear that I am not here to promote the LAW website but only wish people to refute the arguments presented there, I hope that it is okay that I publish the link once again - Mod Edit - No, it's not OK. If it was it wouldn't have been removed in the first place. Link removed again.
The moderator may choose to remove it this time also, but if that happens I will argue that such silencing of arguments is a betrayal of the Socratic tradition, the discourse ethics of Habermas, and proper scientific procedure in general.
If the link is not removed, let me remind readers to first check out the introduction to the discussion forum of LAW, and especially the article "Perspectivism". The website is rather unorthodox and postmodern, so reading this is necessary to understand it better.
Zetetic wrote that:
would it be justifiable to directly harm unwitting participants (participants who are such by virtue only of their place of employment) simply because they are part of said organization? How do you deal with culpable denyability (the right hand doesn't need to know the specifics of what the left is doing, just that the results are there)?
If you read the website, you will see that I have already discussed your arguments there, but let me quickly try to answer your questions:
One should not attack unwitting participants. Culpable deniability can not be used as an argument when the CEO is informed about criminal attacks committed by his or her company and still refuses to do anything to stop the attacks. Then activists should hand the case over to the police, and if they don't do anything quick enough to stop the attacks, one can argue that defensive political violence may be the most pragmatic option if no other non-violent solutions are effective.
Furthermore; if you are kidnapping a CEO, are you forcing him to pay out of pocket or out of company funds? If it is the agency that is held to be at fault, you have to use company funds which would most likely have direct negative impact on the average worker (can one justify penalizing the worker?).
Your question is answered here: Mod Edit - Link to forum removed! If he asked the question here, please answer it here.
Harming one individual in order to save a million may seem appealing, but it is not a decision for any of them to make.
That is just a statement. A personal opinion. According to the legal rule of necessity one can harm an individual (torture exempted) in order to save a million or ten thousand if no other options are given.
The most ironclad case you could make against it is to take it to its logical conclusion and find the worst possible case, then present that as a bit unreasonable and take it down a notch or two. If that less extreme case still seems to be unallowable, you will have most likely fully broken their thesis.
I like ad absurdum arguments, so if you can draw the premises of defensive political violence to absurd conclusions, I will appreciate it. Thanks!