Is violence ever morally justifiable to restore dignity in conditions of extreme passive coercion?

[phitero]

I came up with a thought experiment to reach the limits of reason, to bring to light what I consider a very important problem.
Is violence justified in matters of dignity, or lack thereof?

~-~- Scenario 1 : The Island Thought Experiment ~-~-

Imagine we place two humans on a remote island, Cain and Abel. The island yields only a tiny supply of food, just enough for one person to survive indefinitely.
They come to realize this and scramble to acquire as much food as possible. A few days later, they’ve picked all the food on the island and despite having put in equal effort, Cain has accumulated two weeks’ worth of food, while Abel was lucky enough to find a month’s worth of provisions, purely by chance.

Cain decides to make a proposal to Abel: “If we unite our strengths, we can make a large net and catch fish. Together we can catch fish efficiently and quickly, allowing us both to survive and thrive.”

Abel answers, “Yes, that’s a good idea, and I’m all for it. It would allow me to enjoy more free time and have an easier life on this island. But first you have to give me all the food you have. Moreover, you won’t be allowed to store any food for yourself; you’ll only be allowed to have the minimum necessary for survival, and I’ll take all the excess produce.”

Cain says, “That’s unfair! I had the idea! We are both equals and each of us put in equal time and effort!”

Abel thinks to himself, “I have more food than him. I can decide not to cooperate, and eventually, he’ll die of hunger before me because he has less food. Once he’s dead, I’ll survive just fine. He has no choice but to accept. I have the upper hand.”

Abel replies, “Cain, think of this as free trade. In any market, those with more resources can offer better terms. I’ve put in more effort and accumulated more food, which puts me in a position to make you a deal. By giving me your food and allowing me to manage our resources, I’m taking on the risk and responsibility for our survival. In return, you stand to benefit from the efficiency and productivity of our joint efforts. This is how a capitalist economy works: those who invest more get more in return. There’s nothing unfair about it; it’s about recognizing the value each of us brings to the table. If we cooperate under these terms, we both stand to gain more in the long run.”

Cain gets closer to Abel, then picks up a rock and says, “Yes, but I have this dangerous rock in my hand, and if we don’t split equally, something bad may happen. It’s my responsibility to ensure your safety.”

Abel starts sweating and responds with an alarmed tone, “But… you’re threatening me with violence!”

Cain replies, “Dear Abel, your cooperation is in the public interest; it’s for the greater good, and you ultimately benefit from it. It’s part of the social contract to which you implicitly consented by virtue of existing here. Given your initial behavior was anti-social, from this moment on, I’ll hold the monopoly on violence.”

Ending 1

Faced with Cain’s argument and the rock, Abel agrees to split equally, and they lived “happily” ever after.

Ending 2

Abel, fueled by desperation, anger, and the loss of dignity, decides to fight. He charges at Cain but is immediately fatally injured by the rock, and quickly succumbs.

~-~- Scenario 2 : Two Countries During Famine ~-~-

Instead of two individuals, imagine two countries sharing a grain field, both dependent on it as their sole source of food. During a famine, half the population of PoorCountry faces death unless they cooperate with RichCountry on a megaproject to boost food production. This project can only be achieved through the joint efforts of both countries.

In this situation, if PoorCountry's population were to disappear, RichCountry would fare just fine through the famine. And vice versa. During negotiations, RichCountry (the less desperate country) demands that PoorCountry surrender all territory and that its population become perpetual slaves, along with all their descendants, in perpetuity.

~-~- Questions~-~-
- Does PoorCountry, which loses by default if no cooperation is established, have a right to start a war?
- Does it change anything that it's two countries and not two individuals?
- For the two individuals, who is in the right, Cain or Abel?
- Given that Abel lets Cain live, can it be said that Cain is greedy and not content with what he has been offered?
- Does Cain have a duty to accept Abel’s unfair offer?
- Does Cain have a right to refuse Abel’s offer, wait two weeks for his supplies to run out, and then resort to violence, given that he’s in a life-or-death situation?
- Does Abel have a duty to grant dignity to Cain?
- Does Cain have a right to use violence to restore his dignity?
- If there were hidden cameras on the island and both Cain and Abel were brought in front of a court (in the case of Ending 1), or only Cain (in the case of Ending 2), how should they be judged?
- Right now, I think that in Ending 1, Cain would be charged with coercion, extortion, and threats of violence.
- In Ending 2, Cain would be charged with manslaughter or murder.
- Would you legislate differently? Would you make passive coercive power (one where you win by doing nothing) an offense?

[RickLewis]

Sorry I only just spotted that this post was waiting for approval.

[Impenitent]

if you are alone on an island, who is giving you respect?

-Imp

[popeye1945]

Morality is a social construct; for an individual in isolation, morality would relate to nothing, it would be meaningless. Violence in society is only justifiable in self-defense, for like violence, self-defense is detrimental to the survival and well-being of the individual.

[Impenitent]

violence is detrimental in society? spare the rod and spoil the child?

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No, but it's fully understandable.

[MikeNovack]

~-~- Questions~-~-
............
- Does it change anything that it's two countries and not two individuals?
.........

I believe it makes a big difference.

The usual standard (which I think wrong) is to expect of our moral system is that for two situations where we can find no morally significant difference between them we expect the same answers. I think there is another sort of difference we need to account. Namely the extent to which either situation matches what is possible within a band of 50 humans, all personally known to each other, and expecting to be interacting with each other repeatedly. That's how we have lived for the couple million years. Just as we are born not with a language but primed to learn a language, I believe we are born primed to learn "how to be a member of a society". I believe this causes us to learn an "intuitive" moral system.

For all situations that do not match what is possible in a small group society,we approach the moral question based on =our rational moral system and reason. We can also "force" ourselves to apply our rational process to a situation that does match small group. But NOW it is likely that our intuitive "quick evaluator" is active and might be shouting a different answer. Which makes us feel uneasy. Something feels wrong about our rational answer but we can't give a REASON to explain.

[Eodnhoj7]

People assume justification gives a right to an interpretation, but it is only interpretation within an interpretation.

[popeye1945]

Justifications are to eat and to defend oneself and others.

[Walker]

if you are alone on an island, who is giving you respect?

-Imp

Wilson.

[promethean75]

"Justifications are to eat and to defend oneself and others"

But really this isn't true because there are no rights, and so no deed would ever need justification. Justification is an effort to assert a right to action, e.g., he's justified in jumping the fence because his country is broke. But he doesn't have a right not to be broke. We just made that up. Just like we made up the 'right' to eat and defend ourselves.

A 'right' is a privilege granted by the State and therefore an entirely artifical product (because the State is illegitimate).

[popeye1945]

"Justifications are to eat and to defend oneself and others"

But really this isn't true because there are no rights, and so no deed would ever need justification. Justification is an effort to assert a right to action, e.g., he's justified in jumping the fence because his country is broke. But he doesn't have a right not to be broke. We just made that up. Just like we made up the 'right' to eat and defend ourselves.

A 'right' is a privilege granted by the State and therefore an entirely artifical product (because the State is illegitimate).

Your right morality to an isolated individual is nonsense; justifications are always social in nature.