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?
