Jump to content

Fat Man Puzzle of Self Defense


JG55

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

But is what we are doing truly self-defense? Consider one of the most famous hypotheticals on the subject of self-defense: the Fat Man puzzle. In Fat Man, you find yourself in a small boat at the bottom of a chasm. Although there are many versions,[5]what they have in common is that an enormously fat individual is hurtling down from the cliff. You have no idea why he is falling—whether, say, he jumped or was pushed. All you know for sure is that if he hits you, you die. You have no space to maneuver, and no time to escape. Fortunately, you are armed with your trusty Fat Man gun. You can pull the trigger and vaporize him, thereby saving yourself.[6]

Theorists of self-defense usually posit that killing another to protect the self must be based either on the status of the attacker (e.g., enemy soldier in war) or what the attacker is doing (e.g., actively shooting at you). The Fat Man problem usefully divorces the justification for violent self-defense from the motive of the assailant. Robert Nozick’s original version of the problem stipulated that Fat Man has been pushed, and is therefore morally innocent; thus theories of self-defense that depend on what the attacker is doing (e.g., is he engaged in aggression?) cannot justify the use of the vaporizer.[7]

And yet the Fat Man problem is in other ways too easy. Augustine, to take an example, would surely have rejected the use of the vaporizer gun, on the ground that your life is not intrinsically more valuable than the Fat Man’s. Liberalism’s refusal to weigh lives against each other also makes calculation difficult. Yet I find that my students have little difficulty with the problem, answering as Nozick intended: they are by and large perfectly willing to blow Fat Man to smithereens to save themselves.

The problem my students find harder is what I like to call Thin Man. Thin Man is too skinny to do us harm unless he chooses to, but he comes hurtling down off the cliff nevertheless. If he hits us, we die. But he is so thin that the odds are he will land nowhere near. We know that Thin Man means us ill. He fully intends to do us harm. We just don’t know when. It might be now—that might be why he is falling—or it might be next year. Or he might change his mind.

If we do nothing, chances are he will miss us (he is thin), fall into the water, and be washed away by the current. Later, he will fetch up on shore and can go back to plotting. We could try to pull him from the water, but we would probably fall in. Thus the present opportunity to vaporize him with our Thin Man gun might be our only shot at him. On the other hand, I believe I mentioned that we do not know his current intention. He might just be going for a swim.

Read full article @ Stanford Law Review http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/iraq-war-next-war

Edited by JG55
  • Replies 13
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Sounds overly complicated to me. If mr fatboy is going to hit my boat so hard that i will die, then simple physics says that he is going to die from the impact as well. Therefore it reduces to 2 dead people or 1 dead people. Even if you shot yourself, the fat guy still dies from impact. The best possible scenario then is simply one survivor, instead of none. Therefore shooting the fat guy is the most logical decision. I leave ethics and emotional considerations out of the picture, however, as these feelings or motivations cannot change the 2 outcomes of the situation.

The thin man is more interesting, as he may land in the water and live. That makes you question how you KNOW he means to harm you and other questions arise that the ethical problem does not state (by design, probably, to make it open for debate). If you KNOW he is attacking you, then you shoot. If you do not know, you do not shoot. Its like saying "a guy in gangsta clothes runs up toward you at the gas station at 3 am" do you shoot? There is not enough info, he could just be running by. Without knowing the intent, you cannot justify the shot. Shooting him because you "know" he is out to get you --- we have a name for that, it is called "paranoid". The problem does not give you a draw and cover option, where you are ready to shoot if needed.

Posted

IMHO, Fatman is easy...its a given that when he hits me we both die...by vaporizing him, one of us will live...let one innocent live rather than 2 innocents die. Thin man is different, morally, but in the end, the only difference I can see is what are the odds he will hit me...but I would probably vaporize him too, my life is more valuable to me than his is to me. In a different line of work than I am now, I obviosuly felt somewhat differently in that I was prepared to lay down my life for others...as a cop and also as a military man.

Posted

Fat Man seems to be easy as it it just a matter of vaporize him so you live. The Thin Man is problematic as you don't really know his intentions towards you but you do know he will miss for now, But what if he becomes a Fat Man ?

If you have time Take a moment and read the whole article how it can apply to real life

Posted

Okay, my answer about the fat man has pretty much already been taken, 1 dead is better then 2 dead. I'm more concerned about this fat guy vaporizer that's running around. I could be in serious trouble here.

Posted
Okay, my answer about the fat man has pretty much already been taken, 1 dead is better then 2 dead. I'm more concerned about this fat guy vaporizer that's running around. I could be in serious trouble here.

Glock is the first one to produce it and it's available as a special order. Glock XXXXL

Posted
Okay, my answer about the fat man has pretty much already been taken, 1 dead is better then 2 dead. I'm more concerned about this fat guy vaporizer that's running around. I could be in serious trouble here.

Me too! I need to get one before the skinny folks buy them all up.

Posted

I like to simplify things in the sake of being decisive. Fat man/thin man, or intentions mean nothing to me. If it comes down to me or someone else, I'm gonna do my best to be the fittest. My primary motive is survival, so that means any external motives are irrelevant if they interfere with my primary motive. To me that's simple, and it doesn't require a bunch of moral soul-searching to come to a logical solution.

Posted
Me too! I need to get one before the skinny folks buy them all up.

Barewoolf, You already already have one, it's called a FNP-45 :)

Guest NYCrulesU
Posted

Self preservation.

Anything coming at me posing a threat to my well being...be it a fat man, skinny man, baby kitten or a fluffy bunny....it will be dispatched with extreme prejudice. There is no "who?, why?, what?, where? or when?" in self defense. There is only the reaction to imminent danger.

Posted
Self preservation.

Anything coming at me posing a threat to my well being...be it a fat man, skinny man, baby kitten or a fluffy bunny....it will be dispatched with extreme prejudice. There is no "who?, why?, what?, where? or when?" in self defense. There is only the reaction to imminent danger.

This logic would "justify" shooting anyone in the oncoming lane of traffic, anyone that gets within 10 feet of you at any time, and so on. There has to be more to it than a reaction to proximity or potential danger, as nearly everything within a certain distance can be labeled as an immediate threat. Clearly there is more to it than this, or most of us would be in jail by now.

Guest NYCrulesU
Posted (edited)
This logic would "justify" shooting anyone in the oncoming lane of traffic, anyone that gets within 10 feet of you at any time, and so on. There has to be more to it than a reaction to proximity or potential danger, as nearly everything within a certain distance can be labeled as an immediate threat. Clearly there is more to it than this, or most of us would be in jail by now.

Not what I said at all.

Someone walking past you at 10 feet or 2 inches does not automatically make him/her a "threat". Neither did I begin to define a "threat" or "imminent danger" as having soley to do with proximity or distance. I never said "reaction to proximity". You did. I said reaction to imminent danger. I hope I don't have to define imminent danger to the letter.

Imminent danger is just that...imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. If one cannot tell the difference between a true threat and a non threat, or if everything seems to be a threat then perhaps they should rethink carrying a gun for SD or just stay home.

A fat man about to fall on me and effectively kill me, regardless of his moral standing, is a threat. Sucks to be him if he were pushed. I vaporize him to preserve my own life. Thankfully that is just a hypothetical.

A pitbull charging my pregnant wife with its ears pinned back and teeth glaring...and lunging at us, regardless of his owners affection for that dog or how "sweet the dog was with his kids", is a threat. I shot and killed the dog without a seconds hesitation.

A man with a knife advancing towards me, regardless of religion/background/upbringing/or biological relationship, is a threat. After repeated warnings to drop the knife he (my father) was met with force in self defense (without a weapon) and later expired.

All three examples (one hypothetical, two actual) would cause and did cause me to feel that my life was imminently in danger. In any of the examples there is no time to ponder...Where did this falling man come from? Who's dog is this? Why is this man coming at me with a knife? That is my point...you assess the situation, determine the threat level and respond appropriately.

A man innocently walking past me in a tight corridor would not be considered a threat. A person driving head on at me in my lane of traffic would. Would I draw and fire from in my car or would I use my time to manuever my vehicle to avoid a head on collision? B.

Surely you can tell the difference between an actual threat and a non threat?

I don't know you, so I dare not make assumptions as to your background. But I will say that when reading hypotheticals and online scenerios, it is easy to weed out those that sit at home and wonder "what if..?" and those that have actually lived through some life threatening situations.

If you have to ask what determines imminent danger, then I can't help you (by you I mean anyone in general). Nothing personal.

Edited by NYCrulesU

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.