Thought experiment time

Thought experiment time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that everyone has the right to defend themselves from harm using deadly force if necessary.

You're at the bottom of a well and a man at the top throws another man down at you. There's no way to evade.

You know for sure that you will die and the other man will survive with minor injuries if he lands on top of you.

You also know that the man falling towards you is in now way complicit in the attempt to kill you. Indeed he's in the same situation you were in moments ago.

Luckily in your pocket you have some sort of magic ray gun that can vaporize the man before he falls on you, saving your life.

Is it ok to kill him even though he's not acting of his own accord to bring harm to you?

Would he be justified in trying to defend himself from your assault?

Let's also say that you escape the well some time later. The man at the top has had some sort of revelational epiphany and no longer wants to kill you. He repents sincerely. You know that he'll never attack you again.

Is it ok to kill him even though you're no longer in danger?

Why or why not? Please explain your reasoning for all answers.

Are you twelve?

No, no, no because fuck off that's why.

What did he mean by this?

>You know that he'll never attack you again.
You don't know that
or do I also have a magic telepathy ray

to have this vivid imagination, you really got to have nothing to do !
>Is it ok to kill him even though he's not acting of his own accord to bring harm to you?
Yes , at the situation you described, there's very little time to decide if what your going to do is legitimate or not, it doesn't matter what you think, because your instinct will take over and do what ever you can to save your life.
>Is it ok to kill him even though you're no longer in danger?
In this situation you have enough time to make a decision,also if his justifications to what he did is relevant to you, then you have no choice but to forget avoid him, despite what you would be feeling at that moment.

It's a thpught experiment you fucking nigger. Just assume for the sake of argument that you know for sure.

>to have this vivid imagination you must have nothing to do

Actually I got this from a book about theorhetical problems and merits of anarchist society and the limits of natural rights. It's called Anarchy State and Utopia and it's a pretty good read because it just examines a bunch of the implications of different anarchist enumerations of rights and doesn't try to really convince you of anything and has no real conclusion or thesis. It just explores the ideas at length.

Yes, it is OK because I am entitled to my safety and there's no other way to survive in this case.
Even the ambulance doesn't have to danger themselves to help others.

>let's say it's ok to defend yourself from harm if necessary
>is it ok to kill him now that I am not in harm anymore?
Are you dumb?

I have a few questions. First off what is the wind speed and direction? Second what is the approxinate weight of the man falling towards me? Lastly whats the material and appoximate depth of the well Im in?

But he intentionally tried to kill you and it resulted in at least one death. Although not yours is there any reckoning or retribution to be dealt out or is the entire fulcrum of justice the simple concept of present and future danger without a notion of punishment?

All of those questions are irrelevant. The question isn't a "what would you do" it's an idealized situation contrived to instead ask "what should people do" or more generally "how do rights function and interact with one another?" This is not a trick question. It's about the limits of the right to self defense and the justice value of retribution.

>posting a Nozick thought experiment
>believing Sup Forums has read a book

Answer the question, gay.

That hypo situation is faggot but that pic is awrite.

We looked at the data and it is always ok to kill your attacker no matter the situation.

...

The man falling on you is not your attacker though. Additionally when you climb up the man who threw him isn't either.

You said it's ok to defend myself from harm using deadly harm.
That's the fucking premise of your thought experiment.
The other guy is not "myself" and I am OBVIOUSLY not in danger anymore. According to the info given, I am even 100% sure I am in no harm's way. So it
That's basic subsumption.

So by what moral standards/rules should I now judge the idea of seeking revenge
a) for the stranger I just vaporised in an act of self preservation
b) for myself

*using deadly force
*So it's NOT ok to kill him

Raygun both of them you fucking moron, no evidence, no witness.

Judge them by any standards you want. I only want your reasoning.

I am no judge and I won't act out if anger especially knowing that he won't kill me.
I will report him to the authorities and he will hopefully convicted for murder and attempted murder.

If I am the judge I will kick him in the balls a few times because I'd be mad as fuck.

I do not understand how or why that image made me laugh

In this scenario, I have the right and duty to protect myself with my magic ray gun. The man falling has that same right if has a ray gun as well
May the best man win

Being a thought experiment doesn't imply you can just throw out reason.
Do I have the telepathy ray or not?
But sure, let's play your faggy game. Ethics are just a nice little plus I get along with being a human, and they're optional. The first and foremost imperative is your survival and the defense of your clan/family/descendants. This man seems to be neither, so off he goes.
Second: I have my telepathy ray and he """repents""". In my personal experience, humans are far less volatile than they themselves believe. I can predict with some certainty that even if he feels like he repented just now, he won't care later on. He is still dangerous. I kill him.
Now, what does "ok" mean? Morally right? That depends on the moral code you follow, obviously some people will disagree. OK with the current society? They'll give him a fair trial.

So how did you survive falling in the well, and how are you so sure the man being thrown in won't?

Really though, are you 12?

Are you a nigger incapable of abstract thouht? It's not a real physical situation. It's meant to ask about what people do and do not have the right to do?