Indirect Murder Is Still Murder; No NAP Loophole

From: M
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: a loophole in the NAP? your input appreciated

Hi Dr. Block,

I’d appreciate your input on a potential problem or loophole with the NAP I’ve been considering. The person in this scenario is a libertarian. This person chooses not to initiate aggression against their mortal enemy. This enemy is guilty of the violent act of your choice and our hero wants this person dead but refuses to lay a finger on them. Our hero peacefully/morally monitors the enemy and learns that the enemy will go camping in the forest (or anywhere for that matter). Our hero happens to own a tiger. Couldn’t that (hungry) tiger be loosed in the forest in the vicinity of the enemy without any moral transgression on the part of our hero? Our hero never touched the enemy and the animal was not programmed to attack. Our hero simply knew with a high degree of certainty that the enemy would be mauled by an animal acting out of its base instinct to feed.

Would you consider loosing the tiger to be a moral act? If so, why? If not, why not?

Thanks for your time,

M

Dear M:

Loosing the tiger, or a dangerous dog, or a snake, is a rights violation. The person who does so is a criminal. If a death occurs, he is a murderer. When A shoots B to death, A “looses” a bullet at B. I think there is a strong parallel here.

Share

2:27 am on March 27, 2019