What People *Might* Do -or- Should all Mutants be Collared?

[Purple Knight]

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

In a superpowers universe such as the universe of X-Men, do you want all mutants collared, if collars exist that prevent them from using their powers? Why or why not? If, yes (in any circumstance) is this a concession of morality or is it still moral?

Would you wear a collar if you were a mutant yourself? In what situations would and wouldn't you?

Yes, this is an analogy for gun control, with the important distinction that peoples' mutant powers are part of them, so the act of restraint must be continuous. No mutant "cure" - just collars in this scenario, for that specific reason, though we will assume they work and it's not easy to get them off. We can't just do something (like grabbing the guns or injecting people with the cure against their will) and then pretend we didn't do it.

[bjs1]

This topic is a little out there, but the short answer is: No, we don’t punish people for crimes that they have not committed. There exist in the real world people with the combat training and physical strength required to kill someone with their bare hands. If such people were to commit a crime then their additional training might be a factor in their eventual trial and sentencing. However, they are a not punished in advance because of their capacity to commit a crime.

[Miles]

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

Absolutely. In war it happens all the time.

.

[bjs1]

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

Absolutely. In war it happens all the time.

.

Could you explain this a little more. Soldiers do fight against enemy soldiers, but that is because of something the opposing army is actively doing, not just something they might do. In war, had do we act against people because of what they might do?

Are you referring specifically to an unjust war? Unjust wars do involve acting against people based on what they might do, however it is hard to say such actions are "justified" when the word "unjust" is right there in the title of an "unjust war."

[Purple Knight]

Absolutely. In war it happens all the time.

I tend to agree that eschewing prevention and preemption, there is no justification to hurt people just because they happen to be marching in ranks, with big guns, and all wearing the same uniform. And even when some of them shoot, that's not justification to shoot back, unless you're self-defending against that particular one who already shot. In general, you can't blame one person for what his fellows have done, and people want this to be absolute... in which case war clearly breaks that absolute.

[Miles]

Is it ever justified to act against people because of what they might do, rather than what they did do? If so, when, and when not?

Absolutely. In war it happens all the time.

.

Could you explain this a little more. Soldiers do fight against enemy soldiers, but that is because of something the opposing army is actively doing, not just something they might do. In war, had do we act against people because of what they might do?

To out wit or out maneuver an enemy, typically one will have to anticipate their next move and act before they do. In some cases even killing those who would otherwise hinder your plan.


.

[Purple Knight]

To out wit or out maneuver an enemy, typically one will have to anticipate their next move and act before they do. In some cases even killing those who would otherwise hinder your plan.

It's also generally accepted, even by libertarians, that self-defence can occur before the aggressive act that triggers it, not after.

In other words, if some maniac with a gun is pointing it at you and screaming how he'll kill you, it's okay to self-defend now, and not wait until he actually does kill you, though this technically means you're not defending against anything since he never hurt you and might never have done so.

[Kenisaw]

To out wit or out maneuver an enemy, typically one will have to anticipate their next move and act before they do. In some cases even killing those who would otherwise hinder your plan.

It's also generally accepted, even by libertarians, that self-defence can occur before the aggressive act that triggers it, not after.

In other words, if some maniac with a gun is pointing it at you and screaming how he'll kill you, it's okay to self-defend now, and not wait until he actually does kill you, though this technically means you're not defending against anything since he never hurt you and might never have done so.

Pointing a gun and screaming IS the aggressive act. It's called flourishing a weapon and that is enough, in most states, to legally trigger a right to self defense.

To your OP, owning a gun does not make one a future criminal anymore than owning a knife or a six pack of beer with car keys in your pocket does.

[Miles]

To out wit or out maneuver an enemy, typically one will have to anticipate their next move and act before they do. In some cases even killing those who would otherwise hinder your plan.

It's also generally accepted, even by libertarians, that self-defence can occur before the aggressive act that triggers it, not after.

In other words, if some maniac with a gun is pointing it at you and screaming how he'll kill you, it's okay to self-defend now, and not wait until he actually does kill you, though this technically means you're not defending against anything since he never hurt you and might never have done so.

Pointing a gun and screaming IS the aggressive act. It's called flourishing a weapon and that is enough, in most states, to legally trigger a right to self defense.

To your OP, owning a gun does not make one a future criminal anymore than owning a knife or a six pack of beer with car keys in your pocket does.

I believe the word your looking for is "brandishing" or maybe even "flaunting." "Flourishing," an adjective, just doesn't fit very well went you need a verb.

flourishing adjective
flour·​ish·​ing | \ ˈflər-i-shiŋ
, ˈflə-rish \
Definition of flourishing

: marked by vigorous and healthy growth a flourishing garden
: very active and successful a flourishing career
source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

.

[Purple Knight]

Pointing a gun and screaming IS the aggressive act. It's called flourishing a weapon and that is enough, in most states, to legally trigger a right to self defense.

But you're not self-defending due to what someone has done. Flourishing a gun doesn't hurt you. You're self-defending because, at the point someone is waving a gun at you, it becomes likely that he'll shoot you. You're self-defending because of what someone might do.

To your OP, owning a gun does not make one a future criminal anymore than owning a knife or a six pack of beer with car keys in your pocket does.

You could argue for the right to flourish a gun in exactly the same way. Just because you're waving it at someone and threatening to shoot someone doesn't mean you will actually do so.

I'm not speaking to what the law currently happens to be. I'm speaking to what we would want it to be. I'd want that law about not waving a gun at people to be on the books, despite that it's an act that doesn't, in itself, harm anybody. It's about what he's likely to do once he's done that.

But I don't want all mutants collared just because their powers make people uncomfortable, and I don't want peoples' guns taken away because they might shoot people.

The problem is I can't reconcile the two. I must either say, it's not okay to act against people because of what they might do, in which case I must wait for the guy waving a gun at me to actually shoot me before I can act against him, or I must say, it is okay to act against people because of what they might do, so collar all mutants and take all guns regardless of whether people are waving them or not. Owning a gun might lead to waving it might lead to shooting me.

I can try to reconcile it by saying, in a universe where most mutants are violent, we get the collars and that's fair, but it isn't. It's no more fair to the one mutant who wasn't going to use his pyrokinesis to burn buildings than it is if we don't allow preemptive self-defence in a universe where most gun-wavers won't shoot and force a few people to stand there and get shot because the guy waving the gun probably won't really shoot him.