Let me propose two scenarios. Scenario one: you are awaken by a noise on the roof. Upon going outside, you find someone on the roof and you encourage her to come down. Presented before you is a drug-affected, shoe-less, glove-less eighteen year-old who readily admits to wanting to break into your home. Scenario two: You are riding your bike across a footpath towards a bike rack. A homeless person grabs you by the shoulder and begins a racist diatribe about why you should not be riding on the sidewalk.
Is it appropriate in either situation to forego one's manners and act in manner unbecoming of one's stature?
Let us turn our attention to Peter Singer, Princeton's controversial philosopher, who writes: "Modern human beings are the outcome of a long and unceasing evolutionary struggle. In that struggle some individuals succeed in feeding themselves and surviving long enough to reproduce. Others do not. Those who succeed pass their genes on to the next generation; the genes of those who lose are extinguished from the population. Egoists who act first and foremost in their own interests stand a better chance of winning than altruists... Since traits like selfishness are at least in part determined by our genes, this means that the number of egoists will grow and the number of altruists will shrink. In the long run - and evolution has already had a very long run indeed - there will be no true altruists at all."
Therefore, we are hardwired, according to Singer, to preserve ourselves and pass on our DNA. How can this bioethical, admittedly one of many perspectives, inform how one should react to the aforesaid scenarios.
The ice-addict thief did not pose an physical threat to me when I found her upon the roof of my Carlton terrace. Her lack of shoes and fingerprint-covering gloves indicated she was not a serious thief. So what was my reaction? I offer her a cup of coffee, talk with her for a quarter of an hour and tried to understand why she was attempting breaking into my house. She was open about her drug addiction and told me about her eight-month old child. I don't know if any of it was true, but I put her in a cab and sent her home to Collingwood. I did not call the police nor, as John Locke would argue, did I exercise my civil obligation to kill a thief (see, Two Treatise, Ch. V). My reaction to this scenario was consistent with in manners instilled in me.
The racist diatribe expounded by the homeless person is surely less of a crime than the rooftop thief? It may be, but a tougher reaction is appropriate in this scenario. As was evident, the thief posed no physical threat. However, the racist did, as he grabbed me by the shoulder. Therefore, in front of a crowd of people at the city market, I raised my voice and shouted this man into submission. It caused quite a scene and I was quite embarrassed by my reaction, but I know it was appropriate because of the potential harm he could have done. Manners were forgotten for that brief encounter, but such is appropriate to ensure one's survival. As Garrett Hardin, the American socio-biologist said, "Never ask a person to act against his own self-interest."
What principals can therefore be extracted from these experiences? First, intellectual threats, those being challenges to one's pride, can never justify a physical or ill-mannered response. Degradation to one's pride can have no impact upon one's survival. Yet, physical threats, no mater how minor, justify the strongest of responses. I am a libertarian, and I believe that no person has a right to infringe the liberty of another. Infringing one's physical liberty, including the right of movement, can justify the strongest of reactions.
