On the “innocent victim” thought experiment and the absolute moral prohibition of violence

Abstract

In the article, the author defends the principle of non-violence from attempts to destroy it by means of thought experiments-arguments. It is demonstrated that the “innocent victim argument” is basic to many other thought experiments against the absolute prohibition of violence. The experiment appeals to an imaginary situation in which one person cannot be protected from violence without using violence against another person. The application of this construction as an argument implies, first, the recognition of the validity of the use of thought experiments in ethics; secondly, the acceptance of the premises of the thought experiment-argument “innocent victim”; third, the acceptance of the terms of the thought experiment-argument “innocent victim”; and only fourthly, an answer to the question contained in this thought experiment-argument. The author argues that the premises and terms of the thought experiment-argument “innocent victim” are clearly contradictory and arbitrary, which makes its entire construction untenable. The only adequate moral re­sponse to the thought experiment-argument “innocent victim” consists in rejecting the premises and terms of the question itself and not in answering it. This leads to the conclu­sion that the question of this argument is meaningless and immoral.