When I was a teenager, a friend of mine and I would play this video game that he had on his console. I do not know what the real name of the game was, but we called it the Fish Game. The rules were simple: you played as a fish swimming in a 2-dimensional aquarium. With you were smaller fish, which you could eat, and larger fish, which would eat you. As you consumed fish, you got bigger, and therefore higher up on the food chain.
Everything can be a lesson, if you are paying attention, and
this game provided a lesson to me on the nature of violence: Nobody starts a
fight that he thinks he will lose. Violence is therefore inherently predatory,
with the initiator of the violence (the predator) under the assumption of
assured victory, and the recipient (the prey) on the defensive.
The predator might have several weapons in his arsenal assure
success, including greater strength, fighting technique, weapons, numbers, or
even just the element of surprise. Whatever his weaponry, he estimates his
chances of success to be near 100%. Whether or not he chooses to initiate
violence also depends on how well he sizes up his prey. In the fish game it is
clearly obvious who is bigger than whom, and the bigger fish always wins,
because the only factor that determines the outcome of the struggle is the
size. With humans, though, the outcome is less assured because the predator
might make errors of judgement regarding the strength of his prey.
For example, let us imagine that the predator, a large
muscular man with a knife seeks to end the life of a smaller man on a subway.
Unbeknownst to the attacker, the prey has a concealed pistol. The predator
instantly becomes the prey when the gun comes out, and the victory goes to the
smaller man.
We tend to see these types of outcomes as a good thing, but
we rarely ask ourselves why. Why is it that we want the smaller man to win? It
is because the larger man initiated the violence, and so therefore assumes the
role of the predator. Moreover, the only reason the predator initiated violence
is because he thought he could do it without risk to himself. In other words,
the predator esteems the suffering of his prey as less important than the
thrill of victory, or the material rewards from a mugging. He lacks empathy, so
the thought of victimizing someone else does not prevent him from acting on his
violent impulse.
However, we could look at it another way. By concealing his
weapon, the smaller man has allowed himself to be underestimated. In a sense,
one might call this a form of deception, because all the cards were not on the
table. The predator miscalculated and initiated violence based on a false
assessment of the relative strengths and paid for it with his life. The
question we must ask is whether this deception was justified. Is it morally
acceptable to conceal one’s true capability for violence, deceiving all
potential enemies into making the fatal mistake? Normally, we have a general
repugnance for deceit, but in this case, it seems that deceit is not only
acceptable but useful.
Why is deceit useful in this scenario? Because the predator
was planning to attack before the attack occurred, so the predator is an
invisible threat to anyone whom he perceives to be weaker. By acting as bait
and luring the predator out into the open, he can be dispatched for the greater
safety of the rest. However, we must then reconsider the labels of predator and
prey, because if the “prey” is really lying in wait, hoping for someone to take
the bait, then he is a type of ambush predator. While some people might find
this sort of ambush predator to be morally repugnant, they should be reminded
that he triggers violence only when a clear threat emerges from the crowd. As
long as no one attacks him, there is no danger.
Another consideration, though, is that if the weaker man had
openly carried the gun, no violence would have ensued, and peace would reign. This
argument carries some merit because by openly carrying, the overall level of violence
is reduced, and potential predators are kept in check. They might seethe with
violent urges, but fear to act on them, and the fear thus keeps the peace. This
is the effect of a highly visible police force, or an intimidating military
presence.
However, it is a false peace, as the threat of violence is
always lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce the moment the keeper of the
peace’s guard is down. While violence is kept in check, the potential for
violence is like a pot of rice on the stove, ready to boil over as soon as one’s
back is turned. Is this kind of peace preferable to violence? It maybe the only
real alternative.
The actual capability of the peacekeeping force is not as
important as the appearance of power. It is the appearance of power, therefore,
that keeps the peace. If the criminals are afraid to initiate violence because
they believe in overwhelming force to be deployed in recompence, they will tremble
in their boots, but stay their hands.
Finally, we come to the predicament of defending our
oppressors. “We live in a society…” as the saying goes, but the structure of
that society depends on the perception of powerful guardians of the peace. We might
see them as oppressors, and maybe they are oppressors on some occasions (nobody
is perfect). We might resent them for their perceived power over us, but if
they leave us alone, we can live peacefully. Trouble brews, however, when we
start to poke at these authorities. When we recognize and call out potential
weaknesses in the peacekeepers, whether it is physical weakness, organization
weakness, or moral uncertainty, we encourage the criminals, the predators, to
take more liberties with our lives, and even though the actual strength of the
police force has not changed, the perception of the police inefficacy creates an
environment that invites crime, violence, and suffering.
While we might resent the authorities because we perceive
them as weak or incompetent, it is vital for the safety of the community that
the criminals perceive the authorities as omniscient and omnipotent. We must
not help the criminals by weakening the perception of the police, regardless of
how we personally feel about them. However, we should hold them to high moral, organization,
and functional standards, regardless. We should encourage the illusion of a
powerful police force, even if we personally see the cracks in the façade, as
this façade is the thin blue line that separates civilization from anarchy.
If anarchy ensues, then we are back on the subway, and we
are either the predator, the prey, or the ambush predator, and if our society
is disarmed, then we are all just fish in an aquarium, where the big fish eat
the smaller ones with impunity.
