I posted this on the
Objectivism Online forum in 2012
It is commonly agreed upon in the objectivist world that there is such thing as violence by proxy. In other words, if A persuades B to initiate physical force against C, A is morally responsible and should be punished. The type of persuasion is usually irrelevant. It could be blackmail, religious brainwashing, racist propaganda, monetary incentives, etc. The guilty are always the Mafia boss and the leader of some cult, and rarely (and to a much lesser extent) the ones who actually pull the trigger.
My take on this is that it is wrong. A is not guilty and should not be punished. What is evil is ONLY initiation of physical force, and only B does that. So, let me say it again: A is not guilty! At all! Only B should be punished by law.
So here, again, is my argument for the hired-gun case - A pays B to kill C. A while ago, when I presented my view, the main argument against it was that such a law would pave the way for more hired-gun killings which are stopped today only by the punishing of A. The boost would be generated by the fact that it is difficult to catch the killer since he has no apparent motive.
This reflects a classic judgement error, which typically goes like this:
In an existing context, an action has a set of effects. If the context is changed, the set of effects will be different.
This line of reasoning fails to consider the possibility that in the new context the action might simply not take place, which will eliminate the effects altogether.
Let's apply the correct reasoning to our case. What is the new context? It's determined by the new law which punishes only B - the one who pulls the trigger. What is the action? It's the pulling of the trigger. Will the action still take place in the new context? The answer is a resounding NO! That's because, knowing before hand that A is not doing anything illegal, B will realize that nothing prevents A from turning him in. There is no more sharing of guilt, no sense of conspiracy, of mutual, tacit, implicit agreement on a code of silence. This is a lot easier to see if you imagine the conversation between A and B. B would want it to take place in a isolated area, and make sure that no one else can hear it and no records of it can be made. The key words have to be whispered, or even not said. While A has no problem with that, for him it's just another contract. A does not break any law. It's clear that such a conversation cannot take place. Even if A plays along and speaks softly, B knows that it's all fake.
Moreover, imagine that the conversation does take place, the deal is made, the price is set. The money is to be paid after the killing. Let's also assume that B goes ahead and kills C. What is A going to do? His options are - pay up or turn B in to the police and save his money. The choice is clear. Now, knowing this, B might want to be paid upfront. Would A agree? He'd be stupid to do so. Nothing guarantees that B will do it. It's obvious that B wouldn't want to sign a contract to that effect, therefore A can't even sue B.
In conclusion, the action of killing will not take place. A has to do it himself, and most likely he won't since he was thinking of hiring a killer in the first place. This law would result in a dramatic DECREASE in hired-gun killings. This includes the Mafia type organizations that are based on this type of delegation of responsibility. The Capo di tutti capi would have to get a job at the convenience store to make an honest living, since he's too old and too fat to do any killings on his own.
