Libertarianism opposes the use of non-contractual coercion and the initiation of non-consensual violence, whether the perpetrator is a nation-state or any other social entity. This includes jihadists and other types of Islamists. Unlike other Muslim groups, jihadists are individuals that violently impose the precepts of Islamic law (Sharia) as shown in the Quran and the Hadiths. Therefore, this classification is based on specific actions, not racial characteristics.
Conversely, the existence of complex social conflicts doesn’t imply that we should ignore the individual as the unit of moral analysis. As will be explained subsequently, the use of alternative methods or approaches may overlook relevant information concerning individual interactions. Even when the full extent of facts shaping the history of a social conflict remains unknown, valid inferences can still be drawn from incomplete information.
Words are not violence, physical attacks are
If the data presented here is accurate, as of October 29, 2023, over 1400 Israeli civilians have lost their lives, 229 are currently held captive, and 5300 have been injured due to the recent series of attacks by Hamas. While this is clearly violence, if we rather define it as a social structure in which historical inequalities among groups increase or persist, these events were not violence but rather a form of resistance. According to this criterion, disseminating information that may perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims or Palestinians is considered a form of violence; given that they are considered historically oppressed and excluded groups. Additionally, if this criterion is applied in the analysis of the Israel-Hamas conflict, shooting children is not considered a form violence if the children belong to the oppressor group, and the perpetrators belong to the historically oppressed group.
Nevertheless, redefining a word does not necessarily lead to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon it originally referred to. An example of this is the term “racism.” If we stop using the word “racism” to refer to the unequal treatment of individuals based on racial characteristics and/or the expression of racial prejudice, and instead choose to use it to describe the existence of a social structure that generates unequal outcomes among racialized groups, this semantic change does not increase our understanding of any social phenomenon. Furthermore, if we consider that the meaning of a word does not stem from what a dictionary says but from the way it is used, the mere act of employing both definitions would be sufficient to consider them both as valid. Nevertheless, within certain moral perspectives or analyses, this semantic criterion is initially employed to redefine a specific term (e.g., violence). Subsequently, this very criterion is deemed invalid, thereby preventing the use of alternative definitions.
Expressing racist or sexist sentences is not inherently a form of violence, if we define it as any action in which a conscious being physically harms another through the use of physical force. However, attacking another person with a knife is indeed a form of violence, just like launching missiles at cities or opening fire on a music festival crowd. This holds true even if the perpetrator belongs to a group that has been legally discriminated against for decades.
The individual as the unit of moral analysis
Focusing on individual actions does not mean denying the existence of groups. When we exclusively debate whether Israel or Palestine is the true aggressor, in other words, when we solely concentrate on nations or states as social entities, we overlook the analysis of violent interactions among individuals comprising this conflict. Under an individualistic approach, the discourse shifts from determining which nation is the victim and which is the aggressor to identifying who the victims and aggressors were during specific individual interactions.
If we wish to discuss group behavior, it is possible to aggregate data concerning specific interactions. In doing so, it becomes conceivable that two groups may exhibit the same number of aggressors and/or victims in individual interactions. Furthermore, it is also possible for the same individual to be a victim in one interaction while acting as an aggressor in another.
Moral analysis beyond violence
Avoiding violence is not the only moral principle in which the individual serves as the unit of moral analysis. Other moral principles include the absence of coercion, the necessity of consent, equality under the law, preventing the suffering of sentient beings, and so on. Hence, when different moral principles are applied, an individual can be both a victim of violence and, simultaneously, someone who has failed to uphold the principle of consent in their interaction with another individual. For example, a woman who, after being touched without her consent, strikes a man to prevent it from happening again.
An action does not necessarily have to be a form of violence to be deemed immoral under certain moral criterion. Furthermore, the use of non-individualistic moral approaches may overlook behaviors that clearly contradict libertarian moral principles. Therefore, any analysis of social conflict that omits individual behavior would be simply incomplete.
