Depends on whether the person who’s agency you consider infringing is involved in the infringement of the five’s agency. The rule is something like “As long and as far as you do not infringe on someone’s agency your agency should not be infringed on.”
Does the agency of the five people not matter? Is it perfectly okay with someone else to infringe on the agency of an innocent, and it’s only a problem if you do it?
I’m not sure what your point is. Infringing on someone’s agency is defecting and we defect not only against people who defect against us but also against those we observe defecting against others. So it’s most certainly not Ok. But defecting against a defector does not sanction my defecting against a non-defector.
Depends on whether the person who’s agency you consider infringing is involved in the infringement of the five’s agency. The rule is something like “As long and as far as you do not infringe on someone’s agency your agency should not be infringed on.”
Assume they’re not involved.
Does the agency of the five people not matter? Is it perfectly okay with someone else to infringe on the agency of an innocent, and it’s only a problem if you do it?
I’m not sure what your point is. Infringing on someone’s agency is defecting and we defect not only against people who defect against us but also against those we observe defecting against others. So it’s most certainly not Ok. But defecting against a defector does not sanction my defecting against a non-defector.
Edit: maybe an example scenario would help.
My point is that if defecting against innocents is bad, it would be reasonable to minimize the amount of defection against innocents.
By defecting against an innocent which makes defecting against an innocent not bad in contradiction to the assumption. You’re running into a paradox.
All choices involve someone defecting against an innocent. I figured I’d go with the least bad choice.