Yep - https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/forum-rules/124
I think you may have misunderstood me. Essentially, what I meant was, “All action that violates another’s person or property (i.e., that which is aggressive, i.e., that which is unethical, i.e., that which we shouldn’t do) should be ceased (shouldn’t be done).” To say that we shouldn’t do what shouldn’t be done isn’t controversial. Whether or not the NAP lays moral groundwork for retaliatory action in the case of X is independent of the question of whether or not X is moral to begin with.
My distinction between deontology and consequentialism might be a little hazy (others feel free to correct me here), but it seems to me that you’re searching for the effect (damage) of a cause (light) before making a judgment. I’m not sure that this is consequentialism. Actually, in order to meet that criteria I think you’d have to take both the cause and effect into account and then judge the moral nature of the action relative to other, more pressing gains or losses (consequences).
For example, I turned a mega-laser on to your house and burned a hole through it. “You can’t just burn holes through people’s houses! Wrong!” says the deontologist. “But he turned on the laser so that he could scare away the encroaching UFO army, who otherwise would have annihilated the whole city! So it was Right!” says the consequentialist.
I think that’s a working example. Intent might also play into it. In the case of the slap and the broken arm, if one observes someone else intending to strike and break another’s arm and sees it glance off instead (a miss, a “slap”), it’s still understood what the intended effect was (a broken arm). Such an action might still be condemned as immoral by the deontologist by an understanding of the intentional, if not actual, effect.
[EDIT: Whether or not something as petty as an intended slap on the wrist is immoral if the acted-upon individual expressly prohibited it in advance…I don’t know. Probably.]
Please do! 