In this video, Professor Dr. Christian Rieck explores the challenging question of how to determine if one is on the "right side" in situations involving murder, war, and terror. He proposes two main criteria: a formal, game-theoretic approach based on consistency, and a substantive, non-game-theoretic approach centered on "red lines" of humanity. Rieck argues that from a game-theoretic perspective, any position that exhibits internal contradictions, arbitrariness, or inconsistent application of rules (e.g., unfair legal judgments, disproportionate regulations) is inherently on the "wrong side." Beyond formal consistency, he asserts that there are non-negotiable "red lines" of humanity that, when crossed—such as acts of dehumanization, murder, mass murder, or war terrorism—unequivocally place individuals or groups on the "wrong side," regardless of any elaborate justifications. Through historical and contemporary examples, Rieck emphasizes that recognizing these indicators of the "wrong side" is often more straightforward than identifying the "right side."
Murder, War, Terror: Identifying the "Wrong Side" Through Consistency and Humanity
0:00 Defining the "Right Side": Professor Rieck addresses the fundamental question of how to know if one is on the "right side," especially in complex, high-stakes situations.
Game theory, as a formal and abstract discipline, doesn't evaluate content but focuses on the internal consistency of actions and principles.
Key Takeaway: A position is on the "wrong side" if it is internally contradictory, arbitrary, or applies rules inconsistently (e.g., punishing one person for an action while letting another go free for the same action).
5:16 Arbitrary Application of Rules: An example is given of an American fast-food restaurant in India being closed due to "three flies" (a negligible hygiene issue), while local businesses likely had worse conditions, indicating arbitrariness, possibly corruption or ideology.
7:27 Disproportionate Judgment: Another example discusses a tax evasion case where a minor (0.003%) error in an 800,000€ declaration led to a full conviction, highlighting how such disproportionate and inconsistent application of law would make any business impossible.
10:07 The Substantive Criterion: Red Lines of Humanity:
This criterion exists outside game theory and must be externally imposed. It defines non-negotiable "red lines" that, when crossed, immediately place one on the "wrong side."
Key Takeaway: Approving or participating in crimes against humanity, dehumanization, murder, mass murder, or war terrorism means one is unequivocally on the "wrong side," regardless of any justifications.
11:13 Napalm Attacks in Vietnam: The use of napalm against civilians, as exemplified by the "Napalm Girl" image, is cited as an "unspeakable crime against humanity."
12:25 War Terrorism (Darmstadt Bombing): The deliberate targeting of civilians with firestorms in bombings like those in Darmstadt (and Dresden) is categorized as "pure war terrorism."
14:08 Current Wars and Civilian Attacks: Rieck extends this to contemporary conflicts, stating that attacks on civilian populations, burning homes, or using banned weapons are "red lines" that put perpetrators on the "wrong side."
14:55 Murder of Dissenting Voices: The murder of a political influencer for expressing dissenting views, and the celebration of such acts, is condemned as supporting terrorism.
17:04 Conclusion: Recognizing the Wrong Side: It is often easier to recognize the "wrong side" than the "right side." The two simple criteria are: avoiding arbitrary and inconsistent actions, and never crossing the red lines of humanity.