A Question Regarding Threats

            One of Scanlon’s ultimate conclusions was that the permissibility of a threat depends on the right of the interfering agent to inflict the specified penalty on the recipient (essentially, if the penalty itself is permissible regardless of the recipient’s two options). I wonder how exactly Scanlon would respond to threats in which the interfering agent has no actual intention of carrying out the penalty regardless of the recipient’s decision. One such example would be the robber threatening “money or your life!” but using a realistic-looking fake gun. Based on the text, I believe Scanlon would assert that because the recipient is very compellingly lead to believe that the threat is genuine and the penalty will occur under certain circumstances, that this sort of empty threat is no more permissible than a real one. However, if another condition were to be added, I am not entirely sure how Scanlon would respond.

            Throughout the chapter, Scanlon discusses various situations in which the same action may be regarded as permissible or impermissible under different conditions. He discusses a case regarding trespassing on somebody else’s property to fetch water. Scanlon asserts that if you are simply trespassing for the sake of watering flowers in your garden or out of curiosity, the action is impermissible. However, if your house was burning down and you trespassed in order to obtain water to put the fire out, this would be permissible because it is a necessity.

            What if we substitute the act of issuing a threat for the act of trespassing? Let’s say your house is burning down with your spouse and kids inside. In search of a means of stopping it, you find you must trespass on your neighbor’s property to obtain water; however, your neighbor is present and resists, despite all of your begging and explanations. In an act of desperation, you threaten your neighbor, telling him you will kill him if he does not allow you to fetch some water from his property. You are not capable of killing and have no intention of carrying out the deed either way, but it seems to be your last option to at least pose the threat. Is this permissible given the circumstances?

            Alternatively, we could manipulate the robber’s “money or your life!” case. If a robber were to threaten your life with a realistic-looking fake gun that you believed to be real, but he was only doing so in a desperate attempt to collect enough money to save his starving/cold/sick child, is this permissible?

            Based on Scanlon’s acceptance of trespassing to put out a house-burning fire as permissible, I feel as though he would also have to accept these threats as permissible despite the fact that the specified penalty is not.