The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

"Permission" is never irrevocable. If it were irrevocable, it would be a right.

Well, then we are at an impasse.

The life of innocent human beings is a God-given right and, its strained equivalent, an "irrevocable permit". Thank you for your input.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, then we are at an impasse.

The life of innocent human beings is a God-given right and, its strained equivalent, an "irrevocable permit". Thank you for your input.

Until God decides they're no longer "innocent."

 

[partinobodycular]

Why do you refuse to address the case as presented in post #1?

Very well, as you wish.

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others

I think that you need to take the word "unjust" out of there. At best it's redundant. A police officer is supposed to act as a neutral third party, treating every aggressor, (as manifest by their actions) as a threat, and every potentially mortal act as having malevolent intent. As far as the officer is concerned, barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, all malevolent actions are unjust.

2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent

Again, just or unjust isn't relevant. A police officer should act solely based upon the perceived threat. There are numerous instances of good Samaritans being killed by police officers because the officers couldn't differentiate between just and unjust intentions. To a police officer every aggressive action is unjust until proven otherwise, and will be treated accordingly.

3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality

This is the officer's only concern, mitigating the risk of mortality for all parties involved. The police officer is the only party authorized to act preemptively.

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?

No, I don't think that you can use a police criteria for preemptive action in state on state situations, because neither of them are in a position to act as a neutral third party. A neutral third party should in theory mitigate the perceived need for either state to act preemptively.

If you're looking for a criteria on which to base state on state preemptive mortal action, then I don't think that a police criteria is the proper one to use.

 

[o_mlly]

I think that you need to take the word "unjust" out of there. At best it's redundant. A police officer is supposed to act as a neutral third party, treating every aggressor, (as manifest by their actions) as a threat, and every potentially mortal act as having malevolent intent. As far as the officer is concerned, barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, all malevolent actions are unjust.

Thank you for your input.

The word "unjust" is required if one recognizes that some acts of aggression are just. The policeman who tackles a fleeing suspect commits an act of aggression that is just. However, if you wish to define all acts of aggression as unjust and create a new word for aggressive acts that are just, you may do so. However, the condition stands as written: 1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others.

A police officer should act solely based upon the perceived threat. There are numerous instances of good Samaritans being killed by police officers because the officers couldn't differentiate between just and unjust intentions. To a police officer every aggressive action is unjust until proven otherwise, and will be treated accordingly.

I think not. We are dealing with the "reasonable" in this condition.

Following the expression of an intent to do lethal violence to an innocent, an act by the one who has expressed that malevolent intent that enables him to commit that evil act can be an objectively determined and be judged so by others (after the fact) as a reasonable determination. So the condition stands: 2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent.

This is the officer's only concern, mitigating the risk of mortality for all parties involved. The police officer is the only party authorized to act preemptively.

? Does the innocent one not have an irrevocable right to self-defense? I think he does. The policeman augments the enforcement of that right but his presence does not eliminate that right. Suppose the unjust aggressor subdues the policeman. Is the innocent one not morally permitted to defend himself? Is the innocent one required to wait until the unjust aggressor, for instance, pulls the trigger and to hope the aggressor is a poor shot? No. If points 1 and 2 are objectively evidenced then the "potential" adjective may be dropped and the aggressor is rightly seen as unjust.

No, I don't think that you can use a police criteria for preemptive action in state on state situations, because neither of them are in a position to act as a neutral third party. A neutral third party should in theory mitigate the perceived need for either state to act preemptively.

If you're looking for a criteria on which to base state on state preemptive mortal action, then I don't think that a police criteria is the proper one to use.

Why does one need a "neutral" party to judge a preemptive act as just? What new and unknown objective information is needed that only a "neutral" third party could provide? The issue of just or unjust is determined by the facts, objective facts. Points 1, 2, and 3 are objective facts and sufficient to warrant IMO a preemptive strike. How much more objective information do you think is required to justify a preemptive strike? Or do you think the preemptive strike can never be justified?

Again, thank you for your input.

 

[partinobodycular]

The word "unjust" is required if one recognizes that some acts of aggression are just. The policeman who tackles a fleeing suspect commits an act of aggression that is just.

But the policeman's actions are by definition "just". Unless we appoint another party to act as arbiter over the policeman's actions. So yes, I think that you should take the word just out of there, because it's redundant, the policeman's actions, at least in theory, are by definition always just, and any aggressors actions are by definition always unjust.

But in any case, we can't use this in state on state situations, because lacking a neutral third party each state would always consider their own actions to be just, and the other state's actions to be unjust. Each state would consider itself to be the policeman.

Following the expression of an intent to do lethal violence to an innocent, an act by the one who has expressed that malevolent intent that enables him to commit that evil act can be an objectively determined and be judged so by others (after the fact) as a reasonable determination.

Very true...in the case of a policeman, but not so easily determined in the case of states. For example, if one state places sanctions on another state, with the direct intent of causing some level of hardship, and the second state lacks the capacity to respond in kind, are they then justified in responding by some other means? Each state would then deem itself to be justified in responding to an ever escalating level of malevolent actions. So what works for a policeman isn't going to work in the case of states. There's no neutral arbiter...aka the policeman.

? Does the innocent one not have an irrevocable right to self-defense?

Yes they do. Parties may act specifically, and solely in self defense, in instances where the policeman is unable to do so on their behalf. But a party's claim of self defense is unjustified if the policeman makes such self defense unnecessary. The policeman doesn't simply augment that right, he supersedes it, so long as he has the capacity to do so. Otherwise you would end up with the policeman getting caught in the middle of confrontations in which both parties claim the right of self defense. Thus parties relinquish the claim of self defense so long as the policeman is able to act in that capacity.

Why does one need a "neutral" party to judge a preemptive act as just?

You don't. It just means that every party then decides for itself which preemptive actions are just and which one's aren't. In order to apply the policeman's criteria to state on state actions you need to have a neutral third party to act as the policeman. It's not a role that the states can just arbitrarily apply to themselves.

It's when you're lacking a policeman that parties are almost forced to act preemptively, and in their own minds at least...justly. When there are no policeman...everyone becomes a policeman.

Or do you think the preemptive strike can never be justified?

On the contrary, I'm concerned that absent an arbiter every preemptive action can be justified, at least by the one undertaking it.

You can use the policeman's criteria to govern state actions, all that you need to accept is that in such a situation every state is justified in presuming that all actions against it are unjustified. Just as all actions against a policeman are theoretically unjustified.

 

[o_mlly]

But the policeman's actions are by definition "just".

? Police officer Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder.

But in any case, we can't use this in state on state situations, because lacking a neutral third party each state would always consider their own actions to be just, and the other state's actions to be unjust. Each state would consider itself to be the policeman.

The subjective opinion of either state does not make the preemptive strike just or unjust. The objective facts do. We can judge today whether prior preemptive strikes by states were just or unjust. Such determinations do not bring into evidence what the opinion was of the state which struck first. It just does not matter.

Very true...in the case of a policeman, but not so easily determined in the case of states. For example, if one state places sanctions on another state, with the direct intent of causing some level of hardship, and the second state lacks the capacity to respond in kind, are they then justified in responding by some other means? Each state would then deem itself to be justified in responding to an ever escalating level of malevolent actions. So what works for a policeman isn't going to work in the case of states. There's no neutral arbiter...aka the policeman.

Sanctions are always meant to increase hardship in order to change behavior. Not all sanctions are malevolent. If the behavior in question is malevolent then the sanction may very well be judged medicinal. You are the "neutral arbiter". Others can gather the objective facts and determine the morality of the preemptive strike, either in real-time or later.

Yes they do. Parties may act specifically, and solely in self defense, in instances where the policeman is unable to do so on their behalf. But a party's claim of self defense is unjustified if the policeman makes such self defense unnecessary. The policeman doesn't simply augment that right, he supersedes it, so long as he has the capacity to do so. Otherwise you would end up with the policeman getting caught in the middle of confrontations in which both parties claim the right of self defense. Thus parties relinquish the claim of self defense so long as the policeman is able to act in that capacity. ...

Your arguments seem based primarily or at least significantly on the opinions of those in conflict. Dismiss those opinions as relevant because they are not and observe only the objective facts. Of course, both will claim the moral high ground but only one may in fact have it.

Substitute "judge" for "policeman" in your arguments and you'll move closer to my position. The argument I propose is one in which a state contemplating a preemptive strike and knowing that its action will be judge post facto by the larger community has the criteria to assure that that judgement would be favorable.

 

[partinobodycular]

? Police officer Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder.

Yup, even the watchers need watching. Let me know when you find the perfect system.

The subjective opinion of either state does not make the preemptive strike just or unjust. The objective facts do.

Unfortunately we're not omnipotent, so we're rarely privy to these objective facts. So we, in our fear raddled confusion make up our own.

Not all sanctions are malevolent.

That may well depend upon which side of the sanctions you're on. Opposing states will likely choose to view them differently.

Your arguments seem based primarily or at least significantly on the opinions of those in conflict.

Indeed they are, but I can't judge someone's actions based upon the objective facts, if they didn't know those objective facts. People are often reacting to shadows, especially in times of stress. Yes, states have the right to act preemptively, but when staring at shadows they're in peril of acting in error.

The argument I propose is one in which a state contemplating a preemptive strike and knowing that its action will be judge post facto by the larger community has the criteria to assure that that judgement would be favorable.

But as they say, history is written by the victor. It's a difficult question however, do states have the right to act preemptively?

I think that states must have the right to act preemptively, but they also have the obligation to do everything in their power not to. This may be a case where justified, and morally correct are two different things.

 

[o_mlly]

Yup, even the watchers need watching. Let me know when you find the perfect system.

The perfect is always the enemy of the good. Perfection is for the next life, not this one.

Unfortunately we're not omnipotent, so we're rarely privy to these objective facts. So we, in our fear raddled confusion make up our own.

In this life you have to run with what you have. Objective facts are not made up. They are the same for all who observe them. See above on "perfection".

That may well depend upon which side of the sanctions you're on. Opposing states will likely choose to view them differently.

You keep denying that reality is objective. A bit silly to live as if it was not.

Indeed they are, but I can't judge someone's actions based upon the objective facts, if they didn't know those objective facts.

It appears you do not have any children.

Ignorance on the part of the actors does not determine the morality of the act (preemptive strike) although it may excuse some or all of their culpability.

But as they say, history is written by the victor. It's a difficult question however, do states have the right to act preemptively?

I think that states must have the right to act preemptively, but they also have the obligation to do everything in their power not to. This may be a case where justified, and morally correct are two different things.

A justified act by definition is a moral act. Do you have an example of an act that is justified and immoral?

 

[partinobodycular]

A justified act by definition is a moral act. Do you have an example of an act that is justified and immoral?

Funny you should ask...

To my mind I can justify pulling the lever and killing one, just as easily as you can justify killing a thousand in a preemptive strike. I fail to see the gaping moral difference.

You're willing to kill their innocent people in order to save your innocent people. How is that so much different than killing one to save five? You value yours over theirs, I value five over one. We're each justifying killing innocent people.

So yes, there would seem to be a difference between justified and moral. At least as far as you're concerned, and perhaps me as well. I can justify killing the one, and you can justify killing theirs. Yet you think that my actions are immoral and yours aren't.

I think that in some sadly poignant way killing is always immoral, justified or not, innocent or not. But if a choice must be made, let me make the wise one, and as to whether it was just, or whether it was moral, I'll leave to others to decide.

 

[o_mlly]

I can justify killing the one, and you can justify killing theirs. Yet you think that my actions are immoral and yours aren't.

The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.

 

[partinobodycular]

The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.

But what if I alter the trolley problem just a bit, and instead of heading for the five, the trolley is now heading for the one. However, it's the one who has access to the lever. Are they morally justified to pull the lever and kill the five?

(This may sound irrelevant, but I am heading somewhere.)

 

[RDKirk]

The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.

Except that people who are taking no part in the presumptive aggression will always also be killed.

I used to do real-world targeting for "pre-emptive" strikes. We were required by law to take the issue of civilian casualties into account...and there were always civilian casualties to take into account.

 

[o_mlly]

But what if I alter the trolley problem just a bit, and instead of heading for the five, the trolley is now heading for the one. However, it's the one who has access to the lever. Are they morally justified to pull the lever and kill the five?

The heroic virtue to lay down one's own life for others is not a moral obligation. Not to pull the lever would require God's special grace that, if accepted, would enable one to sacrifice themself trusting in His mercy and goodness.

Except that people who are taking no part in the presumptive aggression will always also be killed. ... there were always civilian casualties to take into account.

In today's conflicts, civilian -- one who is not in uniform, does not necessarily imply a non-combatant. The preemptive strike is burdened with the same conditions of subsequent strikes but no more than that.

The conditions in post #1 IMO evidence sufficient objective facts for the state to determine the level of menace to be that of an unjust aggressor.

 

[RDKirk]

In today's conflicts, civilian -- one who is not in uniform, does not necessarily imply a non-combatant.

A pre-emptive strike will always kill non-combatants.

 

[partinobodycular]

The heroic virtue to lay down one's own life for others is not a moral obligation. Not to pull the lever would require God's special grace that, if accepted, would enable one to sacrifice themself trusting in His mercy and goodness.

So just to be perfectly clear, I'm morally justified in pulling the lever and killing the five?

What about a hundred?

 

[o_mlly]

A pre-emptive strike will always kill non-combatants.

False.

 

[o_mlly]

So just to be perfectly clear, I'm morally justified in pulling the lever and killing the five?

What about a hundred?

You are not justified in killing the five or the hundred. You are justified in an act that saves your life, ceteris paribus. We are in the abstract. To go further make your modification concrete giving all the circumstances.

 

[RDKirk]

False.

You don't understand what a pre-emptive strike--in order to truly be "pre-emptive" must entail.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't understand what a pre-emptive strike--in order to truly be "pre-emptive" must entail.

You are not well-informed.

 

[RDKirk]

I never tried to justify ending anyone's life.

Yes, you have. Consistently, all along.

Trying to be clever? Reading the post in question in context discloses this feeble attempt at misrepresenting my position.

You are not justified in killing the five or the hundred. You are justified in an act that saves your life, ceteris paribus.