The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

You are not well-informed.

I'm afraid that I am. Trained, certified, with 26 years experience.

 

[o_mlly]

Nope. Wrong post but still shows you trying to double down on the deception.

You are justified in an act that saves your life, ceteris paribus.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm afraid that I am. Trained, certified, with 26 years experience.

Apparently, then you have not had enough experience yet.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

I'm trying to follow you, but man you can make it tough sometimes. And I can understand you wanting concrete circumstances because this is one heck of a slippery slope you're trying to navigate.

However, I thought the trolley problem was pretty much the epitome of concrete circumstances. But I'll try to be even clearer. We've got one innocent person on track one, and five innocent people on track two. Both of which can clearly see each other, and both are keenly aware of the potential outcomes. We've also got a runaway trolley, which if left on its current course will definitely kill the person on track one.

I don't see any ambiguity so far.

In my revised version there's a lever accessible to the person on track one, with which they can change the trolley's course to track two, thereby saving their own life, while at the same resulting in the unavoidable yet foreseeable deaths of all five people on track two.

Is the person on track one justified in pulling the lever?

Or is this still too ambiguous?

Must I state specifically that the person on track one is pulling the lever with the express intent of saving their own life, and not with the intent of killing the people on track two, who's deaths, although regrettable, are simply an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence.

At the risk of getting ahead of myself I'm going to attempt to begin putting this into some form of cogent rule, as follows. Please feel free to modify it as you see fit.

"An individual is justified in taking all necessary actions required to save their own life. Up to and including actions that will result in the unintended, yet foreseeable deaths of others."

 

[Newwave]

It’s all about intent.

if someone intends to attack you, attacks them first. I don’t care what the law says, it completely illogical to let someone else attack you and do you harm before responding. This is especially true when you are dealing with nuclear weapons. You can’t give someone the chance to attack you because it will be game over.

determining intent involves using your own discretion. Which means there is room for error. You will never be 100% correct 100% of the time.

but such is life and such is war. In an ideal world there would be no need for mortal force. But this is not a perfect world and mortal force is a necessity.

 

[o_mlly]

However, I thought the trolley problem was pretty much the epitome of concrete circumstances.

It was until ... what is this one, your third or fourth modification?

"An individual is justified in taking all necessary actions required to save their own life. Up to and including actions that will result in the unintended, yet foreseeable deaths of others."

Nope. One may never commit an intrinsically evil act, eg., the direct killing of innocent persons, under any circumstances or even with a good intention.

Self-defense from either a lethal moral or physical evil is permissible since the direct or proximate end-in-view is to save one's own life.

I've answered all your modifications. Now, answer mine from many posts ago. Do you agree that the innocent one has the right to in self-defense to use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill him? How can it be that the bystander's act of pulling the lever is both good and evil in the same instant?

 

[partinobodycular]

It was until ... what is this one, your third or fourth modification?

Come on...you're not serious right!!!! You wanted me to give you concrete circumstances and so I tried to be extremely specific, and then you complain that I changed it. This is why I had you on ignore at CAF for years. You're just too darn aggravating.

Nope. One may never commit an intrinsically evil act, eg., the direct killing of innocent persons, under any circumstances or even with a good intention.

And yet, you permit the killing of INNOCENT persons under the guise of a preemptive strike. If your above statement is true then it's NEVER permissible to kill an innocent person. And living within the domain of an unjust aggressor doesn't make an innocent person into an unjust aggressor. It only makes them collateral damage.

Self-defense from either a lethal moral or physical evil is permissible since the direct or proximate end-in-view is to save one's own life.

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

But in the trolley problem as laid out above, these two positions contradict each other, because the pulling of the lever results in both outcomes. It saves the one and kills the five. Is it "just" because it saves one's own life, or "unjust" because it takes someone else's. As you yourself have said, an act can't be both good and evil at the same time. So which is it, is pulling the lever to save one's own life, yet taking the lives of five others as a result, just or unjust?

 

[RDKirk]

It’s all about intent.

if someone intends to attack you, attacks them first. I don’t care what the law says, it completely illogical to let someone else attack you and do you harm before responding. This is especially true when you are dealing with nuclear weapons. You can’t give someone the chance to attack you because it will be game over.

The US did not plan to strike the USSR first, but planned the Triad against the USSR striking first. Having a credible "deadman retaliation" capability was the deterrent against a first strike.

 

[o_mlly]

As you yourself have said, an act can't be both good and evil at the same time.

So, what's your answer.

Do you agree that the innocent one has the right to in self-defense to use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill him? How can it be that the bystander's act of pulling the lever is both good and evil in the same instant?

?

 

[partinobodycular]

So, what's your answer.

Sorry, you're not going to derail the discussion that easily. (Pun intended)

The revised trolley problem strikes a virtual death knell for your objective morality. Because you can't possibly answer it without creating a contradiction.

You just can't.

If morality is objective, then all acts must be either moral or immoral, they can't be morally ambiguous.

Quote:

The heroic virtue to lay down one's own life for others is not a moral obligation.

So the person on track one isn't obligated to lay down their life for the people on track two. Which means that they're justified in pulling the lever to save their own life.

However:

One may never commit an intrinsically evil act, eg., the direct killing of innocent persons, under any circumstances or even with a good intention.

Which means that since pulling the lever will kill the innocent people on track two, it's not justified.

So we have an act which is at once both justified and not justified.

You're stuck. If the person on track one can't pull the lever to save their own life, because it will kill the people on track two, then that person is morally obligated to lay down their life for the people on track two, which you say they're not.

Inescapable contradiction. Your objective morality must be wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry, you're not going to derail the discussion that easily.

Translation: YOU have no idea how to answer that question and, if you did, your position in this matter is destroyed.

The revised trolley problem strikes a virtual death knell for your objective morality. Because you can't possibly answer it without creating a contradiction.

You just can't.

Restating your opinion over and over again is not an argument.

If morality is objective, then all acts must be either moral or immoral ...

All human acts, yes.

So the person on track one isn't obligated to lay down their life for the people on track two.

Yes. However ...

... Which means that they're justified in pulling the lever to save their own life.

... does not follow but creates a fifth (or is it sixth?) modification to the trolley problem. Now you have the five untied from the track or somehow miraculously causing the lever to be pulled.

Sorry to say, but you seem quite muddled in mixing your various modifications to the trolley case.

Just answer my question and let us know where you stand:

Do you agree that the innocent one has the right to in self-defense to use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill him? How can it be that the bystander's act of pulling the lever is both good and evil in the same instant?​

 

[RDKirk]

Just answer my question and let us know where you stand:

Do you agree that the innocent one has the right to in self-defense to use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill him? How can it be that the bystander's act of pulling the lever is both good and evil in the same instant?​

You don't even recognize your own internal contradictions.

Let's say all the people on the track have "the right to in self-defense use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill them." And they all have rifles.

And let's say they're all bright enough to understand the situation.

Then by all the arguments you have posed so far, that means the five people on the group with rifles have the right to pre-emptively fusillade the one guy on the track before he kills the man at the lever.

Having done so--and because it was their right of self-defense to do so, by your reasoning--they resolve the moral issue for the man at the lever and allow him to switch the trolley to strike the dead man's body.

 

[partinobodycular]

Translation: YOU have no idea how to answer that question and, if you did, your position in this matter is destroyed.

Sorry, obfuscations and deflections ignored.

Sorry to say, but you seem quite muddled in mixing your various modifications to the trolley case.

The modifications have been at your behest. Because it's always been your belief that given enough specifics you can ascertain the moral status of any action. So your modus operandi has always been to ask for more detail, and then complain when such details are given.

Well now you have the details, what you don't have is an answer.

You have no way of avoiding the inescapable contradictions presented by your objective morality.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't even recognize your own internal contradictions.

And here comes modification number X.

Let's say all the people on the track have "the right to in self-defense use lethal force against the bystander ... [so they kill] the one guy on the track before he kills the man at the lever.

Hopelessly muddled. After you clean up this modification with "X + 1" re-post the revision for my review.

The modifications have been at your behest.

Nope. Just the one you refuse to answer. The rest are your invention. And I've answered them all. Let me know when you have an answer to my one modification.

 

[partinobodycular]

The rest are your invention.

Nope:

To go further make your modification concrete giving all the circumstances.

See, at your behest. You asked for specifics and I gave them to you.

And I've answered them all.

You haven't answered any of them. You've done what you always do, you obfuscate and avoid.

Let me know when you have an answer to my one modification.

Okay, you refuse to answer my questions, but I'll accommodate you and answer yours.

Do you agree that the innocent one has the right to in self-defense to use lethal force against the bystander who attempts by pulling the lever to kill him? How can it be that the bystander's act of pulling the lever is both good and evil in the same instant?

Because unlike you not everybody thinks that morality is objective. Something can be both good and bad at the same time depending upon the perspective from which it's viewed. From the perspective of the five, pulling the lever is no doubt an heroic act. From the perspective of the one it may well be a heinous act. And from the perspective of the person at the lever it's probably a deeply conflicting act. One act, three perspectives. And everybody else has got one too. Yours is just one among many.

 

[o_mlly]

Something can be both good and bad at the same time depending upon the perspective from which it's viewed.

So, you believe slavery is good from the perspective of the slaver but evil from the perspective of the enslaved?

Prosecutor: "Your honor, we've proved that the defendant shot and killed that man while that man was sleeping."
Judge partinoboducular: "Well defendant, what do you have to say in your defense?"
Defendant: "From my perspective, he had it coming!"
Judge partinoboducular: "Oh, I see. Case dismissed."

Leaving aside that your view defies common sense, your view makes the conditions offered in post #1 as necessary to justify a preemptive strike as grossly over burdensome. Heck, if you feel like killing someone, just do it and tell everyone that you felt threatened.

 

[partinobodycular]

So, you believe slavery is good from the perspective of the slaver but evil from the perspective of the enslaved?

You've pretty much nailed it. The slave has their perspective. The slaver has theirs. I've got mine. You've got yours. Society has theirs. Everybody has a perspective. And ain't nobody's perspective any more legitimate than anybody else's.

Leaving aside that your view defies common sense,

No, it doesn't defy common sense, it's the epitome of common sense. People have their own perspectives. Surely you've been on these forums long enough to have realized that. Of course there are areas of commonality, but commonality doesn't mean objectivity.

your view makes the conditions offered in post #1 as necessary to justify a preemptive strike as grossly over burdensome.

How so? The only place that your conditions reference anything akin to morality is in the word "unjust". A word that I have repeatedly advised you to remove. Because "unjust" is a very subjective term.

Heck, if you feel like killing someone, just do it and tell everyone that you felt threatened.

Nope, my morality doesn't trump everybody else's. Just as yours doesn't. Hence we can't just do whatever the heck we feel like doing. When it comes to allowable behavior, authority rules.

 

[o_mlly]

The only place that your conditions reference anything akin to morality is in the word "unjust". A word that I have repeatedly advised you to remove. Because "unjust" is a very subjective term.

I used to work in the federal prison. That's the same attitude most of the prisoners had. Funny.

Do you intend to drop a note to the moderators of this forum alerting them as to just how unnecessary this forum is?

You've pretty much nailed it. The slave has their perspective. The slaver has theirs.

So all this nonsense today from African-Americans on how badly their ancestors were treated is ... well, just nonsense. Hey, if no harm intended then no harm done. What do you mean "reparations"? Reparations for what? We did them a favor, you know the only moral thing to do was enslave them because ... well, because we could. Might (and a "clean" heart) makes right.

 

[partinobodycular]

So all this nonsense today from African-Americans on how badly their ancestors were treated is ... well, just nonsense.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of subjective. I'm sure that there are a lot of people to whom the whole idea of reparations is indeed complete nonsense. Then again there are no doubt a great many to whom the treatment of African-Americans is one of the greatest travesties in all of recorded history.

It's all a matter of perspective. You think that there's some objective measure of morality, by which we can delineate immoral acts from moral ones, but there's not. We simply construct it from a shared sense of empathy and virtue. Things are moral simply because we agree that they are. But morals can and do change.

What you think is moral today, probably won't be moral tomorrow.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't seem to grasp the concept of subjective. I'm sure that there are a lot of people to whom the whole idea of reparations is indeed complete nonsense. Then again there are no doubt a great many to whom the treatment of African-Americans is one of the greatest travesties in all of recorded history.

It's all a matter of perspective. You think that there's some objective measure of morality, by which we can delineate immoral acts from moral ones, but there's not. We simply construct it from a shared sense of empathy and virtue. Things are moral simply because we agree that they are. But morals can and do change.

What you think is moral today, probably won't be moral tomorrow.

You don’t grasp that if morality can be anything then morality is nothing.

The site for good reason, as this and other threads in this forum have made clear, has a “Christian Only” forum for “Ethics and Philosophy”.

Atheists deny God in order to become their own little gods. There is no point to debate with one who eventually claims to be a god to themself. While the Christians can appeal their arguments to the common beliefs of all Christians, the atheist appeals only to his own authority. When pressed, the atheist finally admits that their argument is not based on reason but on their feelings. I cannot argue with how one feels, only how they think.

Some atheists, who believe a lie, will justify lying and even murder based on their feelings. One atheist in this forum brags in his atheist site about how he uses deceit to troll a Christian site with different persona for laughs. (John 8:44.)

I look forward to participating in discussions on the “Christian Only” forums in future. Even if the deceitful atheist creates a new persona pretending to be a Christian to gain entry, his arguments will betray what he really is.