The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

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
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
​

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

 

[Bradskii]

Retaliate first. From Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

"Ho Shih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."

 

[o_mlly]

Retaliate first. From Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

"Ho Shih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."

A preemptive strike is by definition not a "retaliation" but the first act of war.

Beyond the lack of certainty of knowledge gained by espionage, in a just war, offensive acts to mitigate an unjust aggressors capability and capacity to conduct war are moral acts. In the modern world, political leaders who do not have plans to conduct such offensive acts to protect their citizens are immoral. Finally, under Ho Shih's minimalist prescription, the 3rd world war would have occurred in the 60's, and, if man is still alive (Zager and Evans), the 4th in the 70's, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

A preemptive strike is by definition not a "retaliation" but the first act of war.

Don't take it literally. It's an old saying oft used in rugby. Re a game between South Africa and the Lions (combined UK/Irish team):

'At that time there were only substitutions if a doctor agreed that a player was physically unable to continue and there were no video cameras and sideline officials to keep the punching, kicking and head butting to a minimum. If the South Africans were to resort to foul play then the Lions decided "to get their retaliation in first." '

 

[jayem]

Beyond the lack of certainty of knowledge gained by espionage, in a just war, offensive acts to mitigate an unjust aggressors capability and capacity to conduct war are moral acts.

Maybe. But what's just and unjust is in the eye of the beholder. Consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A clearly preemptive use of military force. To Americans, it was an unjust and unconscionable act of war. To the Japanese, it was a last ditch, and just response to American aggression. Which is how they viewed the American embargo on fuel and other materials which had been in effect for over a year.

 

[o_mlly]

Maybe. But what's just and unjust is in the eye of the beholder. Consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A clearly preemptive use of military force. To Americans, it was an unjust and unconscionable act of war. To the Japanese, it was a last ditch, and just response to American aggression. Which is how they viewed the American embargo on fuel and other materials which had been in effect for over a year.

I don't think so. We can objectively judge the preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor as evil.

If a serial rapist/killer whose orbit is a radius of 100 miles is denied a refill at the local gas stations then is the rapist/murderer justified in shooting the cops who guards the pumps? Are the cops the aggressors?

The Japanese were conducting unjust wars in Manchuria, China and southeast Asia in the 1930's including the Nanking Massacre of up to 300,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants executed after the fall of Nanking during the six weeks following December 13, 1937.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think so. We can objectively judge the preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor as evil.

Actually, we can't. "Evil" is a subjective term. We can objectively judge it as a failure, in that it had the exact opposite effect that it was intended to, at least from a psychological standpoint. Rather than demoralize the US, Pearl Harbor galvanized it into war.

The Japanese were conducting unjust wars in Manchuria, China and southeast Asia in the 1930's including the Nanking Massacre of up to 300,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants executed after the fall of Nanking during the six weeks following December 13, 1937.

Which, despite US isolationism and racism (it was the 40s, after all) was going to provoke a US response sooner or later. As the Japanese (correctly) surmised that the US would inevitably be drawn into war in the Pacific, weakening the Navy with a pre-emptive strike was a logical strategy.

 

[jayem]

The Japanese were conducting unjust wars in Manchuria, China and southeast Asia in the 1930's including the Nanking Massacre of up to 300,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants executed after the fall of Nanking during the six weeks following December 13, 1937.

I completely agree. But I’m looking at it as the Japanese would have seen it. They perceived our embargo and the presence of our army personnel and naval warships in Hawaii as a threat. They didn’t really want a war with the US. They mainly wanted us to go away and leave them alone.

Here’s another scenario. It could be argued that the Fort Sumter attack was a preemptive strike. South Carolina had seceded. They saw the federal military base on their territory as a threat. They had offered to buy the property, but the federal government refused to sell. I’m sure they felt that they had no choice but to attack and forcibly seize the installation. Which the Union saw as an unjust and illegal act of war.

The point here is that claiming preemptive military action can be morally justified isn’t really saying anything. Because anyone feeling aggrieved enough to initiate such an action believes his cause is just.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, we can't. "Evil" is a subjective term. We can objectively judge it as a failure, in that it had the exact opposite effect that it was intended to, at least from a psychological standpoint. Rather than demoralize the US, Pearl Harbor galvanized it into war.

Your analysis seems to equate "good" and "evil" with the "success" or "failure" of the intended end in view. If one is successful in intentionally killing an innocent person then is that killing a good act? I think not. Independent of the outcome, the human act can be objectively judged as moral or immoral.

Which, despite US isolationism and racism (it was the 40s, after all) was going to provoke a US response sooner or later. As the Japanese (correctly) surmised that the US would inevitably be drawn into war in the Pacific, weakening the Navy with a pre-emptive strike was a logical strategy.

Again, it seems you view the efficacy of the act toward the end in view determines the morality of that act. I disagree.

We cannot claim that the Japanese prediction that the U.S. would eventually enter the Pacific theater is true absent the Pearl Harbor attack. The 20/20 hindsight of history shows that the Pear Harbor attack was eventually devastating to the Japanese people. A more logical strategy for the Japanese in face of an oil embargo, would have been to cease their wars of aggression, redirect the military resources to build Toyota cars better than Ford or Fiats and invent a Lexus better than the Mercedes.

 

[zippy2006]

The point here is that claiming preemptive military action can be morally justified isn’t really saying anything. Because anyone feeling aggrieved enough to initiate such an action believes his cause is just.

Hmm. But isn't the thread essentially about what criteria, if any, are necessary to justify preemptive use of force? As long as the criteria for a just cause are not reduced to the sufficient condition of "feeling aggrieved," or more accurately, "feeling threatened," then objectivity can surely enter into the analysis. I should hope that the vast literature on the Justification of Preemptive War is more than a smouldering mass of sentiment.

 

[o_mlly]

I completely agree. But I’m looking at it as the Japanese would have seen it. They perceived our embargo and the presence of our army personnel and naval warships in Hawaii as a threat. They didn’t really want a war with the US. They mainly wanted us to go away and leave them alone.

I think your case depends entirely on the determinations that the Japanese wars were just wars (jus ad bellum) conducted justly (jus in bello).

I go back to the rapist/killer analogy. Does one who is committing evil acts have a moral right to bomb the police station out of fear that the station presents an imminent intervention to the mayhem?

Here’s another scenario. It could be argued that the Fort Sumter attack was a preemptive strike. South Carolina had seceded. They saw the federal military base on their territory as a threat. They had offered to buy the property, but the federal government refused to sell. I’m sure they felt that they had no choice but to attack and forcibly seize the installation. Which the Union saw as an unjust and illegal act of war.

The point here is that claiming preemptive military action can be morally justified isn’t really saying anything. Because anyone feeling aggrieved enough to initiate such an action believes his cause is just.

What one "feels" or believes I do not think makes an act moral. Perhaps, if we disagree on that fundamental premise furhter dialogue will not be productive. Do you really believe that any act is moral if anyone feels it is so?

As to Fort Sumter, the attack on the federal installation can only be justified if the proposed criteria are met:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
​

As to #1, I find no evidence that the federal fort had manifested any intent to mortally harm the citizens of Charleston. Are you morally entitled to shoot me if I refuse to sell my house to you?

As to #2, absent an expressed (not assumed) malevolent intent this criteria is not useful.

As to #3, absent an expressed malevolent intent, a preemptive attack is never justified.

Major Anderson's move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was a defensive, not offensive, tactic and as such was not a provocation. It should also be noted prior to the attack on Fort Sumter, the federal government, in its effort to resupply the Fort, was attacked and fired upon by cadets from the Citadel.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your analysis seems to equate "good" and "evil" with the "success" or "failure" of the intended end in view.

Not at all -- they are separate things.

"Good" and "evil" can only be judged subjectively. "Success" or "failure" can be objectively measured.

We cannot claim that the Japanese prediction that the U.S. would eventually enter the Pacific theater is true absent the Pearl Harbor attack.

True, while we cannot speak in absolutes, we can look at it in terms of probability. The Japanese had reason to believe that US involvement in the Pacific was inevitable. The entire point of a pre-emptive is to remove that possibility.

The 20/20 hindsight of history shows that the Pear Harbor attack was eventually devastating to the Japanese people.

Exactly as I said -- the Pearl Harbor attack backfired, psychologically. As Admiral Yamamoto wrote in his diary, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

A more logical strategy for the Japanese in face of an oil embargo, would have been to cease their wars of aggression, redirect the military resources to build Toyota cars better than Ford or Fiats and invent a Lexus better than the Mercedes.

Which they did... in the decades after the war.

In terms of military strategy, their campaign failed because it didn't nearly do enough damage to the US fleet. They attacked Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and Wake, but were unable to strike at the US mainland... they simply didn't have the naval or air power to properly cripple the US in the Pacific.

The lesson here is: You only get once chance at a surprise attack, so make it count. A bloody nose isn't enough; take a baseball bat to the kneecaps.

 

[BobRyan]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

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
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
​

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

Gen 9:5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God He made man.

An attack on law enforcement that is life threatening is not something to be defended

There is the doctrine of proportionate force.

"Legally (and morally) speaking, there is (generally) a proportionality limit when it comes to self defense. Simply put, the use of force by a person acting in self defense must not be out of proportion to the use or threat of force by the attacker. An example: Person A throws a ping pong ball at Person B, and stands ready to throw another one."

But even that has limits -- so for example if a policeman is trying to arrest person a for a crime - and you interfere by throwing ping pong balls at the officer as he/she is trying to carry out their duty - he has the right to not only toss a ping pong ball - but also to physically arrest you as well for obstruction .

 

[BobRyan]

Retaliate first. From Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

"Ho Shih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."

That is a great solution if your realm of action is "war with your neighbors" and you want to be known as the most warlike and terrible of them all - as someone who could probably not be defeated. But that is not normal human behavior - it gets people put into psych wards in normal circumstances.

 

[Bradskii]

That is a great solution if your realm of action is "war with your neighbors" and you want to be known as the most warlike and terrible of them all - as someone who could probably not be defeated. But that is not normal human behavior - it gets people put into psych wards in normal circumstances.

If someone is running around with a large knife screaming that he's going to kill everyone, do you think it's better to wait until he actually does before he's stopped?

I guess it's nice to think that you could talk him out of it. Or disarm him. Or temporarily restrain him. Or even use enough force to put him out of action whilst not killing him. Before actually having to kill him

The first option is what we might call 'diplomacy'. The rest can all be filed under 'retaliate first'. Which is the best option when the first doesn't work.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If someone is running around with a large knife screaming that he's going to kill everyone, do you think it's better to wait until he actually does before he's stopped?

Even that can backfire, as we see from this classic scene from The Naked Gun. (the scene itself is a parody of an dialogue from Dirty Harry)

• Mayor : Drebin, I don't want any more trouble like you had last year on the South Side. Understand? That's my policy.
  Frank : Yes. Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the [CENSORED]s. That's *my* policy.
  Mayor : That was a Shakespeare-In-The-Park production of "Julius Caesar", you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones!
  
  

 

[o_mlly]

Not at all -- they are separate things.
"Good" and "evil" can only be judged subjectively.

How did you rationally conclude that good and evil can only be subjectively judged?

 

[o_mlly]

Gen 9:5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God He made man.

An attack on law enforcement that is life threatening is not something to be defended

There is the doctrine of proportionate force.

"Legally (and morally) speaking, there is (generally) a proportionality limit when it comes to self defense. Simply put, the use of force by a person acting in self defense must not be out of proportion to the use or threat of force by the attacker. An example: Person A throws a ping pong ball at Person B, and stands ready to throw another one."

But even that has limits -- so for example if a policeman is trying to arrest person a for a crime - and you interfere by throwing ping pong balls at the officer as he/she is trying to carry out their duty - he has the right to not only toss a ping pong ball - but also to physically arrest you as well for obstruction .

As noted in the criteria, the manifest intent must be to "mortally" injure others. Lethal defense is permitted when the unjust aggression is, in itself, lethal.

A preemptive attack on law enforcement may be defended as just if that lawful enforcer has manifestly demonstrated an unjust intent to do mortal injury, has objectively acted in such a way to act on that evil intention, eg., has drawn his weapon, and if a reasonable person concluded that inaction would contribute to his own death.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How did you rationally conclude that good and evil can only be subjectively judged?

Well, for starters, what actually is "good"? What is "evil"?

 

[BobRyan]

A preemptive attack on law enforcement may be defended as just if that lawful enforcer has manifestly demonstrated an unjust intent to do mortal injury, has objectively acted in such a way to act on that evil intention, eg., has drawn his weapon, and if a reasonable person concluded that inaction would contribute to his own death.

Is that your suggestion? because it looks like chaos.

If you see a police officer today and you shoot him because you saw another police officer yesterday be violent "draw his weapon" - yesterday - then that is a crime punishable by jail or death.

If you see a police officer today who is the same police officer that drew his gun yesterday and you shoot him -- that is a crime punishable by jail or death.

If you view yourself at all-out-war against the police in general then you have declared your own "civil war" against the police - and in that case as in all civil war - it will be you and your army against the government and its army. (That's just "how civil war works" - in all of time)

Even if you see a police officer today who unjustly and wrongfully pulled is weapon on someone yesterday - you are supposed to report him -- not shoot him.