The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

Could you give me examples of 2 & 3, or post numbers where you did?

As with all general principles involving prudential judgement, the particular circumstances must be those to which a reasonable person would agree permit the proposed act.

Given #1, in the case of an individual, #2 may be the aggressive display of a lethal weapon, and #3 may be the aiming of the weapon. Given #1, in the case of the state, #2 may be the aggressive staging of overwhelming weapons, and #3 may be the manning and aiming of such weaponry.

 

[Bradskii]

For a discussion in the Ethics and Morality forum, as twice so far explained to you, it is sufficient that, as you have agreed, to postulate that all innocent human beings possess a natural right to life.

No. It's not sufficient. Because to understand how we interpret these rights it is necessary to understand how and when they came about. That will have a significant effect on how we view them.

I have explained to you where I think they originate. You disagree. Fair enough. But now I'd like to know where and when you think these rights originated so we can all have a better understanding of your position.

 

[o_mlly]

No. It's not sufficient. Because to understand how we interpret these rights it is necessary to understand how and when they came about. That will have a significant effect on how we view them.

I have explained to you where I think they originate. You disagree. Fair enough. But now I'd like to know where and when you think these rights originated so we can all have a better understanding of your position.

We do not need in this thread "to understand how we interpret" the right of innocent human beings to life. Here's all we need to agree upon so far:

Does the right to life exist in all people? then the answer would be 'Yes'.

And we agree. Now, I put the question to you for a third time: Do others have an obligation to respect the innocent's right to life? It's a "yes" or "no" question.

 

[Bradskii]

We do not need in this thread "to understand how we interpret" the right of innocent human beings to life. Here's all we need to agree upon so far:

And we agree. Now, I put the question to you for a third time: Do others have an obligation to respect the innocent's right to life? It's a "yes" or "no" question.

No it's not. It depends on the basis for that right to life. If that right to life is granted by you, then no. If it is granted by a vote of all interested parties, then possibly yes, but I'll listen to an argument that says no. If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no. If it is granted by a deity then no.

So we have no, yes, no and no.

So which option would you prefer to discuss first? The one best fits your beliefs, my beliefs or do you want to pick one at random?

 

[o_mlly]

No it's not. It depends on the basis for that right to life. If that right to life is granted by you, then no. If it is granted by a vote of all interested parties, then possibly yes, but I'll listen to an argument that says no. If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no. If it is granted by a deity then no.

So we have no, yes, no and no.

You neglected in your list of answers to add a "maybe" choice (ie., "possibly yes").

And, you have now reversed your previous affirmative answers on the innocent's right to life. And that's fine; you're entitled to your opinion. However, as it relates to this thread -- the circumstances that justify a preemptive strike -- we must dismiss your opinion as, at a minimum a bit confused, and, more likely, amoral.

 

[Bradskii]

You neglected in your list of answers to add a "maybe" choice (ie., "possibly yes").

I omitted a 'maybe' in the other options because I don't think it's justified. So which option would you like to discuss first?

 

[o_mlly]

I omitted a 'maybe' in the other options because I don't think it's justified. So which option would you like to discuss first?

The one where an innocent human being may be murdered, ie, directly killed.

 

[Bradskii]

The one where an innocent human being may be murdered, ie, directly killed.

The options were the various basis for granting a right to life. On which option are you basing the question?

 

[o_mlly]

The options were the various basis for granting a right to life. On which option are you basing the question?

The one that makes the moral claim that one state may preemptively attack another state without the conditions specified in the argument in post #1.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I'll revise that. It's nonsensical to people who don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis.

Now I've already exlained my position at length - that this right to life is an agreement between us that has evolved over time, based on the golden rule - or reciprocal altruism if you like. That is: 'I will respect your right to life if you'll respect mine'. The problem for you is the term 'evolved over time'. And it's a problem because you don't think Man has evolved at all. It would be impossible because you consider the planet to be thousands of years old, not billions.

So your 'right to life' is considered by you to have been granted by God when Man was formed. And all of your arguments are going to be based on that. It might be a good idea to nail those colours to the mast and state it unequivocably so you don't waste everyone's time explaining how these aspects of our humanity have evolved over time.

I would argue that even with a literal interpretation of Genesis (mine isn't literal, btw), there is still no "natural" right to life even in the Bible. There is only a privilege to live as granted by a supernatural being and always subject to His will.

 

[RDKirk]

That's fine as long as you agree that innocent human beings have a natural right to life.
Do you propose that innocent human beings do not have a natural right to life?

Who is biblically innocent? At best, you're only going to get infants and small children in that category.

 

[o_mlly]

Who is biblically innocent? At best, you're only going to get infants and small children in that category.

What does "biblically [sic] innocent" mean? In the context of this thread, the morally innocent are those who wage just wars (self-defense) against unjust aggressors.

 

[RDKirk]

What does "biblically [sic] innocent" mean? In the context of this thread, the morally innocent are those who wage just wars (self-defense) against unjust aggressors.

Is a war just if it could have been avoided by just actions prior to any belligerence? If one party takes actions short of actual violence, but knowing they will push the other party to violence...does that make their war "just?"

If not...then there have been precious few "just wars" in history. And your conditions would not satisfy "just."

 

[o_mlly]

Is a war just if it could have been avoided by just actions prior to any belligerence?

All other means of avoiding war must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. The determination for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for protecting the lives of their citizens.

Which brings us back to post #1, ie., to analyze the principles that may justify a preemptive strike given the capability of today's weaponry.

If one party takes actions short of actual violence, but knowing they will push the other party to violence...does that make their war "just?"

Could you rephrase? I am missing your point.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

It could still be considered a retaliation if they had battled before. Wars consist of a series of battles, so if he was at war with his enemy he could retaliate with a preemptive strike.

 

[o_mlly]

It could still be considered a retaliation if they had battled before. Wars consist of a series of battles, so if he was at war with his enemy he could retaliate with a preemptive strike.

If the two countries are in a state of war, the preemptive strike is not an option for either country.

 

[Bradskii]

The one that makes the moral claim that one state may preemptively attack another state without the conditions specified in the argument in post #1.

And that's partly based on the concept of a right to life. And if that right to life is granted by you, then it's your call. If it is granted by the agreement of all interested parties, then possibly it's allowable, but I'll listen to an argument that says no. If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then it's allowed. If it is granted by a deity then likewise.

So there are all the options. Which one do you go with?

 

[Bradskii]

I would argue that even with a literal interpretation of Genesis (mine isn't literal, btw), there is still no "natural" right to life even in the Bible. There is only a privilege to live as granted by a supernatural being and always subject to His will.

I'm always being told that that which God has granted us, He can remove as He sees fit. The same applies to an agreement between people, societies, states etc.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If the two countries are in a state of war, the preemptive strike is not an option for either country.

If Texas found out that Oklahoma was going to attack and decided to attack Oklahoma before they had an opportunity to strike that would be considered a preemptive attack.

 

[RDKirk]

All other means of avoiding war must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. The determination for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for protecting the lives of their citizens.

That is nearly always the case for any war. "We had no choice" is always the justification, such as it was for both Germany and Japan leading to WWII.