The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

I think that "permissible" and "moral" would be synonyms in a forum entitled, "Ethics and Morality".

Permissible versus moral.

 

[o_mlly]

So ten year old Johnny just shot and killed his father, who was in the act of abusing Johnny's mother...was the killing of Johnny's father a moral act?

Where in your example is the preemptive strike - the issue upon which this thread is focused?

 

[o_mlly]

Permissible versus moral.

? What is your point? I have already stated that man's laws are always subordinate to God's laws.

Christians believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments; not the Ten Suggestions for Man's Consideration. Commands instruct those so commanded as to what is permitted (moral) and what is not permitted (immoral).

 

[RDKirk]

? What is your point? I have already stated that man's laws are always subordinate to God's laws.

Christians believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments; not the Ten Suggestions for Man's Consideration. Commands instruct those so commanded as to what is permitted (moral) and what is not permitted (immoral).

Everything in that image was perpetrated and supported by people who called themselves Christians.

As I've said, one of the big problems with divine command deontology is that it's hard to be sure just what God commands.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Everything in that image was perpetrated and supported by people who called themselves Christians.

As I've said, one of the big problems with divine command deontology is that it's hard to be sure just what God commands.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

~Susan B. Anthony​

 

[o_mlly]

Everything in that image was perpetrated and supported by people who called themselves Christians.

As to those who call themselves Christian, we have Christ's admonition in Matthew 7:21.

As I've said, one of the big problems with divine command deontology is that it's hard to be sure just what God commands.

This thread only addresses two related and specific moral rights: the right to life and its corollary, the right to self-defense. Do you not deny that the right to life is a God given right?

 

[RDKirk]

This thread only addresses two related and specific moral rights: the right to life and its corollary, the right to self-defense. Do you not deny that the right to life is a God given right?

I keep saying it's a God-given privilege. If it were a right, it would be inherent, not God-given.

 

[partinobodycular]

Where in your example is the preemptive strike - the issue upon which this thread is focused?

Johnny supposedly took preemptive action in order to protect his mother. So was his action moral? If so, at what point, and under what circumstances did Johnny's killing of his father become moral?

Keep in mind, that at this point I haven't actually specified what the father's "abuse" consists of, but in Johnny's mind his killing of his father is a preemptive action, so is it moral?

 

[o_mlly]

I keep saying it's a God-given privilege. If it were a right, it would be inherent, not God-given.

?

If God grants the "privilege" of life to all men then the "privilege" becomes a right to each man with respect to all other men. Are you saying that one man may take from another what God has granted to that man? Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not?

 

[o_mlly]

Johnny supposedly took preemptive action in order to protect the life of his mother. So was his action moral? If so, at what point, and under what circumstances did Johnny's killing of his father become moral?

The father was, I assume, in the act of unjustly using violence against Johnny's mother. So, there is no preemptive strike option against one (the father) who is in the act.

 

[o_mlly]

Keep in mind, that at this point I haven't actually specified what the father's "abuse" consists of, but in Johnny's mind his killing of his father is a preemptive action, so is it moral?

If what is "in the mind" does not match reality then the actor is mentally impaired. The reality controls the analysis. The act is not preemptive.

If the unjust "abuse" being administered is not reasonably considered to be lethal then lethal acts of self-defense are immoral.

 

[partinobodycular]

Where in your example is the preemptive strike - the issue upon which this thread is focused?

The story of little Johnny is meant to illustrate that preemptive strikes and the morality thereof are completely subjective. What's moral to you, may not be moral to someone else, and you have no definitive means of saying exactly where that moral boundary lies. Thus the morality of a preemptive strike lies completely within the mind of the preemptor.

 

[partinobodycular]

The father was, I assume, in the act of unjustly using violence against Johnny's mother.

I did not specify violence. The abuse may simply have been emotional. Perhaps the father was simply refusing to talk to the mother. At what point does Johnny's preemptive action become moral?

 

[o_mlly]

The story of little Johnny is meant to illustrate that preemptive strikes and the morality thereof are completely subjective. What's moral to you, may not be moral to someone else, and you have no definitive means of saying exactly where that moral boundary lies. Thus the morality of a preemptive strike lies completely within the mind of the preemptor.

Then your"Johnny's story" fails in its objective. Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind. To claim otherwise is absurd.

 

[partinobodycular]

If what is "in the mind" does not match reality then the actor is mentally impaired. The reality controls the analysis. The act is not preemptive.

And who's to say what the "reality" is. In Johnny's mind the reality may be that the threat to the mother may be very real, while in the father's mind no such threat actually exists.

So who's reality are we supposed to go by? Johnny's, the father's, yours....

Neither Johnny, the father, nor you are omniscient, so how are we to decide what the "reality" actually is?

 

[o_mlly]

In Johnny's mind the reality may be that the threat to the mother may be very real, while in the father's mind no such threat actually exists.

As I posted long ago in this thread, objective morality allows the determination of the morality of the act, not the culpability of the actor. Even if "Johnny" is completely exonerated due to his mental impairment, his act retains the same moral status.

And who's to say what the "reality" is.

I think we are at an impasse. One cannot debate productively with an extreme skeptic which the above post illustrates is your position.

 

[partinobodycular]

Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind.

Reality may be singular, but having free will, our future actions are indeterminate. So the only reality that anyone has to go by is the one that they themselves create.

 

[partinobodycular]

Johnny is not mentally impaired. He is perfectly rational. He perceives a threat to his mother and he acts upon it. All that I'm asking is, how are you going to determine whether that action was moral or not?

The answer is that you have no means of definitively determining exactly when an action is moral and when it's not.

That my friend is the reality.

 

[o_mlly]

Reality may be singular, but having free will ...

... has nothing to do with this thread. Pls refrain from red herring fallacies.

Johnny is not mentally impaired.

Does not matter.

He perceives a threat to his mother and he acts upon it.

You have now changed your example.

... how are you going to determine whether that action was moral or not?

Did you not read post #1. If so then reread the conditions offered that allow a preemptive strike.

 

[RDKirk]

?

If God grants the "privilege" of life to all men then the "privilege" becomes a right to each man with respect to all other men. Are you saying that one man may take from another what God has granted to that man? Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not?

See, you keep proposing absolutes, then qualifying them at the tail, as though you've made a point.

A "right" is absolute. If it's not absolute, it's not a right, it's a privilege.