The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

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.

No, I don't see the word "absolute" in any of my posts, only yours. You are arguing with yourself. Rights may be absolute or conditional.

Do you have an answer to the question I put to you? Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not?

 

[partinobodycular]

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

So absent the father's manifest intent to kill the mother, Johnny's killing of the father is immoral. Is this correct?

 

[o_mlly]

So absent the father's manifest intent to kill the mother, Johnny's killing of the father is immoral. Is this correct?

Which "Johnny" is this one? You have posted two different scenarios so far.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you have an answer to the question I put to you? Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not?

Depends on your definition of "innocent."

 

[partinobodycular]

Which "Johnny" is this one? You have posted two different scenarios so far.

You seem to have a real problem answering questions.

That being the case, I'll ask you another question. One which is only meant to be food for thought because I doubt that you'll give me a direct answer.

In the trolley problem, is it moral to pull the lever and switch the tracks?

I know what you're thinking, this isn't relevant to the OP, but in fact it is. Because all that you're doing in the OP is reframing the trolley problem, and suggesting that it's moral to be the direct cause of someone's death if that death is the lesser of two evils.

You're suggesting that it's moral to kill an unjust aggressor to save an innocent. How is this not the trolley problem, only gussied up to justify killing someone?

 

[RDKirk]

No, I don't see the word "absolute" in any of my posts, only yours. You are arguing with yourself. Rights may be absolute or conditional.

Do you have an answer to the question I put to you? Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not?

Someone else has already asked you what "innocent" means.

But you posed the OP with regard to conflict between nations. In that case, any real-world "pre-emptive" strike is going to cause the deaths of persons who had no control in the events and are thus "innocent."

If you postulate that there is never a right to end the life of an "innocent" human being, that precludes, then, the use of a pre-emptive strike.

 

[durangodawood]

....You're suggesting that it's moral to kill an unjust aggressor to save an innocent. How is this not the trolley problem, only gussied up to justify killing someone?

Because of the moral standing of the target. Unjust aggressor is unjust. And our ethical systems typically rate justice as a moral positive, and allow for violent action to uphold it in extreme cases..

 

[partinobodycular]

Because of the moral standing of the target. Unjust aggressor is unjust. And our ethical systems typically rate justice as a moral positive, and allow for violent action to uphold it in extreme cases..

I completely understand and accept the premise of this position, but having had such discussions with o_mlly over on CAF for years I do seem to recall that when it comes to the trolley problem o_mlly holds that it's never moral to pull the lever and switch the tracks because that makes one the direct cause of someone else's death.

So if we were to have one hundred school children on one track, and a ninety year old blind man with terminal cancer on the other track, it's still immoral to pull the lever, and the fact that you're saving one hundred school children is completely irrelevant. So it would seem that killing an unjust person, and justifying it by the fact that you're saving an innocent one, should also be immoral. It would seem that per o_mlly's position, any good that happens as a consequence of your actions doesn't make an immoral act moral.

Now I may be completely wrong about o_mlly's position on the trolley problem, if so I would hope that he would clarify. Until then there would seem to be a bit of a contradiction between the two positions.

 

[durangodawood]

.....So if we were to have one hundred school children on one track, and a ninety year old blind man with terminal cancer on the other track, it's still immoral to pull the lever.....

Pull the darn lever!

Not seeing the problem with that course of action.

 

[o_mlly]

You seem to have a real problem answering questions.

Not really. If the question is coherent and on topic, it's answered. Your question is ambiguous as to which of the two "Johnny's" you're referring to .

In the trolley problem, is it moral to pull the lever and switch the tracks? ... How is this not the trolley problem, only gussied up to justify killing someone?

There is no unjust aggressor in the classic trolley problem setup.

I know what you're thinking ...

Clearly, I think you do not. We now have 2 "Johnny's" and the "trolley" cases distracting from the thread's topic. Why do you refuse to address the case as presented in post #1?

Someone else has already asked you what "innocent" means.

But you posed the OP with regard to conflict between nations. In that case, any real-world "pre-emptive" strike is going to cause the deaths of persons who had no control in the events and are thus "innocent."

If you postulate that there is never a right to end the life of an "innocent" human being, that precludes, then, the use of a pre-emptive strike.

"Innocent" in the context of this thread means that in the moment that one is not an unjust aggressor.
So, I ask you a third time: Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not? Once we know where you stand on the right of the innocent to life then we can address your follow-up questions.

 

[RDKirk]

"Innocent" in the context of this thread means that in the moment that one is not an unjust aggressor.
So, I ask you a third time: Do you have a right to end the life of an innocent human being? If not, why not? Once we know where you stand on the right of the innocent to life then we can address your follow-up questions.

I don't claim a "right" to end any human life ever.

There may be circumstances in which I'm given permission to take a life, and maybe even an innocent one.

I have experienced that as a wartime target intelligence analyst given the task of selecting targets according to guidelines from my chain of command. But that never gives me a "right"...it's merely permission. If at any time I'm commanded differently, then I must do differently...which is why it's merely permission and not a "right."

Even if the enemy is continuing his aggression, if I get a command to cease fire, I must cease fire. I never have a "right" to take a life, I only have permission...ever.

And that would be true with God as my commander. He may give me permission, but all "rights" are His, not mine. That is, in fact, what "omnipotent" actually means.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is no unjust aggressor in the classic trolley problem setup.

So we've found the moral threshold at which you'll actively kill someone. You won't kill a terminally ill man to save a hundred school children, but you will kill. Label someone correctly, and you will kill them.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't claim a "right" to end any human life ever.

So, if your daughter is attacked by a man who says he will rape and kill her you would not defend her if doing so required you to use lethal means?

 

[o_mlly]

So we've found the moral threshold at which you'll actively kill someone. You won't kill a terminally ill man to save a hundred school children, but you will kill. Label someone correctly, and you will kill them.

Well, now we see that failing in the red herring you try the strawman fallacy. Why don't you just answer the question in post #1?

 

[o_mlly]

There may be circumstances in which I'm given permission to take a life, and maybe even an innocent one.

Who gives you permission to take an innocent life?

If at any time I'm commanded differently, then I must do differently...which is why it's merely permission and not a "right."

If the command comes down to murder all the captured prisoners then must you murder them? Sounds like the Nazi defense: "Just following orders."

 

[RDKirk]

So, if your daughter is attacked by a man who says he will rape and kill her you would not defend her if doing so required you to use lethal means?

I didn't say that. I said I didn't claim a right to do so.

In actual fact, I am licensed to carry a handgun, and I do so. But I don't claim a right to take a life.

There will be times the law permits it. There may even be times the Lord will forgive it.

But I have no power to give life, nor right to take it.

 

[RDKirk]

Who gives you permission to take an innocent life?

When I was doing wartime targeting during the Persian Gulf War, some of the places identified were within Baghdad itself. I was aware that as precise as our smart bombs were, there were some buildings to be targeted that probably contained civilians. That was certainly true after the Iraqis began moving military materiel into the city into civilian spaces (which, btw, I was the first analyst to discover them doing...I think my briefing item that went to the Situation Room is still posted on the White House website).

I knew that my targeting was going to kill civilians. And, yes, it bothers me to this day, particularly one specific building that I identified. But it was a valid military target, and permissible under the Law of Armed Conflict (Geneva Conventions).

If the command comes down to murder all the captured prisoners then must you murder them? Sounds like the Nazi defense: "Just following orders."

That is a silly interpretation of what I said.

It's also a display of Godwin's Law.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I didn't say that. I said I didn't claim a right to do so.

In actual fact, I am licensed to carry a handgun, and I do so. But I don't claim a right to take a life.

There will be times the law permits it. There may even be times the Lord will forgive it.

But I have no power to give life, nor right to take it.

Made me think of this (in a good way):

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
~Gandalf
​

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't say that. I said I didn't claim a right to do so.

No one said that you did. It was a question.

I'm simply trying to understand your position. Seems that you draw not a nuanced distinction between a "right" and a "permit". I don't. So, let me rephrase the questions: Do innocent human beings have an irrevocable permit to life? Can you ever have a permit to take the life of an innocent person?

 

[RDKirk]

No one said that you did. It was a question.

I'm simply trying to understand your position. Seems that you draw not a nuanced distinction between a "right" and a "permit". I don't. So, let me rephrase the questions: Do innocent human beings have an irrevocable permit to life?

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

Can you ever have a permit to take the life of an innocent person?

I might.

Certainly human governments give such permission--as I've already given you a real-life example. And such permission was given by God in the OT, so apparently that's possible as well.