Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, then we are at an impasse."Permission" is never irrevocable. If it were irrevocable, it would be a right.
Well, then we are at an impasse.
The life of innocent human beings is a God-given right and, its strained equivalent, an "irrevocable permit". Thank you for your input.
Very well, as you wish.Why do you refuse to address the case as presented in post #1?
The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:
I think that you need to take the word "unjust" out of there. At best it's redundant. A police officer is supposed to act as a neutral third party, treating every aggressor, (as manifest by their actions) as a threat, and every potentially mortal act as having malevolent intent. As far as the officer is concerned, barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, all malevolent actions are unjust.1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
Again, just or unjust isn't relevant. A police officer should act solely based upon the perceived threat. There are numerous instances of good Samaritans being killed by police officers because the officers couldn't differentiate between just and unjust intentions. To a police officer every aggressive action is unjust until proven otherwise, and will be treated accordingly.2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
This is the officer's only concern, mitigating the risk of mortality for all parties involved. The police officer is the only party authorized to act preemptively.3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality
No, I don't think that you can use a police criteria for preemptive action in state on state situations, because neither of them are in a position to act as a neutral third party. A neutral third party should in theory mitigate the perceived need for either state to act preemptively.Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?
I think that you need to take the word "unjust" out of there. At best it's redundant. A police officer is supposed to act as a neutral third party, treating every aggressor, (as manifest by their actions) as a threat, and every potentially mortal act as having malevolent intent. As far as the officer is concerned, barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, all malevolent actions are unjust.
I think not. We are dealing with the "reasonable" in this condition.A police officer should act solely based upon the perceived threat. There are numerous instances of good Samaritans being killed by police officers because the officers couldn't differentiate between just and unjust intentions. To a police officer every aggressive action is unjust until proven otherwise, and will be treated accordingly.
? Does the innocent one not have an irrevocable right to self-defense? I think he does. The policeman augments the enforcement of that right but his presence does not eliminate that right. Suppose the unjust aggressor subdues the policeman. Is the innocent one not morally permitted to defend himself? Is the innocent one required to wait until the unjust aggressor, for instance, pulls the trigger and to hope the aggressor is a poor shot? No. If points 1 and 2 are objectively evidenced then the "potential" adjective may be dropped and the aggressor is rightly seen as unjust.This is the officer's only concern, mitigating the risk of mortality for all parties involved. The police officer is the only party authorized to act preemptively.
Why does one need a "neutral" party to judge a preemptive act as just? What new and unknown objective information is needed that only a "neutral" third party could provide? The issue of just or unjust is determined by the facts, objective facts. Points 1, 2, and 3 are objective facts and sufficient to warrant IMO a preemptive strike. How much more objective information do you think is required to justify a preemptive strike? Or do you think the preemptive strike can never be justified?No, I don't think that you can use a police criteria for preemptive action in state on state situations, because neither of them are in a position to act as a neutral third party. A neutral third party should in theory mitigate the perceived need for either state to act preemptively.
If you're looking for a criteria on which to base state on state preemptive mortal action, then I don't think that a police criteria is the proper one to use.
But the policeman's actions are by definition "just". Unless we appoint another party to act as arbiter over the policeman's actions. So yes, I think that you should take the word just out of there, because it's redundant, the policeman's actions, at least in theory, are by definition always just, and any aggressors actions are by definition always unjust.The word "unjust" is required if one recognizes that some acts of aggression are just. The policeman who tackles a fleeing suspect commits an act of aggression that is just.
Following the expression of an intent to do lethal violence to an innocent, an act by the one who has expressed that malevolent intent that enables him to commit that evil act can be an objectively determined and be judged so by others (after the fact) as a reasonable determination.
Yes they do. Parties may act specifically, and solely in self defense, in instances where the policeman is unable to do so on their behalf. But a party's claim of self defense is unjustified if the policeman makes such self defense unnecessary. The policeman doesn't simply augment that right, he supersedes it, so long as he has the capacity to do so. Otherwise you would end up with the policeman getting caught in the middle of confrontations in which both parties claim the right of self defense. Thus parties relinquish the claim of self defense so long as the policeman is able to act in that capacity.? Does the innocent one not have an irrevocable right to self-defense?
You don't. It just means that every party then decides for itself which preemptive actions are just and which one's aren't. In order to apply the policeman's criteria to state on state actions you need to have a neutral third party to act as the policeman. It's not a role that the states can just arbitrarily apply to themselves.Why does one need a "neutral" party to judge a preemptive act as just?
On the contrary, I'm concerned that absent an arbiter every preemptive action can be justified, at least by the one undertaking it.Or do you think the preemptive strike can never be justified?
? Police officer Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder.But the policeman's actions are by definition "just".
The subjective opinion of either state does not make the preemptive strike just or unjust. The objective facts do. We can judge today whether prior preemptive strikes by states were just or unjust. Such determinations do not bring into evidence what the opinion was of the state which struck first. It just does not matter.But in any case, we can't use this in state on state situations, because lacking a neutral third party each state would always consider their own actions to be just, and the other state's actions to be unjust. Each state would consider itself to be the policeman.
Sanctions are always meant to increase hardship in order to change behavior. Not all sanctions are malevolent. If the behavior in question is malevolent then the sanction may very well be judged medicinal. You are the "neutral arbiter". Others can gather the objective facts and determine the morality of the preemptive strike, either in real-time or later.Very true...in the case of a policeman, but not so easily determined in the case of states. For example, if one state places sanctions on another state, with the direct intent of causing some level of hardship, and the second state lacks the capacity to respond in kind, are they then justified in responding by some other means? Each state would then deem itself to be justified in responding to an ever escalating level of malevolent actions. So what works for a policeman isn't going to work in the case of states. There's no neutral arbiter...aka the policeman.
Your arguments seem based primarily or at least significantly on the opinions of those in conflict. Dismiss those opinions as relevant because they are not and observe only the objective facts. Of course, both will claim the moral high ground but only one may in fact have it.Yes they do. Parties may act specifically, and solely in self defense, in instances where the policeman is unable to do so on their behalf. But a party's claim of self defense is unjustified if the policeman makes such self defense unnecessary. The policeman doesn't simply augment that right, he supersedes it, so long as he has the capacity to do so. Otherwise you would end up with the policeman getting caught in the middle of confrontations in which both parties claim the right of self defense. Thus parties relinquish the claim of self defense so long as the policeman is able to act in that capacity. ...
Yup, even the watchers need watching. Let me know when you find the perfect system.? Police officer Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder.
Unfortunately we're not omnipotent, so we're rarely privy to these objective facts. So we, in our fear raddled confusion make up our own.The subjective opinion of either state does not make the preemptive strike just or unjust. The objective facts do.
That may well depend upon which side of the sanctions you're on. Opposing states will likely choose to view them differently.Not all sanctions are malevolent.
Indeed they are, but I can't judge someone's actions based upon the objective facts, if they didn't know those objective facts. People are often reacting to shadows, especially in times of stress. Yes, states have the right to act preemptively, but when staring at shadows they're in peril of acting in error.Your arguments seem based primarily or at least significantly on the opinions of those in conflict.
But as they say, history is written by the victor. It's a difficult question however, do states have the right to act preemptively?The argument I propose is one in which a state contemplating a preemptive strike and knowing that its action will be judge post facto by the larger community has the criteria to assure that that judgement would be favorable.
The perfect is always the enemy of the good. Perfection is for the next life, not this one.Yup, even the watchers need watching. Let me know when you find the perfect system.
In this life you have to run with what you have. Objective facts are not made up. They are the same for all who observe them. See above on "perfection".Unfortunately we're not omnipotent, so we're rarely privy to these objective facts. So we, in our fear raddled confusion make up our own.
You keep denying that reality is objective. A bit silly to live as if it was not.That may well depend upon which side of the sanctions you're on. Opposing states will likely choose to view them differently.
It appears you do not have any children.Indeed they are, but I can't judge someone's actions based upon the objective facts, if they didn't know those objective facts.
A justified act by definition is a moral act. Do you have an example of an act that is justified and immoral?But as they say, history is written by the victor. It's a difficult question however, do states have the right to act preemptively?
I think that states must have the right to act preemptively, but they also have the obligation to do everything in their power not to. This may be a case where justified, and morally correct are two different things.
Funny you should ask...A justified act by definition is a moral act. Do you have an example of an act that is justified and immoral?
The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.I can justify killing the one, and you can justify killing theirs. Yet you think that my actions are immoral and yours aren't.
But what if I alter the trolley problem just a bit, and instead of heading for the five, the trolley is now heading for the one. However, it's the one who has access to the lever. Are they morally justified to pull the lever and kill the five?The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.
The one you "justify" directly killing is innocent and not a threat to anyone, therefore, your act is murder. The preemptive strike is self-defense against those whose menacing acts have escalated so as to render them to be unjust aggressors. The preemptive strike is justified.
The heroic virtue to lay down one's own life for others is not a moral obligation. Not to pull the lever would require God's special grace that, if accepted, would enable one to sacrifice themself trusting in His mercy and goodness.But what if I alter the trolley problem just a bit, and instead of heading for the five, the trolley is now heading for the one. However, it's the one who has access to the lever. Are they morally justified to pull the lever and kill the five?
In today's conflicts, civilian -- one who is not in uniform, does not necessarily imply a non-combatant. The preemptive strike is burdened with the same conditions of subsequent strikes but no more than that.Except that people who are taking no part in the presumptive aggression will always also be killed. ... there were always civilian casualties to take into account.
In today's conflicts, civilian -- one who is not in uniform, does not necessarily imply a non-combatant.
So just to be perfectly clear, I'm morally justified in pulling the lever and killing the five?The heroic virtue to lay down one's own life for others is not a moral obligation. Not to pull the lever would require God's special grace that, if accepted, would enable one to sacrifice themself trusting in His mercy and goodness.
False.A pre-emptive strike will always kill non-combatants.
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.So just to be perfectly clear, I'm morally justified in pulling the lever and killing the five?
What about a hundred?
False.
You are not well-informed.You don't understand what a pre-emptive strike--in order to truly be "pre-emptive" must entail.
I never tried to justify ending anyone's life.
Yes, you have. Consistently, all along.
Trying to be clever? Reading the post in question in context discloses this feeble attempt at misrepresenting my position.
You are not justified in killing the five or the hundred. You are justified in an act that saves your life, ceteris paribus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?