The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

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

Answer a question with a question? Your question requires its own thread. However, in the context of this thread, your question can be limited to good and evil acts in relation to human life.

• All have a right to their own life.
• All rights imply a reciprocal obligation on others to respect that right.
• One's right to one's own life is absolute, iff that one respects the rights of others.
• One who respects the other's right to life is innocent.
  
• All acts that preserve or protect innocent life are objectively good acts.
• All acts that violate or endanger innocent life are objectively evil acts.

So I ask again, how did you rationally conclude that good and evil can only be subjectively judged?

 

[o_mlly]

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.

? I did not make such a claim. The argument I made was particular, ie., "if that lawful enforcer".

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.

Nor does that scenario apply. Implicit in the argument is "in the moment".

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)

And your point is what? Do you believe that civilians living under an unjust tyrant whose police murder innocent people have no recourse?

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.

A just act of self-defense, as already mentioned, is always in the moment of an unjust attack.

 

[BobRyan]

A just act of self-defense, as already mentioned, is always in the moment of an unjust attack.

Your prior statement went "outside the moment" did it not?

 

[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.

For clarity - are you saying that if a police officer pounds on the door - demands that you open it - and then you open it to find his gun is drawn - well then you have the legal right to shoot him?

Drug dealers find themselves in that situation a lot.

 

[o_mlly]

Your prior statement went "outside the moment" did it not?

? Please use the quote facility to cite my post that reads "outside the moment".

 

[BobRyan]

? Please use the quote facility to cite my post that reads "outside the moment".

I did that in post #24 - showing a quote that is a bit vague on when the offending action took place

"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"

More specific language would be:

is manifestly demonstrating an unjust intent
is objectively acting in such a way to act on that evil intent
has drawn his weapon.​

 

[o_mlly]

The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others

For clarity - are you saying that if a police officer pounds on the door - demands that you open it - and then you open it to find his gun is drawn - well then you have the legal right to shoot him?

Drug dealers find themselves in that situation a lot.

Why do you ignore the other necessary criteria in the argument, ie., "The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others"? Is the policeman who pounds on a drug dealer's door an unjust aggressor? Is the SS Nazi who pounds on the Frank's door an unjust aggressor?

The point is that all lawful actors are not always moral actors.

 

[o_mlly]

I did that in post #24 - showing a quote that is a bit vague on when the offending action took place

"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"

More specific language would be:
is manifestly demonstrating an unjust intent
is objectively acting in such a way to act on that evil intent
has drawn his weapon.

And how is that post "outside the moment"?

"Is manifestly" and "is objectively" are both present tense expressions.

 

[BobRyan]

In any case the moment you decide the situation has put you at war with one or more police officers your right to try and survive it is "a given" but may or many not be validated when a court of law reviews it and comes to a different conclusion than you just did - about your only choice being war with those officers.

Since you were fully convinced that "your death" was the only other option - then even if you are put in jail you have survived the "moment of your death", and even if you were caught and executed you still survived that initial "moment of death" event to "die later". But I would suspect that even in those cases the person later realizes that the arrest incident was not really "the moment of death" for them if they had simply complied. They often find that their powers of "mind reading" were not as accurate as they had at first supposed.

 

[BobRyan]

Is the SS Nazi who pounds on the Frank's door an unjust aggressor?

The point is that all lawful actors are not always moral actors.

If you believe you can survive the SS Nazi pounding on the door by shooting him - and get away with it, you are taking a chance that such is the case. But I would not expect a SS Nazi court of law to find you innocent.

When you are killed in that case (by said SS Nazi or some days later by one of his associates) what did you "gain" in the end? That at the point of death you had at least killed one SS Nazi?

If on the other hand - killing that SS Nazi enabled you to escape to a free nation, or saved a bunch of other people - you would have your goal achieved.

But my POV is that a lot of Christians were killed in the dark ages by persecutors - and heaven is their home.

 

[BobRyan]

And how is that post "outside the moment"?

"Is manifestly" and "is objectively" are both present tense expressions.

I am the one who inserted "IS" for "IS manifestly" and "IS objectively" that was my doing replacing your less specific wording

 

[o_mlly]

In any case the moment you decide the situation has put you at war with one or more police officers your right to try and survive it is "a given" but may or many not be validated when a court of law reviews it and comes to a different conclusion than you just did - about your only choice being war with those officers.

I'm losing you here, Bob. Please clarify your point(s). What is the purpose of inserting the word "war" as descriptive of an act of self-defense?

Since you were fully convinced that "your death" was the only other option - then even if you are put in jail you have survived the "moment of your death", and even if you were caught and executed you still survived that initial "moment of death" event to "die later". But I would suspect that even in those cases the person later realizes that the arrest incident was not really "the moment of death" for them if they had simply complied. They often find that their powers of "mind reading" were not as accurate as they had at first supposed.

? If I am dead then I did not survive to go to jail.

Again, remember all three criteria necessary to preemptively act. The "mind reading" objection is a merely a canard. The reasonableness of the state of mind of the one who preemptively acts is sufficient. If you do not wish to be harmed by me then do not yell out that you're going to kill me, wave a lethal weapon in my face, and you'll survive the moment.

 

[o_mlly]

If you believe you can survive the SS Nazi pounding on the door by shooting him - and get away with it, you are taking a chance that such is the case. But I would not expect a SS Nazi court of law to find you innocent.

Probably not but more likely that I would have been summarily executed w/o a trial. The question is not was my act legal, rather was it moral.

When you are killed in that case (by said SS Nazi or some days later by one of his associates) what did you "gain" in the end? That at the point of death you had at least killed one SS Nazi?

If on the other hand - killing that SS Nazi enabled you to escape to a free nation, or saved a bunch of other people - you would have your goal achieved.

But my POV is that a lot of Christians were killed in the dark ages by persecutors - and heaven is their home.

Who knows the future? Is your position that no act of self-defense can ever be justified as a moral act?

 

[o_mlly]

I am the one who inserted "IS" for "IS manifestly" and "IS objectively" that was my doing replacing your less specific wording

OK. Same question, how do you attribute "outside the moment" as the state of affairs to be my position?

 

[BobRyan]

Who knows the future? Is your position that no act of self-defense can ever be justified as a moral act?

No I agree that self defense is a moral act --

Let's take two scenarios

1. You are in your home and someone breaks in with a weapon and you shoot him.
2. you are on a hike - 12 people surround you with weapons and declare intent to kill. You charge them screaming and draw your gun - ... they "fill you with lead"

So both cases are a form of self-defense where no one would object. The first one makes sense. The second one does not. (unless your scream and charge was an effort to break out and run away not to kill everyone)

===============================

Since this life is merely temporary - what is your goal at the end? heaven?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Answer a question with a question? Your question requires its own thread. However, in the context of this thread, your question can be limited to good and evil acts in relation to human life.

• All have a right to their own life.
• All rights imply a reciprocal obligation on others to respect that right.
• One's right to one's own life is absolute, iff that one respects the rights of others.
• One who respects the other's right to life is innocent.
  
• All acts that preserve or protect innocent life are objectively good acts.
• All acts that violate or endanger innocent life are objectively evil acts.

So I ask again, how did you rationally conclude that good and evil can only be subjectively judged?

Because the people who commit "evil" acts will claim justification because one or more of the above was done to them or someone they care about...and perhaps some of them are telling the truth.

In the real world, there are no mustache-twirling evildoers tying innocent maidens to railroad tracks just for the chance to have a sinister chuckle over it... Every villain thinks he's the hero.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Every villain thinks he's the hero.

I've said this very thing. Thumbs up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've said this very thing. Thumbs up.

It was one of my maxims in my literature and creative writing courses: if a villain is well written, he's got a reason for why he's the doing it. If he's very well written, you might find yourself nodding your head when you probably shouldn't...

 

[Tinker Grey]

It was one of my maxims in my literature and creative writing courses: if a villain is well written, he's got a reason for why he's the doing it. If he's very well written, you might find yourself nodding your head when you probably shouldn't...

Thanos comes to mind.

 

[o_mlly]

No I agree that self defense is a moral act --

Let's take two scenarios

1. You are in your home and someone breaks in with a weapon and you shoot him.
2. you are on a hike - 12 people surround you with weapons and declare intent to kill. You charge them screaming and draw your gun - ... they "fill you with lead"

So both cases are a form of self-defense where no one would object. The first one makes sense. The second one does not. (unless your scream and charge was an effort to break out and run away not to kill everyone)

Did I die? I can absorb a lotta lead.

Then we agree -- one has a moral right to self-defense.

In just war theory, the practicality of successfully defending against the unjust aggressor is an element in the determination of waging a moral or just war. But as all things related to the future, the determination of prevailing is a matter of prudential judgement upon which honest men may disagree.

So, in the case of the 12 unjust aggressors and my decision to defend myself, it is my, and not your, determination of the practicality of prevailing that matters. Would your pacifist attitude change if your 15 year old daughter accompanied you on that hike and the villains declared an intent to rape and kill?

To stay on topic, I argue that the conditions which permit the morality of the policeman's preemptive act of self-defense apply equally to determine the morality of the preemptive acts of a nation. As most collectives empower certain members with the power to protect, those members have a duty to protect, including preemptive strikes under the criteria offered. Do you disagree?