The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

It's probably, however, the most consistently applied moral justification of any other.

That would be the same fallacious argument -- everybody else does it consistently.

Let's not confuse ethics with morality. Ethics, by definition, is rationally argued with direction to a presumed "end good." The argument is rational...the "end good" is a presumption, however. My "end good" is not necessarily your "end good."

Morality simply is what a society does to maintain itself. It requires no more argument than "it's what society does" until someone sways society to do something different, which may or may not be by a rational argument through a system of ethics.

For purposes of this thread, the distinction between "ethics" and "morality" does not apply. It would be an interesting discussion if you wished to start a new thread.

Of course, if you also hold that one's right to life is irrational then by all means make the argument.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you have a rational argument that concludes another, whole in mind an body, does not have a natural desire to live?

In the context of this thread, does the unjust aggressor have a rational argument supporting his decision to kill an innocent human being? If so, please present it. However, if such a rational argument to kill unjustly another does not exist then the other's right to life must be acknowledged as rational.

There are desires inherent in our human nature, the most basic of which is to live. The desire to live is a natural desire, a desire with which we are innately endowed. Because it is inherent in human nature, as all truly specific properties are, it is present in all normal human beings, just as human facial characteristics, human skeletal structure, or human blood types are.

Since our desire to live is natural and necessary to achieve all other possible desires, life is a real good, not merely an apparent good, that we ought to desire.

If you reject this common sense argument then your extreme skepticism precludes any fruitful further discussion. Thank you for contributing to the thread.

1. No. The human desire to live is typically natural, as you note.

2. No. An unjust aggressor does not have a rational argument to support their aggression. But that does not mean the victims right to life is rational.

Life is desired because thats how we're constituted. Not because life is "good". All kinds of other creatures are (or used to be) out to extinguish my life for their ends. Thats not "good" either. It just is.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I thought he was a good example of a villain who thinks himself a hero or at least justified, a good guy. Sympathetic might be too strong a word, but you can imagine yourself feeling his feelings just not about the object of his feelings.

General Curtis Lemay? Or are we only doing fictional characters?

 

[Tinker Grey]

General Curtis Lemay? Or are we only doing fictional characters?

Fog of War?

Well, I think we were riffing on the idea how to write a good villain. But I should think that referencing real people is fitting to the original statement: All villains think they are the hero.

 

[RDKirk]

General Curtis Lemay? Or are we only doing fictional characters?

George C Scott did a good take of LeMay as a fictional character in "Dr Strangelove."

 

[Tinker Grey]

George C Scott did a good take of LeMay as a fictional character in "Dr Strangelove."

I didn't realize that. Thanks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I thought he was a good example of a villain who thinks himself a hero or at least justified, a good guy. Sympathetic might be too strong a word, but you can imagine yourself feeling his feelings just not about the object of his feelings.

In that sense, yes -- Humbert has an excuse for everything he does.

And it's a sign of Nabokov's literary skill that we can see through his flimsy rationalizations, but still feel compelled to follow his narrative -- the man's a human trainwreck, and we just can't look away.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In that sense, yes -- Humbert has an excuse for everything he does.

And it's a sign of Nabokov's literary skill that we can see through his flimsy rationalizations, but still feel compelled to follow his narrative -- the man's a human trainwreck, and we just can't look away.

And even though a non-native speaker, Nabokov is one of the best writers of English I can recall.

 

[o_mlly]

Life is desired because thats how we're constituted. Not because life is "good".

Logical error. We can only desire that which is good. Goods can be apparent or real. Life is a real good. We ought to desire that which is really good.

 

[RDKirk]

Logical error. We can only desire that which is good.

Did you, as a Christian, really mean to say "We can only desire that which is good" rather than "We should only desire that which is good?"

Because a lot of people desire things that are not morally "good," in a Christian sense.

A lot of people also desire things that are in conflict with continuing to phyisically exist, which is not "good" in secular sense.

 

[Bradskii]

Logical error. We can only desire that which is good.

Whut? No. That which we desire we define as good. Backwards you have it.

 

[durangodawood]

Logical error. We can only desire that which is good. Goods can be apparent or real. Life is a real good. We ought to desire that which is really good.

I think you just broke the word "good", which is a shame because it was a good - er... useful - word.

 

[o_mlly]

Whut? No. That which we desire we define as good. Backwards you have it.

Is that you, Yoda. If A = B then B = A.

 

[o_mlly]

I think you just broke the word "good", which is a shame because it was a good - er... useful - word.

I think you do not understand that goods may be apparently so or intrinsically so or both. Type "Aristotle real and apparent goods" into your search engine.

 

[durangodawood]

I think you do not understand that goods may be apparently so or intrinsically so or both. Type "Aristotle real and apparent goods" into your search engine.

Thats less about whats good and mainly about how people are often ignorant, deluded, addicted, etc. Proposing two non-compatible versions of "good" should be a signal that deeper thinking is needed.

 

[o_mlly]

Did you, as a Christian, really mean to say "We can only desire that which is good" rather than "We should only desire that which is good?"

Because a lot of people desire things that are not morally "good," in a Christian sense.

A lot of people also desire things that are in conflict with continuing to phyisically exist, which is not "good" in secular sense.

We can desire anything including things which are not really good for us. However, we merely want such things and do not necessarily need them. The things that we need as human beings are real goods. To keep us on the OP of this thread, "life" is a real human need. As a real human need, we have a right to it. Others are obligated to respect that right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that you, Yoda. If A = B then B = A.

A = poodles
B = dogs

All poodles are dogs.
All dogs are poodles?

 

[o_mlly]

Thats less about whats good and mainly about how people are often ignorant, deluded, addicted, etc. Proposing two non-compatible versions of "good" should be a signal that deeper thinking is needed.

No, it's more than that. Keep searching. Try http://cyberspacei.com/greatbooks/h2/6gi/gi_011.htm

 

[o_mlly]

A = poodles
B = dogs

All poodles are dogs.
All dogs are poodles?

Clever, but illogical.

Brush up on set theory rules.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Clever, but illogical.

Brush up on set theory rules.

Physician, heal thyself.