The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

If you believe that no one has a natural (God given) right to life just as objects have a natural attraction ie. gravity (God given natural law), to each other then do you also believe that humans may preemptively kill other human beings without antecedent conditions? If not, why not?

Ah, so now you've moved the goalpost.

As I stated in my first post of this thread, there are no natural, objective "rights," there are only privilege granted by and enforced by a sufficiently powerful authority.

We have no inherent, no objective, no "natural" right to life. We have the privilege of life granted by God and enforced at His will.

 

[durangodawood]

If there is no natural right to life then the Nazis, in their culture, acted morally in killing the undesirables. Is that your position?

Morals dont emerge from rights. (Morals come from wisdom regarding the natural facts of human living, in my opinion. Perhaps you think morals come from divine decree or divine nature. But thats all beside the point here).

Rights are the state's recognition of certain basic moral facts. The Nazi state lacked a right to life for certain out-groups because they held to a very flawed morality.

 

[Bradskii]

No one has argued that animals have a right to life.

Seems that the antelope's right to live is cancelled when the lion has a right to kill. And maybe the pig's is as well when you fancy some slow cooked belly pork.

I think that when a species reaches the point where it can think about future events and mull on different outcomes then it might find that the golden rule is an aid to survival. And in effect grant someone else 'a right to live' as long as they reciprocate. And grant you the same.

Which is why the lion can kill the antelope and you can kill the pig. No such arrangement is possible. Else what is the logical conclusion? The pig has a right to life...unless you want bacon for breakfast?

It's no more than agreeing that you won't kill someone else if they don't kill you. Which sounds a little too brusque for some. A little too self serving. So why not couch it in some fine sounding words. And we could even capitalise them so it looks important. The Right To Life!

Much better...

 

[o_mlly]

We have the privilege of life granted by God and enforced at His will.

?

First, what to your thinking is the difference between "God given right" and "God given privilege"? Second, do you really think that God changes His will? To change one's eternal will is impossible.

 

[o_mlly]

The Nazi state lacked a right to life for certain out-groups because they held to a very flawed morality.

? So a "flawed morality" is any moral sytem that lacks a "right to life". But a "right to life comes from wisdom, not from God. And wisdom comes from an enlightened state; not from God (wisdom is one of the fruits if the Holy Spirit). A bit circular, don't you think. I think we've come to an end of our exchange.

 

[o_mlly]

Seems that the antelope's right to live is cancelled when the lion has a right to kill. And maybe the pig's is as well when you fancy some slow cooked belly pork.

I think that when a species reaches the point where it can think about future events and mull on different outcomes then it might find that the golden rule is an aid to survival. And in effect grant someone else 'a right to live' as long as they reciprocate. And grant you the same.

Which is why the lion can kill the antelope and you can kill the pig. No such arrangement is possible. Else what is the logical conclusion? The pig has a right to life...unless you want bacon for breakfast?

It's no more than agreeing that you won't kill someone else if they don't kill you. Which sounds a little too brusque for some. A little too self serving. So why not couch it in some fine sounding words. And we could even capitalise them so it looks important. The Right To Life!

Much better...

Let's simplify the matter. Do you or do you not believe that innocent human beings have a right to life regardless of how that right came into being?

 

[durangodawood]

? So a "flawed morality" is any moral sytem that lacks a "right to life". But a "right to life comes from wisdom, not from God. And wisdom comes from an enlightened state; not from God (wisdom is one of the fruits if the Holy Spirit). A bit circular, don't you think. I think we've come to an end of our exchange.

Soo... say a bunch of wrong things about what I said, and then call it quits? Ok. If thats what it takes. See you.

 

[RDKirk]

?

First, what to your thinking is the difference between "God given right" and "God given privilege"? Second, do you really think that God changes His will? To change one's eternal will is impossible.

A right is inherent--the concept of "God given right" is a misnomer.

A privilege is granted; God has given us a privilege to live. That's why we pray for safety and the extension of life. That's why we consider life a blessing. A "right" can be demanded...a privilege can only be asked, petitioned, and that's what we know to be true about life.

God does not always enforce anyone's privilege to live, and certainly the bible shows us that what God gives, God can also take away.

 

[durangodawood]

?

First, what to your thinking is the difference between "God given right" and "God given privilege"? Second, do you really think that God changes His will? To change one's eternal will is impossible.

The Bible shows God changing his will. Moses argues with God, and God relents on his intent to destroy the people in Ex32.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We have no inherent, no objective, no "natural" right to life. We have the privilege of life granted by God and enforced at His will.

And ( as I've heard from so many Christians in the past) revocable at His will as well.

How else can they justify the scores of killings in the OT alone commanded, condoned, or committed by Him?

It's absurd to claim we have a "natural" right to life while acknowledging the truth that Everything Dies.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's simplify the matter. Do you or do you not believe that innocent human beings have a right to life regardless of how that right came into being?

This was your original claim:

'every person, in every place at every time possesses the right.'

So where did the qualifier 'innocent' come from? It changes the claim substantionally. In any case, I explained that the 'right to life' is a reciprocal agreement. And unfortunately for you, how it came about is via a process to which you don't ascribe. So this isn't a general inquiry into what people think about what it means to have a right to life and how it emerged. You believe that it is God-given. And correct me if I'm wrong, God-given when He formed Adam from the dust. Any suggestion by me to you that it happened differently is a waste of my time in writing it and yours in reading it. But anyway...

I explained earlier that when you reach a point where you can contemplate future events, you understand the consequences of your actions. A lion hasn't got that ability so it doesn't contemplate the consequences of him killing an antelope. She's hungry, the antelope gets eaten. End of story.

And back in the far distant past, our ancestors would have been the same. And killing within our species for whatever reason would have been no different to killing another species for food. No 'rights to life' existed. Hey, we were just animals (and I know you don't believe this). So this 'right' - and I think most people agree that it exists in some form, must have arisen at some point (as opposed to your belief that it was God-given).

So one started to think about the consequences of one's actions and it became apparent that attacking someone else, for whatever reason, might result in a reciprocal action by that person. Or close family of that person. So there was an unstated agreement - hey, if I leave you alone, I'll expect you to leave me alone. In other words, if I grant you the right to live then you've got to do the same for me.

Now, obviously, that doesn't work a lot of the time. But consider when it doesn't. We often use comparisons to animals when we describe a killer. And we sometimes denigrate people to a point where we can consider them less than human so we can kill them without breaking this unwritten rule. 'They are cockroaches, vermin, animals etc'.

You say the reason we hold to this 'right' is unimportant. But if we know the reason, we can understand it better. And if we understand it better we can guard against denying someone else the right.

 

[RDKirk]

This was your original claim:

'every person, in every place at every time possesses the right.'

So where did the qualifier 'innocent' come from? It changes the claim substantionally. In any case, I explained that the 'right to life' is a reciprocal agreement. And unfortunately for you, how it came about is via a process to which you don't ascribe. So this isn't a general inquiry into what people think about what it means to have a right to life and how it emerged. You believe that it is God-given. And correct me if I'm wrong, God-given when He formed Adam from the dust. Any suggestion by me to you that it happened differently is a waste of my time in writing it and yours in reading it. But anyway...

If we were to hold this discussion for a moment within the "Christian universe" (kind of like the "Star Wars universe" or the "Star Trek universe"), I would argue that whatever "right to life" humanity originally had was extinguished by God upon the Fall, when He removed the ability to eat from the Tree of Life and placed humanity at the mercy of nature. I don't believe a current "right to life" can be argued from scripture, certainly not one that God or nature observes.

BTW, Jane Goodall recorded chimpanzee tribes executing well-planned wars of genocidal attrition on other chimpanzee tribes. These weren't just occasions when tribes happened to clash at watering holes and such, but occasions where one tribe regularly set out deliberately to enter the territory of the other tribe and ambush solitary members they found...until they had killed them all.

 

[Bradskii]

If we were to hold this discussion for a moment within the "Christian universe" (kind of like the "Star Wars universe" or the "Star Trek universe"), I would argue that whatever "right to life" humanity originally had was extinguished by God upon the Fall, when He removed the ability to eat from the Tree of Life and placed humanity at the mercy of nature. I don't believe a current "right to life" can be argued from scripture, certainly not one that God or nature observes.

BTW, Jane Goodall recorded chimpanzee tribes executing well-planned wars of genocidal attrition on other chimpanzee tribes. These weren't just occasions when tribes happened to clash at watering holes and such, but occasions where one tribe regularly set out deliberately to enter the territory of the other tribe and ambush solitary members they found...until they had killed them all.

Good point re the chimps. I'd say that they have already reached a point where they can think ahead and plan accordingly Just not to the point where they could develop reciprocal agreements like a 'right to life'. I was actually thinking that that might be worth pointing out as a means to show how it may have evolved. But it might have muddied the water as well.

 

[o_mlly]

A right is inherent--the concept of "God given right" is a misnomer.

Then the founding fathers got it wrong. '... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... ". I'm with the founders on this one.

The Bible shows God changing his will. Moses argues with God, and God relents on his intent to destroy the people in Ex32.

As God's will is eternal and, therefore, unchangeable, the better interpretation is God had a teachable moment to conform Moses mind to His own.

However, again, the argument is an ethics/morality question; not theological.

This was your original claim:

'every person, in every place at every time possesses the right.'

So where did the qualifier 'innocent' come from? It changes the claim substantionally. In any case, I explained that the 'right to life' is a reciprocal agreement. And unfortunately for you, how it came about is via a process to which you don't ascribe. So this isn't a general inquiry into what people think about what it means to have a right to life and how it emerged. You believe that it is God-given. And correct me if I'm wrong, God-given when He formed Adam from the dust. Any suggestion by me to you that it happened differently is a waste of my time in writing it and yours in reading it. But anyway...

I explained earlier that when you reach a point where you can contemplate future events, you understand the consequences of your actions. A lion hasn't got that ability so it doesn't contemplate the consequences of him killing an antelope. She's hungry, the antelope gets eaten. End of story.

And back in the far distant past, our ancestors would have been the same. And killing within our species for whatever reason would have been no different to killing another species for food. No 'rights to life' existed. Hey, we were just animals (and I know you don't believe this). So this 'right' - and I think most people agree that it exists in some form, must have arisen at some point (as opposed to your belief that it was God-given).

So one started to think about the consequences of one's actions and it became apparent that attacking someone else, for whatever reason, might result in a reciprocal action by that person. Or close family of that person. So there was an unstated agreement - hey, if I leave you alone, I'll expect you to leave me alone. In other words, if I grant you the right to live then you've got to do the same for me.

Now, obviously, that doesn't work a lot of the time. But consider when it doesn't. We often use comparisons to animals when we describe a killer. And we sometimes denigrate people to a point where we can consider them less than human so we can kill them without breaking this unwritten rule. 'They are cockroaches, vermin, animals etc'.

You say the reason we hold to this 'right' is unimportant. But if we know the reason, we can understand it better. And if we understand it better we can guard against denying someone else the right.

Wow. It was a "Yes" or "No" question. Do you believe that an innocent person has a right to life?

For those who believe that innocent humans do not have a right to life, transcendent or otherwise, then you must also believe that no prohibition to killing an innocent human being exists; only inhibitions, ie., my life might be less than full if I kill and get caught -- a might make right morality. No?

 

[durangodawood]

....As God's will is eternal and, therefore, unchangeable....

(Total aside: where do you get that from?)

 

[durangodawood]

Then the founding fathers got it wrong. '... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... ". I'm with the founders on this one.....

...who then went on to design a constitution that allowed many people to be alienated from their rights.

 

[o_mlly]

(Total aside: where do you get that from?)

Immutability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

...who then went on to design a constitution that allowed many people to be alienated from their rights.

Citation needed to support your claim that the constitution allows the killing of innocent human beings.

 

[durangodawood]

....Citation needed to support your claim that the constitution allows the killing of innocent human beings.

I was thinking of slavery and the various rights we respect which slavery violates. Obviously the founders werent talking about just one right, as the used the plural "rights".

 

[durangodawood]

Immutability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)....

To me, we're talking about the God of the Bible, and not the God of Greek and medieval philosophers.

If the Bible clearly shows God changing His mind on a topic, we should take that seriously as indicating something about His character.

 

[Bradskii]

Wow. It was a "Yes" or "No" question. Do you believe that an innocent person has a right to life?

For those who believe that innocent humans do not have a right to life, transcendent or otherwise, then you must also believe that no prohibition to killing an innocent human being exists; only inhibitions, ie., my life might be less than full if I kill and get caught -- a might make right morality. No?

I explained that everyone has this right to life as a generally accepted reciprocal agreement. And I explained that creatures other than ourselves who are not in a position to make this bargain do not posses it.

If there is no agreement, then the right does not exist (so it's no good telling a lion that you won't harm him). And if there are people intent on killing you then they have removed themselves from this agreement so they in turn have no right to life. It's the very basis of the concept of self defence.

And going back to the reason we generally agree to this arrangement, it could originally be conceived of as a self defence mechanism - I don't want to get hurt so I promise I won't hurt you. But when we developed a justice system then there were additional reasons not to break the contract. You would be punished, not by the individual you harmed, or by their immediate friends or family, but by society itself - as a means to maintain the stability of the society. So this right is then extended from being an agreement between individuals to being encoded in the social contract. So exempting yourself from the contract means that you have lost the right to have it applied to yourself. Hence capital punishment.

So is anyone justified in individually breaking this contract? Well, they can convince themselves that they won't be caught doing so. But that doesn't justify it. Or they can convince themselves that the people they kill don't deserve to be part of this contract (treating them as animals for example). But that doesn't justify it either.

A better reason would be the one I suggested in my first post - retaliate first. That is, there is very good reason to believe that someone is going to break the contract, putting yourself, or others that you care about, in danger. Naturally there is a problem in justifying your belief. In some cases it's blatantly obvious - especially in the heat of the moment. But others, when the retaliation is more 'cold blooded', less so.

And then there's the really difficult one - exempting yourself from the contract for the greater good. And this would obviously include acts such as bombing civilians to break an enemies morale and thus shortening a war or killing everyone to prevent acts of revenge further down the track (some read Samuel 1:15 as an example of this). It's the Trolley Problem writ large.

So is there a 'right to life'? Yes, because we have agreed it to be so. Is it absolute? No, it depends on the situation. Can we always be justified in claiming it doesn't exist in those situations? Well, all I can say is...good luck on getting agreement.