The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

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".

We are only concerned in this thread with one right -- the right of the innocent to life -- which the fathers listed appropriately as the first right because without life, no other rights can exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ..."

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The bible does not show clearly that God changed His mind. That is your interpretation.

 

[o_mlly]

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

A man-given revocable right to life is no right at all.

So your position is that a preemptive strike is always moral under the situation that someone "felt" threatened? No objective evidence required. What's good for the gaggle is good for the gander. The child who fears his father's punishment may strike his father?

 

[durangodawood]

The bible does not show clearly that God changed His mind. That is your interpretation.

No its not. God relenting to Moses arguments is plain. Saying he really didnt relent is importing your own preferences and overlaying them onto the story.

 

[durangodawood]

We are only concerned in this thread with one right -- the right of the innocent to life -- which the fathers listed appropriately as the first right because without life, no other rights can exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ..."

I dont know if slavers were legally allowed to kill their slaves. But my point was the founders were not particular good authorities on rights. Evidence: the constitution they produced permitted many egregious violations of rights we think we should have.

Its almost absurd. They write of inalienable rights, and with the next stroke of the pen proceed to alienate people of all kinds of rights.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I dont know if slavers were legally allowed to kill their slaves. But my point was the founders were not particular good authorities on rights. Evidence: the constitution they produced permitted many egregious violations of rights we think we should have.

Its almost abusrd. They write of inalienable rights, and with the next stroke of the pen proceed to alienate people of all kinds of rights.

• Punishment and killing of slaves: Slave codes regulated how slaves could be punished, usually going so far as to apply no penalty for accidentally killing a slave while punishing them.[10] Later laws began to apply restrictions on this, but slave-owners were still rarely punished for killing their slaves.[11] Historian Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was ′convicted of cruel treatment,′ the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."[12]

Slave codes - Wikipedia

 

[o_mlly]

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.

If you want to discuss how we might know the character of God then start a new thread. Again, it's irrelevant to this one.

 

[o_mlly]

I dont know if slavers were legally allowed to kill their slaves. But my point was the founders were not particular good authorities on rights. Evidence: the constitution they produced permitted many egregious violations of rights we think we should have.

Its almost absurd. They write of inalienable rights, and with the next stroke of the pen proceed to alienate people of all kinds of rights.

The only way to overcome our innate sense that all human beings have a right to life is to define the targeted group as being somehow subhuman. Often, in war in order to bolster one's soldiers in killing the enemy, each side characterizes the other as subhuman.

 

[durangodawood]

If you want to discuss how we might know the character of God then start a new thread. Again, it's irrelevant to this one.

You found it relevant when you initiated discussion of this point in post #124

But I'll drop it anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

The only way to overcome our innate sense that all human beings have a right to life is to define the targeted group as being somehow subhuman. Often, in war in order to bolster one's soldiers in killing the enemy, each side characterizes the other as subhuman.

Maybe. But at least in war no one is fooling anyone. Everyone knows its humans on the other side.

As for slavery, I suspect they really knew they were humans, but just needed a rationalization for their abject denial of so called rights. But I dont know this for sure. Either way, the massive moral deficit disqualifies them as paragons to rely on in these matters as you suggested.

So back to rights: not seeing any evidence at all they are anything more than a human contrivance used to summarize our moral sense about how people should relate to each other. Evidence of something more transcendent would be great.

 

[Bradskii]

A man-given revocable right to life is no right at all.

So your position is that a preemptive strike is always moral under the situation that someone "felt" threatened? No objective evidence required. What's good for the gaggle is good for the gander. The child who fears his father's punishment may strike his father?

An absolute right? No, there's no such thing. It's effectively a contract - which can be broken at any time as per the situations I gave earlier.

And a pre-emptive strike is entirely dependent upon the situation. It's not possible to say yeah or nay to a general catch-all question. And even if the situation is described in fine detail, then it's a personal decision as to whether an action is justified or not. Well, I'd personally decide and I'm assuming you would as well. What other option is there?

 

[o_mlly]

So back to rights: not seeing any evidence at all they are anything more than a human contrivance used to summarize our moral sense about how people should relate to each other.

What other option is there?

Those who deny a natural human right to life subscribe to an amoral system in which all things may be permitted. In such a system, the Nazis would have been acquitted at Nuremberg. The Nazi argued from legal positivism, ie., that which the law permits or prohibits is identical with morality.

Morality deals with justice -- human rights and obligations. The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Legal positivism does not allow argument against Nazi (or Ugandan or Bangladesh or Cambodia) jurisprudence other than a lack of internal consistencies. Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants' chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews, Gypsies, and "feeble-minded" relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of these groups was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law had to take recourse natural law -- the Creator's law.

 

[durangodawood]

Those who deny a natural human right to life subscribe to an amoral system in which all things may be permitted. In such a system, the Nazis would have been acquitted at Nuremberg. The Nazi argued from legal positivism, ie., that which the law permits or prohibits is identical with morality.

Morality deals with justice -- human rights and obligations. The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Legal positivism does not allow argument against Nazi (or Ugandan or Bangladesh or Cambodia) jurisprudence other than a lack of internal consistencies. Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants' chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews, Gypsies, and "feeble-minded" relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of these groups was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law had to take recourse natural law -- the Creator's law.

Great post there. Your writing is crisp and clear. Just a detaily sort of question before I get to my main point:

What specific parts of the Creators law were the Nazis charged under? I mean the actual wording. Was it from the Bible?

 

[Bradskii]

Those who deny a natural human right to life subscribe to...

Wait up...who has said that there isn't a natural right to life for all people? It certainly wasn't me. In fact, I don't think anyone so far has said that.

If the question is asked of all of us: Does the right to life exist in all people? then the answer would be 'Yes'. Which should actually be the end of the matter. But you want to complain that the reasons why people hold to it are invalid. Because yours is the only correct way of ascertaining it.

I have been trying to explain how this social contract has come about. It's a bedrock concept which is required for the very emergence of, and stability of, society. As you yourself said, it's one of the very 'basic principles of civilization'. And I agree that it has come about entirely naturally as well. And I've covered that in at least two posts at length. Which you have ignored because it involved the gradual evolution of us as a species - in which you don't believe.

So this nonsense about legalism and Nuremburg etc is a smoke screen. Because there is nothing to argue about. We've reached the same conclusions. You just don't like how some of us got there. But as Rhett said: 'Frankly my dear...'

Reason and logic and a basic understanding of the human condition will get you where you need to be. You have chosen to use scripture. Which is fine for you. But if that was the only way to get there then it leads a lot of people swinging in the breeze with no reason to ascribe to any rights except to defer to documents such as the UDHR. Which is another way of saying 'It is written'. But personally I'd like everyone to know why it was written. And seeing as it's (almost) universally recognised, it makes no reference to anyone's deity or any religious reasons for obvious reasons.

 

[o_mlly]

And I agree that it has come about entirely naturally as well.

Come about, you say?

These are "Yes" or "No" questions.

Did the Jews in Nazi Germany have a natural right to life?

Did the Israelite slaves in Egypt (circa 4,000BC) have a natural right to life?

Did the human natural right to life ever not exist?

 

[partinobodycular]

Did the human natural right to life ever not exist?

Personally, I think that every creature that has ever existed has had a right to life. It's not something that we humans possess simply because we're somehow "special". We're not more entitled to it because we're "rational", although that may make us more deserving of some measure of judgment for that life, at least to ourselves. But it seems the height of hubris to me to think that life, no matter what its form, is any more deserving of existence than any other life. God or not, life in all its forms, is special, because life gives hope.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The only way to overcome our innate sense that all human beings have a right to life is to define the targeted group as being somehow subhuman.

Not necessarily -- religion works wonders for justifying all manner of atrocity -- the Other is still human, but a divine mandate makes exterminating them easy.

 

[Bradskii]

Come about, you say?

These are "Yes" or "No" questions.
Did the Jews in Nazi Germany have a natural right to life?
Did the Israelite slaves in Egypt (circa 4,000BC) have a natural right to life?
Did the human natural right to life ever not exist?

I've already agreed that there is a right to life and that it has has emerged naturally. So it's yes, yes and no.

Now it's your turn. To understand what I am trying to explain - but not neccesarily accept it, you need to allow for the fact that man (homo Sapien) has been around for well over a quarter of a million years, so that these 'social contracts' can evolve. So your question is:

Do you accept that homo Sapien has been around for at least 250,000 years?

And that's just a "yes" or "no" question as well.

 

[RDKirk]

We are only concerned in this thread with one right -- the right of the innocent to life -- which the fathers listed appropriately as the first right because without life, no other rights can exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ..."

And yet, they did not extend that right to their slaves. An American slaveowner answered to no one if he killed his own slave.

 

[RDKirk]

I dont know if slavers were legally allowed to kill their slaves. But my point was the founders were not particular good authorities on rights. Evidence: the constitution they produced permitted many egregious violations of rights we think we should have.

Its almost absurd. They write of inalienable rights, and with the next stroke of the pen proceed to alienate people of all kinds of rights.

And, in fact, it was a 1858 Supreme Court ruling that no black man had any rights a white man was obligated to observe.