The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

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.

Of course they knew the Africans were human, even if inferior (and blacks were not the only humans that Anglo-Saxons deemed inferior).

They did not deny that their religion proved Africans were human beings...the ability of whites to procreate with Africans proved through scripture that they were of the same "kind."

 

[o_mlly]

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.

The timeline for the existence of Homo Sapiens would be an interesting topic for another thread.

Since we both agree that whatever start date one assigns to the first Homo Sapiens that that creature had, and all other descendants have, a natural right to life then we can proceed to the next point of this thread's argument: Others are obligated to respect that right.

Do you agree?

 

[Bradskii]

The timeline for the existence of Homo Sapiens would be an interesting topic for another thread.

Since we both agree that whatever start date one assigns to the first Homo Sapiens that that creature had, and all other descendants have, a natural right to life then we can proceed to the next point of this thread's argument: Others are obligated to respect that right.

Do you agree?

Of course not. To suggest that there was a 'start date' for Homo sapien is nonsensical. Yes, I'm sure you'll find a timeline that suggests that it was a nice round number x amount of years ago but to think that there was a moment when this 'right to life' suddenly appeared is nonsensical.

Well, I'll revise that. It's nonsensical to people who don't hold to a literal translation of Genesis.

Now I've already exlained my position at length - that this right to life is an agreement between us that has evolved over time, based on the golden rule - or reciprocal altruism if you like. That is: 'I will respect your right to life if you'll respect mine'. The problem for you is the term 'evolved over time'. And it's a problem because you don't think Man has evolved at all. It would be impossible because you consider the planet to be thousands of years old, not billions.

So your 'right to life' is considered by you to have been granted by God when Man was formed. And all of your arguments are going to be based on that. It might be a good idea to nail those colours to the mast and state it unequivocably so you don't waste everyone's time explaining how these aspects of our humanity have evolved over time.

 

[o_mlly]

Of course not. To suggest that there was a 'start date' for Homo sapien is nonsensical. Yes, I'm sure you'll find a timeline that suggests that it was a nice round number x amount of years ago but to think that there was a moment when this 'right to life' suddenly appeared is nonsensical.

?

Your argument is incoherent. You have posted:

Wait up...who has said that there isn't a natural right to life for all people?

I've already agreed that there is a right to life and that it has has emerged naturally. So it's ... [the answer to the question: Did the human natural right to life ever not exist?] no.

Apparently, you do not understand the definition of the word "natural".

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
​

Perhaps your time would be better spent telling us how you think your argument makes any sense then telling me what you think I think (because you obviously do not). I ask you again to stop derailing this thread with your obsession to argue the origin of human beings.

So, give us a your explanation on how something "natural" emerged via "unnatural" means, ie., via human invention.

 

[Bradskii]

Apparently, you do not understand the definition of the word natural. So, give us a your explanation on how something "natural" emerged via "unnatural" means, ie., via human invention.

I didn't say it was a human invention. Some people didn't agree to sit down at some point and formulate a few rules for how we could live together. I have explained, at length, how I think it evolved. You might as well say that societies were invented. Or languages. Or religion (or maybe that's not a great example...).

And I haven't seen any attempts by you to suggest where (and when) this right to life came about. You're reverting to your SOP and simply telling everyone else how wrong they are without making any claims yourself. Why don't you give it a try?

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't say it was a human invention. Some people didn't agree to sit down at some point and formulate a few rules for how we could live together. I have explained, at length, how I think it evolved. You might as well say that societies were invented. Or languages. Or religion (or maybe that's not a great example...).

And I haven't seen any attempts by you to suggest where (and when) this right to life came about. You're reverting to your SOP and simply telling everyone else how wrong they are without making any claims yourself. Why don't you give it a try?

Please be accurate. I did not write that you were wrong; I wrote your argument was incoherent and so it remains.

Simply correct your previous posts and admit that you do not believe that the innocent human has a natural right to life.

The mistaken notion that the human right to life evolved as mankind somehow became more enlightened that one's own self-interest prompted such a situation is utter nonsense. Perhaps you've noticed that not an insignificant number of humans (all murderers including leaders of country's that launched unjust offensive wars) throughout history did not get that memo of understanding.

A "right" is not an instantly revocable permit that one person or groups of persons grants to another as long as doing so enhances the grantor's situation. One is entitled to their opinion and so it is with you. However, those who hold that opinion are amoral and are dismissed as, at a minimum, impractical or, more likely, irrational. We hope such persons be constrained so as to not have access to any lethal weaponry.

 

[Bradskii]

Please be accurate. I did not write that you were wrong; I wrote your argument was incoherent and so it remains.

Simply correct your previous posts and admit that you do not believe that the innocent human has a natural right to life.

The mistaken notion that the human right to life evolved as mankind somehow became more enlightened that one's own self-interest prompted such a situation is utter nonsense. Perhaps you've noticed that not an insignificant number of humans (all murderers including leaders of country's that launched unjust offensive wars) throughout history did not get that memo of understanding.

A "right" is not an instantly revocable permit that one person or groups of persons grants to another as long as doing so enhances the grantor's situation. One is entitled to their opinion and so it is with you. However, those who hold that opinion are amoral and are dismissed as, at a minimum, impractical or, more likely, irrational. We hope such persons be constrained so as to not have access to any lethal weaponry.

Thanks for your input. Can we now have your idea as to where and when this right to life originated?

 

[o_mlly]

Thanks for your input. Can we now have your idea as to where and when this right to life originated?

Again, start a new thread. Those who agree that innocent humans have natural right to life know that "natural" means that no man ever existed that did not possess such a right an no man ever existed that was not obligated to respect that right. You don't believe that so you believe that the justification for a preemptive strike is, well, just about anything at all. Thanks for your input.

 

[Bradskii]

Those who agree that innocent humans have natural right to life know that "natural" means that no man ever existed that did not possess such a right an no man ever existed that was not obligated to respect that right.

I understand that you don't agree with my position. But there is no 'always' as far as I am concerned. I don't believe that Man has 'always' existed. It makes no sense to me. Mankind has gradually evolved. So when do you believe that this right to life originated? I assume that you mean it was granted by God and I assume that you believe that it was granted when He created Adam. Am I right to assume that?

Tell us what you actually believe so we know where we stand.

 

[partinobodycular]

Tell us what you actually believe so we know where we stand.

How many years was it, over at CAF that o_mlly refused to answer this question? Ten years maybe...longer?

 

[o_mlly]

How many years was it, over at CAF that o_mlly refused to answer this question? Ten years maybe...longer?

I've answered that theological question in every appropriate thread on CAF. This is not such a thread in the Ethics and Morality forum. You and your bud probably did not like the answer I gave on CAF so you ask again and again hoping for something different.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

If you or your bud were serious, which I don't think you are, you'd look up the answer. If you are that "research challenged" then I invite you as well to start a new thread.

 

[Bradskii]

...I invite you as well to start a new thread.

The usual response.

But we don't need a new thread to talk about the right to life. We're discussing it here. Right now. In your own thread. And some people have gone into quite reasonable detail suggesting how they think this right came to be.

As you have spent post after post denying anyone's personal opinion on the matter in somewhat derogatory tones (it seems that that is a default setting), it seems eminently reasonable to ask you - the OP, what your views are on the matter. And when and how you think that this right occurred. You know, like people do in a discussion.

 

[o_mlly]

The usual response.

But we don't need a new thread to talk about the right to life. We're discussing it here. Right now. In your own thread. And some people have gone into quite reasonable detail suggesting how they think this right came to be.

As you have spent post after post denying anyone's personal opinion on the matter in somewhat derogatory tones (it seems that that is a default setting), it seems eminently reasonable to ask you - the OP, what your views are on the matter. And when and how you think that this right occurred. You know, like people do in a discussion.

You may continue in your efforts to derail this thread to a debate on evolution but I will not allow you to goad me into doing so.

For a discussion in the Ethics and Morality forum, as twice so far explained to you, it is sufficient that, as you have agreed, to postulate that all innocent human beings possess a natural right to life. When the logical extension of this premise was proposed to you for agreement, ie., that all other human beings have an obligation to respect that right to life, you went off the rails in what appears a desperate effort to derail the thread. I invite you to get back on the tracks and respond to the question: Do all human beings have an obligation to respect the right to life of innocent human beings?

 

[durangodawood]

Again, start a new thread. Those who agree that innocent humans have natural right to life know that "natural" means that no man ever existed that did not possess such a right an no man ever existed that was not obligated to respect that right. You don't believe that so you believe that the justification for a preemptive strike is, well, just about anything at all. Thanks for your input.

I thought natural means originating from what we typically call nature, as opposed to from a supernatural realm.

At this point in the discussion it seems like you really mean a God-given right.

 

[o_mlly]

I thought natural means originating from what we typically call nature, as opposed to from a supernatural realm.

That's fine as long as you agree that innocent human beings have a natural right to life.
Do you propose that innocent human beings do not have a natural right to life?

 

[durangodawood]

That's fine as long as you agree that innocent human beings have a natural right to life.
Do you propose that innocent human beings do not have a natural right to life?

Nature does not provide a right to life, obviously.

Maybe God does. But thats a matter of faith and I do not know if its the case.

Human social arrangement has agreed on a right to life here and there. Personally I believe we should include a right to life as one of the set of rights we recognize.

 

[o_mlly]

Natural does not provide a right to life, obviously.

The issue is not all that is natural only innocent human beings. Do you hold that they -- innocent human beings -- do not possess a right to life, natural or otherwise?

Maybe God does. But thats a matter of faith and I do not know if its the case.

That's fine as well. However, if you are unable to take a position on whether or not the innocent possess a right to life then we are at an impasse. Thank you for your input.

Human social arrangement has agreed on a right to life here and there.

Does a human being only have a particular blood type when they discover, ie., recognize, that blood type? No. Ignorance or non-recognition of the existence of a thing does send that thing into ontological oblivion.

 

[durangodawood]

The issue is not all that is natural only innocent human beings. Do you hold that they -- innocent human beings -- do not possess a right to life, natural or otherwise?


That's fine as well. However, if you are unable to take a position on whether or not the innocent possess a right to life then we are at an impasse. Thank you for your input.


Does a human being only have a particular blood type when they discover, ie., recognize, that blood type? No. Ignorance or non-recognition of the existence of a thing does send that thing into ontological oblivion.

How do you square a right to life with the concept of negative/positive rights? Positive rights means there's an obligation on society to provide the object. While negative rights only require non-interference. A right to life sounds positive. But is society really obligated to provide life in all cases?

Are we talking about a right not to be killed? Because I can agree that we should recognize that.

 

[o_mlly]

How do you square a right to life with the concept of negative/positive rights? Positive rights means there's an obligation on society to provide the object. While negative rights only require non-interference. A right to life sounds positive. But is society really obligated to provide life in all cases?

Are we talking about a right not to be killed? Because I can agree that we should recognize that.

In the context of this thread, the right to life prohibits actions that directly take innocent human life.

In recognizing the others right to life we have an obligation to respect that right, ie., not to directly take the life of an innocent human being.

So I return to the original argument. Does the collective have the same duty as the individual before using lethal force in a preemptive attack?

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?​

 

[durangodawood]

In the context of this thread, the right to life prohibits actions that directly take innocent human life.

In recognizing the others right to life we have an obligation to respect that right, ie., not to directly take the life of an innocent human being.

So I return to the original argument. Does the collective have the same duty as the individual before using lethal force in a preemptive attack?

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others
2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent
3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?​

Could you give me examples of 2 & 3, or post numbers where you did?