The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

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.

Adolf's mustache was such that it inhibited twirling.

Your reply is not a rational argument but merely an opinion to which you are entitled.

However, your opinion is that of an extreme skeptic. You skeptically claim (implicitly) that the moral truth that protects human life involves an erroneous presupposition, that human life is good.

But the use of the word "erroneously" discloses a contradiction. You contradict yourself by saying, on the one hand, that nothing is either objectively good or evil and yet saying, on the other hand, that the presupposition that human life is good is objectively false. Yet the consistent skeptical answer is that we cannot objectively know. We are verging here on an age-old reply to the extreme skeptic that dismisses him as one who refutes himself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanos comes to mind.

Indeed -- and then you realize that, more than being right or wrong, Thanos was an idiot.

In the beginning of Endgame, when the birds stopped singing at the moment of the snap, it means that Thanos didn't limit it to just sapient life; he got rid of half of all life -- prey as well as predators.

So in his effort to rescue a universe that was running out of resources, he got rid of half the resources. All he really did was free up a lot of real estate.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Adolf's mustache was such that it inhibited twirling.

And his arguments were such that he convinced an entire nation (three of them, in fact) that his cause was worth following. Were they all evil?

I can only answer such a question subjectively, in which I say they were not. What say you?

Your reply is not a rational argument but merely an opinion to which you are entitled.

As is yours. My opinion, however, is backed up by facts and observable evidence. How's yours?

However, your opinion is that of an extreme skeptic. You skeptically claim (implicitly) that the moral truth that protects human life involves an erroneous presupposition, that human life is good.

Actually, my argument presumes no such thing -- yours does, and I make no judgement as to the veracity of that presumption.

But the use of the word "erroneously" discloses a contradiction. You contradict yourself by saying, on the one hand, that nothing is either objectively good or evil and yet saying, on the other hand, that the presupposition that human life is good is objectively false. Yet the consistent skeptical answer is that we cannot objectively know. We are verging here on an age-old reply to the extreme skeptic that dismisses him as one who refutes himself.

Again, I made no such assumptions; I did not even use the word "erroneously" in any context -- you did.

As you seem somewhat confused regarding who said what -- my words as opposed to your own -- I see little entertainment value in continuing this discussion.

 

[o_mlly]

I see little entertainment value in continuing this discussion.

You've already been dismissed as an extreme skeptic. Go in peace.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

'Every villian is a hero of his or her story'. Christoper Vogler in 'The Writer's Journey'.

 

[TLK Valentine]

'Every villian is a hero of his or her story'. Christoper Vogler in 'The Writer's Journey'.

Love that book.

 

[Bradskii]

Love that book.

Luckily not available on kindle as I would have added it to my ever increasing pile of 'bought but yet not read' books. Which includes Booker's The Seven Basic Plots. Which is thicker than my family bible. Now I've taken it off the bookshelf looking for an example of a classic example of a 'moustache twirling evildoer' (immediately thinking of the superb Jack Lemmon in The Great Race) I might give it another go this evening.

Also recommend Stephen King's 'On Writing'. 'Part memoir, part masterclass'.

 

[durangodawood]

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

Getting people to believe its justified is the circumstance that justifies it.

Justification happens in peoples minds and not in some cosmic courtroom of ultimate appeal.

 

[o_mlly]

Getting people to believe its justified is the circumstance that justifies it.

Justification happens in peoples minds and not in some cosmic courtroom of ultimate appeal.

I agree that there is no need to leave the earth to determine which human acts which are evil or good.

Appeals to emotion as a means of "getting people to believe" are illusory; disdained by some and cheered by others. The passions are fleeting and whimsical.

Appeals to reason, on the other hand, are anchored in the mind. Rational thought, as in the argument above that obligates all to respect the human right to life, cannot be dismissed by a wave of the hand. Do you have an alternative argument?

 

[durangodawood]

....Appeals to reason, on the other hand, are anchored in the mind. Rational thought, as in the argument above that obligates all to respect the human right to life, cannot be dismissed by a wave of the hand. Do you have an alternative argument?

Which post are you referring to?

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think so. We can objectively judge the preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor as evil.

If a serial rapist/killer whose orbit is a radius of 100 miles is denied a refill at the local gas stations then is the rapist/murderer justified in shooting the cops who guards the pumps? Are the cops the aggressors?.

The embargo included the freezing of Japanese assets in the US, which they would regard as their own property.

 

[RDKirk]

We cannot claim that the Japanese prediction that the U.S. would eventually enter the Pacific theater is true absent the Pearl Harbor attack. The 20/20 hindsight of history shows that the Pear Harbor attack was eventually devastating to the Japanese people. A more logical strategy for the Japanese in face of an oil embargo, would have been to cease their wars of aggression, redirect the military resources to build Toyota cars better than Ford or Fiats and invent a Lexus better than the Mercedes.

They still needed oil. The world morality of the time was to for nations to gain needed raw materials through exploitive colonialization. Practically every industrial nation was doing it. The US did it less because the US had vast resources right at hand, but the US still had a finger in the colonialization game.

Japan wasn't doing anything in that regard that other nations weren't doing. The US was more reacting to the events in Europe, with Japan being allied with a Germany that by then controlled France and through Germany's control of France, allowed Japan to occupy France's Asian colonies. Roosevelt used the anguish of Japan's brutality to rouse the rabble, but his purposes were focused on Europe.

 

[RDKirk]

Not at all -- they are separate things.

"Good" and "evil" can only be judged subjectively. "Success" or "failure" can be objectively measured.

The successful get to make the last subjective judgment.

 

[RDKirk]

Is that your suggestion? because it looks like chaos.

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.

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.

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)

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.

What I discovered as a jury member of a federal case is that under federal law, a citizen would have been justified in shooting federal police in a situation like the Breonna Taylor incident. The difficulty, of course, would be surviving the incident, but if it could get to court, the citizens would have a federal case.

 

[RDKirk]

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...

All the villains of The Expanse.

 

[RDKirk]

Luckily not available on kindle as I would have added it to my ever increasing pile of 'bought but yet not read' books. Which includes Booker's The Seven Basic Plots. Which is thicker than my family bible. Now I've taken it off the bookshelf looking for an example of a classic example of a 'moustache twirling evildoer' (immediately thinking of the superb Jack Lemmon in The Great Race) I might give it another go this evening.

Also recommend Stephen King's 'On Writing'. 'Part memoir, part masterclass'.

I had learned about the Seven Basic Plots many years before, but I can't find my original source.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The successful get to make the last subjective judgment.

But of course -- history books are written by the winning side.

 

[RDKirk]

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​

A "manifest intent," by definition is some kind of clearly visible action, not merely an intention. That's what "manifest" means. It would be the drawing of a gun in anger, not merely the wearing of a gun and not even the mere drawing of the gun.

2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent

What makes a "potential aggressor?" Is that not everyone with equal or greater physical power? Aren't women then justified in viewing every adult male as a "potential aggressor?" And isn't every woman justified in viewing any adult male who positions himself with 20 feet (the distance a man can cover faster than a woman can effectively react) a potential aggressor who has made an objective act that enables effecting his malevolent intent?

3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality

So then, a woman would be justified in taking action against every man that comes within 20 feet of her.
​

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

As someone has already mentioned, that pattern of logic should have resulted in nuclear war in 1949, 1963, 1973, and 1983.

 

[TLK Valentine]

All the villains of The Expanse.

General Hummel in The Rock -- pretty deep for a Michael Bay actionfest.

Dean Wormer in Animal House -- he was right about one thing; the Deltas were out of control.

Loki in Thor -- Big bro really wasn't ready to be a leader.

Even the "Wicked" Witch of the West is justified -- the shoes did belong to her sister, not the trespasser who dropped a house on her...

 

[o_mlly]

Which post are you referring to?

#21.