The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[durangodawood]

Answer a question with a question? Your question requires its own thread. However, in the context of this thread, your question can be limited to good and evil acts in relation to human life.

• All have a right to their own life.
• All rights imply a reciprocal obligation on others to respect that right.
• One's right to one's own life is absolute, iff that one respects the rights of others.
• One who respects the other's right to life is innocent.
  
• All acts that preserve or protect innocent life are objectively good acts.
• All acts that violate or endanger innocent life are objectively evil acts.

So I ask again, how did you rationally conclude that good and evil can only be subjectively judged?

Point one is not rational. Its a pre-rational value we hold. I happen to hold it too. But I cannot reason to it. Its an assumed premise, basically.

 

[o_mlly]

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

A freezing of assets does not change title to those assets; only inhibits the holding banks from transferring them.

So, back to the serial/rapist at the gas station, is he permitted to shoot me dead because I refused to accept his money for a fill-up?

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.

I don't think your history report above is accurate.

However, the argument that "everyone else is doing it" as moral justification is a fallacious argument.

 

[RDKirk]

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...

And Glinda lied to Dorothy.

 

[RDKirk]

However, the argument that "everyone else is doing it" as moral justification is a fallacious argument.

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

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.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And Glinda lied to Dorothy.

And let's not even get started on the "Wizard."

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Melding the first two criteria into a single act is possible but that single act must do both, ie., demonstrate a malevolent intention and objectively demonstrate the capability of effecting the same.

"Manifest intent" often, but not necessarily, precedes the objective act(s) that enables the malfeasance intended to be effected. Often it is simply the unambiguous communication of the malevolent intent that suffices to meet the first criteria.

 

[o_mlly]

What makes a "potential aggressor?"

One who manifestly demonstrates an unjust intention to mortally harm another.

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

No, for the obvious reason.

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

What was mentioned, if that is what you are referring to, was my post that claimed the mere existence of an offensive plan to defend the homeland is insufficient to justify a preemptive strike. If not, make the case for your claim using the criteria proposed.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

"Court records show that Louisville police obtained a warrant with a no-knock provision for Taylor's apartment approved by Jefferson Circuit Judge Mary Shaw, though police and prosecutors have said that the officers knocked and announced themselves before breaking down the door."

Police knocked on the door where Breonna Taylor was living -
"Walker, who was described as audibly upset, described multiple knocks with both he and Taylor shouting, “Who is it?” -- New audio suggests police knocked on door, announced themselves before entering Breonna Taylor’s home


"When the couple was awoken by the knocks on the door, Walker, suspecting a home invasion, issued a “warning shot” at the lower part of the door. The shot hit the leg of Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, injuring him."
Fact check: Police had 'no-knock' warrant for Breonna Taylor apartment.


So the argument seems to be that even when the judge signs a no-knock warrant and the police knock anyway - you are saying the citizens are supposed to shoot the police? Which is what the suspect did - shot one officer in the leg before they opened the door or they saw the police or before the police fired a single shot. Then after the door was opened you are saying he could then kill all the other officers? Because that is what the jury you were on thought citizens are allowed to do under federal law?

 

[RDKirk]

So the argument seems to be that even when the judge signs a no-knock warrant and the police knock anyway - you are saying the citizens are supposed to shoot the police? Which is what the suspect did - shot one officer in the leg before they opened the door or they saw the police or before the police fired a single shot. Then after the door was opened you are saying he could then kill all the other officers? Because that is what the jury you were on thought citizens are allowed to do under federal law?

What I said was that they would have a case in federal court. It's not a matter of what the jury "thought." It was a matter of what the court instructed us the law actually said with regard to citizens defending themselves against the use of force by federal officers.

I had previously thought that citizens essentially had no self-defense rights against the use of force by police...but the court instructed us federal law states otherwise. Depending on circumstances, a citizen has a self-defense right to shoot at federal officials breaking into his home--it's part of the Fourth Amendment as determined by court precedent. As I said, surviving the encounter to bring it to court would be the major problem, but the right exists in the law. That got an initial "Whut?" response from me, and it was the factor that sent that particular defendant home free.

BTW, you do know that knocking on a door in the early morning hours and then breaking in is a modus primus operandus of home invaders, don't you? If you want someone to think you're a home invader, hammering his door at 2:00 AM and then breaking in is the way to make someone think you're a home invader.

That's why the Brionna Taylor case reverberated hard even in the extremely conservative gun forums I frequent. A whole lot of gun owners saw themselves in precisely the position of Taylor and Walker.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW, you do know that knocking on a door in the early morning hours and then breaking in is a modus primus operandus of home invaders, don't you?

I was not aware that home invaders knock first - but I do agree that busting in at 2 A.M. is likely the method they would use.

Having a known drug dealer in the home - then having a sudden bust-down-the-door scenario is also something that seems likely.

Drug dealers might think of themselves as having limited options when someone is pounding at the door
1. Is it a rival drug dealer?
2. Is it a junkie that thinks we have drugs in the house?
3. Is the police and I have been caught - and am going to jail.
4. Is it a home invader randomly selecting my home?

Maybe he decides that no matter which of the 4 it might be - he should shoot through the door in response.

 

[o_mlly]

Point one is not rational. Its a pre-rational value we hold. I happen to hold it too. But I cannot reason to it. Its an assumed premise, basically.

?
Is it good for a person, whole in body and mind, to be alive?

 

[durangodawood]

?
Is it good for a person, whole in body and mind, to be alive?

I think so. But thats not a rational position. Its a value that precedes reasoning. You can reason from that position. But you cant reason to it.

I do know that some other value systems in the world rate prospects of the collective society above the individual in some respects.

 

[BobRyan]

I do know that some other value systems in the world rate prospects of the collective society above the individual in some respects.

Communism is pretty focused on that idea.

In America individuals have rights not just the nation.

 

[durangodawood]

Communism is pretty focused on that idea.

In America individuals have rights not just the nation.

Yeah, my disposition leans more toward individual values.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Humbert Humbert in Lolita. Brilliantly self justified...and sympathetic...and horrifying.

And let's not even get started on the "Wizard."

 

[RDKirk]

I was not aware that home invaders knock first - but I do agree that busting in at 2 A.M. is likely the method they would use.

Having a known drug dealer in the home - then having a sudden bust-down-the-door scenario is also something that seems likely.

Drug dealers might think of themselves as having limited options when someone is pounding at the door
1. Is it a rival drug dealer?
2. Is it a junkie that thinks we have drugs in the house?
3. Is the police and I have been caught - and am going to jail.
4. Is it a home invader randomly selecting my home?

Maybe he decides that no matter which of the 4 it might be - he should shoot through the door in response.

For an honest citizen, however, the first three possibilities are precluded. An honest citizen--and this is why people on the gun forums were upset--is going to start with possibility #4. That's why he's got a gun in his nightstand in the first place. The Fourth Amendment opens the further possibility that it might be federal agents operating unjustly.

 

[RDKirk]

Communism is pretty focused on that idea.

Christianity can also put a person into that position.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Humbert Humbert in Lolita. Brilliantly self justified...and sympathetic...and horrifying.

Gotta disagree on that one -- Humbert's a pedophile and a creep; he only comes off as mildly sympathetic because he's telling his own story.

Once you realize he's a unreliable narrator...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Gotta disagree on that one -- Humbert's a pedophile and a creep; he only comes off as mildly sympathetic because he's telling his own story.

Once you realize he's a unreliable narrator...

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.

 

[o_mlly]

I think so. But thats not a rational position. Its a value that precedes reasoning. You can reason from that position. But you cant reason to it.

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.