The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[o_mlly]

If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no.

If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then it's allowed.

?

Add to the contradiction above, your previous post that at no time did a human exist who did not possess a right to life and you can see why your position is fatally confused.

My right to life exists independent of others agreeing that it is so. Does your right to life exist only if your neighbor agrees for the moment that he's OK with that? If so, I trust the locks on your doors and windows are in good order.

 

[o_mlly]

I would argue that even with a literal interpretation of Genesis (mine isn't literal, btw), there is still no "natural" right to life even in the Bible. There is only a privilege to live as granted by a supernatural being and always subject to His will.

His Eternal Laws control all creation. Divine, or revealed laws, are God's gift enabling us to know His will in order that we be saved. Natural Law is God's gift that through His other gift of reason, we can expand on His Divine Law and know how to live the good life. Natural rights are rationally derived from Natural Law. For instance, Divine Law instructs that, "Thou shalt not kill". Natural Law derives from the command that humans have a right to their life.

 

[o_mlly]

If Texas found out that Oklahoma was going to attack and decided to attack Oklahoma before they had an opportunity to strike that would be considered a preemptive attack.

I do not see your point. If you disagree on the proposed conditions in post #1 as necessary predicates to morally permit the preemptive strike, then specify which one to omit or add.

 

[o_mlly]

That is nearly always the case for any war. "We had no choice" is always the justification, such as it was for both Germany and Japan leading to WWII.

Were Germany and Japan justified in instigating unjust wars? In WWII, those countries were the only ones I believe that launched preemptive strikes. Neither met the conditions in post #1 and, therefore, IMO were not morally justified.

 

[RDKirk]

His Eternal Laws control all creation. Divine, or revealed laws, are God's gift enabling us to know His will in order that we be saved. Natural Law is God's gift that through His other gift of reason, we can expand on His Divine Law and know how to live the good life. Natural rights are rationally derived from Natural Law. For instance, Divine Law instructs that, "Thou shalt not kill". Natural Law derives from the command that humans have a right to their life.

If it's given by law, then it is not a right, and definitely not a natural one.

 

[RDKirk]

Were Germany and Japan justified in instigating unjust wars? In WWII, those countries were the only ones I believe that launched preemptive strikes. Neither met the conditions in post #1 and, therefore, IMO were not morally justified.

That's your opinion of the position that they were put into by the other nations. That's not their judgment of their position.

 

[Bradskii]

↑
If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no.

↑
If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then it's allowed.

Add to the contradiction above...

That is one of the worst examples of misquoting that I have ever experienced. Absolutely shameful. This is the context of those quotes:

Post 184
O: Do others have an obligation to respect the innocent's right to life?
B: If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no.

Post 197
O: Is there a moral claim that one state may preemptively attack another?
B: If it (a right to life) is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then it's allowed.

The first is talking about the actual right to life - others have no obligation to respect it. And the second is talking about preemptive attacks - which are then allowed because of the previous statement.

I can't see that that was anything but an intentional attempt to make it appear that I was contradicting myself. Utterly disgracefull.

 

[o_mlly]

If it's given by law, then it is not a right, and definitely not a natural one.

?
Within the context of this thread, recognizing the source of the right to life is unimportant.

Do you hold that no innocent human being has or ever had a right to life; natural, supernatural or otherwise? If so such an opinion is contrary to western civilization and we are at an impasse.

 

[o_mlly]

That's your opinion of the position that they were put into by the other nations. That's not their judgment of their position.

Not opinion, fact. We can objectively determine the morality of human acts.

Are you attempting to justify the preemptive attacks of Japan and Germany in WWII claiming other nations made them do evil? Nonsense.

 

[o_mlly]

That is one of the worst examples of misquoting that I have ever experienced. Absolutely shameful. This is the context of those quotes:

Post 184
O: Do others have an obligation to respect the innocent's right to life?
B: If it is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then no.

Post 197
O: Is there a moral claim that one state may preemptively attack another?
B: If it (a right to life) is a natural evolved agreement as per the golden rule, then it's allowed.

The first is talking about the actual right to life - others have no obligation to respect it. And the second is talking about preemptive attacks - which are then allowed because of the previous statement.

I can't see that that was anything but an intentional attempt to make it appear that I was contradicting myself. Utterly disgracefull.

Appear so? Those are your very words. And your stretch to invent some kind of context that makes the two statements seem reasonable just does not work. The muddling continues.

 

[Bradskii]

Appear so? Those are your very words. And your stretch to invent some kind of context that makes the two statements seem reasonable just does not work. The muddling continues.

The context is not 'invented'. It is there for all to see. Post numbers included so that the meaning is crystal clear. And you have the effrontery to double down? Doubly shameful.

 

[RDKirk]

?
Within the context of this thread, recognizing the source of the right to life is unimportant.

Do you hold that no innocent human being has or ever had a right to life; natural, supernatural or otherwise? If so such an opinion is contrary to western civilization and we are at an impasse.

I've been saying all along that God privileges us to live, based upon His grace and will.

Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” -- James 4

 

[RDKirk]

Not opinion, fact. We can objectively determine the morality of human acts.

Are you attempting to justify the preemptive attacks of Japan and Germany in WWII claiming other nations made them do evil? Nonsense.

They justified their attacks to themselves, and, indeed, they were being starved of resources by more potent coalitions of nations.

All you're still talking about is one nation justifying its pre-emptive attack to itself.

 

[o_mlly]

I've been saying all along that God privileges us to live, based upon His grace and will.

Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” -- James 4

If God privileges all men to live then all men with respect to each other have a right to live.

 

[o_mlly]

They justified their attacks to themselves, and, indeed, they were being starved of resources by more potent coalitions of nations.

All you're still talking about is one nation justifying its pre-emptive attack to itself.

? Serial killers often justify their murders to themselves. But they remain murderers.

Starved of resources? May the serial killer who is running out of gas to continue his killing spree murder me because I won't let him fill up at my gas station?

If you are an extreme moral relativist -- all morality is subjective, in the mind of the actor -- then we are at an impasse.

 

[RDKirk]

If God privileges all men to live then all men with respect to each other then have a right to live.

For those who mutually recognize God's authority.

 

[o_mlly]

For those who mutually recognize God's authority.

So an atheist may commit murder?

 

[RDKirk]

? Serial killers often justify their murders to themselves. But they remain murderers.

Starved of resources? May the serial killer who is running out of gas to continue his killing spree murder me because I won't let him fill up at my gas station?

If you are an extreme moral relativist -- all morality is subjective, in the mind of the actor -- then we are at an impasse.

Morality is subjective, because God is not objective, nor is He subjected to any other authority.

It is easily arguable that the Armistice of 11 November 1918 placed Germany in a position from which it could not survive as a nation.

 

[RDKirk]

So an atheist may commit murder?

If there is not a man with a gun to stop him.

Although, sometimes God may directly intervene:

 

[o_mlly]

If there is not a man with a gun to stop him.

We are at an impasse. Thank you for your input.