The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[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.

My aspirin kicked in allowing me now to reread your posts. And, sorry to say your "Utterly [sic] disgracefull" effort to redeem yourself as a victim of a misquote fails: both posts have the same antecedent for your pronoun "it", ie., "that right to life". Want to try again?

If that right to life ...

And if that right to life ...

While you're conjuring up some other way to square these 2 contradictions, you should include something explaining your 3rd contradiction in which you agreed that at no time did a human being not possess the right to life.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Missed this comment in my first response.

Poland was not a recipient of any German reparations for WWI and yet it was the first target of German unjust aggression.

 

[RDKirk]

Missed this comment in my first response.

Poland was not a recipient of any German reparations for WWI and yet it was the first target of German unjust aggression.

Poland was part of the pack, though, and the weakest member of the pack.

 

[Bradskii]

My aspirin kicked in allowing me now to reread your posts. And, sorry to say your "Utterly [sic] disgracefull" effort to redeem yourself as a victim of a misquote fails: both posts have the same antecedent for your pronoun "it", ie., "that right to life". Want to try again?

​

While you're conjuring up some other way to square these 2 contradictions, you should include something explaining your 3rd contradiction in which you agreed that at no time did a human being not possess the right to life.

We're done. You can't be trusted to hold a reasonable conversation.

 

[o_mlly]

Poland was part of the pack, though, and the weakest member of the pack.

? Poland was not a country until after WWI.

 

[RDKirk]

? Poland was not a country until after WWI.

We're talking about 1939.

 

[o_mlly]

We're done. You can't be trusted to hold a reasonable conversation.

Notice the incoherence in even your (erroneous) indignation at being misquoted. One cannot know indignation without first knowing what Dignity is. But you're an atheist. ?

You will not admit that the killing of the innocent is literally, ie., categorically, wrong but merely hypothetically so. And then falsely bluster at length about being wrongfully quoted. Being misquoted, one must infer to your belief system, is an act of deception that is not merely hypothetically wrong, but categorically wrong. How can murder only be hypothetically wrong but an act of willful deception be categorically wrong? Feel free to rejoin the thread if you care to explain yourself.

 

[o_mlly]

We're talking about 1939.

We're off topic.

 

[Belk]

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.

How does one objectively determine morality in any fashion?

 

[o_mlly]

How does one objectively determine morality in any fashion?

The morality of a human act can be objectively determined by examining the objective of the act, the intention of the actor and the circumstances surrounding the act. If any one of the three sources of morality fail then the act is evil. The determination of the objective morality of the act does not determine the subjective culpability of the actor. A further explanation would take another thread.

In the context of this thread, a state that takes a preemptive strike has as an objective of the act the self-defense of its citizenry. The intent of the act is to disable the unjust aggressor's capability to effect the evil that the aggressor has shown to be imminent both in its expressed intention and acts, and the circumstances are such that the act is the state's last resort.

 

[Belk]

The morality of a human act can be objectively determined by examining the objective of the act, the intention of the actor and the circumstances surrounding the act. If any one of the three sources of morality fail then the act is evil. The determination of the objective morality of the act does not determine the subjective culpability of the actor. A further explanation would take another thread.

In the context of this thread, a state that takes a preemptive strike has as an objective of the act the self-defense of its citizenry. The intent of the act is to disable the unjust aggressor's capability to effect the evil that the aggressor has shown to be imminent both in its expressed intention and acts, and the circumstances are such that the act is the state's last resort.

Indeed. Given that no human in existence that I am aware of has come up with a way to measure morality I can see where that would take a lot of exposition. Thank you for explaining your position.

 

[RDKirk]

The morality of a human act can be objectively determined by examining the objective of the act, the intention of the actor and the circumstances surrounding the act. If any one of the three sources of morality fail then the act is evil. The determination of the objective morality of the act does not determine the subjective culpability of the actor. A further explanation would take another thread.

In the context of this thread, a state that takes a preemptive strike has as an objective of the act the self-defense of its citizenry. The intent of the act is to disable the unjust aggressor's capability to effect the evil that the aggressor has shown to be imminent both in its expressed intention and acts, and the circumstances are such that the act is the state's last resort.

And so, if surrounding nations are choking one's nation of resources necessary for national survival--but not actually "raising arms" against it, does the nation being choked have a right to defend itself?

 

[o_mlly]

And so, if surrounding nations are choking one's nation of resources necessary for national survival--but not actually "raising arms" against it, does the nation being choked have a right to defend itself?

Hitler unilaterally canceled all reparation payments in 1933. He had no justification to preemptively strike Poland in 1939.

If a state does not have sufficient resources to provide basic food, shelter and clothing for its citizens and other states will not trade with or loan resources to them then some other important factor is not being disclosed. What would it be?

 

[o_mlly]

Indeed. Given that no human in existence that I am aware of has come up with a way to measure morality I can see where that would take a lot of exposition. Thank you for explaining your position.

See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 18. "The good and evil of human acts, in general."

 

[Belk]

See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 18. "The good and evil of human acts, in general."

I'm not certain what point you are making with this. That use the label "good" and "evil" is not in dispute. Could you elaborate on what you feel this evidences?

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not certain what point you are making with this. That use the label "good" and "evil" is not in dispute. Could you elaborate on what you feel this evidences?

I guess I'm responding to the notion that no one has come up with a way to measure the morality of an act. Whether the act is evil or good seems to be the definitive measurement. Perhaps I misunderstood you post.

 

[Belk]

I guess I'm responding to the notion that no one has come up with a way to measure the morality of an act. Whether the act is evil or good seems to be the definitive measurement. Perhaps I misunderstood you post.

No you understood correctly but I don't think this works as a measurement. How does one measure evil? What are the quanta used?

 

[o_mlly]

No you understood correctly but I don't think this works as a measurement. How does one measure evil? What are the quanta used?

For purposes of this thread, the direct killing of an innocent human being is a grave evil.

 

[Belk]

For purposes of this thread, the direct killing of an innocent human being is a grave evil.

OK. If it is only innocent human beings how does one go about determining innocence? This seems like another subjective call.

 

[o_mlly]

OK. If it is only innocent human beings how does one go about determining innocence? This seems like another subjective call.

In the context of this thread, an innocent human being is one who uses force to defend against an unjust aggressor.