The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Belk]

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

Got it. So not any aggressor only ones who are "unjust"? How do we determine that?

 

[o_mlly]

Got it. So not any aggressor only ones who are "unjust"? How do we determine that?

An act of war for which the objective is not self-defense is an offensive act of war and is an unjust act.

Not to be confused with offensive military strikes to mitigate the unjust aggressor's capability to continue his unjust aggression. Such acts are still acts of self-defense.

 

[Belk]

An act of war for which the objective is not self-defense is an offensive act of war and is an unjust act.

Not to be confused with offensive military strikes to mitigate the unjust aggressor's capability to continue his unjust aggression. Such acts are still acts of self-defense.

So to summarize:

It is a grave evil to kill an innocent human being who is someone using force in self defense against another actor who is using force in an offensive manner.

Is this correct?

 

[o_mlly]

So to summarize:

It is a grave evil to kill an innocent human being who is someone using force in self defense against another actor who is using force in an offensive manner.

Is this correct?

Simply, it is always evil to directly kill an innocent human being. No other qualifiers necessary.

In the context of this thread, an innocent combatant in war is one who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor. Innocence is lost by using force unjustly.

The issue raised in this thread is do the conditions in post #1 ...

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

... suffice to justify the target launching a preemptive attack?

Today's weaponry is such that the first strike of an unjust aggressor may end the war.

What say you?

 

[Belk]

Simply, it is always evil to directly kill an innocent human being. No other qualifiers necessary.

Well, now have added a second qualifier. What qualifies as direct?

In the context of this thread, an innocent combatant in war is one who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor. Innocence is lost by using force unjustly.

Understood. Someone whom is simply defending having been attacked.

The issue raised in this thread is do the conditions in post #1 ...

... suffice to justify the target launching a preemptive attack?

Today's weaponry is such that the first strike of an unjust aggressor may end the war.

What say you?

So you have now provided a new distinction. Someone who will potentially become unjust in their actions but has yet to do so. So the question seems to be "Can we, with sufficient certitude, claim that an attack is justified because someone else looked to be readying an unjustified attack". Would you agree with that restatement of your question?

 

[o_mlly]

So you have now provided a new distinction.

? It was specified in post #1.

Someone who will potentially become unjust in their actions but has yet to do so.

More precisely: Is it sufficiently unjust to mortally threaten an innocent and then commit acts that enable those acts to be effected to be labelled an unjust aggressor? Do those aggressive acts justify a preemptive strike by the innocent party who reasonably judges that not acting will cause grave mortal injury? There is no certainty; only reasonable judgements.

 

[o_mlly]

What qualifies as direct?

In moral terms, an act is direct that has as its proximate end in view the death of an innocent person.

 

[Belk]

? It was specified in post #1.

I was talking about "direct" but let us leave that aside for now.

More precisely: Is it sufficiently unjust to mortally threaten an innocent and then commit acts that enable those acts to be effected to be labelled an unjust aggressor? Do those aggressive acts justify a preemptive strike by the innocent party who reasonably judges that not acting will cause grave mortal injury? There is no certainty; only reasonable judgements.

Thanks, as you state there is no certainty only a judgement call. In a one on one situation, such as your police example, I would say yes there is moral justification for self defense. If a crazed man threatens me with a knife and states his intention to kill me that should be sufficient justification for me to protect myself as he has made his intentions clear.

To your other question on state actors I think it much more difficult a situation. Actions and diplomacy at that level are obviously more complex then a simple one on one interaction. I think the case could be made (Germany in WW2 immediately comes to mind) but history has shown us plenty of times where preemptive moves were poorly thought out (Iraq).

 

[Belk]

In moral terms, an act is direct that has as its proximate end in view the death of an innocent person.

So for example fire bombing civilian populations would be direct?

 

[pc_76]

Gen 9:5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God He made man.

An attack on law enforcement that is life threatening is not something to be defended

There is the doctrine of proportionate force.

"Legally (and morally) speaking, there is (generally) a proportionality limit when it comes to self defense. Simply put, the use of force by a person acting in self defense must not be out of proportion to the use or threat of force by the attacker. An example: Person A throws a ping pong ball at Person B, and stands ready to throw another one."

But even that has limits -- so for example if a policeman is trying to arrest person a for a crime - and you interfere by throwing ping pong balls at the officer as he/she is trying to carry out their duty - he has the right to not only toss a ping pong ball - but also to physically arrest you as well for obstruction .

I don't believe a police officer should morally be held to a different standard of defense than any other regular person. Legally, I get that one though.

And I have to respectfully disagree with the doctrine of turning the other cheek even though Jesus said it and all. It still sounds more like opinion than actually effective. There is a time and place for it though, but there is also a time and place for self-defense even without any bars held.

 

[o_mlly]

To your other question on state actors I think it much more difficult a situation. Actions and diplomacy at that level are obviously more complex then a simple one on one interaction. I think the case could be made (Germany in WW2 immediately comes to mind) but history has shown us plenty of times where preemptive moves were poorly thought out (Iraq).

What is essentially different in the arguments that permits the policeman's (an individual) act of self-defense but denies the state (the collective) the same right?

So for example fire bombing civilian populations would be direct?

Yes. Directly targeting civilians is morally evil. However, targeting the munitions factory of an unjust aggressor in which civilians work is morally permitted given a proportionate calculation of damage to the war making capability to loss of civilian life is reasonable.

 

[Belk]

What is essentially different in the arguments that permits the policeman's (an individual) act of self-defense but denies the state (the collective) the same right?

Knowledge and scale. It is much easier to have an understanding of the likely outcome of a personal interaction then it is at a state level.

Yes. Directly targeting civilians is morally evil. However, targeting the munitions factory of an unjust aggressor in which civilians work is morally permitted given a proportionate calculation of damage to the war making capability to loss of civilian life is reasonable.

So directly targeting civilians is OK under certain conditions?

 

[o_mlly]

Knowledge and scale. It is much easier to have an understanding of the likely outcome of a personal interaction then it is at a state level.

"Knowledge" is a non-binary variable. Are you saying the collective can never have sufficient knowledge to ever justify a preemptive strike but the individual can?

"Scale" is also a non-binary. The preemptive strike need not be disproportionate to the threat posed.

 

[o_mlly]

So directly targeting civilians is OK under certain conditions?

The example does not target civilians.

 

[Belk]

The example does not target civilians.

If civilians are working a munitions factory it seems a distinction without a difference.

 

[Belk]

"Knowledge" is a non-binary variable. Are you saying the collective can never have sufficient knowledge to ever justify a preemptive strike but the individual can?

"Scale" is also a non-binary. The preemptive strike need not be disproportionate to the threat posed.

You correct, those are both non-binary. Is that an issue?

What I am saying is that the requisite knowledge that would be needed for a pre-emptive strike is much more esoteric on the level of state actors. The clues provided are much harder to discern then it is with a personal interaction.

 

[o_mlly]

If civilians are working a munitions factory it seems a distinction without a difference.

The UN International Criminal Court considers the distinction quite critical (along with proportionality and necessity) to judge the difference between a war crime and legitimate military targeting.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[25] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
​

You correct, those are both non-binary. Is that an issue?

What I am saying is that the requisite knowledge that would be needed for a pre-emptive strike is much more esoteric on the level of state actors. The clues provided are much harder to discern then it is with a personal interaction.

I agree. And those few with the specialized knowledge to judge are more likely to exist in the collective than in an individual. That is, the individual is more likely to err than the collective.

 

[Belk]

The UN International Criminal Court considers the distinction quite critical (along with proportionality and necessity) to judge the difference between a war crime and legitimate military targeting.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[25] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
​

That is fine from a legal stand point but I thought we were approaching this from a moral perspective?

I agree. And those few with the specialized knowledge to judge are more likely to exist in the collective than in an individual. That is, the individual is more likely to err than the collective.

That makes sense as it would likely require multiple individuals with knowledge specialized in different areas to come to a consensus.

 

[o_mlly]

That is fine from a legal stand point but I thought we were approaching this from a moral perspective?

Morality does take precedence over man's law. Laws which violate Divine Law, the source of moral authority, may be dismissed. Laws in concert with Divine Law ought to be respected. The right to self-defense is in concert with Divine Law ("Thou shalt not Kill"). Laws which reasonably constrain rather than liberalize one's rights to harm others are also to be respected. The UN letter cited merely mimics the same principles of morality imposed on the individual's exercise of his right to defend his life to the collective's right, ie., distinction, proportion and necessity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Simply, it is always evil to directly kill an innocent human being. No other qualifiers necessary.

How about indirectly? How many steps do you need to remove yourself from the process before you consider your hands to be clean?

In the context of this thread, an innocent combatant in war is one who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor. Innocence is lost by using force unjustly.

The one using force almost always believes they're using it justly -- the one they're using force against almost always tends to disagree.