The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[RDKirk]

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

Maybe, maybe not. For instance, within one agency, such as the CIA, there may be a team of analysts working a particular problem, but in fact their "consensus" might be forced by the team leader...I've seen that happen. I've also seen the lone dissenter proved to be the person who was right.

And when the agencies collaborate, "consensus" can be forced by the agency with the greatest power within the bureaucracy. I've seen that happen as well. In fact, that's how the system in the US is designed.

So it can easily happen more often than not that the "consensus" that reaches the Situation Room can be the conclusion of a single individual.

 

[Belk]

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.

I would disagree with that.

 

[o_mlly]

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

How many do you need?

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

So, you believe, for instance, the 12 leading Nazi officials convicted at Nuremberg of mass murder were really innocent?

 

[o_mlly]

I would disagree with that.

OK. Do you agree that a preemptive strike under the conditions in post #1 aimed at only military installations is moral?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, you believe, for instance, the 12 leading Nazi officials convicted at Nuremberg of mass murder were really innocent?

They certainly believed it, in their opinion -- I don't, in mine.

Whose opinion is correct?

 

[o_mlly]

They certainly believed it, in their opinion -- I don't, in mine.

Whose opinion is correct?

It appears, as before in this thread, that your notion of morality is entirely subjective.

Absent an objective morality, anything -- even murder -- is permissible. We are at an impasse. Thank you for your input.

 

[Belk]

OK. Do you agree that a preemptive strike under the conditions in post #1 aimed at only military installations is moral?

Is there something in between moral and immoral? Amoral? I don't see it as either moral or immoral.

 

[RDKirk]

It appears, as before in this thread, that your notion of morality is entirely subjective.

Absent an objective morality, anything -- even murder -- is permissible. We are at an impasse. Thank you for your input.

Not really. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored by whom.

When Apache Indians attacked a troop of US cavalry who had invaded the land the Indians had been moved to after being pushed out of their previous land by the previous troop of US cavalry, where does the morality lie?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It appears, as before in this thread, that your notion of morality is entirely subjective.

As it has to be -- all morality is situational, whether you agree or not.

Absent an objective morality, anything -- even murder -- is permissible.

"Murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. If you can believe that there are situations when killing a person is morally permissible (and we already know you do), then all that remains is to conceive of a situation where breaking the law is permissible... and there are plenty such situations.

Therefore, all we need is for both situations to occur at once -- where the illegal killing of another person is morally correct.

Let's look at the Bible for one such example: Exodus 2:11-12. Moses broke the law by killing the Egyptian who was beating the Hebrew slave -- in hindsight, was what he did wrong?

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

We are only at an impasse if you choose to surrender. I hope you don't.

 

[durangodawood]

....Absent an objective morality, anything -- even murder -- is permissible. ....

If enough people subjectively believe murder is wrong, they will write and enforce a law to make it impermissible.

 

[o_mlly]

Is there something in between moral and immoral? Amoral? I don't see it as either moral or immoral.

A preemptive strike cannot be an amoral act. An amoral act is one which does not involve thinking or willing, eg., breathing. All human acts involve the intellect and the will -- the actor(s) reflect upon and freely will to commit the act. (See actus hominis -- an act of a human being; and actus humanus -- a human action). Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

A preemptive strike may be good or evil based on the moral object of the act, the intention or end-in-view and the circumstances. I have argued that a preemptive strike that has as its moral object the defense of innocent persons, an intent to prevent an aggressor's capability to launch an unjust attack, and within the circumstances listed in post #1 is a moral act.

How say you?

 

[o_mlly]

Not really. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored by whom.

When Apache Indians attacked a troop of US cavalry who had invaded the land the Indians had been moved to after being pushed out of their previous land by the previous troop of US cavalry, where does the morality lie?

Who made the preemptive strike in your example?

 

[o_mlly]

As it has to be -- all morality is situational, whether you agree or not.

"Situational" is not "subjective". Do you mean to say all morality is relative? Your loose use of terms is quite confusing.

"Murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. If you can believe that there are situations when killing a person is morally permissible (and we already know you do), then all that remains is to conceive of a situation where breaking the law is permissible... and there are plenty such situations.

Not all human killings are murder. Can you give an example of a morally permissible murder? I think not.

Therefore, all we need is for both situations to occur at once -- where the illegal killing of another person is morally correct.

Breaking a law which denied an innocent person's right to defend his life is morally permissible. That law is invalid.

Let's look at the Bible for one such example: Exodus 2:11-12. Moses broke the law by killing the Egyptian who was beating the Hebrew slave -- in hindsight, was what he did wrong?

See above.

We are only at an impasse if you choose to surrender. I hope you don't.

Surrender? I don't see a post from you that refutes the argument in post #1. Did I miss it? If so kindly give me your post #.

 

[o_mlly]

If enough people subjectively believe murder is wrong, they will write and enforce a law to make it impermissible.

Does the morality of an act of murder depend on a majority vote? If you believe so then we are also at an impasse.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Situational" is not "subjective". Do you mean to say all morality is relative? Your loose use of terms is quite confusing.

Feel free to explain the relevant difference between situational and subjective.

Not all human killings are murder. Can you give an example of a morally permissible murder? I think not.

You mean aside from the one I already did? Call Moses a sinner for saving the Hebrew slave's life.

Breaking a law which denied an innocent person's right to defend his life is morally permissible. That law is invalid.

Which makes breaking the law not only morally permissible, but arguably a moral obligation. Glad to see you get it.

See above.

Ditto.

 

[Belk]

A preemptive strike cannot be an amoral act. An amoral act is one which does not involve thinking or willing, eg., breathing. All human acts involve the intellect and the will -- the actor(s) reflect upon and freely will to commit the act. (See actus hominis -- an act of a human being; and actus humanus -- a human action). Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

Not buying it. Eating ice cream is neither good nor evil.

A preemptive strike may be good or evil based on the moral object of the act, the intention or end-in-view and the circumstances. I have argued that a preemptive strike that has as its moral object the defense of innocent persons, an intent to prevent an aggressor's capability to launch an unjust attack, and within the circumstances listed in post #1 is a moral act.

How say you?

Not buying that everything must fit into a dichotomy of good or evil. You are claiming that civilians who are killed in a preemptive attack can be moral and I do not see that as being the case. Best case scenario it is a regrettable side effect of a necessary action.

 

[RDKirk]

Who made the preemptive strike in your example?

The Apaches.

 

[durangodawood]

Does the morality of an act of murder depend on a majority vote? If you believe so then we are also at an impasse.

Youre changing terms on me. The question, in your original terms, is about what is "permissible".

 

[RDKirk]

Not buying that everything must fit into a dichotomy of good or evil. You are claiming that civilians who are killed in a preemptive attack can be moral and I do not see that as being the case. Best case scenario it is a regrettable side effect of a necessary action.

That's actually the way I feel about self-defense. As a Christian--and I can't separate my sense of its morality from my Christianity--I have to agree with the late missionary Nate Saint on personal self-defense: "I am prepared to meet my Maker; they are not." If I truly belief I will life after death, I have to give consideration to letting that other guy have more opportunity to know Christ (how that worked out for Nate Saint is an interesting story--it's in Wikipedia).

But I've also done wartime targeting. The law and ethic upon US military forces is that we always target military objectives, not civilians, and when civilians are unavoidable "collateral damage," we reconsider the target, and ultimately choose the weapon and shade the aim point to preserve civilian life as much as possible. Even with nuclear weapons. I did target work in the Vietnam war, when statistically it took 21 bombing attempts to destroy one target (and those other 20 bombs landed somewhere unintended), and as well for the Persian Gulf War when we employed truly smart weapons. Smart weapons are certainly better.

But I, personally, never take the stance that ending a human life is a "moral" thing. It is never ever, ever a matter of "righteousness" to be proud of, but always, always, always, always enshrouded in sin, tainted by sin, and something to regret.

 

[Belk]

That's actually the way I feel about self-defense. As a Christian--and I can't separate my sense of its morality from my Christianity--I have to agree with the late missionary Nate Saint on personal self-defense: "I am prepared to meet my Maker; they are not." If I truly belief I will life after death, I have to give consideration to letting that other guy have more opportunity to know Christ (how that worked out for Nate Saint is an interesting story--it's in Wikipedia).

But I've also done wartime targeting. The law and ethic upon US military forces is that we always target military objectives, not civilians, and when civilians are unavoidable "collateral damage," we reconsider the target, and ultimately choose the weapon and shade the aim point to preserve civilian life as much as possible. Even with nuclear weapons. I did target work in the Vietnam war, when statistically it took 21 bombing attempts to destroy one target (and those other 20 bombs landed somewhere unintended), and as well for the Persian Gulf War when we employed truly smart weapons. Smart weapons are certainly better.

But I, personally, never take the stance that ending a human life is a "moral" thing. It is never ever, ever a matter of "righteousness" to be proud of, but always, always, always, always enshrouded in sin, tainted by sin, and something to regret.

Had not realized your service went all the way back to Vietnam. I, as a non Christian, have a slightly different take. I find the idea of life after death unlikely so I tend to take self defense a bit more seriously. At the end of the day though we all pass through the veil at some point. Thanks for the info on Nate Saint. Sounds like an interesting read so I'll look him up.