The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[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.

Just out of curiosity do you believe in objective morality?

 

[RDKirk]

Just out of curiosity do you believe in objective morality?

If morality were objective in this universe, it would be provable as an entity in this universe. It would be a thing with distinct and independent existence. But I believe as a Christian that morality does not have independent existence, but is wholly a product of God and dependent on Him for existence. God is the author of morality, and He is not an object, nor is He objective.

Ethically speaking, Christianity is "divine command deontology," so what is ethical for me is to obey God. There is always some difficulty with every ethical system, however, and the big difficulty of divine command deontology is accurately hearing and correctly understanding the command. The mitigation of that difficulty is acknowledging that you might not have it right.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Your posts demonstrate that your agnosticism goes beyond the Deity. He who knows nothing believes in anything or nothing. There is no purpose in debating one who holds that there are no principles of morality. I bid you "à Dieu.

 

[o_mlly]

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

No. What one chooses to eat is a matter of taste but moderate eating is a good act as the body needs nourishment. Gluttony, is inordinate eating. If you do not see the difference between the two then we are at an impasse in this thread

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.

Not every act is a moral act but every act that requires intellect and will is.

I respect that you disagree that the indirect killing of civilians is, in your opinion, immoral. However, I asked if you you agreed that a preemptive attack under the conditions of post #1 aimed at only military targets is moral. What say you?

 

[o_mlly]

The Apaches.

An act of force against those who are presently invaders is not preemptive.

 

[o_mlly]

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

? No new terms; the issue remains: is murder ever moral. If you believe murder is ever permissible then we are at an impasse.

 

[RDKirk]

An act of force against those who are presently invaders is not preemptive.

They didn't think they were invaders. They thought they were fulfilling God-ordained Manifest Destiny.

 

[o_mlly]

They didn't think they were invaders. They thought they were fulfilling God-ordained Manifest Destiny.

If Charles Manson did not think he was a murderer then was he not one?

 

[durangodawood]

? No new terms; the issue remains: is murder ever moral. If you believe murder is ever permissible then we are at an impasse.

So permissible and moral are the same thing for the purposes of this discussion? Because to my mind those are different things.

 

[Belk]

If morality were objective in this universe, it would be provable as an entity in this universe. It would be a thing with distinct and independent existence. But I believe as a Christian that morality does not have independent existence, but is wholly a product of God and dependent on Him for existence. God is the author of morality, and He is not an object, nor is He objective.

Ethically speaking, Christianity is "divine command deontology," so what is ethical for me is to obey God. There is always some difficulty with every ethical system, however, and the big difficulty of divine command deontology is accurately hearing and correctly understanding the command. The mitigation of that difficulty is acknowledging that you might not have it right.

A well reasoned stance I would say. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[Belk]

No. What one chooses to eat is a matter of taste but moderate eating is a good act as the body needs nourishment. Gluttony, is inordinate eating. If you do not see the difference between the two then we are at an impasse in this thread

We were at an impasse when you declared morality objective. But you pose an interesting question and I enjoyed exploring it with you. Thank you for that.

Not every act is a moral act but every act that requires intellect and will is.

I respect that you disagree that the indirect killing of civilians is, in your opinion, immoral. However, I asked if you you agreed that a preemptive attack under the conditions of post #1 aimed at only military targets is moral. What say you?

I thought I had already given my opinion. The its morality relies upon a complex set of circumstances and there are to many variables to say one way or another.

 

[o_mlly]

So permissible and moral are the same thing for the purposes of this discussion? Because to my mind those are different things.

I think that "permissible" and "moral" would be synonyms in a forum entitled, "Ethics and Morality".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your posts demonstrate that your agnosticism goes beyond the Deity. He who knows nothing believes in anything or nothing. There is no purpose in debating one who holds that there are no principles of morality. I bid you "à Dieu.

I simple "I don't know," would have sufficed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think that "permissible" and "moral" would be synonyms in a forum entitled, "Ethics and Morality".

A common error. Can you handle correction?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think that "permissible" and "moral" would be synonyms in a forum entitled, "Ethics and Morality".

I think that "permissible" and "moral" being synonyms would be exactly the sort of thing one would debate in a forum entitled "Ethics and Morality".

 

[TLK Valentine]

If Charles Manson did not think he was a murderer then was he not one?

As a matter of fact, Charles Manson never killed anyone himself...It was the laws of the state of California that called him a murderer, in spite of never pulling a trigger or even giving an explicit order for anyone else to do so.

Try another example.

 

[o_mlly]

I think that "permissible" and "moral" being synonyms would be exactly the sort of thing one would debate in a forum entitled "Ethics and Morality".

You may start a thread, if you like.

As a matter of fact, Charles Manson never killed anyone himself...It was the laws of the state of California that called him a murderer, in spite of never pulling a trigger or even giving an explicit order for anyone else to do so.

That's incorrect. You'd better reacquaint yourself with the trial transcripts:

Direct examination by Vincent Bugliosi -- Testimony of Linda Kasabian, Manson Family member and star witness for the prosecution

I want you to kill him,' and he gave me a small pocket knife. And at this point I said, 'Charlie, I am not you, I cannot kill anybody.' And I don't know what took place at that moment, but I was very much afraid. And then he started to tell me how to go about doing it, and I remember I had the knife in my hand, and I asked him, With this? 'And he said, 'Yes,' and he showed me how to do it. He said, 'As soon as you enter the residence, the house, as soon as you see the man, slit his throat right away.' And he told Clem to shoot him. And then, also, he said if anything went wrong, you know, not to do it." ​

Can you handle correction?

Can you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You may start a thread, if you like.


That's incorrect. You'd better reacquaint yourself with the trial transcripts:

Direct examination by Vincent Bugliosi -- Testimony of Linda Kasabian, Manson Family member and star witness for the prosecution

I want you to kill him,' and he gave me a small pocket knife. And at this point I said, 'Charlie, I am not you, I cannot kill anybody.' And I don't know what took place at that moment, but I was very much afraid. And then he started to tell me how to go about doing it, and I remember I had the knife in my hand, and I asked him, With this? 'And he said, 'Yes,' and he showed me how to do it. He said, 'As soon as you enter the residence, the house, as soon as you see the man, slit his throat right away.' And he told Clem to shoot him. And then, also, he said if anything went wrong, you know, not to do it." ​

Can you?

Interesting. This testimony led, in part, to Manson's conviction, making it truth, insofar as the state of California is concerned.

I stand corrected.

 

[durangodawood]

I think that "permissible" and "moral" would be synonyms in a forum entitled, "Ethics and Morality".

Not so sure. Many people hold that various acts they find immoral should be permissible in the interest of liberty.

 

[partinobodycular]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

So ten year old Johnny just shot and killed his father, who was in the act of abusing Johnny's mother...was the killing of Johnny's father a moral act?