16 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThis thread has been focused on war and self-defense which take the lives of others for gain or to avoid loss which I do not believe justify deadly force. Actually it began primarily about war which I see as senseless. Give me an argument as to how they are sensible. Preferably an argument that dispenses with protocol, so I can more easily understand it.
Look, you claimed that the intentional killing of a human was murder and, hence, immoral. I can think of any number of cases where the inference from the premise "X is an instance of an intentional killing of a human" to the conclusion "X is an instance of an immoral act" seems an error. There are mercy killings, self-defense, the defense of loved ones, etc. ...[text shortened]... then give us an argument! It is not enough to claim "But humanity has been mistaken...".
BTW, now that you mention them, I could see mercy killings being justified in some cases. You're the first one to bring them up. The focus of this thread has been elsewhere.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou really need to buy a dictionary; your definitions are not only non-standard - they are unique.
I don't know how to break this to you, but a forfeiture IS an exception.
Also, I don't believe that "one has to accept death if someone else chooses to kill him." I believe that one shouldn't resort to deadly force in the face of a perceived threat. There is a difference.
At what point does a perceived threat warrant the forfeiture of the right to life?
You have refused to meaningfully debate this issue by not responding to numerous scenarios that are faced by some individuals every day. Sadly on Planet Earth sometimes one's only choices are to allow themselves or others to be killed or to use lethal force. You can deny this all you want, but that merely shows you are unwilling to face the consequences of your beliefs. So be it.
17 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI know KM and Josephw do. You seemed to have in the past, but not of late.
You seriously think I follow you around from thread to thread?
Are you that narcissistic, or just paranoid?
Should I start a thread on how Jesus taught salvation through righteousness? That way you can call me the "anti-christ" again.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWas it "senseless" for countries that were attacked by the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII to engage in war? What would you have suggested they do as an alternative?
This thread has been focused on war and self-defense which take the lives of others for gain or to avoid loss which I do not believe justify deadly force. Actually it began primarily about war which I see as senseless. Give me an argument as to how they are sensible. Preferably an argument that dispenses with protocol, so I can more easily understand it. ...[text shortened]... some cases. You're the first one to bring them up. The focus of this thread has been elsewhere.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you saying that forfeiture isn't an exception to the right to life?
You really need to buy a dictionary; your definitions are not only non-standard - they are unique.
You have refused to meaningfully debate this issue by not responding to numerous scenarios that are faced by some individuals every day. Sadly on Planet Earth sometimes one's only choices are to allow themselves or others to be killed or to us ...[text shortened]... nt, but that merely shows you are unwilling to face the consequences of your beliefs. So be it.
17 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's all senseless. Invariably both sides believe they are in the right.
Was it "senseless" for countries that were attacked by the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII to engage in war? What would you have suggested they do as an alternative?
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePlease answer the question: what should the alternative response of those countries attacked by the Nazis have been since you claim that to engage in war is "murder" and hence morally wrong?
It's all senseless. Invariably both sides believe they are in the right.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI got booted out when I tried make my post above, and thought it did not post. Haven’t been back since, and I just decided to let it go.
[/i]Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here.
"Protecting your own moral sanctity"? Why is this the only conclusion? Why would you kill another to protect the life of another? Is it to protect your own moral sanctity or is it because you see it as the right thing to do?
The Skipper, I think, provided a good example. Generally, the scenario I see is this:
1) One person is harming or attempting to harm an innocent person (murder, permanent disablement, torture, child rape—pick any egregious harm).
2) You recognize the innocence of the victim in this case.
3) You refuse to prevent the harm if such prevention entails lethal force.
—Or the risk that the force you apply will be lethal? Or, as in Skipper’s example, will result in permanent injury/impairment to the perpetrator?
4) The sole reason given for your refusal is that the use of lethal force is in all cases immoral.
—You have since acknowledged a possible exception for “mercy killings.”
5) Therefore, you would allow the person suffering egregious harm (including being killed) to suffer that harm—rather than to act in a manner that will risk yourself incurring moral guilt.
That is why I said that it seems to be a case of your being willing for another to suffer in order that you might preserve your own moral sanctity. That you yourself might be willing to suffer is not at issue. You seem to be valuing your own moral considerations more than the actual suffering of the victim.
I deliberately tried to list some egregious examples, to get at least a bit away from simplistic generality. I don’t know what atrocious act of harm you would be willing to use lethal force to prevent—your statement implied “none”.
___________________________________________
You do not distinguish between the victim’s right to not be harmed (including killed) and the perpetrator’s right to not be harmed (including killed)—even while the perpetrator is engaged in harming an innocent. Now, someone is going to be harmed. You are actually—assuming that you have some recourse to action—in the position of deciding who it will be. You seem to hold the view that, if your only recourse is (risk of?) lethal force, you choose that the victim, not the perpetrator, will suffer the harm. (I really don’t see how you can say that the perpetrator in such a case has an equal right to not be harmed as does the person they are attempting to harm.)
In fact, your overriding consideration seems to be that you not act to harm anyone (at least to the extent of lethal force). That consideration seems to trump consideration of the harm being done to the victim. That would be what I mean by “moral egoism”. (“At least I didn’t act in contradiction to my own moral considerations—no matter who suffers for it”.)
Again, I do not question your courage; I do not say that you would be unwilling to place your body between the perpetrator and the victim. The question is how far you’re willing to go, under what circumstances, to prevent the harm to the victim.
_______________________________________
It’s far to easy to make general moral pronouncements in the abstract. Here is a quote that I like:
“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”
—Hans Urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (from the Foreword).
__________________________________________
You are correct that this discussion is removed a bit from the opening question of conscientious objection in war. It is only your broader statement on personal use of lethal force that I am responding to. In answer to your question: My primary consideration (I hope) will be to prevent the actual harm to the victim. I think that is the right (or least wrong) thing to do. I try to let what is actually happening to people—in the reality of a given situation—trump whatever other moral principles I might generally hold, especially my own moral self-justification.
I realize that I am subjecting myself to moral risk (risk of moral error). Maybe that—the willingness to take that moral risk—is my own “moral egoism”. I don’t think so, but that’s a matter for my own ongoing self-vigilence.