Jus ad Bellum and Preemptive War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And Pindar, I'm not really sure how to answer your question, I guess it's one of those things I've gotten from birth... To me, being a human means that I should not kill another human being no matter what. And as for being avoidable, to me that means immoral, because killing is always the easy way. To accomplish your goal without killing anyone is always harder...

---

My question was why you placed an immoral label on killing men. Why should anyone accept your position? The initial answers you gave: biology and avoidance do not in and of themselves address the question. If a tradition of pacifism is the reason, that also fails to provide a grounding to the label. If you were only interested in presenting your view and not the reasons behind it or that it is the 'correct' position to take I won't press you.

Quote:

---

BTW, just to clarify, I do not hate people who have killed, and I do not condemn the act of killing. I have nothing against evil, as long as people realize that what they have done is evil...

---

To state something is immoral or evil is to condemn that thing by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Pindar:

How does Hobbes fit in to this?

If you accept a Hobbesian view of the state of nature, it implies to me that peace is the exception and war -- pre-emptive or otherwise -- the rule.

---

Hobbes didn't come from the Classical Tradition, and in fact rejected much of it. Hobbes would argue that applying notions like justice to nation's acts toward other nations/peoples is to commit a category mistake. Justice only applies to individual conduct and within the confines of the realm i.e. the roles of sovereign and the subject through the social contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The above is a contradiction.

---

No it isn't.

Edit:

Oh, and in answer to your policeman question then yes it is unjust. Necessary in a practical, self-preserving kind of way, but certainly not justice. When a policeman kills there is always an investigation is there not?

Further, if the police can provide justice (pre-emptive or otherwise) using the gun why then do we have courts, judges, juries, lawyers and such like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My question was why you placed an immoral label on killing men. Why should anyone accept your position? The initial answers you gave: biology and avoidance do not in and of themselves address the question. If a tradition of pacifism is the reason, that also fails to provide a grounding to the label. If you were only interested in presenting your view and not the reasons behind it or that it is the 'correct' position to take I won't press you.

---

Well I wont do anything else than hope that the world will change to a better place for everyone... I'm not quite sure how to explain it better than I have, call it a gut feeling or something. I just cannot see any situation whatsoever where the killing of another human being would be the good solution. But I can certainly understand a lot of people who killed, and I don't have a problem with quite a few of them. I didn't cry for saddam, for example, and I wont cry if someone decides to give bush a rope either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

To state something is immoral or evil is to condemn that thing by definition.

---

Certainly not! Take a soldier, for example. He simply cannot disobey his orders. Now, if he is ordered to shoot someone, I'm not going to blame him for it, although what he did and was a part of was still evil.

I have no problem whatsoever with evil, that's where all the fun is anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ah, but I know that trait, and I'm not fool enough to ignore it, however, I genuinely believe that it can be removed. Just like the religious things and private property.

---

Then you will be sadly mistaken. To remove that trait removes what it is to be human. Which would make your version of man into something worse then living under tryanny.

Pindar:

I've noted something funny with the polls you initiate, you never seem to vote on them. Or is it a problem with my interface?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Pindar:

I've noted something funny with the polls you initiate, you never seem to vote on them. Or is it a problem with my interface?:inquisitive:

---

Pindar is using them as a means of research. The researcher, traditionally, tries not to influence her/his research results by providing their own views.

You'll note that Pindar, when starting these poll threads, tends to take a fairly "distanced" stance with his own posting therein -- often only responding to direct questions -- while he tries to make sense of the opinions he's solicited.

On a non-poll, he is more than willing to "have at" the opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

No it isn't.

---

Yes, it is. Note your post again:

"The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.

It can, however, still be justified."

You reject preemptive justice and state a preemptive war cannot be a just war. The sentence that follows says it can still be justified. The pronoun should refer to preemptive war. What can be justified is just as the notion reinforces the root concept. Therefore you state two antithetical views.

Quote:

---

Oh, and in answer to your policeman question then yes it is unjust. Necessary in a practical, self-preserving kind of way, but certainly not justice. When a policeman kills there is always an investigation is there not?

---

You have opted for a legal standard for justice as crime is your operative. You reject any anticipatory justice, but also admit such is necessary and practical. Given jurisprudence necessarily concerns a praxis and you have recognized the necessity and practicality of anticipatory action, you have undercut your own standard. All the legal systems I know also reject your position. The police shooting example would be one counter. Conspiracy laws would be another. Is this the stance you want to hold to?

There are investigations, but investigation (the same applies to trials) is not indictment: such does not reject any base anticipatory action per say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well I wont do anything else than hope that the world will change to a better place for everyone... I'm not quite sure how to explain it better than I have, call it a gut feeling or something. I just cannot see any situation whatsoever where the killing of another human being would be the good solution. But I can certainly understand a lot of people who killed, and I don't have a problem with quite a few of them. I didn't cry for saddam, for example, and I wont cry if someone decides to give bush a rope either.

---

So yours is an emotional standard?

You see executing Hussein and someone executing Bush as the same?

Quote:

---

Certainly not! Take a soldier, for example. He simply cannot disobey his orders. Now, if he is ordered to shoot someone, I'm not going to blame him for it, although what he did and was a part of was still evil.

---

Under U.S. Military Code this is not the case. Soldiers are expected to refuse illegal and immoral orders. The 'just following orders' argument was also rejected in the Nuremberg Trials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Pindar:

I've noted something funny with the polls you initiate, you never seem to vote on them. Or is it a problem with my interface?:inquisitive:

---

See Seamus' reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Yes, it is. Note your post again:

"The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.

It can, however, still be justified."

You reject preemptive justice and state a preemptive war cannot be a just war. The sentence that follows says it can still be justified. The pronoun should refer to preemptive war. What can be justified is just as the notion reinforces the root concept. Therefore you state two antithetical views.



You have opted for a legal standard for justice as crime is your operative. You reject any anticipatory justice, but also admit such is necessary and practical. Given jurisprudence necessarily concerns a praxis and you have recognized the necessity and practicality of anticipatory action, you have undercut your own standard. All the legal systems I know also reject your position. The police shooting example would be one counter. Conspiracy laws would be another. Is this the stance you want to hold to?

There are investigations, but investigation (the same applies to trials) is not indictment: such does not reject any base anticipatory action per say.

---

I can't be bothered to wade through all this.

Suffice to say IMO a justified war is not necessarily a Just War. A Just War, according to my interpretation of the content of your original post, is one launched to redress a wrong. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War. It may, however, be justified on a practical level.

I do not admit that anticipatory justice is necessary and practical, merely that in your example the action was necessary and practical. This does not make it justice.

I say no more on this subject purely to avoid my lack of erudition making me look stupid and/or making your replies seem smug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And Pindar, I'm not really sure how to answer your question, I guess it's one of those things I've gotten from birth... To me, being a human means that I should not kill another human being no matter what. And as for being avoidable, to me that means immoral, because killing is always the easy way. To accomplish your goal without killing anyone is always harder...

---

This is a position I have encountered several times. I always ask the same question:

A Man is going to kill your wife, child, mother etc. The only way to save their life is to kill the aggressor.

What do you do?

Then there's the second question.

There are two of you in the room, either of you has the chance to save your loved one.

Do you kill the aggressor first so that your brother doesn't have to.

These two principles are the basis of the identity and self justification of the soldier. He fights to defend those he loves and to prevent others from having to fight, and kill, in his stead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is a position I have encountered several times. I always ask the same question:

A Man is going to kill your wife, child, mother etc. The only way to save their life is to kill the aggressor.

What do you do?

Then there's the second question.

There are two of you in the room, either of you has the chance to save your loved one.

Do you kill the aggressor first so that your brother doesn't have to.

These two principles are the basis of the identity and self justification of the soldier. He fights to defend those he loves and to prevent others from having to fight, and kill, in his stead.

---

The obvious answer is: don't put yourself in that position. By joining as a soldier, you are basically becoming that man you have to shoot in your question.

Soldiers don't shoot civilians.

In any case the question does not mention soldiers. The man has just burst into your home, without provocation or warning.

You are in that position. It's either kill or let kill.

You can say you don't want to answer but don't dodge the question.

I will never, ever be in that position, and neither will anyone else except perhaps one or two. The question is simply to hypothetical, it lacks any foundation in reality.

But to answer, killing the man would still be an act of evil. Not that anyone would mind though.

Oh, and soldiers don't kill civilians? Now THAT is news to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I can't be bothered to wade through all this.

Suffice to say IMO a justified war is not necessarily a Just War.

I do not admit that anticipatory justice is necessary and practical, merely that in your example the action was necessary and practical. This does not make it justice.

I say no more on this subject purely to avoid my lack of erudition making me look stupid and/or making your replies seem smug.

---

As you will. I'll leave your views to stand as you have them.

Quote:

---

I will never, ever be in that position

---

You are a fortune teller? What should I place my money on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Pindar is using them as a means of research. The researcher, traditionally, tries not to influence her/his research results by providing their own views.

You'll note that Pindar, when starting these poll threads, tends to take a fairly "distanced" stance with his own posting therein -- often only responding to direct questions -- while he tries to make sense of the opinions he's solicited.

On a non-poll, he is more than willing to "have at" the opposition.

---

That seems overly academic for the Backroom ~;) . But I think I can comprehend Pindar's overly inquisitory attitude...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

That seems overly academic for the Backroom ~;) . But I think I can comprehend Pindar's overly inquisitory attitude...:2thumbsup:

---

Tsk, the Backroom's virtually Plato's academy. Can't post anything here without it being subjected to intense scientific scrutiny. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Tsk, the Backroom's virtually Plato's academy. Can't post anything here without it being subjected to intense scientific scrutiny. :furious3:

---

Well, some of the arguments are just as vehement, but on the whole we have much less of the homoerotic thing going on -- even counting DevDave.

:devilish:

Quote:

---

I tend to agree with a preemptive war if there is undeniable intelligence that another nation is actually going to attack and has arrayed its forces in such a manner.

---

So would Germanys attack on Russia be justified ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

So would Germanys attack on Russia be justified ?

---

That's being mean, Gawain. :laugh4: The Soviets denied any such intent...and Dhaugazvili was our ally later on, no? :wiseguy:

Oh, you mean having forces staged forward and disproportionately positioned in the South on/near the Romanian border might have been considered as reasonable evidence that the CCCP was planning an attack in early 1942? Sorry, Papa Joe said no. :cheesy:

Horetore what are your veiws on the argument that the allies should of invaded sooner to stop the massive amount of life lost to the Holcoust. Is it okay to fight to chose the lesser evil and save more lifes then those you would be killing?

Quote:

---

Horetore what are your veiws on the argument that the allies should of invaded sooner to stop the massive amount of life lost to the Holcoust

---

As far as I know we werent really aware of this.

Quote:

---

Is it okay to fight to chose the lesser evil and save more lifes then those you would be killing?

---

We picked Russia didnt we? :laugh4: Though for the life of me I never see how we saw them as the lesser of two evils. The reason we didnt invade is were were using the Russians to do all the dying. Let our enemies fight each other. Then we rushed in to save the rest of europe. We being the Western Allies.

Hore Tore, it's an ethical exercise, with no good outcomes. The point is to decide which you value more, the lives of those you love or the principle that killing is evil. There's also the question of, given that killing is evil, you allow someone else to take on the burden rather than sullying your own hands.

Oh, and millions of people have been put in such situations throughout history and still are today. Just not where you live.

Gawain: The decision was taken not to bomb the rail tracks which led to the death camps because Allied pilots were worth more. We had a pretty good idea what was going on. High Command did anyway.

Quote:

---

Gawain: The decision was taken not to bomb the rail tracks which led to the death camps because Allied pilots were worth more. We had a pretty good idea what was going on. High Command did anyway.

---

And when was this decision made? Just before D-Day no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, some of the arguments are just as vehement, but on the whole we have much less of the homoerotic thing going on -- even counting DevDave.

:devilish:

---

~:grouphug: Very funny. (Is that smilely too homoerotic?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hore Tore, it's an ethical exercise, with no good outcomes. The point is to decide which you value more, the lives of those you love or the principle that killing is evil. There's also the question of, given that killing is evil, you allow someone else to take on the burden rather than sullying your own hands.

---

As I said, killing another human being is evil no matter what. But I have no problem with evil acts. But they are no less evil for that.

That's another dodge. Evil or no would you do it?

A better question is whether it is truely evil to kill a killer before he kills.

If you're religious then maybe you're saving two souls and only damning one (your own.)

Yup, I'd do it(assuming I'm not knocked out by fear or something).