Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
Do you honestly believe that six million people have been put in a situation where, if they did not kill someone, another person would die?
|
Point taken.
Quote:
|
Self defence was not the issue raised. Pre-emptive action was. And I don't believe 6,000,000 soldiers, or policemen and women, have had to kill someone to prevent another death.
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think I mentioned self-defense. I was speaking of justified pre-emptive action. Scenarios where there is imminent danger.
Quote:
|
Whilst I'm a pacifist, I do support and accept the need for armed forces. Indeed, I also support armed conflict in certain circumstances (quite a bit more broadly than many may think due to my "reputation" here as a liberal).
|
I think the big question that keeps me imagining that the example is applicable to nearly all is this: why are you a pacifist? Is it personal preference, or is pacifism the one correct path for all? Your quote here would seem to indicate the former, but is there a third option I'm missing?
If it's personal preference, then it's certainly possible to support and see as moral the taking of lives by other people in defense of others. And then we might just be in agreement.
If it's a matter of considering it immoral, and the decision not to take a life is considered always the more moral or less immoral choice, then I'd have to wonder how that is reconciled with any support of the existence of police and the armed forces. This may be more appropriately directed to willravel.