Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
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.
|
The reason I mentioned self-defence was the line "
Such people need to be willing to defend with lethal force in case the situation arises."
I was being safe in my interpretation.
I think we can both agree that self-defence, appropriate self-defence, is acceptable.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Well, there are degrees of pacificism. My sense of pacificism is a moral one. I believe force should be used as a last resort.
However, as I said earlier, I accept the need for police and armies. I also believe in a concept of a "just war". World War Two is a perfect example. Indeed, the invasion of Afghanistan is quite close in a modern sense. And, believe it or not, the invasion of Iraq (had the intelligence proved correct), would also have been perilously close. All that was required to justify it was
- Proof that the WMDs did exist
- Verification of the "deployable in 45 minutes" claim
- UN Security Council resolution under Article 7 of the Charter
Unfortunately number 3 was never forthcoming and numbers 1 and 2 are sadly lacking.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think we may be, but it's still something I struggle with. It all depends upon your definition of "in defense of others."
The US seems to have interpreted this as "well, they
might use them in the future" or "well, they
could give them to terrorists"; both claims that I find hard to swallow. In other words, I'm not sure I support
pre-emptive strikes. It's a difficult moral, philosophical and, in today's world, real and immediate question we must ask ourselves.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, I think it's certainly possible for the taking of a life to be considered less moral than not taking it, yet still supporting it as "the lesser of two evils". The support for the existence of police and the armed forces is perfectly acceptable in both our beliefs in the right of self defense.
Ireland has a police force that is mostly unarmed. It is not necessary for the police to kill people except in the most extreme circumstances (at least in Ireland). In the US, where society is armed to the teeth, a different set of variables enter the equation and things get murky.
So, I do believe that
not taking a life is alway more moral than taking one. But taking a life is sometimes justified.
Quite subtle shades of grey, eh?
And unlike others, I do not hold some sort of inherent belief that I'm right and others are wrong. These are my, constantly evolving, set of beliefs and I struggle with dealing with the nuances every day. At least every day that I debate such topics with interesting people on TFP!
I don't have all the answers. But I try to do, I try to support, what I think is right. Pre-emptive strikes are usually not to be supported. It is
not OK to attack a nation or kill someone, just because they
MIGHT do something in the future. It
MAY be right to attack a nation or kill someone if you
KNOW they are going to do something.
Make sense? Probably not.
Mr Mephisto