Just War

O.K. Let me get this straight.

Everyone can find a reason to kill another human being.

Doesn't that put us all into the same category? If life is not sacrosanct, we are all complicit in accepting that killing is basically a matter of finding the right reason.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
O.K. Let me get this straight.

Everyone can find a reason to kill another human being.

Doesn't that put us all into the same category? If life is not sacrosanct, we are all complicit in accepting that killing is basically a matter of finding the right reason.

If those are your Categories then yes. But that does not mean that all reasons for killing are equal or that having a reason makes it right.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
...but only just.

Does anyone on this forum think that it is NOT acceptable, under ANY circumstances, to kill another human being?

I do not think that.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I do not think that.

I find this line of argument quite useless, not just because the question can only be answered by an omniscient being, but also because it's unrealistic: you're unlikely to know how you'll react to a potentially fatal (for someone) situation until you're in it, and then you'll know. It's usually after you kill that you experience remorse--or exultation--not before. Cogitating the acceptability of slaughter is unhealthy--look at Raskolnikov (Crime & Punishment covers this ground pretty well).

Only in self defense, defense of another person, or punishment by execution approved by the court of law would I kill someone. If someone tries to kill me, or I kill somebody with a right jab while we're fighting, so be it. Sadaam Husseien deserved to be executed for the killings of all those people. War is just like self defense. We are defending ourselves by eliminating the attacker. Or in the case of Iraq, we are defending others.

Originally posted by Acemaster
We are defending ourselves by eliminating the attacker.

Lines get blurred when you eliminate a potential attacker because it might kill you.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Lines get blurred when you eliminate a potential attacker because it might kill you.

And even more blurred when you see two other people fighting each other and you kill one to save the other.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I find this line of argument quite useless, not just because the question can only be answered by an omniscient being, but also because it's unrealistic: you're unlikely to know how you'll react to a potentially fatal (for someone) situation until you're in it, and then you'll know. It's usually after you kill that you experience remorse--or exultation ...[text shortened]... unhealthy--look at Raskolnikov (Crime & Punishment covers this ground pretty well).

The question was not whether or not you would do something but whether you consider it 'acceptable'. For example I consider hijacking unacceptable behavior. Would I do it given certain circumstances? Probably.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question was not whether or not you would do something but whether you consider it 'acceptable'.

Apply the Golden Rule!

To me, killing others is always unacceptable, but, as you say, sometimes the unacceptable must be embraced.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Lines get blurred when you eliminate a potential attacker because it might kill you.

Of course the line can blur all the way up to the point of your death. Killing in self defense is "eliminating a potential attacker because it might kill you." How can anyone predict the future? Who can know who might or might not kill you. If someone threatens you with words can you kill him? If he threatens you with a gun, do you kill him? What if you just don't like his looks and suspect that one day he might get violent? What 'risk factor' makes killing in self defense acceptable.
Is killing in self defense acceptable even when there are other alternatives?

All these questions are complex and the answer would probably differ from person to person and from situation to situation, that is why we have courts and jurys to try and settle each individual case. Most of us would say that killing is acceptable when a jury says so or at least that is the closest we can get to it.

Is starting a war acceptable when your oil supply is threatened?
Is killing thousands of civilians acceptable to oust a nasty dictator?

As a soldier, is killing acceptable if your president / commander tells you to do it even when you personally don't believe in the cause?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Most of us would say that killing is acceptable when a jury says so or at least that is the closest we can get to it.

I agree with you, except the line gets even blurrier when it's a case of a state attacking another state because of a potential threat.

(Same idea as your last post).

Is killing an innocent person in order to kill a 'bad' person just behind him who is just about to kill you acceptable?
Is killing someone in order to 'save lives' acceptable? Would this justify some cases terrorism?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is killing an innocent person in order to kill a 'bad' person just behind him who is just about to kill you acceptable?
Is killing someone in order to 'save lives' acceptable? Would this justify some cases terrorism?

Now you're thinking like Jack Bauer.

Is lack of information justification enough (they might have WMDs).

The fact that a large number of Americans (more than 50% ?) supported the war in Iraq but no longer do suggests that they did not realize the consequences.

Why do important figures appear to have a greater 'right to life'? Sadam Huseins death cause more uproar internationally than any single one of the innocent civilians who died even though Sadam was tried and executed where as the civilians are just executed.