If the only use of force that is moral is reactive, is it possible to have pro-active reactionary force?

Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
57 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Would Objectivists find pre-emptive use of force to prevent or reduce force about to be used against them, moral?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure that I can accept locality as an argument on morality. Legality, yes, not morality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I said not a perfect analogy.

    While I accept your proposition as the interpretation of an aggressive act, I'm not so sure that a "true" Objectivist would see things that way (not to say you're not, I don't know what you consider yourself).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sadly it depends on where she lives. Here in Tennessee if he is giving her reasonable fear for her life or great bodily harm she can shoot him. This has been held up in the case of recognition of a wanted fugitive. In California her best bet would be to puke, pee, and poop herself hoping he was not into that sort of thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem is that you are applying the idea of personal retaliation to the crew of the Enola Gay, when the action was an act of war by a military force during a war. The defense of self and the defense of nation are seldom the same. Our action against Japan in WWII was due to their attack on Pearl. They bombed us, so we bombed them. We were just better at it than them.

    I cannot speak for the crew of the Enola Gay, but I can say that when I was a soldier I considered any aggressive act toward free men and women to be a personal attack on me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How about the highwayman who is known to kidnap and rape women who has not yet threatened a particular woman? She has identified the individual (say via a very distinctive characteristic, I don't want to get into the discussion of whether it is the right person or not). Is she morally justified in using force pro-actively?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK. So, I guess then that one must define "retaliation."

    None of the people (or at least the vast majority of them) ever threatened force upon the crew of the Enola Gay, nor to the American people generally. They were merely inhabitants of a country the leaders of which had done so.
    The justification of dropping the atomic bomb was that only by turning the will of the Japanese people through extreme devastation could the greater evil of continued war and eventual invasion of the Japanese island be averted.
    It's not a perfect analogy.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo