4 ms·

Okay... there is no internationally ( or perhaps even nationally) accepted concensus on legalized killing for the reasons you enumerated. Now what?

GlobalFrog 8y ago
So something is missing in international laws. A country can only declare war to another country, so one might ask : what if conventions about wars were to be modified to include this: allow a country to formally declare war to an organization ? I know this won't happen because of many arguments: it is too tempting to limit the level of recognition of the opposite side, especially fighters who are just "terrorists" and not called soldiers ; it is easier also to do what you want when there is no law, even for countries at war as they see more efficiency when there is no formal control. So the dilemna is : either there is more formalization of wars with countries vs terror groups, to allow for better rules and control for avoiding civilian casualties and not breeding new generations of terrorists ourselves, with the downside of legitimizing those terror groups (which might help them on the long run) and losing efficiency in the fight, or we allow ourselves to act as what many can describe as murderers, because of the blind killings of civilians by drones. It is a lose-lose situation, so the choice is really about who we want to be.
- sorokod 8y ago
  Efficiency is important. Being morally distinguishable from the people you are trying to kill is important.
throwaway5752 8y ago
I don't know. I don't even know that I'd want to be making those decisions. But I thought the discussion was getting reduced to a caricature of the actual issue, and wanted to elevate it. It strikes me like the trolley problem in that there may not be a "good" solution, let alone one that everyone can agree on. I'm just as curious about your ideas, honestly.

4 ms·

Okay... there is no internationally ( or perhaps even nationally) accepted concensus on legalized killing for the reasons you enumerated. Now what?

by sorokod 8y ago

GlobalFrog 8y ago
So something is missing in international laws. A country can only declare war to another country, so one might ask : what if conventions about wars were to be modified to include this: allow a country to formally declare war to an organization ? I know this won't happen because of many arguments: it is too tempting to limit the level of recognition of the opposite side, especially fighters who are just "terrorists" and not called soldiers ; it is easier also to do what you want when there is no law, even for countries at war as they see more efficiency when there is no formal control. So the dilemna is : either there is more formalization of wars with countries vs terror groups, to allow for better rules and control for avoiding civilian casualties and not breeding new generations of terrorists ourselves, with the downside of legitimizing those terror groups (which might help them on the long run) and losing efficiency in the fight, or we allow ourselves to act as what many can describe as murderers, because of the blind killings of civilians by drones. It is a lose-lose situation, so the choice is really about who we want to be.
- sorokod 8y ago
  Efficiency is important. Being morally distinguishable from the people you are trying to kill is important.
throwaway5752 8y ago
I don't know. I don't even know that I'd want to be making those decisions. But I thought the discussion was getting reduced to a caricature of the actual issue, and wanted to elevate it. It strikes me like the trolley problem in that there may not be a "good" solution, let alone one that everyone can agree on. I'm just as curious about your ideas, honestly.