6 ms·

Doesn't that mean all wars are immoral (irrespective of the justifications like defense)? Would you say that the military too should not be allowed to ever kill

Doesn't that mean all wars are immoral (irrespective of the justifications like defense)? Would you say that the military too should not be allowed to ever kill anyone? If no, I see an inconsistency that needs to be explained.

lmm 13y ago
If someone will not submit to the judgement of the law then it's permissible and indeed often necessary to kill them. But if someone gives themselves up or is captured then they should not be killed. In the same way soldiers in a war have a right to surrender, and those who surrender should not be killed - but it's permissible to kill those who don't.
- nileshtrivedi 13y ago
  This seems like sound reasoning. Thanks for wording it so clearly.
arethuza 13y ago
No inconsistency whatsoever - the discussion is about executions as a penalty in a judicial context. Police, militaries and individuals should all have the right to employ potentially deadly force if required and justified within a legal context.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  If there is no way to save a life (or several) other than to use lethal force against the attacker, then I wouldn't consider it murder, but (self-)defense. Otherwise, I couldn't care less if it's legal or who does it, it's not justified.
- nileshtrivedi 13y ago
  Yes, that makes sense. I like lmm's comment below that clarifies why these contexts are different.
welterde 13y ago
Aren't they? Shouldn't there always be at least one side in the war that isn't just trying to protect their own life? Killing someone in self-defense (if your own life is in danger and there is no other way out) is quite universally accepted I would think. Of course this will get quite interesting very fast if an invading army just walks around not trying to shoot anyone.
rhizome 13y ago
The challenge here is to help create a world where militaries who kill people are no longer necessary.

lmm 13y ago

If someone will not submit to the judgement of the law then it's permissible and indeed often necessary to kill them. But if someone gives themselves up or is captured then they should not be killed. In the same way soldiers in a war have a right to surrender, and those who surrender should not be killed - but it's permissible to kill those who don't.

nileshtrivedi 13y ago
This seems like sound reasoning. Thanks for wording it so clearly.

arethuza 13y ago

No inconsistency whatsoever - the discussion is about executions as a penalty in a judicial context. Police, militaries and individuals should all have the right to employ potentially deadly force if required and justified within a legal context.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
If there is no way to save a life (or several) other than to use lethal force against the attacker, then I wouldn't consider it murder, but (self-)defense. Otherwise, I couldn't care less if it's legal or who does it, it's not justified.
nileshtrivedi 13y ago
Yes, that makes sense. I like lmm's comment below that clarifies why these contexts are different.

welterde 13y ago

Aren't they? Shouldn't there always be at least one side in the war that isn't just trying to protect their own life? Killing someone in self-defense (if your own life is in danger and there is no other way out) is quite universally accepted I would think. Of course this will get quite interesting very fast if an invading army just walks around not trying to shoot anyone.

rhizome 13y ago

The challenge here is to help create a world where militaries who kill people are no longer necessary.