oso Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Have civilians under a force initiating, rights violating dictator forfeited their rights? If so, how so? If not, how is it moral for a free country to target them in an attack against their country? How is the dictator the one morally responsible for the violation of their rights? How would you respond to this message? "No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him." I would say that it's not that they've forfeited their rights, it's that the dictator is the one responsible for their deaths and violation of their rights. What I struggle with is to define exactly how it is the dictator that is responsible and how the attacking free country is not morally responsible and justified in attacking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 This has been discussed elsewhere, though I don't recall the name of the thread. My view, in short, is that a (proper) government is instituted to protect the rights of individuals in a particular, geographical location. If its citizen's rights are threatened or violated by a regime in another geographical location, they are morally justified in taking what offensive actions are considered tactically necessary to secure the rights of those who are its charge. That could, but does not necessarily include the targeting of civilians, especially in cases where, for example, their productivity in an arms factory or communications area are utilized militarily. All these sorts of circumstances need to be judged on a case by case basis of course, to determine their ethical propriety, so I offer those just as an example of what sort of thinking might color the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas- Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 If I 'Government' violates the rights of it's citizens it is not a government as the role of the government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. Instead it is a group of thugs retaining power through the barrel of a gun. The citizens have no more forfeited their rights than those who live in a neighborhood ruled by the mafia. "No one can seriously defend killing/torturing civilians on the ultra flimsy notion that they have forfeited their rights by what a 'dictator' has done, when that same dictator was trained, installed and supported by the country now claiming moral immunity in it's actions in removing him." Nothing can ever justify the killing civilians. If they are involved in the war effort whether it's making the guns or firing them then they are no longer they are enemy military personal. The only moral justification for attacking another country is that they are initiators of force whether against you or there own citizens. By attacking civilians you become the initiator of force and as such lose the moral high ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) This has been discussed elsewhere, though I don't recall the name of the thread. not in the light of very recent events in North Africa What I struggle with is to define exactly how it is the dictator that is responsible and how the attacking free country is not morally responsible and justified in attacking them. You are asking different questions, and I somehow believe you're talking about the Middle East and that this thread should be in the current events section. also define "free" in the above context. 1)The dictator is responsible for his captive population because that's what comes with power, in all cases, responsibility. The tyrant might have acquired his power with force, or fraud, or intelligence in manipulating a flawed system, but by the same faculty of ruling a people, he is therefore responsible for them. No one can have it both ways 2) However rights*, unlike power and responsibility, are intrinsic to each individual and non transferable. A dictator, or any government, can violate one's rights, deny one's rights, but surely can't transfer one's rights. Can't "confiscate" them only smash them. Therefore when one captive population is pitched against one another, or attacked by a foreign "free" force, the dictator can only serve as a scapegoat for the invading "free" force or pitcher. This does not make the dictator any less guilty, it only makes the attacking force more guilty. 3) If you cared to break down your questions into real life situations from Afghanistan to Libya maybe different answers would arise. I wonder. / (*if one is to "believe" in individual rights thus rendering them existent, instead of distorting them into legislature to somehow legitimize arbitrary entitlements as in the case of most "free countries". That still doesn't mean the "free" countries aren't freer than dictatorships) Have civilians under a force initiating, rights violating dictator forfeited their rights? If so, how so? 4) By not fleeing the ones who can. The ones who are not able to chose to escape are outside the realm of morality. If we were talking about Libya I'd say that rather than fleeing people immigrated in search of good paying jobs to the prosperous oil rich dictatorship. Those are particularly guilty of not trying harder to migrate to freer countries. At this point I'm not sure if I'm being ironic or not because I do NOT know about the fabulous prospects of a central african emigrant. But we are not talking about Libya. Edited October 31, 2011 by volco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.