[Rand on Native Americans (Question at West Point)]

 

I actually haven't heard anyone state this.

 

I know that Rand made a similar argument about the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, that was based on the belief that we should unconditionally support Israel, because they were more civilized than the Arabs. That would imply that you should always support a more advanced civilization over a less advanced civilization, regardless of their actions.

 

I also got into an argument with another group of Objectivists on Facebook where they were making a similar argument, related to both the Indians and the Palestinians.

 

[Rand's] premise as I remember is that a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights. If they have no sense of propety rights, there are no property rights to violate. Any "invaders" are morally justified to claim territory, especially by being a considerably advanced society. I don't think it is meant to justify killing, just that property wasn't stolen or appropriated. It's not that one society or another has territory, though.

 

So she would have explicitly objected to killing Indians, then? Does anyone have a quote to support this?

 

 

The important question is if they really were so primitive. Maybe some were, but as you say, plenty did have notions of property and/or rights, even if not fully developed.

 

I think it is indeed true that the Indian tribes did have concepts of property rights. The historical record is very clear about that. Some tribes even had constitutions that clearly spelled them out. There are documented instances of tribes and settlers making contracts between each other, and even instances of them setting up neutral courts and arbitration of property disputes happening between a native and a settler. By the time you get to Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears, you have a pretty clear act of genocide and ethnic cleansing on the part of the USG. I think Rand was operating on some pretty outdated historical assumptions that the tribes were mostly just savages who objected to the very presence of white people, which is not borne out at all by the historical record.

 

Yes, I definitely think that is the case. I think that many of the tribes did have at least primitive concepts of property rights, although they may have seen themselves more as stewards of the land than as owners. Some of the tribes did also voluntarily agree to give whites ownership of their land, not fully understanding what that would entail, which is a failure of cultural understanding for which they bore responsibility. But if a tribe held sovereign control over land, and was making use of it to support their existence, then white settlers had a moral obligation to respect it as theirs.

 

Apart from that, I think Rand's misunderstanding of the history behind interactions between whites and natives was an error of knowledge.

[The Objectivist Ethics]

 

Eamon Arasbard, on 06 Feb 2015 - 11:21 PM, said:

Yes. In fact, if someone were to pay them for the results of this hobby, wouldn't that be a career?

 

I forgot to reply to this earlier -- and yes, I have considered that position. For instance, if someone is really into snowboarding, then they could learn ways to modify their snowboard to make it more efficient and let them exercize their skill across a broader range, and it might then be worth starting a business selling your own boards, to continue financing your ability to make snowboards for your own enjoyment. Or, of course, you could also become a professional and get paid to participate in public marathons.

 

But what if someone still enjoys snowboarding, but doesn't have the skill to modify their snowboard, and isn't interested in performing in front of a crowd? Does that make that any less valid as the purpose of their life?

[The Objectivist Ethics]

 

I think that's a pretty good way to put it. Rand described it as living "qua" man, meaning living with all of the qualities and requirements of men taken into account.

 

Then happiness is the result of living qua man, which in turn benefits human survival, which allows one to act in a manner which will lead to continued happiness -- so are these three things, taken together, the purpose of human action? I guess that would fit with life -- as distinct from the values necessary to achieve it -- being defined in terms of "self-generated" action. So basically, the purpose of achieving values is to continue engaging in self-generated action to sustain the process.

 

Does everyone agree that this is a reasonable interpretation of Objectivist principles? (I'm trying to get everyone else's views to help clarify my own view.)

 

 

Eamon Arasbard, on 10 Feb 2015 - 5:54 PM, said:

I think the chapter "Art and Cognition" in The Romantic Manifesto talks about this.

 

I might have to check that one out next, since I'm a fiction writer. (And I also have some interest in making music.)

[Rand on Native Americans (Question at West Point)]

 

Eamon Arasbard, on 06 Feb 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

I can't help you with that one; I think that the concept of a society having territory at all is flawed.

 

I agree with you, but you and I both hold positions on this topic which are different from most Objectivists.

[Rand on Native Americans (Question at West Point)]

 

Then don't discuss politics?

The fact is that everything we deal with in conceptual terms is a generalization (including this statement); that's just part of what thinking is. So when we discuss large groups of people we're going to make blanket statements about them (including every implicit reference to "everyone", when I just explained how the mind of every person who ever has lived or will live works).

 

Then I should correct my previous post somewhat. I think that generalizations may be appropriate in some contexts, when you're trying to hold a particular group accountable for actions which are characteristic of a large number of people in the group. For instance, when discussing feminism I will lump all feminists into the same category in order to call out the aspects of feminism which I believe are immoral, and to hold feminists who do not believe in these aspects of it responsible for their failure to address them. I think a lot of people (Including Objectivists) do the same thing in critiquing Islam, and I also think that's fine if you think that Muslims aren't taking enough responsibility for the actions of violent terrorists.

 

But when we're analyzing the actions committed by individual members of one group versus another, then making these types of generalizations only serves to shift responsibility away from individuals and onto the particular group being cast in a negative light. For instance, saying that oppression of blacks is justified because many blacks are living on welfare and committing violent crimes. These may be moral failures for which the black community needs to take responsibility, but that does not mean that all black people, or even all black communities, are inherently a bunch of welfare parasites and violent criminals. And this would be even more inappropriate as a response to someone pointing out ways in which blacks are mistreated, as it would be in effect condoning all racist actions taken by whites.

 

I have a problem with Rand's comments on the Indians for the same reason. I wouldn't have a problem with her arguing that the Indians should take responsibility for unprovoked attacks made against white settlements, but dismissing all of the wrongs which native people suffered because they were all a bunch violent savages is not an acceptable position.

[The Objectivist Ethics]

 

Art, music, literature... ... are those values to you? Would you agree -- roughly speaking -- that those things feed the mind, at least the "soul" (i.e. the mind's self-motivational engine)?

 

Yes. So then, if the mind is Man's tool of survival, then art and music would contribute indirectly to human survival.

 

 

Considering the fact that all of the best and brightest biologists in the world have yet to define what "life" really means, in a biological sense, I wouldn't be surprised if she had deliberately defined it in terms of one big tautology. Perhaps that's the most accurate way it can be defined, at all.

 

Maybe. It still makes it a bit of a headache trying to wrap my mind around it, though. I still think it's interesting that she defined values in terms of "self-sustaining action" (To achieve values) but amended her definition of life with the phrase "self-generated action." I'm thinking the distinction is in the word "self-generated," which seems to me like that's the ultimate end being taught.

 

For JASKN's and Spiral Architects posts, it seems like you're saying Rand believed in sort of a holistic perspective, with happiness, survival, and the achievement of values as mutually reinforcing concepts. I'm just trying to figure out how the heirarchy of concepts fits together.

[The Objectivist Ethics]

Reading the section again, it sounds like Rand's argument is that values are what is required for man's survival qua man. And since everything man does for his own survival consists of producing, productive work is the main purpose of an individual's life, and the standard by which his other values should be judged.

 

I still have a few issues with this argument, though. First, why does survival need to be the standard? It's certainly something that's necessary in order to enjoy life, but isn't actual enjoyment of life the point? (I know that Rand also says that enjoyment has to be non-contradictory to constitute true happiness, which I agree with, and of course living one's life in a contradictory manner is acting against one's own survival, but I don't see non-contradiction as the only necessary condition for happiness.)

 

Also, if survival is the reason why productive work is necessary, then why should productive work that isn't necessary for human survival be counted as a value? The human race could theoretically exist without art, literature, music, or public sports, but I don't think Rand would have argued that these things weren't forms of productive work.

[The Objectivist Ethics]

I just finished reading The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand, and I have a few questions about some parts of it. In one paragraph of the essay (Page 16 of The Virtue of Selfishness) Rand defines life as "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." (I believe this same definition is also presented in Atlas Shrugged.) A few paragraphs later (On page 17 of TVoS) Rand states:

 

 

Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action... is the organism's life. ... An organism's life is its standard of value; that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. [Emphasis in original.]

 

At first, I was going to suggest that this meant Rand's definition of life is the same as her definition of value. Looking at the passage again, it seems a bit more nuanced. It is implied that "self-sustaining action" is necessary to achieve values, for the purpose of maintaining "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." I'm assuming the distinction is in the word "self-generated" but I'd still appreciate any input people have to help me clarify this.

 

Rand also states elsewhere in the essay that in her philosophy, the ultimate value (The purpose of existence) is productive work. My question is, why? I agree that everyone should live their life for a purpose, which can certainly be a career that they're passionate about, but why couldn't someone also have a hobby as their purpose in life?

[Rand on Native Americans (Question at West Point)]

I do not currently have enough knowledge about the history of the displacement of the Indians to judge whether or not the U.S. government's actions overall were moral. I think that everyone on here agrees that there were atrocities committed by both sides.

 

My impression is that most of the tribal leaders were interested in pursuing peace, but I may be wrong about that. I would also maintain that the white settlers had an obligation to respect the rights of tribes to land that they were using, as long as the Indians agreed to respect their rights. Even though the Indians may not have fully developed the concept of property rights, the settlers did have this understanding, and had a moral obligation to apply it to the Indians in a manner consistent with the philosophical underlying property rights as recognized within Western societies.

 

I also find Rand's comments to be making an unfair generalization about the Indians. While it may have been true that many of the tribes were primitive, and that their claims of sovereignty over much of their territory were unfounded, I think it is irresponsible to make blanket statements about groups of people.

 

And finally, I have a question about an argument which I've seen from a lot of Objectivists regarding primitive societies -- namely, that you should support any advanced civilization which is in conflict with a more primitive society for possession of territory, for the reason that they are more advanced. How far do you take this argument? Let's say that a bunch of people from Europe move to some African country and set up camp, and find themselves in a dispute with primitive tribes who also lay claim to the territory. Do they have the right to simply turn around and exterminate the tribesmen so they can build a modern Western society? If not, then why not?

[CIA Torture Report]

One American death is worth of a full scale invasion of another country, trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers dead, right?

 

If another country is violating the rights of people living in the U.S., then it is the duty of the U.S. government to ensure that it stops. And if that means going to war, then that's what we should do.

 

I actually agree with you that most of what the U.S. government has done since World War II was wrong, but you need to lay your arguments on a consistent foundation instead of sarcastically replying to someone for raising a legitimate point from the other side.

[CIA Torture Report]

CriticalThinker2000, on 20 Dec 2014 - 8:08 PM, said:

 

That, my friends, is what a floating abstraction looks like...

 

How is that a floating abstraction? If the government holds a monopoly on the right to protect the American people and bring terrorists to justice, then it has an obligation to perform that duty and to take action if even one person is killed.

 

However, this does not justify everything the U.S. government has done in response to 9/11, or even the majority of it.

[Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?]

It's sad that the state of our academic discourse is such that we're actually having arguments about whether or not mathematics is objective. (Although to be fair, the Platonist view doesn't appear to claim that math isn't objective -- it just claims that in order to be objective, there has to be a parallel universe somewhere made up entirely of numbers.)

 

But Dr. Corvini is doing good work by blowing both sides out of the water.

[CIA Torture Report]

I personally hate the idea of torture, but it is justified if it works, if it is the only effective method, and if the people being tortured are actual terrorists.

 

I do not believe that the last item is the case when talking about the people the U.S. government has tortured. Whether or not torture itself is justified depends on the first two points.

[Ideology and the Rule of Law]

I would say that the police are only justified in acting in order to enforce laws that are consistent with both the non-aggression principle and the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent with either of these is unjust, and can be shown to be such by a clear objective standard. So any attempt by a police officer to enforce it is indistinguishable from the actions of a criminal.

[How should a discriminating young man approach/view sex if no one he e]

 

The key is realizing that you don’t need to find a perfect woman- you can create one.

 

If you are seriously "rejecting dozens of offers" it sounds like you are doing something wrong - introduce them to Objectivism! Talk about the things you value, convince them that you are right and that they should have the same standards and values that you do.

 

I don't think this is a good idea. Your emotional connection with someone shouldn't be dependent on them being anyone other than who they are. I suppose the idea of finding women with moderately decent values and telling them about Objectivism, then forming a relationship with someone who actually converts, has merits, but don't get invested with anyone you're not comfortable being in a relationship already, for any reason.

 

I do think it's also important to form a realistic idea of what values you would expect a person to hold, and what qualities they would need for you to be compatible with them. For instance, I would like to find a woman who is an Objectivist who has a personality which is compatible with my own. However, there aren't very many people of either gender out there who are Objectivists, and the few women I've met who were Objectivists were too introverted and submissive for my taste. (Though I'm sure they would make wonderful partners for a man with a personality different from my own.)

 

I think it's good to start by focusing on compatibility, then narrow the list down to whoever holds values which are basically rational. If you try to focus on fulfilling an unrealistic ideal, you're going to drive yourself crazy, and likely make stupid decisions as a result

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

 

I meant to ask about someone who likes Hitler's ideas, and voted for him on those terms, but did not do much concretely to support him other than the vote. Many libertarians would paint such a person as innocent if they have not done any physical action to support the enemy, other than agree with his ideology.

 

Morally inncoent? No. But once you get into people's intentions, you're getting into stuff which is pretty murky -- way too much to justify killing someone. There's people in America who may be morally complicit in heinous acts without having engaged in any crime themselves -- for instance, if some racist nitwit goes out and shoots a bunch of black people, and he was converted to racism after reading white supremacist literature, then whoever wrote that material shares moral responsibility for the consequences, but I would not consider them guilty of any wrongdoing which needs to be punished by force.

 

 

I , on the other hand, couldn't care a hoot if such a person died

 

I probably wouldn't either. But this person's friends and family likely would, and would be more likely to turn against the people who killed him.

 

Also, how do you feel about the person -- fairly typical in both Germany of WW-2 and the middle-east today -- who is not particularly radical nor particularly rational, but still has a bedrock of national loyalty? ... Are these average people -- who may not want war, but would like to see me defeated -- enemies in my eyes?

 

We can't know what any particular person would do in that situation without it actually happening. The best thing to do is try to organize a resistance within the enemy territory, convert as many people to the right side as possible, then civilians would be more likely to help a pilot who crash-landed in a field.

 

 

Should I value their lives over the lives of my neighbor's son who volunteers to defend my life with his body?

 

What you should value is for your son's death, if it is necessary, to accomplish a permanent victory, which will be more likely to be achieved if you don't alienate civilians on the other side.

 

 

If they had a country chock full of rational people, they would have seized the day.

 

They may have been misguided, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have been persuaded to become rational.

 

 

The U.S. screw up came from Bremer and Bush's notion that the existing power-structure should be dismantled, and that the Iraqi people would somehow build rational institutions that fit their best interests. B & B ignored the lessons that were practiced in Japan and in Germany, post-WW2.

 

This may be true, but the course which a country takes is ultimately determined by the will of its people. If the people had come out of the war with a friendly attitude toward the US, then they would have been much more willing to work with us to build a rational society, and less likely to divide into Islamists loyal to Iran and Islamists loyal to murderous savages from Syria. It was in our self-interest (Assuming the war itself was in our self-interest) to foster goodwill with the civilian population during the war.

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

 

This is a use of the rule that would fall along the altruistic lines:

The charity example comes up annually in the drive for contributions at work via the United Way. When asking for contributions, they appeal to the idea of the less fortunate. As a private organization that seeks to raise money to provide handouts, one implicit point used, sometimes explicitly made, is you should feel obligated to donate, after all, it could be you in their shoes.

 

That wouldn't be altruistic in itself, if charity is practiced as a means of building a mutually supportive community which would be to the selfish benefit of all members. Rand also explicitly supported giving help to deserving people who found themselves in unfortunate situations.

 

It would be altruistic if they consider someone who is more fortunate, and in a position to help, to be unworthy of support -- for instance the "you're a privileged white male, so why should anyone care about you?" argument which is popular among leftists.

 

However, I do agree that the Golden Rule in itself is not enough to build a philosophy on. But it is still valid if it means "respect my right not to be aggressed against, and I will refrain from agressing against you."

 

Maybe it would be better to specify "Do unto others as you would rationally want them to do unto you."

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

 

What about the woman who voted for Hitler, would you regret her "collateral damage" death?

 

In a democracy, everyone has a right to vote for whoever they want, and there are all sorts of reasons for choosing to vote for a particular person. She may have voted for Hitler because she was worried the Communist party would win if she didn't.

 

Whether or not I would consider her complicit would depend on what she had actually done to support the government.

 

 

Yet, you cannot (and, I hope, will not) argue that the possibility of killing a single innocent should be enough to stop one from taking some military action. The only way to judge the choice is to weigh it against the alternatives. The alternatives typically involve the deaths of others. One does not give more weight to a civilian life or even to an innocent life, when weighing it against the life of a young soldier who has volunteered to go fight evil... "combatant" though he may be. I hope you agree with that?

 

The soldier has made a voluntary choice to put his life on the line for the sake of freedom. He has already recognized that there are values at stake which exceed the value he places on his own survival.

 

Civilians living in the enemy nation have not made that choice. Therefore, their deaths are a sacrifice.

 

It is also not a sacrifice for a soldier to die instead of killing civilians for the following reason. In order to destroy the enemy and keep them from rising again after the war is over, we have to have the population of the other country on our side. If, in the course of defeating their government, we have sacrificed the lives of their friends, neighbors, and lovers, then they will be angry and more likely to support the creation of another government that is hostile to our interests.

 

Just look at Iraq for a concrete example of what happens when we alienate the population of the country we're invading. First they democratically voted for an Islamist dictatorship which has since allied itself with Iran. Then the people who didn't like that government revolted, allied with terrorists in Syria to form ISIS, and are now rampaging across the country, massacring innocents left and right, and are threatening to wage war on the West as soon as they have finished conquering Iraq. This in turn has pushed the sitting government closer to Iran.

 

If the people of Iraq were to rationally evaluate what their culture of radical Islam has brought them, versus what freedom and reason can bring them, they would have to choose reason, and would be willing to ally with the West and throw both ISIS and Iran out of the country. But after watching their neighbors dying in our invasion, they are probably much more interested in supporting whatever Islamist faction they belong than having anything to do with us.

 

In other words, the consequence of our bombing Iraq is that millions of our soldiers died, believing they were fighting for freedom and protecting America against our enemies, and instead Iraq has been delivered into the hands of two different Islamist factions run by the most bitter enemies we have.

 

 

It can be legitimate as a "meta-rule" to use when coming up with an Ethical system.

 

Yes, and that's what I meant by saying the Golden Rule should be part of Objectivism.

[What are the similarities between Rand and Nietzsche?]

(Sorry for the multiple posts -- I accidentally posted the first post before I finished typing it.)

 

 

He explains in the second paragraph in my scan BGE 260d that good and evil is traditionally used for slave morality, i.e. altruistic and self-denying morality. As a result, his aim is to tell people that the terms "good and evil" should be thrown away, because the tradition is so destructive. Instead of morality, he admires nobility of ancient Greece, value-creation, and passion. Yes, ideally, N would create a moral code, but what he admires is not far from what Rand says is moral and admirable.

 

I would agree that this would go hand-in-hand with Objectivism, if that's what he believed.

 

 

N did NOT speak of trampling others as admirable, all he did say is that the masters are better than slaves insofar that slaves aren't pro-life. BGE 260 doesn't even discuss trampling. Other passages can be seen that way, but he still doesn't talk about trampling on what he thinks are "weak" people. At worst, he just didn't care what happened to them.

 

This still seems like a pretty callous view.

 

 

See my scan named BGE 212c for the sort of people that N believes are even better than these masters. Some of it is what he sees good in "master" morality. I don't agree with it all, but he explicitly says "the master of his virtues" is part of the greatest sort of man.

 

Then he would agree with Ayn Rand, but I still don't think Objectivism would imply that people who prey on the weak are morally superior to the weak themselves. The proper view would be that the strong and virtuous are the best morally, the weak, if they are fundamentally moral, are second in moral standing by virtue of their potential for greatness, and those who would prey on anyone are morally reprehensible.

 

 

N also says no one is "Absolutely" free because the mind isn't in its own special realm or substance, or even Platonic form. To say we are free to do literally make choices in ANY manner we choose is a causa sui - we'd ask forever the first cause of choice, like asking who made God. Remember though that will to him is not just a question of volition - it's also your subconscious. Some things are still your choice, but not direct choice.

 

Then would Nietzche say that one's choices can be determined by one's inherent virtues, verus one's weaknesses? This would be an acceptable position, although I might not fully agree with it.

 

 

Rand would say that although Willers wasn't as skilled Dagny, he can still be just as virtuous. N would say that Willers cannot be just as virtuous because there is an upper limit of his virtue due to biology and culture.

 

And I think this is a big problem with choosing strength as the only standard of virtue -- this would imply that the average person is personally inferior to someone who's a major industrialist, simply because they haven't reached the same level. This frankly sounds a lot like the types of straw men leftists invent to attack capitalism, and does genuinely seem to imply a degree of social Darwinism/

 

So I guess one could say Nietzche's philosophy was a mix of good and bad. I think it is also a precurson to a lot of the totalitarian ideologies which have existed throughout history. I believe that Hitler's social Darwinism was openly based on Nietzche's beliefs, and a lot of what Nietzche believed certainly lends itself to that. His downplaying of free will and relegation of morality to the collective will of society has elements of Marxism. And there's also a lot of overlap with the moral relativism and the deterministic attitude toward human nature in modern leftist academic arguments.

[What are the similarities between Rand and Nietzsche?]

 

He does reject that morality is useful to achieving greatness, but mainly what he rejects is that there is an Absolute morality.

 

What does he mean by absolute morality? Is it the belief that morality is some external force which holds command over human life? Or the view that there is a consistent morality which humans should follow, and which the good have a right to enforce?

 

 

He explains in the second paragraph in my scan BGE 260d that good and evil is traditionally used for slave morality, i.e. altruistic and self-denying morality.

 

Where is the scan posted? I can't find it.

[What are the similarities between Rand and Nietzsche?]

I have read a little bit of Nietzche's work, and I've found his to be rather amoral. He rejected free will entirely, and believed as a result that someone who was truly wise would recognize that there was no distinction between good and bad, and that everyone's actions were just the predetermined result of their nature -- thus, someone like Hitler would not really be responsible for the atrocities he committed, and it is foolish to condemn him or to see creators of value as superior to Nazi oppressors. He also had a contemptuous attitude toward morality, and my understanding is that he did, in fact, want to see the "masters" trample on the slaves as punishment for the slaves' choice to believe in a moral code, and as a reward for the masters' ruthless pursuit of (What Nietzche would consider) their own self-interest. He also regarded all morality as socially prescribed, and nothing more than the will of the strong imposed on the weak, and did not recognize any possibility of an objective morality based on the value of human life.

 

 

Master/slave morality is an account of morality's history! Sure, N likes the masters more than slaves, but it doesn't mean he supports a "master" in totality.

 

I believe that Nietzche preferred masters because he saw them as strong due to their willingness to coerce the slaves into obedience.

 

I haven't found much of value in Nietzche's works. I suppose he deserves some credit for his recognition that altruism was wrong. But his response, like Rand's, should have been to construct a new moral code based on self-interest which recognized the right to life of all human beings. What he created instead was a blank check to trample on human life, in order to satisfy one's own whims at the expense of others.

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

 

Would "Rosie the Riveter" be classified as an "innocent"?

 

She was making military equipment, so -- if she were working for a dictatorship invading a free country -- then no. I have no objections to bombing a factory that is manufacturing weapons for the enemy.

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

To elaborate: Targeting civilians is justified if you are 1) facing a mortal threat to the nation's survival as a free society, and 2) the only possible course of action which will not result in defeat will lead to civilian deaths. In this case, not taking this action would result in far greater human suffering, and since continuing to fight the enemy nation increases the chances of their government being destroyed, it is in the interests of their subjects to support our actions so that they may one day live in a free society.

 

However, this is a special case. If it is possible to win the war without killing innocents, then killing them is a violation of their rights as human beings, and also jeopardizes our chances of victory by alienating the civilian population. In any war, it's necessary to have the civilian population on our side and willing to aid in overthrowing their government, dismantling its apparatus of power, and preventing a second war by avoiding any post-war resentment. Otherwise you end up with a situation like Iraq right now.

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

 

What do you mean by "imminent"? Is it different that just a normal threat? If you are sure there is a threat, do you then have to wait for it to become imminent before you can do whatever it takes to protect yourself?

 

I accidentally deleted my full reply, but to sum up: Imminent means that the destruction or enslavement of the nation is going to occur unless we take aggressive action that would include targeting civilians. In this case, it's better to bomb civilians who would otherwise live under slavery, and increase the chances of our own victory and liberation for the rest of the civilian population, than allow freedom to be destroyed in America.

 

However, this would not be justified if there were any other course of action which would not guarantee defeat.

[The Golden Rule as a basis for rights]

I thought I'd add another post here to mention that my position on the civilian casualties issue has changed slightly. I believe that there are certain situations, where the very survival of a free nation is at imminent risk, where bombing of civilians might be justified in order to protect the freedom of citizens of the nation which is under attack. It is better for people who would otherwise live in a nation like Iran or North Korea (And may, in fact, be complicit in supporting that same tyranny) to die than for innocents living in a free nation to be murdered by an invading enemy, or live under tyranny for the rest of their lives. Especially if victory for the side which is fighting for freedom means liberation for the surviving citizens of Iran/North Korea.

 

However, I would maintain that it is immoral to kill civilians during wartime unless it is an emergency like the one I just described.