Is Killing The Innocent Ever The Moral Choice?

[Grames]

If it is not justified for another country to intervene, is it right, Objectively, for soldiers from distant cities to intervene - since those individuals were not threatened either?

If it is right for compatriot soldiers to intervene, are we not excepting the nation-state as the one collective with privileged, additional rights?

Under this reasoning, the very idea of a policeman as a third party that can intervene when he has not been personally threatened would not be valid. The whole idea of a police force and of an army is to regularize the use of force when it is justified. So long as the use of force is justified, it can be delegated to specialists. The retaliatory use of force is best left to third parties because it is more likely to be controlled objectively and professionally. The alternative would be a long running feud or riot between two neighborhoods, which would be even more disruptive of daily life than a rocket attack.

The police or army wield the right of self-defense properly delegated to them by other citizens.

[Randroid]

I believe it is entirely right to give the nation-state the right (and responsibility) to intervene on the behalf of others, that we do not give to civilians - however, is it Objective?

It is neither objective nor is it correct that a collective has rights its individuals do not have. Government derives its powers from the rights of its individual citizens. If A (Hamas) attacks B (Israeli citizen), B has the right to kill A, even if it is inevitable to kill C in the process. B can confer this right on D, permitting D to kill A (and, sadly, C) on behalf of B. Whether D is a random individual bystander, a hired bodyguard, a private security company, A's government or another nation's government does not matter at all. D derives his authority directly from B's rights.

[rebelconservative]

Thanks for your replies, you have cleared it up for me