Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

May countries that do not respect rights be wiped out?

Rate this topic


Ifat Glassman

Recommended Posts

You are a police officer, are you not? You have received specialized training, rules set up to follow to deal with this situation, correct? Would you rather have you, the police, the government deal with this situation rather than have 10 armed citizens taking potshots?

edit: If I didn't make it fully clear, in my example with the drunk I means me, average Joe citizen, not the police.

As a police officer, ...

Yes, that would indicate that I am a police officer, a Sergeant to be exact.

What I would rather have happen is immaterial to the person or persons who are being threatened by the drunk with the gun. If as a citizen I was being faced with this threat, a more specific and detailed context would have to be spelled out before I would say either "I'll go call the police" or "I'll shot the idiot right there". Additionally, you load your question above by saying that the (10) citizens would (necessarily) be taking "potshots". Do you agree that the context is changed if say one of those citizen's is firearms instructor? The "average" citizen is not always "average". Quite a few citizens are as well trained with firearms as police officers are, and quite a few are better trained with firearms than police officers are. I can assure you that, particularly today, many police departments are packed to the brim with young officers (1-3 years experience) who are still developing in maturity and judgement. As a supervisor, I have to deal with this daily. In general, the police officer who responds to the scene will likely be better prepared than Joe Citizen but not always. Additionally, the degree to which they are better prepared may be "not very much".

Your scenario also appears to assume that the people around the drunk are going to be able to accurately assess that this person is simply "a drunk with a gun" and that he poses no real threat to their safety. If you meant to suggest that, I do not agree. The guy that does assume that could well be the guy who is laying in the street with a bullet in his chest by the time I get there.

So in a very general sense, as a police officer, I am all for citizens being able to carry firearms and being able to defend themselves when their lives are threatened. The police are not always able to respond quick enough to alleviate threats to people's lives. If the drunk wants to go out in the street and threaten to kill people, he's creating a potentially lethal situation for himself, and if he gets shot by a citizen, then there's a fair chance that a prosecutor, a jury or a judge will decide that that is in fact what he deserved when the decline to prosecute or acquit the citizen of charges.

That said, people who do carry guns and use them are subject to the checks and balances of the law, criminally and civilly. If a citizen does take "pot shots", or generally behaves negligently or recklessly, hits innocent bystanders, etc., he or she may very well end up facing consequences for those actions. That is another consideration they SHOULD be making when they decide what measures best serve their rational self-interests and their goal of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So in a very general sense, as a police officer, I am all for citizens being able to carry firearms and being able to defend themselves when their lives are threatened. The police are not always able to respond quick enough to alleviate threats to people's lives. If the drunk wants to go out in the street and threaten to kill people, he's creating a potentially lethal situation for himself, and if he gets shot by a citizen, then there's a fair chance that a prosecutor, a jury or a judge will decide that that is in fact what he deserved when the decline to prosecute or acquit the citizen of charges.

That said, people who do carry guns and use them are subject to the checks and balances of the law, criminally and civilly. If a citizen does take "pot shots", or generally behaves negligently or recklessly, hits innocent bystanders, etc., he or she may very well end up facing consequences for those actions. That is another consideration they SHOULD be making when they decide what measures best serve their rational self-interests and their goal of living.

Then what is the point of this

In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their rights of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force even in self protection (except during those emergencies that require action at once, before the police can be summoned). If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential.

Where the OPAR and the essays go on to describe citizens having to carry around guns for protection leading to anarchy. Why even have a police force, why is it needed if we could simply arm ourselves and defend ourselves if we'll simply be "subject to the checks and balances of the law"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what is the point of this

I think you are confusing emergency situations with situations that call for the retaliatory use of force after the emergency no longer exists.

By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their right of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force even in self-protection (except during those emergencies that require action at once, before the police can be summoned). If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential.(16)
- OPAR, Chapter 10 - Government, pg. 363.

Ayn Rand in no way advocated not being able to defend yourself when a government agent was not available as a viable option when faced with an immediate emergency situation. But even though you have a the capability to defend yourself in emergency situations, your use of force is still subject to government control by means of law and accountability.

Now contrast the emergency situation with one where you come home to find your house has been burglarized and the suspects are long gone. It is then in the proper purview of the government to investigate and use force to apprehend the suspects. That is an example of the "self-defense" force that you as a citizen relinquish to the government.

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are confusing emergency situations with situations that call for the retaliatory use of force after the emergency no longer exists.

No, I'm trying to clarify what is an emergency situation. I define an emergency situation as when you have no other choice, no other alternative. If a man is shooting at you, physically attacking you, defend yourself, if a man is waving a gun, run. You're point of "Quite a few citizens are as well trained with firearms as police officers are, and quite a few are better trained with firearms than police officers are." does not matter in such context. If they are well trained, but not a police officer, they can not decide to use retalitory force because they think they are capable, even if they are more capable.

Ayn Rand in no way advocated not being able to defend yourself when a government agent was not available as a viable option when faced with an immediate emergency situation. But even though you have a the capability to defend yourself in emergency situations, your use of force is still subject to government control by means of law and accountability.

Now contrast the emergency situation with one where you come home to find your house has been burglarized and the suspects are long gone. It is then in the proper purview of the government to investigate and use force to apprehend the suspects. That is an example of the "self-defense" force that you as a citizen relinquish to the government.

Does that help?

No, because I think it goes further than that.

From VOS The Nature of Government

The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate it's use. All the reasons which make the initiation oh physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.
This paragraph as far as I can tell is the basis from which ya'll are objecting to my view. I happen to agree completely with this statement. However I also happen to agree with what she qualifies this with in the passages following.

If a society provided no organization protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door - or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into pepretual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force -even its retaliatory use- cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors' intentions are good or bad, whether their judgement is rational or irrational, whether they are moivated in a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or malice - the use of force cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

(emphasis mine)

By leaving people open to using force to protect themselves from anyone they feel is a threat, not just retaliating after the fact, but what they are considering self defense, and saying whoever they happen to kill when they defend themselves doesn't matter, then no one is safe. Why else would she add "-even if it's retalitory-" and Piekoff put "they renounce the private use of physical force even in self-protection" if all they were talking about was finding who did something to you after the fact. We should only have to worry about the criminals, not well meaning citizens too. That is why the government needs to have a monopoly on force. The fact that average joe private citizen might have more arms training then a police officer is probably a fault with the police department training system and does not change the fact that it is the police that should be doing the shooting. It is the governments job to make sure under what circumstance force can be used, who can use it, against who it can be used, and how much is necessary. Private citizens can not arbitrarily decide it.

With this as a basis, I can not agree with your statement of

So in a very general sense, as a police officer, I am all for citizens being able to carry firearms and being able to defend themselves when their lives are threatened. The police are not always able to respond quick enough to alleviate threats to people's lives. If the drunk wants to go out in the street and threaten to kill people, he's creating a potentially lethal situation for himself, and if he gets shot by a citizen, then there's a fair chance that a prosecutor, a jury or a judge will decide that that is in fact what he deserved when the decline to prosecute or acquit the citizen of charges.

A threat is not enough. There has to be no other choice. Further by making sure the government has a sole monopoly on force and the rules it should be used with, that removes the need of private citizens to have to take the law into their own hands and then later determine if they were in the wrong or not. No citizen should do that no matter how justified they think they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm trying to clarify what is an emergency situation. I define an emergency situation as when you have no other choice, no other alternative. If a man is shooting at you, physically attacking you, defend yourself, if a man is waving a gun, run. You're point of "Quite a few citizens are as well trained with firearms as police officers are, and quite a few are better trained with firearms than police officers are." does not matter in such context. If they are well trained, but not a police officer, they can not decide to use retalitory force because they think they are capable, even if they are more capable.

The problem is that your definition leads to perverse results because it means people cannot defend other people in emergency situations.

For example, you are alone in a parking lot and you see a man beating a woman severely with a tire iron, it appears certain that if something doesn't happen in the next few seconds, the woman will be beaten to death. There are no police officers around, but you have a gun. Under your definition, it would be immoral for you to shoot the attacking man in order to save the woman from almost certain death.

Fortunately, the law in many states allows for lethal force to be used in defense of a third person under certain circumstances. For instance, you can only use lethal force to protect a third person if that person themselves would legally be able to use lethal force in their own defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man is shooting at you, physically attacking you, defend yourself, if a man is waving a gun, run.

Well, what can I say, wait for the man to shot at you, or let him shot at you as you try to run away. Of course, at that point your ability to defend yourself may be hampered by bullet holes and blood loss, but at least you will die having made what you think was the moral decision. I'm sorry, but I still don't think you adequately grasp the difficulty of being faced with such judgment calls when you have scant few seconds to make such decisions that could involve your life or death.

If there were a way to predict in advance how a threat was going to play out, I might agree with you. As it is, once the threat is there, it's viable in that the attacker has the means and capability to carry it out and the attacker demonstrates the willingness, I'm going to take the action that best leads to my chance to survive the situation. I don't think this necessarily equates to resorting to lethal force as the last possible option. If that means shooting first even though I could run at greater risk to my life, I'm shooting first. If it means running offers a better chance, I'll run. I consider it immoral to increase the threat to my life in order to avoid using force to defend myself from force that is being threatened towards me. I do not see that it is rational to wait to the point when the assailant is actually shooting at me before I shoot back. That is me speaking as a citizen. I would expect any citizen to act in a similar fashion. I think this is reasonable, rational and moral to defend yourself in that manner, and that is one such situation that I would consider an emergency situation. I think this view is entirely consistent with the short exception in the passage that I quoted above.

This paragraph as far as I can tell is the basis from which ya'll are objecting to my view.

Speaking for myself, I'm objecting to your view because I have actually dealt with life or death situations like this numerous times in the past and I'm viewing it more from an "is/ought" perspective. I have knowledge of how quickly mere threats can result in death. Ironically, I have yet to actually shoot or kill anyone, but on a lesser level I have resorted to the use of less-than-lethal physical force many times. But, I have also stood of the dead bodies of citizens and policemen alike.

I can't accurately presume how many such emergency situations you have actually had to deal with, but from your viewpoint, I suspect it is very few, if not none at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any existing nation. Objectivism being an existence-centric philosophy and not a wish-centric one, the proper comparison is between the US and whatever other nations exist, not whatever nations you wish existed or could imagine existing.
How would existence-centric philosophy make sanctioning one evil "okay" so long as other people are sanctioning worse evils?

The people of N. Korea are responsible for deposing their own evil government. If they cannot or will not undertake that task, it is the responsibility of any government whose nation is threatened by Pyongyang to eliminate N. Korea as a threat.
Most posts have said that the responsibility North Koreans have to rid the evil in their government differs from the responsibility Americans have to rid the evil in their government, even going so far as to say that anything other than deposing an "evil government" or leaving is irresponsible and a sanction of evil.

We need an objective standard of what constitutes an "evil government", so that it could be objectively shown why America isn't an "evil government" and that this difference in responsibilities is valid.

I think a primary difference between countries like America and countries that do not respect rights like dictatorships, is that America has in place non-violent means to repeal and get rid of those evils we do have. I don't see many options in countries like Iraq, Iran, China, N Korea, etc.
Persuading a dictator or persuading a majority of the voting population to respect one's rights, there is no guarantee a rational argument will eliminate governmental evil. In America a person doesn't risk her life by persuading others whereas people under dictatorships do, but wouldn't a slave properly consider his country evil even if he did have freedom of speech? If evil is based on what rights a government doesn't respect, the particular means individuals have of changing protection of rights might be a secondary difference.

But if all of man's rights are required to live, how can a government violate any rights and yet not be evil? If Iranians were irresponsible and sanctioners of evil, then so would be Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were a way to predict in advance how a threat was going to play out, I might agree with you. As it is, once the threat is there, it's viable in that the attacker has the means and capability to carry it out and the attacker demonstrates the willingness, I'm going to take the action that best leads to my chance to survive the situation. I don't think this necessarily equates to resorting to lethal force as the last possible option. If that means shooting first even though I could run at greater risk to my life, I'm shooting first. If it means running offers a better chance, I'll run. I consider it immoral to increase the threat to my life in order to avoid using force to defend myself from force that is being threatened towards me. I do not see that it is rational to wait to the point when the assailant is actually shooting at me before I shoot back. That is me speaking as a citizen. I would expect any citizen to act in a similar fashion. I think this is reasonable, rational and moral to defend yourself in that manner, and that is one such situation that I would consider an emergency situation. I think this view is entirely consistent with the short exception in the passage that I quoted above.

Then we're in disagreement. I think the point is made very clear that in a civilized society you do wait to shoot back until it is clear that someone is attacking you. If it's clear, I'm fine with it, go to town. If it's not clear, if it's just an arbitrary decision that someone might do you harm, then no. Lethal force should not be the first thing that goes through our heads. I don't want some idiot misinterpreting something I'm doing someday and decide I'm threatening or someone else and kill me. The only way to ensure that no one's rights are violated is to not do violence, that should be the starting point, not I'll kill first and ask questions later. Otherwise there's no point to saying the government should have a monopoly on force, there's no qualification, no sharing. They do not say the government is the only one to use force to enforce laws.

Speaking for myself, I'm objecting to your view because I have actually dealt with life or death situations like this numerous times in the past and I'm viewing it more from an "is/ought" perspective. I have knowledge of how quickly mere threats can result in death. Ironically, I have yet to actually shoot or kill anyone, but on a lesser level I have resorted to the use of less-than-lethal physical force many times. But, I have also stood of the dead bodies of citizens and policemen alike.

I can't accurately presume how many such emergency situations you have actually had to deal with, but from your viewpoint, I suspect it is very few, if not none at all.

I would rather expect you to face these situations a lot. You're a cop, it's your job. You are supposed to know how to deal with these situations, as a cop. You are the one with the authority to use force. I've been robbed at gunpoint with the barrel about 2 inches from my forehead. I've had a gun pulled on me on another occasion and one of my old trucks ended up with a couple bullet holes one night while I was driving. I've had my fair share of angry drunk boyfriends come after me. It's no where near what a police officer sees, but it's much more than I've ever wanted to deal with myself.

The problem is that your definition leads to perverse results because it means people cannot defend other people in emergency situations.

For example, you are alone in a parking lot and you see a man beating a woman severely with a tire iron, it appears certain that if something doesn't happen in the next few seconds, the woman will be beaten to death. There are no police officers around, but you have a gun. Under your definition, it would be immoral for you to shoot the attacking man in order to save the woman from almost certain death.

Fortunately, the law in many states allows for lethal force to be used in defense of a third person under certain circumstances. For instance, you can only use lethal force to protect a third person if that person themselves would legally be able to use lethal force in their own defense.

You have a gun, he has a tire iron. What is wrong with pointing the gun at him and saying stop it or I'll shoot.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would existence-centric philosophy make sanctioning one evil "okay" so long as other people are sanctioning worse evils?
You're entirely missing the point. The US is a free nation and no nation is more rights-respecting than it. Iran and especially North Korea are not free nations and no nation is less rights-respecting than North Korea. The fact that business us subject to regulation and there is taxation in the US does not negate the evil of North Korea. The one fact that in my opinion is dispositive of the innocence of civilians in North Korea is the utter lack of freedom including elections or the rule of law, and the lack of a right to leave the country. Iran does in fact have elections (though they are often tampered with by the mullah council who can remove candidates from the slate) and they did indeed vote to install this current jerkweasel when there was an actually better candidate. Furthermore, I don't believe that Iran has the kind of tight "no escape controls" over its citizens found in North Korea. However, I would like to hear the testimony of actual current Iranians before concluding anything on that point.

The issue is not whether there exists a perfect government somewhere, the question is whether a person choses the greater of two weevils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most posts have said that the responsibility North Koreans have to rid the evil in their government differs from the responsibility Americans have to rid the evil in their government, even going so far as to say that anything other than deposing an "evil government" or leaving is irresponsible and a sanction of evil.

We need an objective standard of what constitutes an "evil government", so that it could be objectively shown why America isn't an "evil government" and that this difference in responsibilities is valid.

There are two separate issues here. On the one hand is the right of the North Korean people to be ruled by rational, rights-protecting government. On the other hand is the right of the American people not to be victims of the North Korean government's aggressive foreign policy.

In the first case, the people of North Korea have a moral responsibility to secure their freedoms and provide for their rights by eliminating the primary threat to it: the regime of Kim Jong Il. In the second case, the leaders of the United States have a constitutional duty to eliminate North Korea as a threat to America’s national security.

Thus, it is not the duty of the U.S. government to free the North Korean people (although annihilating their leaders will be a great boon to them). Nor is there any obligation incumbent on our government to place the avoidance of harm to Korean civilians above the security of the United States.

As far as standards go, the only thing the U.S. needs to show is that Kim’s weapons are a threat to us. If his country were a free republic and he still threatened the United States, nothing in the above analysis would change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is not whether there exists a perfect government somewhere, the question is whether a person choses the greater of two weevils.
Then it should be noted that choosing to live in a more evil country does not itself make one irresponsible or a sanctioner of evil.

The fact that business us subject to regulation and there is taxation in the US does not negate the evil of North Korea.
Sure, and vice versa.

Thus, it is not the duty of the U.S. government to free the North Korean people...
We agree on that.
...although [the US]annihilating [North Korean] leaders will be a great boon to [North Koreans.]
This I don't take as necessarily true, however. There are some responsible North Koreans for whom it would not be a boon to substitute their current government for anarchy, just as it's not necessarily in my best interests to dismantle the US government just to regain my income tax payments.

As far as standards go, the only thing the U.S. needs to show is that Kim’s weapons are a threat to us.
As in the US needs to have evidence that NK has the means and intent to harm us, or that, as an "unfree nation", possession of weapons alone would make NK a threat?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i]This I don't take as necessarily true, however. There are some responsible North Koreans for whom it would not be a boon to substitute their current government for anarchy, just as it's not necessarily in my best interests to dismantle the US government just to regain my income tax payments.

Then the North Koreans' fear of anarchy is serving Li'l Kim well.

As in the US needs to have evidence that NK has the means and intent to harm us, or that, as an "unfree nation", possession of weapons alone would make NK a threat?

My position is that the United States should not only disarm North Korea but over the long term seek an absolute world monopoly in nuclear weapons--for the same reason that we cannot have private militias and private "enforcement agencies" in our own country.

Edited by Myron Azov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it should be noted that choosing to live in a more evil country does not itself make one irresponsible or a sanctioner of evil.
Huh? That's exactly what it shows. (Well, I'd say that it maked one responsible for something bad, which is what I assume you mean by "irresponsible").
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this point has already been made, but I don't find anything wrong with the citizens of a free country killing the citizens of a threatening non-free country - even if some of those citizens don't support their immoral government.

If Ayn Rand had been killed in a bombing raid on St. Petersburg in 1920 by the US Air Force because Lenin and his minions were threatening to destroy America, I don't think there would have been anything wrong with that. Certainly it would have been unfortunate, but the blame would have lied with the Soviets, not the Americans.

-Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this point has already been made, but I don't find anything wrong with the citizens of a free country killing the citizens of a threatening non-free country - even if some of those citizens don't support their immoral government.
By which, I assume you mean the government defending its citizens by military action against the aggressor nation, which leads in the deaths of citizens in that nation who oppose their government. And not "As an American, I get to shoot any Syrian I see".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we're in disagreement.

I can live with that. And it's your life to risk however you see fit, I have no problem with that as you seem as willing as I am to face the consequences of your actions and decisions.

I don't want some idiot misinterpreting something I'm doing someday and decide I'm threatening or someone else and kill me

Neither do I. That's why I avoid getting drunk and going into a crowd of people with a gun and threatening to kill everyone. If I did that, I think I'd have to reasonably expect that someone might shoot at me. I'll take it as read that your mileage varies. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By which, I assume you mean the government defending its citizens by military action against the aggressor nation, which leads in the deaths of citizens in that nation who oppose their government. And not "As an American, I get to shoot any Syrian I see".

Yes.

- Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the attack in Lebanon goes on, I would like to share with you a gesture that our army did to the citisens of Lebanon. I quote from "Yediot Achronot" (here is the link to the newspaper in English, but not to the article I am talking about): "The IDF airplanes scattered flyers warning the Lebanonic citisens to evacuate areas where Hizballa are operating, so that they wont get hurt: "Due to the continuouse terrorist actions of Hizballa, the IDF is operating in Lebanon. For your safety, in order to prevent harm for citisens who are not involved, you should avoid being in areas where Hizballa men are active" the flyers said.

Well, what do you think of this gesture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what do you think of this gesture?
Gentelmanly, and strategically correct. Given that Israel isn't planning a serious no-holds-barred, scorched-earth policy against Syria and Iran, it is an appropriate response given what the government is trying to accomplish. We might question what they're trying to accomplish, but let's not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what do you think of this gesture?

To me this is an explicit expression of what I have been saying.

Israel is saying to the citizens of Lebanon: take responsibility for yourselves. The people you have running your country are terrorists. They threaten us and we are now going to deal with that threat. We will be dropping bombs to kill as many of them as possible. If you are not involved with these terrorists, leave or you may be killed also.

And while it is unfortunate that some innocent civilians may die, I doubt you will see the IDF apologize. They know that every death is the fault of the aggressor.

And now, if you wouldn't mind answering my question: Was the US morally justified in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did the same thing to Japan, let them know when and where we were dropping them.

Not true. There had been leafleting of Japan in July and August 1945 calling for surrender and threatening destruction, but there was no announcement of when and where the bombs would fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this is an explicit expression of what I have been saying.

Israel is saying to the citizens of Lebanon: take responsibility for yourselves. The people you have running your country are terrorists. They threaten us and we are now going to deal with that threat. We will be dropping bombs to kill as many of them as possible. If you are not involved with these terrorists, leave or you may be killed also.

And while it is unfortunate that some innocent civilians may die, I doubt you will see the IDF apologize. They know that every death is the fault of the aggressor.

And now, if you wouldn't mind answering my question: Was the US morally justified in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII?

I cannot give a good answer to that question right now because I do not have sufficient information about the details of that war. I also dont have enough time right now to read on the subject (exam period and stuff), but I will on the first chance I get.

I don't think, however, that by spreading those flyers Israel is trying to tell the lebanonians what you said. I think they simply wanted to avoid hurting them. simple as that. We also acted similarly in operations in Gasa.

If lebanonian civilians get killed, I am confident that we will not appologise, and I don't think an apology is due. I am simply glad that my country values lives of potential innocent people, and is acting in a "gentelmanic" manner, as DavidOdden put it.

I want to state explicitly the things that bother me about the issue of killing civilians:

1) The objectivist stand is that civilians of an enemy country are morally responsible of the actions of their government.

My problem with that is that the responsibility was never properly proven to me (and from the reactions of the users on this post, it seemed that they too did not know exactly how to prove this responsibility: they first tried to use the concept of moral responsibility in it's "physical" meaning (like cause and effect, saying that everyone who contributed to the existence of something is morally responsible for it...) and then proceeded to say that it is their moral responsibility to protect their life.)

Now, while I agree that it is their moral responsibility to protect their life, I don't see how that makes them responsible of the actions of their government, if they do not support them with a willingful action. In the case of dictatorships, such civilians have no choice but to obey their government. it sounds completely redicilouse to me to accuse them of being guilty of the actions of their own tormentors. (and also a terrible injustice).

This argument of moral responsibility is used as an argument for why there should be no concern for vicilian casualties. And therefor that argument is very important to clarify.

2) How is it possible to say that a whole city is "evil", or "supports evil"? A city is composed of many individuals, and I dont understand how they can be made into one giant head, with one set of ideas. This representation is possible for an organisation, whose members all have common beliefes, that are the organisation's stated principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. There had been leafleting of Japan in July and August 1945 calling for surrender and threatening destruction, but there was no announcement of when and where the bombs would fall.

On the 60th anniversery I was reading some articles that said they did, I'll have to see if I can find those links again when I get home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...