Israel's Disproportionate use of Force

[blackdiamond]

Jesus. The task of unearthing all the fallacies in Kendall's arguments is a mammoth one.

But anyway. Let's see if we can make a start:

Should implies an ethical principle...

What the article clearly states is that the decision to target a civilian population is not a province of a moral situation. It is not a "should" issue.

To that extent, blackdiamond wants a "should". Myron advocates it as a clear tactic, and blackdiamond says that it is "quite a big step in the wrong direction". ..

Blackdiamond says Myron's clearly wrong (an ethical judgement), ...

Now, let's take what Myron did actually say and not what you say he said (and this goes to prove even more that you have not followed the debate, even if you have read it):

Myron: ...Israel should not be sparing civilians but making every effort to destroy both the terrorists and the terrorist-support population.

Well. Since he used the word "should" (emphasis his, by the way), we must accept by your argument above - that 'should' implies an ethical principle - that Myron was giving an ethical principle when he was talking about necessary ("making every effort to") indiscriminate mass bombing. BUT, in your defence of him (against me), you say that this is not a province of a moral situation; that i should not be talking 'should'.

To simplify:

1.Myron said "should".

2.I said "should".

3.You say it is not about "should" (therefore i am wrong to attack Myron).

4.???

So, Myron said the "wrong" thing (should) and i said the "wrong" thing (should). I am wrong, Myron is not wrong. Contradiction number 1. (Therefore), fallacy number 1.

Should I continue?

[KendallJ]

Sophia,

I agree with your assessment of Rand's discussion, *as it applies to individuals, acting within the framework of a civilized society (which I take to be a "rights respecting society")*. However, that is clearly not the context here, so I think it is a valid to ask if it applies as directly as you would suggest.

Your argument from individuals rights does not succeed in resolving your "distinction between unavoidable war casualties and specific targeting of civilian population." Just because you didn't intend to violate the rights of the "unavoidable war casualties" does not mean that you didn't also violate those individuals' rights.

Rand resolves this clearly. The moral responsiblity for any innocent victims in the case of self defense, such as war, lies solely with the initiator of force.

What we can debate is wether that includes innocent victims that the "self defender" chooses to target. I clearly say, yes. You are claiming no, based upon what I believe is an out of context application of Rand's theory of individual rights. I agree that wars are blunt, terrible acts.

Your idea of retaliation, *as it relates to govts acting as agents of its citizens* reintroduces the idea of proportional force. The purpose of war made by civilized society acting in self defense (note the *new* context) is more than just retaliation. If it was only retaliation, then you feed the claims of anyone who claims that only the proportional response is ethical. The ethical purpose here is to eliminate the threat, and yes, you will have to violate individual rights to do this (wether "unavoidable" or not), and the moral responsibility for ***all*** rights violations lies with the agressor.

To the extent that a particular civilian targeting tactic does or does not contribute to the aim of eliminating a threat, we can discuss this, but *not as an ethical issue*. Objective tactical mistakes made by the self defender should not shift the moral responsbility for rights violations.

The Brook article is really clear about this, and I would suggest that anyone who is serious about this topic spend the $49 (student $39) to get a years subscription to The Objective Standard. Additionally Volume 2 has a follow-up article by John Lewis, that specifically examines General Sherman's moral march through the south during the Civil War, where he specifically targeted civilian support for the South's war machine.

[KendallJ]

To the extent that a particular civilian targeting tactic does or does not contribute to the aim of eliminating a threat, we can discuss this, but *not as an ethical issue*. Objective tactical mistakes made by the self defender should not shift the moral responsbility for rights violations.

Hi blackdiamond, I stand by my statement above, and yes, you do need to continue.

Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron? When you have said that he is "clearly wrong", where did you provide the basis by which he is clearly wrong?

Yup, I'm inferring from your "should". Your "should" appears to be pretty different from Myron's "should". At least Myron has stated the principles by which he stands. You, although you've claimed, "clear wrongness" on Myron's part you have yet to state your principles. Don't blame other people for misrepresenting you when you have yet to state your premises. All the confusion is dispelled when you actually make your argument from principles. I've read all your posts. If I've missed it, I'm happy to admit it. Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"? This is the 2nd time I've asked you, yet you clearly avoided it the first time so you could continue nitpicking my logic.

We're all waiting with baited breath.....

[blackdiamond]

Hi blackdiamond, I stand by my statement above, and yes, you do need to continue.

Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron? When you have said that he is "clearly wrong", where did you provide the basis by which he is clearly wrong?

Yup, I'm inferring from your "should". Your "should" appears to be pretty different from Myron's "should". At least Myron has stated the principles by which he stands. You, although you've claimed, "clear wrongness" on Myron's part you have yet to state your principles. Don't blame other people for misrepresenting you when you have yet to state your premises. All the confusion is dispelled when you actually make your argument from principles. I've read all your posts. If I've missed it, I'm happy to admit it. Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"? This is the 2nd time I've asked you, yet you clearly avoided it the first time so you could continue nitpicking my logic.

We're all waiting with baited breath.....

Hm.

Okay. So, at first you simply said "Should implies an ethical principle" and the question that you keep insisting i should answer came from that categorical assertion. Now it seems you have realised that this statement is wrong although you have not made that admission. You simply proceed with more fallacies and insist that i need to answer your question regardless.

And you even make a more incredible claim this time: Blackdiamond's 'should' is different from Myron's 'should'.

Let's compare the two and please show me how these 'shoulds' are fundamentally different (such that the first 'should' has nothing to do with ethics and the second 'should' does):

1. They SHOULD make every effort to kill both the terrorists and the population these operate from.

2. They can (rightfully) do it (kill both the terrorists and the rest of the population), but this does not mean they (necessarily) SHOULD.

My 'should' is a direct response to his 'should', so how is it that they are fundamantally - or even contextually - different 'shoulds' (one having to do with ethics and the other having nothing to do with ethics)? Are you truly being honest?

I do not have to answer your questions if they are proceeding from fallacious premises or arguments; that would be a sanction of them. My job is simply to show you your fallacies. You call it 'nitpicking' your logic, but hey, if it's wrong it's wrong. (As you said), deal with it!

[Oh btw, RationalBiker, i've just seen your admin post. So i will only take my deep breath now ... ... Hmmm. That feels much better; thanks ].

[aleph_0]

False.

While I appreciate your vigor, your style of argument is not at all pleasing or convincing.

Whether or not intervention in Vietnam was in its national interest, the United States was attempting to prevent all of Southeast Asia from falling into the hands of totalitarian butchers. That effort was as legitimately defensive as killing the Japanese who were trying to do the same thing in World War II. If in the course of performing their duty, U.S. forces unavoidably killed a few innocents, that is unfortunate but no cause for shame. Remember, we are discussing modern war, not cricket.

I understand that the communists were not heroes, and I do not terribly bemoan the hardships they suffered, but there is still no evidence that America acted in defense. We had neither been attacked by the Vietcong nor, to my knowledge, by any communist organization. We aggressed against them, not the other way around.

Early in the 20th century commie strategists Lenin and Trotsky made it clear that their goal was an international communist revolution. http://www.swp.ie/resources/Who%20was%20Leon%20Trotsky.htm If one does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a “people’s republic” and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few, perhaps freedom is not very high on his agenda

Who, might I ask, is "he", and why are we making suppositions about his agenda without having provided much information about him?

As far as I am aware, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were Vietnamese. Neither of them targeted America. While they wanted all nations to be communist, they wanted them to become communist of their own accords--not by the hunger of an imperialist communist country.

For the record, I am categorically opposed to killing American women and children.

Yet this does not answer my question. Do you oppose it because they are women and children?

The only nations America threatens are those who seek to destroy us and our way of life.

When did the Vietcong attempt to destroy us?

What constitutes destroying our way of life? Immigrant Mexicans having fiestas while us up-standing descendents of protestants look upon the movement of Latin hips with jealousy?

It does not matter that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese had not attacked U.S. territory in the 1960s. If I see a stranger on the street victimized by a purse snatcher, my tackling the robber and returning the purse to the owner constitutes defensive force even though the robber up to that point has done nothing to me.

That does not constitute defensive force but retributive force. Defensive force is used only to protect oneself; retributive is used to ensure justice. It would have been just for the Vietcong to have been defeated, but it was not in defense of America. There was no threat to America from them. If there had been, then I would both morally support that war and consider it defensive; but I can say neither.

[KendallJ]

Hm.

Okay. So, at first you simply said "Should implies an ethical principle" and the question that you keep insisting i should answer came from that categorical assertion. Now it seems you have realised that this statement is wrong although you have not made that admission. You simply proceed with more fallacies and insist that i need to answer your question regardless.

And you even make a more incredible claim this time: Blackdiamond's 'should' is different from Myron's 'should'.

Let's compare the two and please show me how these 'shoulds' are fundamentally different (such that the first 'should' has nothing to do with ethics and the second 'should' does):

1. They SHOULD make every effort to kill both the terrorists and the population these operate from.

2. They can (rightfully) do it (kill both the terrorists and the rest of the population), but this does not mean they (necessarily) SHOULD.

My 'should' is a direct response to his 'should', so how is it that they are fundamantally - or even contextually - different 'shoulds' (one having to do with ethics and the other having nothing to do with ethics)? Are you truly being honest?

Ok, clearly, you are correct here. You're should is the same as his should.

I do not have to answer your questions if they are proceeding from fallacious premises or arguments; that would be a sanction of them. My job is simply to show you your fallacies. You call it 'nitpicking' your logic, but hey, if it's wrong it's wrong. (As you said), deal with it!

My questions were:

"If one "CAN rightfully kill innocent people", when should you and when shouldn't you?"

"Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"?"

"Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron?"

I fail to see where there are embedded premises here that are fallacious? They are simply a request to provide data and/or state your premises. Answering those questions helps advance the discussion. Pointing out what you think is a fallacy in my arguments, in leiu of answering the questions is *nit picking*. See, the confusion resolves itself when you simply state your premises. There is no fallacy in my assertions because you haven't provided enough data to say one way or the other. I am inferring your meaning as a rhetorical tool to draw out your premises, which you are incredibly resistant to give. Most people, when they believe their position has been mis-represented, clarify it. You simply insist I am wrong and I haven't read your position, and you don't have to answer my questions. OK, what are the fundamentals of your position.

What is it about clarifying your position that makes you so reluctant to do it?

[Capitalism Forever]

We're all waiting with baited breath.....

I've given up on following this rather rambling debate, but just to pick a fight with you, I disagree with the above. I'm positively confident that what you're waiting with is bated breath!

[Marc K.]

Sophia:

The following is from a Q&A of Ayn Rand’s speech Global Balkanization. I have provided it for you before. It was the impetus behind another old thread here called “in our name”? in the Political Philosophy forum. In it Ayn Rand directly contradicts your argument here. You should read it carefully and then try to reconcile it with your view; you can’t. It is time for some understanding and reintegration.

Q: Miss Rand, as an advocate of individualism there's one point that I find difficulty in figuring out in my own mind, and perhaps you can clarify and that is the statement that it is the prerogative of a free country to invade and attack what you call a slave state or a slave pen or a non-free country. I find this hard to figure out because in the final analysis it is not a nation attacking a nation it's people attacking people, attacking individuals, and they may not want your attack. Could you please explain that?

AR: ...I know the source of this statement. It's the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals and if some poor blob in Soviet Russia didn't want an invasion, or he is not a communist, we mightn't harm him. Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

This is a difficult issue so let me give you a few pointers.

I have made this point before but I will repeat: Morality and justice relate to individuals, not to collective entities like the state.

Relating individual morality in a social context is what Politics is all about. You are right to resist the notion of collectivism, however, you must realize that rights, while only possessed by the individual, are only applicable in society, that is: in collections of people.

So now you must reconcile when the rights of individuals of one society conflict with the rights of another. They don’t. Just as the rational interests of different individuals do not conflict.

How can this be, you say, when we are killing innocent individuals?

Now a fuller understanding of Rights is required.

Rights are moral sanctions to positive action. This means that Rights give you the moral sanction to be left alone by other people while you take the action required for your Life. In other words Rights require no action by other people, only action by you. You are the one responsible to exercise your Rights.

By Right, people of every country have the moral sanction to organize their government in a way which suits them (presumably one which allows for them the greatest chance to pursue their own happiness). If you are unsatisfied with your government then you have the responsibility to change that situation. Who else should be responsible for your happiness but you?

As Ayn Rand said: “only a government can put a country into war”. So once you understand that it is your responsibility to form your government you can understand that when the government you allow, by Right, threatens another, then it is your responsibility to change that government and end the aggression. If you do not, then it is the responsibility of the government of the threatened society to protect the rights of its citizens and end the threat -- as quickly as possible, without sacrificing themselves. (Please don’t get bogged down in what constitutes a threat. I am talking about an existential threat, an actual threat).

Once you have integrated this knowledge it will be easier for you to answer the question: Was it moral for the US to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

P.S.

I am having trouble following your quotes. Could you please attribute your most recent quotes of Ayn Rand using article or essay names.

[KendallJ]

I've given up on following this rather rambling debate, but just to pick a fight with you, I disagree with the above. I'm positively confident that what you're waiting with is bated breath!

I will conceed to all who may assert it, that my spelling is atrocious...

stick around tho. I'm sure diamond is on the verge of stating his premise, and we can all find out what he really meant.

[Ifat Glassman]

There are a few fundamental things that are not clear to me about this issue. Maybe someone here cares to clarify:

1) Assuming that human beings are living in a world with enough resources to sustain everyone (i.e, not a life-boat situation) individual rights are the proper application of morality for people living in a society. These rights (morally) apply to all men, regardless of race or country.

2) Normally, a country should (morally) punish a citizen (of that country) that violates individual rights of a citizen of another country.

3) The actions of one person do not have the power to make another person morally responsible for these actions, if the later did not willingly support the first's actions.

4) A country is composed of individuals, and is not one body with one opinion.

Do we agree so far?

If we do, then it is clear that violating rights of citizens of another country has to be justified.

It CANNOT be an issue outside of morality, because the very suggestion of initiating force against people who did not initiate the use of force against you collides with the basic moral principles of Objectivism (and in this case, these are also the moral principles of the rest of the world, or most of it)

Note that in my last sentence I was talking about citizens, individuals, who did not initiate the use of force against anyone outside their country. "Initiating the use of force" includes willingly contributing money to the attacking forces or their ruler, supporting the attacker by vote, or propaganda of any kind.

Again, the most important thing to emphasize is the fact that the support has to be willful. An action that prolongs the attacking, evil regime that was imposed on that citizen (like paying taxes, or being put in a slave camp to produce weapons), cannot be considered as initiation of force.

Do we agree on that?

Now, I'm confused about the quotes that were given here from Yaron Brook's article. On one hand, he says that attacking complicit civilians is justified (with which I agree). On the other hand, he says that the quickest safest method of eliminating the threat should always be chosen, regardless of the innocents on the other side. The last statement shows a clear distinction between complicit citizens, and innocent citizens. Which also shows that the article basically agrees with statements 1-4 above. Which means, that a citizen of an evil country cannot be considered morally responsible for the actions of his government, simply because he's a citizen of that country. Otherwise, a concept such as an "innocent civilian of an enemy country" could not have existed in that sentence.

Which brings me to the following problems:

5) When one is attacked, what are the moral actions, that should (morally) be permitted by law, as a defense?

Obviously, not every method of defense would be justified. And yes, it IS obvious. For example, if someone threatens to come to my house and kill me, and I plant explosives in the sidewalk surrounding my house (which is not my property), then I am clearly not acting morally. If someone tries to shoot at me in the street, and I start shooting other people indiscriminately, (which is safer for me, because he can't hide) I will not be acting morally. If I aim at the attacker and accidentally hit someone behind him, I did act morally.

In the realm of individuals who are citizens of the same country it is clear that we do put a limit to the actions one can take in self defense.

So then, why is the case of individuals of different countries different? Why should we not put a limit to the things that a country can do (legally, which is the result of our morality) in self defense?

There is also another problem:

6) How can we know which citizens of an enemy country are complicit, and which are not?

There are cases that we can clearly know. For example, everyone wearing uniform of the enemy army. Everyone marching in the street and demonstrating support of the regime or terror group.

But in most cases we have no means of knowing. We can know what the majority supports, sometimes, but we still don't know about the individuals' stand.

I ask you not to give quotes as a final justification, but reasonable arguments, drawn by you or anyone else.

[Myron Azov]

While I appreciate your vigor, your style of argument is not at all pleasing or convincing.

I understand that the communists were not heroes, and I do not terribly bemoan the hardships they suffered, but there is still no evidence that America acted in defense. We had neither been attacked by the Vietcong nor, to my knowledge, by any communist organization. We aggressed against them, not the other way around.

As I've previously explained, a nation does not itself have to be attacked in order to provide defensive force. If we adopted the position that A may not assist B in fending off an attack by C unless A himself is attacked by C, then our police and legal system would be a shambles. No cop could pursue a robber or rapist unless the cop himself had been robbed or raped.

Who, might I ask, is "he", and why are we making suppositions about his agenda without having provided much information about him?

That would be anyone who "does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a 'people’s republic' and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few." If you need more personal information, consult any bio of Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden or hundreds of other peaceniks who absurdly regarded the U.S. as the aggressor in Viet Nam.

As far as I am aware, neither Lenin nor Trotsky were Vietnamese.

Who said they were? Does the fact the founding commie fathers were Russians erase the possibility that they could inspire non-Russians to overthrow capitalism? Ho Chi Minh was only too happy to help carry out the international revolutionary agenda of these famous non-Vietnamese reds.

Neither of them targeted America.

False. Both planned and fostered a worldwide revolution to install a dictatorship of the proletariat. A worldwide revolution by definition would include America.

Trotsky believed that a new socialist state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was accepted by Lenin and the Bolshevik party and guided their conception of the Russian Revolution as part of the world revolution

http://www.answers.com/topic/trotskyism

.

While they wanted all nations to be communist, they wanted them to become communist of their own accords--not by the hunger of an imperialist communist country.

Well, you've got it all wrong--again. It was Stalin who claimed opposition to exporting revolution: "The idea of exporting revolution is nonsense." Trotsky, on the other hand, fervently endorsed it: "We more than once announced the duty of the proletariat of countries in which the revolution had conquered to come to the aid of insurrectionary and oppressed classes and that not only with ideas but if possible with arms." http://www.marxist.com/league-of-nations-c...ational1936.htm After the October 1917 revolution, Lenin's Bolsheviks attempted to establish dictatorships in Estonia and other countries outside Russia.

Yet this does not answer my question. Do you oppose it because they are women and children?

I oppose aggression against any American--man, woman or child.

When did the Vietcong attempt to destroy us?

In the 50s, 60s and 70s by helping to spread world communism. (Note: our moral right to intervene in Vietnam was not undermined by the possibility that Vietnam was not the best place to confront communism with force. The latter is a question of military strategy, not of ethics.)

What constitutes destroying our way of life?

Commie dictatorship, for one thing.

Immigrant Mexicans having fiestas while us up-standing descendents of protestants look upon the movement of Latin hips with jealousy?

Irrelevant to topic, which is what constitutes legitimate force in responding to aggression.

That does not constitute defensive force but retributive force. Defensive force is used only to protect oneself; retributive is used to ensure justice. It would have been just for the Vietcong to have been defeated, but it was not in defense of America. There was no threat to America from them. If there had been, then I would both morally support that war and consider it defensive; but I can say neither.

Your definition has nothing to do with the way "defensive" is used in our language.

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition:

defensive

(dî-fèn´sîv)

adjective

Intended or appropriate for defending; protective.

2. a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack: a defensive weapons system; defensive behavior. b. Sports. Of or relating to the effort to prevent an opponent from gaining points in a game or an athletic contest.

3. Of or relating to defense.

4. Psychology. Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one's shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego.

noun

1. A means of defense.

2. An attitude or position of defense.

Nothing in there about defensive force being "used only to protect oneself." Also see Ayn Rand’s “The Nature of Government,” in which she discusses how the “right of physical self-defense” is delegated to the government.

[Myron Azov]

There are a few fundamental things that are not clear to me about this issue. Maybe someone here cares to clarify:

I'll be as polite as possible. The issues you raise in this post have already been examined on this thread in great detail. To go over them once more at this stage in the thread would be pointless. However, I will favor you with a response to one item:

In the realm of individuals who are citizens of the same country it is clear that we do put a limit to the actions one can take in self defense.

So then, why is the case of individuals of different countries different? Why should we not put a limit to the things that a country can do (legally, which is the result of our morality) in self defense?

The answer is that there is no difference. If one's options for self-defense have been limited by the aggressor, the individual acting to save his own life is not morally bound to spare the innocent life or lives that must be taken in order to kill the aggressor. Suppose, for example, you are threatened by a man with a gun who is shielded by a baby. You do not have to place your own life in jeopardy for fear of harming the baby. If in the defense of your own life, you shoot the gunman and kill the infant, you are not morally responsible for the child's death; the gunman is. Credit to Dr. Onkar Ghate, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, for this invaluable parable. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2547

[DavidV]

It is not correct to say that it is moral to shoot the infant. This is an instance of an emergency situation, and the proper response would depend on the context. It would not be immoral for some to choose to be killed rather than kill an infant assuming that you have a rational reason to value that particular human life, and that being killed increases the baby’s chances of survival. Furthermore, killing an innocent in a civil situation must be a matter of last resort, whereas the threshold is much lower in a war zone, where such considerations can be exploited by the enemy to cause even greater civilian deaths. (Note that the context of the article is human shields in a war zone.)

For example, if Israel refuses to blow up Hezbollah safe-houses in civilian areas, Hezbollah will be emboldened and will concentrate all their forces in the cities. This may cause even greater casualties for both Israeli soldiers and civilians, as well as the civilians of the enemy state. Likewise, nuking the Japanese (arguably) saved many more Japanese lives, whereas we don’t blow up victims in a hostage situation outside of a war zone.

Edited July 21, 2006 by GreedyCapitalist

[Myron Azov]

I agree that shooting at a gunman with a human shield

1) is an emergency situation

2) is morally contingent on context

3) should be a matter of last resort

That said, it is entirely conceivable that in the situation outlined by Dr. Ghate, one could satisfy the above criteria and kill the gunman and the baby with exemption from moral blame.

[~Sophia~]

Your argument from individuals rights does not succeed in resolving your "distinction between unavoidable war casualties and specific targeting of civilian population." Just because you didn't intend to violate the rights of the "unavoidable war casualties" does not mean that you didn't also violate those individuals' rights.

I did not say that you didn't violate those individuals' rights. You certainly have but it was unavoidable side effect of you defending yourself.

Rand resolves this clearly. The moral responsiblity for any innocent victims in the case of self defense, such as war, lies solely with the initiator of force.

When it comes to those unavoidable deaths during war - Yes! The only way to avoid them would be to not to defend yourself. It would be unjust to demand such a thing.

But it does not apply when the innocent are specifically targeted to kill as a strategy. They did not happen to be in your line of fire by chance so to speak, while you were defending yourself. Those innocent deaths were avoidable. You are the initiatior of the force against them under those cirumstances. You are moraly responsible.

What we can debate is wether that includes innocent victims that the "self defender" chooses to target. I clearly say, yes. You are claiming no, based upon what I believe is an out of context application of Rand's theory of individual rights.

To say that I have quoted Ayn Rand out of context is a serious accusation which I do not appreciate. Such statement has to be followed by some evidence. If you show me that in fact I have done so, I will appologize for my error and retract.

The ethical purpose here is to eliminate the threat, and yes, you will have to violate individual rights to do this (wether "unavoidable" or not), and the moral responsibility for ***all*** rights violations lies with the agressor.

Wether unavoidable or not - is where we disagree.

All rights violations? War does not give you or anyone a moral card blank to every action.

If a soldier of a defending country rapes and kills a woman, a citizen of the agressor country, during war - the moral responsibility for this act does not lie with the agressor.

When it comes to the idea of using proportionate force - the goal of Israel is to wipe out Hizballa for good. They should be able to achieve that goal. If you argue that in order to wipe out Hizballa they should be allowed to drop an atomic bomb on Lebanon - which would surly wipe out Hizballa and remove the threat - I disagree.

Edited July 21, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[LaszloWalrus]

If a nation is legitimately defending itself from a threat, then it is not the violator of the rights of the citizens of the aggressor nation; the rulers of the aggressor nation are the violators. If killing innocents (or raping them, for that matter) is the most effective way to win the war, then not only is it morally justified, it's morally obligatory, and the fault lies with the aggressor nation, not with the nation defending itself.

Here is a good editorial on this subject:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2547

And here is one that includes quotations from Rand herself:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4367

[Ifat Glassman]

As for the example of the baby: I did not mean to start a debate about what should be the limit to justified (or legal) actions made in self defence. My question was more general than that: The fact is that we DO put a limit to what one can do in self defense (in the realm of individuals who are citizens of the same country).

And that line is that hurting the innocent bystanders in that incident would be justified only if:

1) They got hit by mistake, while standing behind the gunman

2) The person defending himself was in a situation when he had no other choice but to choose between his life and the innocent's life.

3) I have to think about number three a bit more. However, all these cases indicate that killing innocents has to be a last resort (and not a first resort).

My question was why should that limit NOT exist when we are talking about civilians of different country.

The non-existence of such limit is obvious from the words of Leonard Peikoff: "...And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire".

This sentence puts NO limit on the damage for innocents of an enemy country. But in the individual realm there is a clear distinction. There is a logical gap between the two.

Or maybe I am misinterpreting Peikoff's sentence. On one hand he says "caught in the line of fire" but on the other hand he says "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties...".

Well what if the fewest US casualties would mean simply to nuke everyone? That would contradict the second half of the sentence "caught in the line of fire", which implies an action taken against the army of the enemy, with unfortunate, untargeted, civilian casualties.

Oh and:

"When it comes to those unavoidable deaths during war - Yes! The only way to avoid them would be to not to defend yourself. It would be unjust to demand such a thing.

But it does not apply when the innocent are specifically targeted to kill as a strategy. They did not happen to be in your line of fire by chance so to speak, while you were defending yourself. Those innocent deaths were avoidable. You are the initiatior of the force against them under those cirumstances. You are moraly responsible."

Edited to say: Yey to that!

Edited July 21, 2006 by ifatart

[KendallJ]

I did not say that you didn't violate those individuals' rights. You certainly have but it was unavoidable side effect of you defending yourself.

When it comes to those unavoidable deaths during war - Yes! The only way to avoid them would be to not to defend yourself. It would be unjust to demand such a thing.

But it does not apply when the innocent are specifically targeted to kill as a strategy. They did not happen to be in your line of fire by chance so to speak, while you were defending yourself. Those innocent deaths were avoidable. You are the initiatior of the force against them under those cirumstances. You are moraly responsible.

I'm sorry Sophia, where does Rand ever use this concept of avoidability vs. unavoidability in defending the concept of self-defense? She did say that you should retaliate only against those who initiated force, but in that case then even "unavoidable" force against innocents is immoral then. How do you reconcile your statement with the quote provided by Marc K. from Rand on this very topic, and in context?

To say that I have quoted Ayn Rand out of context is a serious accusation which I do not appreciate. Such statement has to be followed by some evidence. If you show me that in fact I have done so, I will appologize for my error and retract.

First of all, my intent was not to insult you. I did not say you quoted Rand out of context. What I said was I thought that you applied her theory of individual rights improperly in this new context. My whole post was the evidence for the fact that this context doesn't apply. The quotes you gave, were Rand discussing individual rights in the context of an individual responding to an initiation of physical force by another individual. However this context is a government acting as agent of a group of individuals against either another government or rogue group.

Wether unavoidable or not - is where we disagree.

All rights violations? War does not give you or anyone a moral card blank to every action.

That is not what I have said, but I'll admit that my context was not clear. By saying "all" I didn't mean to imply that you have arbitraty moral sanction. If you look up at my reference to the Brook article, you'll see that a govt responding in self-defense does not have arbitrary objectives. It has morally sanctioned objectives:

To fight and win a proper war of self-defense requires two basic courses of action: (1) objectively identify the nature of the threat and (2) do whatever is necessary to destroy the threat and return to normal life, with minimum loss of life and liberty on the part of the citizens of the defending nation.

Any action within the scope of those objectives are sanctioned. What this means is that there is not some separate ethical test (either "discrimination" or "unavoidability" or "proportionality" or whatever) that you use to determine if an action is moral. If you can objectively show it serves to progress towards the objectives, you have moral sanction.

If a soldier of a defending country rapes and kills a woman, a citizen of the agressor country, during war - the moral responsibility for this act does not lie with the agressor.

I would be hard pressed to claim that this action, in any way objectively meets the objectives above, but certainly could be debated. Ethically, it would be eliminated, not based upon proportionality or any other test, but based upon the morally sanctioned objectives of a just nation acting in self defense.

It is immoral to carpet bomb Vancouver in response to 9/11.

When it comes to the idea of using proportionate force - the goal of Israel is to wipe out Hizballa for good. They should be able to achieve that goal. If you argue that in order to wipe out Hizballa they should be allowed to drop an atomic bomb on Lebanon - which would surly wipe out Hizballa and remove the threat - I disagree.

uh huh. The difficulty is that while you use "proportionality" to rule out an extreme case, Hizbolla will use the same argument to say that military incursion into Lebanon is disproportionate. They put civilians in harms way and then claim that their deaths from Israeli responses were "avoidable". Who exactly gets to decide how much is too much, and what is avoidable and what isn't? You have placed an ethical test that is separate from the ethical sanction already granted a proper self defending government, and your enemies will try to pit one test against another. It will be your sanction of the concept of "proportionality" that gives this argument credence.

The fact is governments are already bounded, or regulated in their prosecution of a proper self defensive action. They are bounded in several ways:

a. They have proper non-arbitrary objectives, not arbitrary sanction.

b. Such actions cost great expenditures in terms of resources and effort of its own citizens.

c. Stepping across the bound of their proper objectives, may threaten retribution from another country who would be acting properly to retaliate.

So the wild extreme examples, such as using nukes against Lebanon, would not in reality be used by objective governments. However, inserting the separate ethical test will commit sanction of the victim, by allowing your opponent to put it at odds with proper moral objectives. Moral sanction is already granted, and bounded. It does not need a separate ethical concept, such as "proportionality" or "discrimination". Those extra concepts are package deals that will allow your opponent to disarm you.

By the way, Ifatart, this would also by my answer to your question of what bounds proper self defensive action by governments.

Also, Blackdiamond, this is the kind of argument I was looking for from you.

[hunterrose]

Hunterrose, pay attention

careful what you wish for

America has never unethically threatened some other nation's security.

How much are you willing to defend that premise?

[Attempting to prevent all of Southeast Asia from falling into the hands of totalitarian butchers] was ... legitimately defensive...

If one does not think he’s in danger when country after country becomes a “people’s republic” and the number of capitalist nations shrinks to a tiny few, perhaps freedom is not very high on his agenda.

Is preventing the expansion of socialism an equally legitimate reason to target "complicit" populations?

I have answered this point in Post #23 on this thread

Perhaps, but in a potentially misleading way. Wouldn't the following be more indicative of your principled answer?

Even if Kim leaves the security of his slave state, we have the right to bomb the civilian population until the whiff of a threat is but a memory.

?

I agree that shooting at a gunman with a human shield... should be a matter of last resort.

"Last resort?" But you don't take the same stance with nuking a Iranian nursery, why?

I would be hard pressed to claim that [raping and subsequently killing complicit civilian enemies], in any way objectively meets the objectives [of identifying and destroying a threat.]

How does nuking Japanese or Iranian civilians objectively met your objectives in a way that mass raping does not? If mass rape was the route to victory with the minimum loss of life and liberty on our side, what is the logical conclusion of your principled stance?

[~Sophia~]

I'm sorry Sophia, where does Rand ever use this concept of avoidability vs. unavoidability in defending the concept of self-defense? She did say that you should retaliate only against those who initiated force, but in that case then even "unavoidable" force against innocents is immoral then.

How do you reconcile your statement with the quote provided by Marc K. from Rand on this very topic, and in context?

Another statement by Rand:

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate-not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You can not say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday, " just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated escept for a good purpose."

Ether man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable' and consider yourself ether honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights, who may violate them at his discreation.

["Textbook of Americanism," pamphlet, 12.]

The quotes you gave, were Rand discussing individual rights in the context of an individual responding to an initiation of physical force by another individual. However this context is a government acting as agent of a group of individuals against either another government or rogue group.

There was no particular context for Rand's discussion of human rights. Her exact argument was that human rights do not depend on context. Individual rights are principles of human coexistence.

To answer to your: "government acting as agent of a group of individuals against either another government or rogue group"

Again from Textoobk of Americanism, pg. 5:

Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective - as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross:....these rights are man's protection against all other man.

The principle of man's individual rights as an extension of morality into the social system - is the limitation of the power of the collective (in this case represented by the government of another country) over the individual.

How do I reconcile "unavoidable" force?

I have already gave my explanation. A necessary consequence of my right to life is my right to self-defence. When my life is in danger I have a right to defend it. I have a right to take action to preserve it. I have a right to respond with force directed against the agressor. There is no context under which it can be demanded of me NOT TO defend myself. This includes the fact that one of the consequences of me defending myself maybe a death of an innocent person. To demand such thing would be altruism.

I am violating this person's right to life - in this is the only context under which I am morally justified to do so - to protect my own life.

That is very different from me starting to kill indiscriminantly arround me because that is easier.

[~Sophia~]

It may as well be that I disagree with Ayn Rand's opinion on this matter.

I refuse to hold, for example, a four year old kid responsible for the actions of his government - same way I reject the idea of an 'original sin'. To blame this kid would be equal to saying that he is at fault just for the simple fact of being born, being born at the wrong place. A fact he had no control over. A moral code is a set of principles which grade only those actions that are open to his choice. Under this standard - this kid is innocent.

To ignore the existence of such kid and instead only think on the scale of a whole nation when deciding something of enormous magnitude as to carpet bomb a country - to me is context dropping.

It you absolutely need to use nuclear power to defend your country - you have no other choice - then it is moral. But to use it because it is easier?

I am using an extreme example but one of the arguments has been that also the magnitude of force is irrelevant also after you declare war moral.

Let me make something clear though:

The existence of this kid and the possibility of him getting killed accidentally would not prevent me from taking action to defend myself. But to specifically target this kid for an execution as a strategic move is evil. If my enemy would use this kid as a human shield and I would need to destroy that target in order to defeat that enemy - I would destroy the target. Would I carelessly take this kid's life - just because it is war and it is easier that way? NO.

Aka your PS:

Sources of quotes in order of appearance:

1. “Textbook of Americanism”, pamphlet, page 6. you can also find it in The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg. 215.

2. the same as #1

3. the same as #1 but pg 7.

4. “The Virtue of Selfishness”, 146; pb 108]

5. “The Roots of War”, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, pg 40.

6. the same as 6 but pg. 42.

7. the same as 6 but pg 43.

Edited July 22, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

In the realm of individuals who are citizens of the same country it is clear that we do put a limit to the actions one can take in self defense.

So then, why is the case of individuals of different countries different? Why should we not put a limit to the things that a country can do (legally, which is the result of our morality) in self defense?

The answer to this question is at the very heart of our disagreements here.

[Vladimir Berkov]

To those who think the killing of civilians is not only justified but actually should be a favored strategy, (Myron, Kendall, Lazlo) I have the following question:

Doesn't maintaining such an ethical position require a nation to give up all efforts at punishing "war crimes" committed by other nations, even aggressor nations?

I hold that it does, because what you are saying is that the only moral question in war is whether or not the war itself is justified. Where the war is a defensive one waged by a "free nation" it is justified whereas if it is an aggresive war or a war waged by a "slave nation" it is not. You are saying that if the war is justified, any means taken by the defending free nation are justified, whereas no means of war used by an aggressor nation are justified.

What you have essentially done is remove the element of proportionality from both the defender AND the aggressor however. An example makes the problem clear, I think.

Examples:

A.) An American pilot shoots down an attacking Japanese fighter plane.

B.) An American pilot drops a bomb on a Japanese civilian target in an effort to kill Japanese women and children.

You would apparently hold that there is no moral difference in these actions since America's war against Japan is justified as it is in national self-defense.

The problem is that this position also makes there be no moral difference in the following two situations;

C.) A Japanese pilot drops a bomb containing deadly biological agents on a Chinese village in an effort to test its effectiveness.

D.) A Japanese pilot shoots down an attacking American fighter plane.

Your position mandates that the above two examples are also morally equivilant, in that they are equally immoral because Japan's war is not justified. It is impossible to punish the Japanese pilot who dropped the biological bomb on civilians any more than you would punish the pilot who shot down an American plane in a dogfight.

This is why your position is so dangerous. By removing proportionality from American action, there is no way to preserve it for any other nation's action. When you couple this with the fact that most nations go to war under the auspices of national self-defense, regardless of their actual motives, you get a terrifying combination.

Soldiers of any nation would have no moral or practical disincentives to not being as brutal as they possibly can be. If they go out of the way to not kill civilians, they are actually putting themselves in a worse position because the U.S. will not show their civilians the same consideration. They would have no incentives to treat American prisoners humanely. In fact, there would be no incentive to taking prisoners in the first place, and not just summarily shooting anybody who surrenders.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[aleph_0]

Well, you've got it all wrong--again.

Okay, I was going to respond up until this point, but your childish tactics are wearing thin on me. You are rude and make poor logical connections between your points. I have no use for you.

[Ifat Glassman]

I was reading the thread about the kidnap of Gilad Shalit by the Hesbollah and everything that followed, and realised that I didn't give enough attention to the topic of this thread.

The reason that Israel's actions in Lebanon and Gasa are referred to as "disproportional" might be because:

1) Hesbolla and Israel are thought of as moral equals, who simply have a disagreement about certain things. 2) Even is Hesbollah and Israel are not thought of as moral equals, then the view is that Israel should punish Hesbollah according to the severeness of it's immediate actions, in the same way that a thief should not be punished by execution...

3) In the past there has been many cases of Hesbolla or Hamas acting against Israel (sometimes with a greater number of deaths) with much lesser retaliation from Israel's side, and therefor people've gotten used to that, and are surprised by the actions Israel is taking now.

The answer to #2 is that Hesbollah's actions should not be judged separately from the organization's goal. A system of punishments with differing degrees is only good when the working assumption is that the criminal can someday change back to good. In the case of Hesbollah the declared purpose of the organization is to destroy Israel and all the "Zionists" (a goal which has been demonstrated to us many times). And therefor it is Israel's interest to destroy Hesbollah, and not to punish it. Once that goal has been declared, there is no such thing as "disproportion" in our actions against Hesbollah. They are evil, they should be wiped out, period.

The answer to #3 is that what's different from the past, is that Israel evacuated settlements (the "disengagement"), we retreated from Lebanon, we did everything expected from us to ensure peace. Because we did all that but the enemy still attacked us, accepting it and retaliating in the same way we did in the past would have said to the enemy that it is legitimate to attack us even when we are not on their ground, which would mean that it is ok to attack us even when we are making efforts to make peace. In the past the enemy fought the IDF on their territory, and they could plea self defense. But to give a legitimacy after our army withdraw, would be giving a legitimacy to the intention of Destroying Israel (and it's population). And therefor Israel is now doing what it's doing.