From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at attbi.com>
> Take the case of self-defense. Am I justified in using the means of
killing
> to obtain the end of preventing someone who is about to kill me ? Yes.
===================
No, you're not. Preventing him/her from killing you does not necessarily entail killing him/her.
^^^^^^^ CB: You mean I might not be, might be. No excluded middle.
So, take the case where but for my use of deadly defensive force , I will be
killed. It is the only probable means to achieve the end of self-defense. In
that
> case , I am justified in killing. In the case of the Iraqis today, you
> might say they could grab the guns out of the hands of the attacking
> Americans, rather than kill them, but that means isn't likely to achieve
> the ends. Ergo, the conclusion of my first post is still valid. The Iraqis
> are justified in killing the attacking Americans. We are correct in
> considering that their means are justified.
>
> >Are
> > Iraqis justified in killing Americans who are killing and about to kill
> them
> > ? Yes, on the principle of self-defense.
>
> =====================
>
> War is the apotheosis-negation of justification. The inaugaration of
> aggression is never justified or else you're on that road to all the
> problems [paranoia etc.] surrounding pre-emption and cribs.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: Well, Mahatma, lets negate the negation. Since the U.S.ians
> inaugarated war and aggression against the Iraqis, the Iraqis' defensive
> violence negates the negation of justification, and supercedes injustice.
> Or more simply self-defensive war is the apothesis of pre-emptive war. Even
> international law recognizes that.
>
>
> .>
> > Are we correct to say that what the Iraqis do in that regard is just ?
> yes.
> > Their means are justified.
>
> ======================
>
> No; they're defense may be necessary [and from their perspective,
> desirable] but once organized violence has started, claims of
> justification are moot, not wrong, moot
^^^^^^^^^^^ Organized violence is more effectively thwarted by organized violence.
Does mootness justify celebration ?
^^^^^^^^^
>
> "Celebrating" it is evidence of a certain level of enthusiasm for
justice,
> but does not go to the core issues. One might consider that the
enthusiasm
> for justice in this case "should" be tempered by sadness at loss of "any
> human life". On the other hand, are we sad at the death of Hitler ? J
Edgar
> Hoover ? Saddam Hussein ?
>
> Disclaimer: This is not a sleazy lawyer's argument.
>
> Charles
========================
Maybe not, but it is a poor one.
Ian
^^^^^^^^
CB:Natch. I'm a poor people's lawyer.
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030408/192ba2df/attachment.htm>