<HTML> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001@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 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">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</BLOCKQUOTE> ^^^^^^^^^^^ 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. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>