The Bearded One

This is well stated and I am in full agreement. Philosophically, I subscribe to a Kantian imperative such that any act of preemptive violence is immoral because no individual (or group) wants to be attacked.

Again, I agree. In respect to Volkov's exception about revolution against oppression, I would like to think a little longer about what kind of steps should be taken against what kind of oppression. He may be right, but I'd like to see how high the bar can be set before preemptive violence can be considered justified.

-- The Bearded One

fast

There is a chance that A could be mistaken, and there is a chance that A could be correct. After all is said and done and we look back, we should be able to ascertain whether or not it was in fact a mistake.

So, the evaluation of "it could be a mistake" is but a mere postulation whereas the proposition "it was (or wasn't) a mistake" can be evaluated post action (or post outcome).

I may get the test question wrong, but we'll certainly know once we get the grade in.

You said, "if there is ANY chance..., then...immoral." I don't see the logic in this. One possibility of ANY chance certainly contains the possibility that no mistake was made at all, so how exactly can a non mistake therefore conclude immoral?

Killer Mike

Basically for self defense or to defend someone else. Also to advance world peace and liberty. I would not recommend violence simply because someone cuts you off in traffic or because someone gives you the finger. Albeit it rude and abnoxious of them to do that, you still should not use violence.

The Bearded One

This is all correct, but beside the point. If we are trying to establish a moral or ethical rule on which to base future actions, then we cannot base our decisions upon the outcomes of those actions. Certainly we can look back into history and say "Gee, we probably shouldn't have invaded that country," or "yep, those preemptive strikes were the right choice after all." But what will we do the next time we come to such a decision point?

We have to try to articulate under which circumstances a preemptive strike is justified without knowing what the outcome will be.

Let's say that A is in non-violent conflict with B1, B2,... B99, B100. You seem to be suggesting that A is justified in initiating violence against every single one of them, even though (unbeknownst to A) B81 through B100 had no intention of ever using violence.

Do you agree that in those 20%, the violence was immoral? What if it were 33%? 50%? 75%? 90%?

Suppose A is using their best judgement as to when to initiate violence, but an analysis of prior cases shows that A has faulty judgement? If A is initiating violence 80% of the time, but 75% of the targets are innocent, does that not show both faulty judgement and immoral actions?

Here's the real trick: Suppose A's analysis shows that indeed only 20% of Bs are innocent. A therefore initiates violence 80% of the time, but that means that
A is correct to attack 64% of the time;
A is correct to refrain 04% of the time;
A is incorrect to attack 16% of the time; and
A is incorrect to refrain 16% of the time.

So where is the morality of a 32% failure rate?

-- The Bearded One

Wallener

No. Machievelli went over all this: in the game of political power, when you take out a true enemy, you also have to take out the circle of support for that enemy. Otherwise the Hydra grows a new head and threatens you from a place you thought was safe. In a hereditary society, for example, if you have to take out a King, you also have to take out his (momentarily) innnocent 3 sons, 2 daughters, all their cousins, etc.

You don't kill a tree by cutting out 20% of its roots.

fast

I'd be hard pressed to disagree with ya on that one. :thumbs:

Stepping back for a moment. The purpose of me writing this was to demonstrate an inaccuracy of something you said. I believe I have done that.

You said this, and it's inaccurate--regardless if what I said or not supports a preemptive strike decision beforehand.

The Bearded One

Wow! You're citing Machievelli as a source of morality? That's new. Does that mean that you view Stalin and Franco as having superior morality to Ghandi and MLK?

I have no problem citing him as a source for practical power-grabbing and holding, but as I stated earlier I do not equate practical success with morality.

-- The Bearded One

The Bearded One

I'm glad we agree on that one. :thumbs:

Hmmm. :worried: Okay, I'll half-agree with you. The half is that a descriptive morality is judged by the outcomes and with perfect information. However, I'm trying to work up something closer to prescriptive moral rules which operate in the absence of perfect information and retrospect.

-- The Bearded One

engly-saxo

What does that mean? Why are women and rich people subject to violence?

Can men and poor people be also?! :huh:

engly-saxo

Why should anyone hit another simply because they cut you off in traffic?!

Is it worth risking a criminal record (which may stay with you for life), because another driver 'pisses you off'?