Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
Because in one case you're saying killing a single person for their crimes is wrong, and in the other case you're saying killing thousands of people for crimes they haven't commited yet, but simply "threaten" to commit is ok.
|
No, I did not say that it's ok, I said it's a difficult and morally dubious question. You're beginning to fall back into the habit of putting words in my mouth. The fact that preemptive war is not clear cut does not make it right, but it also does not make it wrong. It depends on the situation and evidence provided as to whether or not one can argue preemptive war is a moral good.
After all, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler/thousands of his supporters before he becomes Chancellor, would that be murder or would that be defending the lives of millions of innocent people who he would have killed? That is th exact question that preemption attempts to answer but can never fully answer because time machines do not exist and we cannot see the reality that the action has prevented, if it prevented anything at all.
Quote:
|
And EVEN IF the country in question commited international crimes, its still hipocritical to say you'd kill them but not kill a single person who is found guilty here.
|
It's not hipocritical if it is in the defense of life, which is what most arguments for preemption are based in. My full argument is that killing is immoral except in the defense of human life. To attack an innocent is immoral, but to defend oneself against agression is a moral imperative, IMO.