From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 16:05:41 MDT
On 15 Aug 2002 at 22:49, Blunderov wrote:
> [Jonathan Davis0] [jonathan.davis@lineone.net] Thu 2002/08/15 05:13 PM
> wrote: <q> Self-defense is to be expected, it is not always right. It
> is not always wrong to be an aggressor. </q>
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Thank you for your reply. I notice that we are talking about "right
> and wrong". I expect we will need to be careful about whether we mean
> that legally or morally.
>
> Would you care to elaborate on what particular circumstances justify
> aggression and why?
>
> [Jonathan Davis2]
> Law enforcement for one.
>
> [Blunderov3]
> <q>
> aggression 1 A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack)
> esp. when intended to dominate or master 2: the practice of making
> attacks or encroachments, esp unprovoked violation by one country of
> the territorial integrity of another 3 hostile, injurious or
> destructive behaviour or outlook esp when caused by frustration
> Merriam Webster.</q>
>
> Law enforcement, as far as I am aware, is not supposed to be
> aggressive in any of the above senses, Rodney King notwithstanding.
> The police are not supposed to make arrests without some very well
> defined provocations, ie that the suspect has himself very probably
> committed an act of aggression in that he did violate the law.
>
> I think that it is necessary to be clear that "aggressive" is
> different to "robust" (which means vigorous, energetic).
>
>
> [Jonathan Davis2]
> Legitimate self-defence is another.
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Again it seems to me that the example fails and for the same reason.
>
> [Blunderov2]
> (I am also curious about what circumstances would render self-defence
> "wrong". Or do they go together?)
>
> [Jonathan Davis2]
> Again, it has to do with circumstances. A paedophile defending himself
> from a legitimate police squad trying to stop him raping a child is
> "wrong".
>
> [Blunderov3]
> This seems to be, in essence, the same argument as "law enforcement"
> given above? Again the provocation was indeed present - an attack is
> perpetrated on the child. The sworn defenders respond. Unless they are
> excessive, they are not aggressive.
>
> [Jonathan Davis2]
> You might have gathered that the acts are not informed in and of
> themselves.
>
> [Blunderov3]
> I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. Would you be so good as to
> clarify it for me please?
>
> [Blunderov3]
> Can we agree that central to the meaning of the word aggression is a
> lack of (proper!) provocation?
>
> In the case of Iraq, the world consensus seems to be that there is not
> sufficient provocation, legally speaking, to justify an attack on
> Iraq.
>
The US disagrees with this,, and for good nuclear reasons, and I'll
wager that privately, many countries agree with the US necessity
argument.
>
> The remaining question seems to be whether then can be said to be such
> a thing as a "moral justification" for attacking another country. What
> do you think?
>
If the autocratic leader of a country is attempting to develop that country
into a a nuclear power with the stated intention of using those nukes
upon other nations, those other nations have both the moral justification
and the right of pre-emptively necessary self-defence to depose said
leader, before (s)he can obtain the atomic wherewithal with which to
carry out those stated intentions.
>
> Warm regards
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT