interview with a jihadi

[Colrom]

This links back to my initial point about violence. As long as we have diversity (and I think we can assume this is good) of needs and views about how the world should be we will have conflict. Conflict can be argued rationally and negotiated - which I assume you advocate. But it can also be decided on the basis of a contest of violence. The crucial point is that succumbing to argument and negotiation is optional. Succumbing to a rock on the head is not.

 

Your aspiration to achieve a world without violence is fine as a direction to point towards. But expecting to arrive at it, and worse PLANNING as if you will ever get there, is dangerous and in a government would be abuse of their mandate.

 

Quite right.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

Colrom, those are certainly arguments one can make in each case. However, in the case of the first man attacking the Chairman he will achieve his goal. The latter will almost certainly not. This makes the sacrifice of the target in the latter case completely pointless, and by inference the justification is lost.

[Colrom]

Yes.

 

Some killers are not as smart and clear thinking as other killers.

[Tale]

Quickly, Colrom, I don't see your point, and invite you to try again. My friend and I are opposed to the US Government. One of us shoots and kills the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other shoots and kills a mom on her way back from soccer practice. Equivalent?

 

They are certainly not equivalent - but they are both cruel murders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is, after all, "just" a father on his way back from war practice.

 

I don't know what reasoning these killers might have but I know their reasons will make sense to them but likely not to me.

 

The one who kills the general might imagine that he is cutting off the head of a hostle snake.

 

The other who kills the civilian mother might imagine that he is weakening the support provided by the feet of a huge hostle giant.

 

In both cases the killers minimize the positive value of the regular life of their target and focus on other "values".

 

In the case of suicide attacks the killer even minimizes the value of their own life.

 

Sometimes people kill only themselves - like the monks who burned themselves in protest during the Vietnam war.

 

Crazy.

 

You are muddying the difference between perception and reality. The killing of an individual is not exclusively weighed by the unqualified perception of the killer. The soundness of that perception, and the subjective morality of that perception are both factors to be considered.

 

A man who shoots another man to prevent him from viciously murdering and raping another should not be looked at in the same way as one man who shoots another man because he thinks he has the right to because of his race.

 

One is doing something to save other's lives and if indeed the situation is as he percieves, both the perception is sound and the morality of saving lives is found to alter the weight of a killing. The other is killing because of a faulty perception of other races as animals or otherwise immoral racist belief.

 

The other who kills the civilian mother might imagine that he is weakening the support provided by the feet of a huge hostle giant.

This is an example of unsound perception. It may mitigate the moral judgement upon the killer, but it does not have the same effect of weight upon the killing that a sound and moral perception would have.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tale

[Colrom]

Most people believe that they are thinking clearly.

 

But are they?

 

Suppose the man who shoots another man to prevent him from viciously murdering and raping another is actually misperceiving what is happening or what is likely to happen.

 

Suppose the shooter's judgement is faulty?

 

Is that OK?

[Tale]

Most people believe that they are thinking clearly.

 

But are they?

 

Suppose the man who shoots another man to prevent him from viciously murdering and raping another is actually misperceiving what is happening or what is likely to happen.

 

Suppose the shooter's judgement is faulty?

 

Is that OK?

I thought I made that clear. That would fall under unsound perception. I even referenced one such of your examples.

 

Unsound perception can mitigate the morality of the perpetrator, but does not alter the weight of the act.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

Interesting angle, and one I can't think of any way to disprove, Tale. However, my point is that regardless of intent or perception it is immoral to use terrorist methods. In much the same way that chemical and biological weapons are immoral. Causing, as it were - and I wince just saying it - unnecessary suffering.

[Colrom]

I think we agree on the essential points.

 

I do think there are cases where killing is the least immoral option.

 

Police and soldiers face those situations alot.

 

Unfortunately for those involved, experience is probably helpful in accurately judging those situations.

 

But even with experience they often don't do a great job.

 

Too bad.