Hypothetical Ethics Question

whoami

January 13, 2003, 11:33 AM

Would I be justified in breaking into his house and shooting him in a "preemptive strike?"

Very difficult to say. Now, for example, if you had a near addiction to MGD, and his freezer was constantly stocked with it AND his house was between the nearest liquor store and you.....then you would be perfectly justified, so long as you tell everyone you were doing it only to protect the neighborhood from him.

However, if he's bitching and threatening you in an effort to make you subscribe to the Playboy channel (as he's stealing your cable), then no.....a preemptive strike is a definite no-no.

International politics has NOTHING on the politics of an antsy neighborhood...

cuchulainn

January 13, 2003, 11:52 AM

I've heard some strong cases against the war, but this is not one of them. With all due respect :) this is sophistry.

This is like saying that it is wrong for the government to put people in jail for crimes because it would be kidnapping if you captured the guy who broke into your house and locked him in the basement for 20 years.

DaveB

January 13, 2003, 12:36 PM

Does this remind anyone besides me of Monty Python’s Llap Goch?

From http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/main.html

WHAT is LLAP-GOCH again?

It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple I-D-E-A, which is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore, the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU... Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!

No longer need you feel WEAK, helpless, INDECISIVE, NOT fascinating and ASHAMED of your genital dimensions. No more need you be out-manoeuvred in political debate!! GOOD BYE HUMILIATION, wisecracking bullies, Karate experts, boxing champions, sarcastic vicars, traffic wardens; entire panzer divisions will melt to pulp as you master every situation without INADEQUACY. PROTECT YOUR LOVED ONES. You will no longer look pitiful and spotty to your GIRL FRIENDS when you leave some unsuspecting passer- by looking like four tins of cat food! They will admire your MASTERY and DECISIVENESS and LACK OF INADEQUACY and will almost certainly let you put your HAND inside their BLOUSE out of sheer ADMIRATION. And after seeing more of your expert disabling they'll almost definately go to bed with you, although obviously we can't ABSOLUTELY guarantee this, still it's extremely likely and would make learning LLAP-GOCH really worthwhile al- though legally we can't PROMISE anything.

Funny sketch. Not so funny as a National Policy.

db

cordex

January 13, 2003, 02:05 PM

Sticky situation, ethics.
Inside the US (where I assume your hypothetical situation was based), we subject ourselves to laws. It's not just a question of getting along with our surroundings, it is a question of living under the legislation that governs our lives. One of those laws is that we are not allowed to eliminate threats ourselves, unless the threat is immediate. We are supposed to allow our police forces to take care of us right up until bullets start flying.
International law is a different story.
Comparing your hypothetical situation to the situation with Iraq implies that the United States is not a sovereign nation, but a subject of a larger organization capable of inflicting it's will whose authority we have accepted. If this is accurate, we can discuss a comparison. Otherwise, we're dealing with apples and corn. Too many differences to list between international intercourse and inter-citizen conflict to list.

Cute argument, but not logical.

tyme

January 13, 2003, 02:21 PM

I have a neighbor who has a history of poisoning people on his street because they look at him wrong. He has made threats against me, and once when I peeked through his window I saw that he had a gun and ammo. I called in a complaint but when the police went to his house, the didn't find the gun. After an incident where he invaded a neighbor's house 10 years ago, he agreed by contract not to buy any more cars, but there have been shipments of oil, tires, and various other stuff to his house recently. He's violated numerous other provisions of the contract too, by the way, including mounting a radio antenna on his roof, shooting bb guns at pets in my back yard, and refusing to let inspectors into his house for most of the last 10 years.

Would any court in the world not evict him, with a SWAT team if necessary?

larry_minn

January 13, 2003, 02:33 PM

tyme
Is getting closer to the actual situation. IMO he is not shooting pets with BB gun but at people with rifle is closer to the gist of story.

Pendragon

January 13, 2003, 02:43 PM

Say - I live in Antarctica and he is my neighbor in Antarctica. Not really any laws so to speak (that I am aware of) - everyone just has to trust that everyong else will act decent.

If someone has killed people and is threatening to kill you or your family, I think it is 100% ethical to kill that person. That he may not have a gun in his hand at the moment you do it does not trouble me at all.

Now - here in the USA, we have laws. We have laws against threatening people and violent felons have a lot shorter leash when it comes to repeat offenses or threats of violence.

So while there may be situations where it may actually be moral or ethical to kill someone, it may not be legal. Remember, there is a difference between legal and moral - especially when it comes to killin' people.

Note that in Neighborhood USA, there are forces (LE) that exceed our ability to resist them.

In the international community, forgetting about China for the moment, there is no nation with the capacity to force us to adhere to an agreed upon law governing this situation.

Sovereignty

Apples

Oranges

dev_null

January 13, 2003, 03:29 PM

Some good answers here.

Thanks!

-0-

Rangerover

January 13, 2003, 03:36 PM

Hmmm...let's see...

If my neighbor lived on a ranch the size of Texas, had spent several years storing tons of nerve gas, smallpox, anthrax, and all the doo-dads necessary to build a nuclear weapon (upon which he had facetiously scrawled, "I luv N.Y.") and was actively attempting to give said items away to everyone who spoke the same language as me...

I don't think I'd have to preemptively shoot him.

I think the U.S. government would do it for me. :neener:

Rangerover

January 13, 2003, 03:44 PM

and was actively attempting to give said items away to everyone who spoke the same language as me...
That didn't make a lick of sense did it? :p

Oh well. Back to the History Channel...

JPM70535

January 13, 2003, 04:44 PM

Fine thought provoking thread.

In a purely theoretical sense, if the scenario was a man on man situation as was suggested in the initial post, then unless you had unimpeachable evidence that your neighbor had imminent plans to do you great bodily harm, and the LE were unwilling or unable to take appropriate action. you most certaily could not do a preemptive strike. Even if the above factors had been met, you would have to be prepared to face the almost certain consequences of your actions. As an individual you are subject to the laws and morals of society.

In the Intrernational scene, the rules are somewhat different. When you as a nation are dealing with a certified madman, who has shown no hesitation in using WMD against his own people and who would leap at the chance to develope and use Nuclear devices, a preemptive strike may be in order, to forestall a catastrophy. As a Nation, you would also have to stand ready to deal with the consequences of your actions. In this case probably increased terrorist activity if not outright attack from other hostile forces.

In the case of Saddam, the U.S is the only true super power left in the world, and while I stand opposed to being the worlds policeman, Since the UN is incapable and unwilling to take the necessary action to neutralize Saddam and the danger he represents, the US has very little choice but to remove the threat.

IMO, if Saddam is not neutralized, he will develope a nuclear bomb and either he, or his terrorist agents will use it, either against the US, or more likely against Israel. Israel has the bomb already and they will not turn the other cheek. The other Arab States will retaliate against Israel who will in turn use the bomb against them. The result will be a nuclear wasteland totally uninhabitable for centurys. I don't think we can afford for this to happen. Choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Chris Rhines

January 13, 2003, 04:58 PM

Nice analogy, tyme, but it kinda fails the "relation to reality" test. To wit:

I have a neighbor who has a history of poisoning people on his street because they look at him wrong. I would have thought that the debunking of the claim that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Kurds had reached everyone by now. Guess not.

After an incident where he invaded a neighbor's house 10 years ago, he agreed by contract not to buy any more cars, but there have been shipments of oil, tires, and various other stuff to his house recently. A contract signed under the threat of death. No court in the world would enforce such a claim. Further, Iraq was fully within its rights to invade Kuwait, given Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil in the face of repeated warnings.

...shooting bb guns at pets in my back yard,... In your back yard? I kinda think that the airspace over Iraq would count as Iraq's back yard (well, not really, but it's sure as hell not ours.)

Still, the original analogy is flawed, if nothing else because Iraq and the United States are not neighbors in any sense of the word. Something to think about, though. In Tyme's analogy, the neighbor would be perfectly within his rights to kick your butt up between your ears for sicing the cops on him. Hmmmm.

- Chris

JohnBT

January 13, 2003, 05:15 PM

"With all due respect this is sophistry."

Amen to that.

I haven't heard such tortured logic since college, or maybe high school, come to think of it. Or maybe since the last time I spoke to the college professor across the street.

John

ReadyontheRight

January 13, 2003, 05:17 PM

-If we lived in a state of Anarchy (like the Antarctica example) where we fend for ourselves with no "cops" to call.
-If the neighbor had a history of killing members of his household with biological weapons because of their religion
-If the neighbor had taken over another neighbor's house by force
-If the neighbor had fired missles at the Jewish neighbors
-If the neighborhood had forced him out of the other neighbors house and agreed to leave him in his house so long as he agreed to some rules
-If he blatantly broke those rules
-If he was tied to terrorist bombings in your home
-If it wasn't just a gun you saw him with, but a nuclear bomb, missles, the biggest gun in the world - that can hurl a nuclear bomb 500 miles (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V111/N43/hersch.43o.html) and more biological weapons

I'd think you were right in trying to remove him as head of his household. Preferably his household would do it.

Rangerover

January 13, 2003, 05:20 PM

I would have thought that the debunking of the claim that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Kurds had reached everyone by now. Guess not.
Yeah, I think it was debunked by the same guy that said the World Trade Center is still open for business.

abaddon

January 13, 2003, 10:06 PM

In thinking over the Iraq situation in my head, I actually used a variation of Tyme's analogy to justify my support of a possible war in Iraq.

Regarding the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Saddam has massacred Kurds merely for their ethnicity. Change the analogy to killing "people on his street because they look at him wrong." and the argument still works. For the purposes of analogy it may be better to say killing people in his own family (the Kurds live in Iraq) but either way I'd do what I had to do.

Also, Rhines said

"A contract signed under the threat of death. No court in the world would enforce such a claim."

Basically any treaty signed to stop a war would fall under this category. If we were to accept your belief that the treaty with Iraq was illegitimate on this basis the Japanese and German governments would be entirely illegitimate as they were formed as the result of a treaty that ended a war.

Zander

January 13, 2003, 11:09 PM

Further, Iraq was fully within its rights to invade Kuwait, given Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil in the face of repeated warnings. Huh? In what plane of alternate reality?

Oh, I get it...you're joking, right?

Or is Saddam really just a misunderstood tyrant who slaughters his relatives, countrymen and such extraneous "trash" as the Kurds and Kuwaitis with the monomaniacal bent of the typical sociopath. He's really just trying to protect his oil reserves...and he set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire to secure "his" oil. That about it?

Have you thought about volunteering to help Saddam Hussein? You being so convicted and all, of course.

What a fascinating mindset! I'd be most curious as to how you reached your bizarre conclusions. Do enlighten us...

Chris Rhines

January 13, 2003, 11:34 PM

Mindset? I call it the "not really caring about things that don't concern me" mindset. I cultivate it.

For instance, I care very little about Saddam's relatives and countrymen, and I think about the plight of the Kurds about as often as the Kurds think about the plight of Chris Rhines.

No one with a normal chromosonal count denies that Saddam Hussein is a nasty, evil tyrant. But nasty evil tyrants are a dime a dozen these days. Fact is, the Kuwaiti government was stealing oil from fields within Iraq. While I don't believe that any government has the right to exist, this strikes me as a fairly acceptable reason for military action, as such things go. By the same token, the fact is there is no evidence that Hussein's government ever used chemical weapons on the Kurds (or anyone else, to the best of my recollection.) Plenty of evidence that Iran did during their last little tet-a-tete, though. Either way, I don't see it being any buisness of the United States.

As for supporting Saddam, why would I want to do that? I don't even support my own government, why in the hell would I support one that is two-thousand miles away? Nice try at a backhanded personal attack, though, but I don't mind. We're all friends here.

Abaddon - First off, "Rhines?" Jeez, nobody's called me by my last name since my 11th grade history teacher...

Second, you are correct in saying that the governments of Germany and Japan are illegitimate. However, you do not go far enough. It would be more accurate to say that, "Every government that has ever existed, since the dawn of time, has been illegitimate, inculding the United States government." ;)

Man, I'm feeling punchy tonight. I wonder if I ate something funny?

- Chris

Zander

January 14, 2003, 02:01 AM

Fact is, the Kuwaiti government was stealing oil from fields within Iraq. Ipso facto,Saddam's order to his soldiers to invade Kuwait was justified, correct? And the soldiers took it upon themselves, while they weren't murdering, raping and torturing Kuwaitis, to destroy their oil fields. Of course, Saddam Hussein, the murdering tyrant, wanted to invade Kuwait because he had proof that the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil.

So he sanctioned his troops burning the Kuwaiti oil fields.

It's all so clear now...

Fact is, the Kuwaiti government was stealing oil from fields within Iraq. Your facts seem as clear as your logic. See above...

By the same token, the fact is there is no evidence that Hussein's government ever used chemical weapons on the Kurds (or anyone else, to the best of my recollection.) Your recollection of what? Were you asleep for the entire decade encompassing 1981-1990? Not that I would put you in the unenviable position of trying to prove a negative. See above...

Nice try at a backhanded personal attack, though, but I don't mind.What attack? I merely asked if you would be willing to substitute your *** for your keyboard. This is a matter of principle, isn't it? You do still insist that Hussein was within his "rights" to invade Kuwait, don't you?

We're all friends here.I don't have any friends who are apologists for modern-day disciples of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Chris Rhines

January 14, 2003, 09:44 AM

Zander -

First off, you quoted the same passage twice. Just thought I'd point that out. ;)

Ipso facto,Saddam's order to his soldiers to invade Kuwait was justified, correct? To the extent that any such order can be justified (not much), yes.

And the soldiers took it upon themselves, while they weren't murdering, raping and torturing Kuwaitis, to destroy their oil fields. Well, ya see, Zander, these kind of things happen during wars. It's one of the major reasons that I don't like them.

...because he had proof that the Kuwaitis were stealing his oil. The fact that Kuwait was slant-drilling oil fields withn Iraqs borders is fairly well-known.

I'm not excatly sure what the point of that first paragraph was, except to further state that Saddam Hussien is a big meanie. Which, you'll notice, I have agreed with.

Your recollection of what? Were you asleep for the entire decade encompassing 1981-1990? Not that I would put you in the unenviable position of trying to prove a negative. I should have qualified my earlier statement by saying, "...never used chemical weapons outside the Iran/Iraq war, in which chemical weapons were used by both sides." I had typed that out, but it somehow got struck during the editing process. My bad.

Anyhow, being as how I can't prove a negative (which, if you'll re-read my last post, you'll see I never tried to do), it falls to you to prove a positive. I'm willing to look at any proof you may have that the Iraqi government used chemical weapons on Kurdish civillians.

Anyhow, even if the Kurds were being slaughtered to the last man, woman, and child, is it really any of our concern? Keep in mind the number of instances of democide that have taken place in the past twenty years, that the USG has not intervened in. The government has lost any and all right to use that moral claim.

What attack? I merely asked if you would be willing to substitute your *** for your keyboard. This is a matter of principle, isn't it? You do still insist that Hussein was within his "rights" to invade Kuwait, don't you? Zander, you seem to have twisted around my core statement. Instead of, "The United States has no moral right to initate force against Iraq," you seem to read, "Chris Rhines personally supports the Iraqi government and their actions." Anyone who knows me knows how silly that is.

When I say that Iraq was within it's "rights" to invade Kuwait, I'm applying the concept of "rights" as the USG sees things. For example, what do you think the response of the USG would be if it found out that Mexico was slant-drilling oil fields in Texas? And if Mexico responded to diplomatic protests by telling the USG to get bent?

For myself only, I don't think that governments have any rights, not even the right to exist.

- Chris

Edward429451

January 14, 2003, 10:38 AM

OK since we're playing twister. Me and my My neighbors both have a very large family. They all dress respectable, blus suuits, ties, and shiney jewelry. They keep saying stuff like "respect me or you die". I've heard from family that they shot one of my 9th cousins in the face up in idaho, cut off my 12th cousins finger in tennesee, drove a tank into my fams home in texas, shot my fams pet dog when they dropped their wallet and dropped a bomb on my fams meeting hall in NY, shot 4 and wounded 21 of my fam in Ohio, and almost every time I see them they ask me for my gun? What gives? I know they didnt all do it but since they all dress the same I dont know which one(s) it was, to bring them to justice. I told em lets be friends, but they just keep pointing guns at me at murdering my extended family. One of em told me they got permission to burglarize my house and that if I resist, they'd kill me. What should I do?

cordex

January 15, 2003, 12:12 AM

I'm willing to look at any proof you may have that the Iraqi government used chemical weapons on Kurdish civillians.
Well, Chris, there be quite a few people claiming to be survivors of 1987-88 chemical attacks, plus some blokes claiming to have forensic evidence, and some other blokes in the US state department who claim to have paperwork stolen during a Kurd uprising that details some of the aspects of the chem attacks. All sources are biased.

But who was the one who came into this claiming to have evidence that the chemical attacks were myth?

I quote:
I would have thought that the debunking of the claim that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the Kurds had reached everyone by now. Guess not.
I assume "debunking" is a body of evidence proving that the events were not likely to have happened through discrediting any eyewitnesses or forensic evidence that has been presented, not just "Well, I don't know it happened, so I don't believe it. Thus it is debunked."
The fact that Kuwait was slant-drilling oil fields withn Iraqs borders is fairly well-known.
:scrutiny:
Something doesn't fit, Chris.
On the one hand you state that Iraqis never tried spraying Kurds with chemweaps - and that if it really happened, ye must prove it, and on the other that "everybody knows" that Kuwait was stealing oil ... duh ... no need to present evidence. While they may well have been doing so, the info that is out there is just as likely to be biased as the gassed Kurd story, no? Maybe even moreso?

So, if others are required to back up their claims, why not you?

Should have stuck with the clean "Gov'ts don't deserve to exist" argument ... makes less of a mess than trying to argue "evidence" for something that can always be attacked because one side doesn't like the source ...

suvdrvr

January 15, 2003, 01:04 AM

quote:
I don't even support my own government, why in the hell would I support one that is two-thousand miles away?

I used to live in Indiana, I'm glad I moved, I didn't realize how close Iraq was to Indiana!

Zander

January 18, 2003, 09:44 PM

In spite of the fact that I've promised to disengage from such arguments, I'll offer one last rebuttal:

For example, what do you think the response of the USG would be if it found out that Mexico was slant-drilling oil fields in Texas? -- Chris R.I have it on good authority that such thefts have actually taken place. Of course, you have the burden of proving that they haven't.

And if Mexico responded to diplomatic protests by telling the USG to get bent?But, of course, we should invade Mexico; murder, rape and torture its subjects [after all, it's only a natural consequence of war, eh?]; destroy the very assets the USG claims that Mexico is stealing; and rely on the opinions of anarchists that Mexico's government should accept our actions because it doesn't have a "right" to exist. Das stimmt?

Adios...

Vladimir Berkov

January 19, 2003, 02:49 AM

Chris, it is clear that you have a very Randian Objectivist view of government. That is pretty cool.

On the subject of the gassing of the Kurds, there is a US War College report on the subject, which found that it is doubtful if Iraq ever did gas the Kurds at all. I am sure you can find it on the internet somewhere.

Beer for my Horses

January 19, 2003, 03:27 AM

Mindset? I call it the "not really caring about things that don't concern me" mindset. I cultivate it.
Well, I hope it's your porch where the first dirty bomb shows up courtesy of Saddam and Murder Inc. since it doesn't "concern" you. It sure as hell concerns me.

Vladimir Berkov

January 19, 2003, 03:31 AM

Well, I hope it's your porch where the first dirty bomb shows up courtesy of Saddam and Murder Inc. since it doesn't "concern" you. It sure as hell concerns me.

Do we have any evidence that Saddam will unleash a "preemptive strike" against us with a nuclear weapon? Any at all? The fact that Saddam wants nukes doesn't mean he wants to use them against us (which would be suicide.) Many countries have nukes. Several countries which dislike us have nukes. That fact does not mean that we are actually going to be attacked with a nuclear weapon.

The argument (if one could call it that) has been made countless time by countless supporters of the war. If you just think about it for a minute, you will realize how absurd the logic is.

ReadyontheRight

January 19, 2003, 11:11 AM

Once Saddam GETS nukes, he "joins the club" and we have to treat him differently. If he had nukes in 1991, Iraq would have additional beachfront property in Kuwait right now. Strategic nuke rules apply to both sides.

The bottom line is, Saddam agreed to terms of surrender and broke those terms. No one wants war, but we let him get away with breaking terms of surrender for years in exchange for a few feelgood cruise missle strikes whenever the dog needed wagging.

It would be best if Iraqis overthrew him w/ our help, but the CIA doesn't have the power to do that stuff anymore.

Chris Rhines

January 19, 2003, 01:42 PM

I hate it when these threads get scrolled past the bottom of the screen.

Cordex - First, evidence related to Iraqi use of NBCs against the Kurds. I was refering to the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College report that Vladmir mentioned. I no longer have a copy, but I found some excerpts from the report. To wit:

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... There's more along these lines, but you get the idea.

As for the slant-drilling thing, first I ever heard of it was a New York Times article that came out last year. I'
ll try and find it, but it has been referenced in editorials and US political statements several times.

The evidence is out there; I try not to talk out my posterior too much.

Zander - I'll ignore your post as sarcasm.

Vladmir Berkov - Thanks. Interestingly, the ARI has been one of the strongest supporters of full-scale war against Afghanistan, Iraq, and apparently the entire Middle East. Then again, one could question whether the ARI is really an accurate reflection of Objectivist philosophy...

Beer - No less an august body then the CIA Counterterrorism Center has stated quite clearly that there is no evidence that Iraq has supported terrorism in the past, nor any indicators that they intend to in the future. Of course, if we go ahead with this stupid little war, the USG will have given Iraq the justification (twisted, but still) to do just that.

It still amazes me that there are people who think that terrorism can be effectively countered with regular infantry.

Ready - We tried the CIA route once. Iraqi Kurds were being recruited and armed with the intention of overthrowing Hussein's regime soon after the Gulf War. Then Clinton came to power and the program was dropped, and a fair number of Kurds ended up fertilizing flower gardens in Bagdhad. The Iraqi Kurds hate the US, and I don't blame them.

As for the surrender agreement, well, I would question whether any authority can enforce such requirements on a soverign country, much less enforce them for ten years after the cessation of hostilities. Bush I screwed the pooch on that one; he shouldn't have started a war he wasn't prepared to finish. The 'violation of surrender' argument rings very hollow to me.

- Chris