Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

Just the questions - I'll save my own responses for later.

Great questions!

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

I don't believe all morality rests on the individual level. There is the "greater good" to consider.

Just because I don't have any personal quarrel with the solider across the trench doesn't mean I don't have to deal with the fact that he is a nazi for example.

Whether or not he supports the goals of regime personally, his actions equate to advancing the cause of genocide.

Is it morally acceptable to kill him and remove his support from said cause?

Yes.

It would be infinitely better to engage our friendly neighborhood SS leader in a discussion, convince him to "Go and sin no more" as the adage goes.

...but that isn't always a practical option.

That's a simplified version of the logic involved, but I think it holds water.

Is it possible for war to be moral?
Yes, just as it's possible for any "type" of action (political, physical, social, etc.) to be moral if conducted for the right purposes.

Does that mean that everyone involved in the war with be moral, that they will act in the right ways for the right reason?

Hardly, get any group of human beings together and try to get them all to act morally... far easier said than done.

Heck, you pile twenty people in a bus and I guarantee that at least two will be engaged in immoral activity within a three hour ride.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?
Of course.

The police in New Orleans hot wired cars to use in rescue and evacuation.

That's theft, it's "immoral" under most circumstances and it's the absolutely right thing to do in the situation.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

Yes. U.S. soldiers had nothing personal against German soldiers in WWII, yet it was moral to kill them, because not to do so would've allowed Hitler to have his way with the world, which was clearly not a morally tolerable option. If they'd had a practical means to defeat them without killing, that would've been different -- if, for example, Allied soldiers had been armed with Star Trek phasers and could stun and capture them, that would surely have been morally preferable.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Very possible, because there are things worse than war. For example, being ruled by a genocidal totalitarian dictator of questionable sanity.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

That kinda depends on how you define your terms. I don't believe killing in war is murder, nor is killing in self-defense. That's in accord with the Judeo-Christian tradition and with Just War theory.

But political assassination is murder, and I think there are circumstances in which that's morally justifiable. Assassinating Pol Pot when he began to slaughter Cambodians by the millions would've been more than justified if we'd had an agent in place to do it, and I applaud assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders. It takes more than just good intentions though; the road to Hell is proverbially paved with them. The results have to actually be good for me to justify such means. However, the removal of a genocidal dictator or a terrorist leader from the world is enough of a good end to qualify -- not regardless of collateral damage though, which should always be minimized.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?
Yes, it can be. If a stranger attacks without provocation, you have the right to self defense.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?
I'm a strict pacifist in the sense that I believe that most wars are immoral. The revolutionary war of 1776 and the War of 1812 were moral wars in the sense that they were strictly for self defense.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?
The "greater morality" should not trump the immorality of murder. Dropping bombs over civilian populations or using a military draft should never be considered to be morally just measures to fight a ruthless enemy. In this age of terrorism, the US needs moral authority if it is going to win the war on terror.

What if bombing a civilian population is the only way to stop a greater tragedy? For example what if someone is using them as a human shield as was done in Iraq? What if there were no alternative to bombing them as a way to stop a missile launch that would destroy a city?

In regards to the draft, what if you do not have enough volunteers to defend your country? Defending your country is okay morally according to your statement. What if we needed a draft to be able to win the War of 1812? Does our obligation to defend our country trump our right to choose not to serve? I think it does. (Obviously not addressing the draft in regards to Vietnam or Iraq).



1. This is worded vaguely. As worded, no. However if you were to phrase it "can it be a morally acceptable act to kill an opposing soldier with whom you have no personal animosity towards but with whom your country is at war with" then the answer becomes yes.

2. Yes. I agree with skeeterses in that wars for self defense are moral. I would take it a step farther than skeeterses seems to and say that there are times when you are fighting in defense of others who are not able to defend themselves on their own can be moral as well.

3. Again I disagree with the wording of this question. War does not necessarily equal murder.



From this definition it appears that you can commit murder during a war but not all killing in a war is murder.



Most killing in war would seem to fall under the heading of homicide, especially justified homicide. It's them or you. The reason there are war trials is to find out whether certain acts were murder or homicide. The problem being that the winner usually conducts the trials and you can't really say there is no bias there.

That having been said I understand the spirit of the question. Killing is bad. Most people will agree with that. So saying that killing is bad and war is bad can you justify a "good" war (i.e. one that meets the requirements of a moral war) by doing bad things such as killing.

I would answer this as yes it is okay but then again I don't see killing as immoral in such as case. It is a necessary evil. (the cliche not literal evil). There are things that are not acceptable to me and so not moral to do in the case of war in my opinion. Using rape as a weapon as is happing in the Congo is one example.

In any case there are moral wars and immoral wars. Deciding which is which is what can be hard.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?
Yes, I think it can. (I think it is far more rarely than the moral defence is invoked, but that's another story).

An example I might think of goes back to the recent shooting of a (suspected) suicide bomber on a London Tube train. As we have since found out, the suspect was entirely innocent, and a grave error of identification took place. However, my example is only inspired by this case.

I can imagine an armed policeman or an army sniper killing a terrorist (assuming that they are one). If the policeman or sniper is themselves out of range of any danger, and none of the prospective victims are their own friends or relatives, there is no PERSONAL argument with the bad guy; the "argument" stems from the office held by the law enforcer. And I can see no moral problem with using ultimate force to prevent otherwise inevitable innocent deaths. (For this reason, in the specific and off-topic case of Jean Charles de Menezez, I don't have a problem with shoot-to-kill per se but the surveillance and identification procedures need to be a damned sight tighter)

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Yes. I think it can be, but only very rarely. It is even rarer that the real moral justification is widely known and accepted before war begins. I'd say that the only conflict in the modern era that was almost entirely (i.e. barring the odd mistake) moral was the Second World War.

This, I think, is part of our current situation. Because "we" won that war, and because we all pretty much agree that it became (if not necessarily at the point of declaration for all of the Allies) a morally correct necessity, hindsight has lent the perspective that "we" (the Allies) fought WW2 and won because we were morally superior people, rather than militarily superior people who chose to fight a war that turned out to be morally correct. In other words, I don't think, going in, that we were more moral, but that by choosing to fight against a demonstrably immoral enemy, we did a great moral good. In even simpler terms, we didn't fight because we were good, we were good because we fought, and for the right thing. (This goes back to my even deeper and longer standing conviction that morally, we are what we do. Our level of morality changes over time, and depends on our actions, not on any intrinsic quality.)



Firstly, I don't disagree with the morality of the Revolutionary War (or the American War of Independence, as it gets called this side of the Atlantic), but I don't see it as strictly defensive. Crown property and Crown personnel were damaged or hurt before the Crown army attempted to put down the rebellion. It could be argued that the British of the time were the ones defending their own territory against rebellion.

And the War of 1812 was an aggressive and expansionist American attempt to obtain control of Canada from Britain, which was successfully resisted by the Canadians and British. This was neither particularly moral nor particularly defensive on America's part.

That's going off topic, however, and as I say, I do not dispute the morality of the Revolution.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

In my answer to this one, I'll cite skeeterses again, this time to agree.


There is no such thing as murder in self-defence, or to mitigate a greater disaster. Murder, in law, includes concepts such as premeditation - the old "malice aforethought" idea.

And on a national scale, war itself, when under attack or when invaded is justifiable. (Provided you fight the people attacking or invading you, and not someone else who's easier to find, easier to attack, or easier to defeat.)

Within a moral war, however, it is imperative to act morally at all times. You don't shoot the unarmed, even if they are spies or convicts (but you can imprison them). You don't torture your prisoners, even if your enemy tortures theirs. You take active steps to avoid killing civilians and you don't shoot if your enemy is hiding among them (they can't stay there forever, after all).

In all other circumstances, I consider killing (be it individuals or large numbers, as in war) to be morally abhorrent.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

Killing someone over a personal argument is usually considered premeditated murder, but killing someone to either save your life or the life of another is justified under many conditions. I’d also say it’s morally acceptable to kill in order to prevent another from taking a loved one illegally by force. IOW, if a car jacker jumped into my car and threw me out, driving away with my children, it would morally justifiable for me to try to shoot to kill in order to stop him (if there were no other reasonable means to do so).

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

There is an accepted and well-recognized difference between individual action and the law of force under government. I cannot lock a person in my closet for years, but the government does have the right to incarcerate an offender. That’s the cost of living in a civil society because ultimately laws are just wishes on paper without the will (or means) to enforce them.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

Yes, there are degrees of morality. In conducting a "moral" war, soldiers are still required to adhere to a set of prescribed laws (rules of engagement, laws of armed conflict, ect) for this reason.

Edited to add: I don't think the Revolutionary war was a defensive act, but the mass use of force to resolve disputes over governance can also qualify as a moral war. Slaves can "morally" fight for freedom even if their masters don't plan on killing them or their loves ones, can't they? That is on illustration of the problem with placing it all into an individual-analogous-to-government perspective. They aren't really the same.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

No, it can't be moral, only an immoral necessity.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

The same answer applies, no war is moral but some are immoral necessities.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

Again, I wouldn't use the term "degrees of morality." Yes, it is sometimes acceptable to act immorally to prevent some greater calamity.

My answers may strike some as a distinction without a difference, but I think it profoundly important to maintain the understanding that all wars are immoral and that we should engage in them only reluctantly as a last resort. Every war is accompanied by propaganda that demonizes the other side and justifies the killing. The fact that WWII was necessary doesn't make the fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg; nor the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in any way moral; nor any of necessary and unnecessary individual acts of cruelty moral. As we have recently experienced, war is a powerful tool with which to manipulate citizens. It is a almost a narcotic that once ingested colors everything we do and think. If you believe Chris Hedges, it is something almost longed for because it gives us meaning. For anyone wanting to delve into this subject in some depth, I recommend his book, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.

I think it's important to point out that the door swings both ways on questions such as these. Morality of an act is based on individual or society's perspective. The question really is: Is it an acceptable act to kill a stranger. The answer is yes or no. Then, you assign morality based on a variable, that variable being the circumstances. Yes, it's moral if it's killing a man who's from another country who my government told me to kill. No it's not moral if it's a fetus in the 1st trimester. Yes it's moral if it's dropping a bomb (killing 30 ppl) because my government told me. No it's immoral if it's blowing yourself up (killing 30 ppl) for God. The circumstances change but the end result is the same. The only thing that makes it moral is your perspective. By answering yes, you have to accept the fact that what you consider immoral others may consider moral. And who's to say their perspective or their society's perspective is right? Who's to say THEY should be killed because of their perspective and we shouldn't be killed for ours? On the other hand, answering "No" to this question traps yourself. You've declared that despite whatever variable/circumstance might be dreamed up, it's immoral to kill the person in question. So, logically, no one will answer "No" to this question.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

I hate to cop out on this but I'm going to say: "I don't know." This is something I think about and change positions on a lot, it's hard to answer "No" to someone because they'll shoot right back with: "Well what if Hitler was holding your grandmother and a newborn puppy hostage with C4 attached to his body in the Chicago subway system during rush hour on Christmas?"


Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?
Same answer as above but in addition to my earlier idea, adding a "degree" of morality only adds another variable. "It's [sorta] moral to kill a man [if he's a rapist]." (Varialbes are in []s) By adding a degree of morality, you make it even easier on yourself to answer yes.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

The wording here is a bit awkward.

Is it acceptable to kill an innocent stranger? No, it is not.

What about the case of the soldier? Is it moral to be a soldier? I think it is, but it takes some explaining.

Soldiers, by their very nature, are not innocent. No matter which side of a conflict you are in, if you are a member of the army, then your objective is to kill the opponent. So for a soldier to kill a soldier, we are discussing a certain element of self-defense, since the soldier can assume that the other will kill him if he does not do so first. Therefore, all killing of soldiers by soldiers in battle is a form of self-defense in the immediate sense.

Is the act of becoming a soldier moral? I also think it is. Soldiers are needed to defend the country. Soldiers join the army to defend the country and thus their intentions are defensive. Thus, their intentions are moral or at least, not immoral.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Yes, war can be moral. Others have cited examples. Wars to save others or to defend oneself or one's friends are moral, just as individual acts which harm others can be moral. Of course, there can be disagreement about whether a particular war is moral or not. In general, wars of aggression where the purpose to to take territory or to take resources from another country are not moral.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

No, there are not degrees of morality. An action is either moral or it is not. The confusion arises over the neglecting to take circumstances into account.

Killing is not always wrong, just as taking things from others (stealing) is not always wrong. Circumstances matter.

Actions are not moral or immoral, people are moral or immoral. The circumstances involved in an action are just as important as the action itself.

Is it acceptable to act immorally in the service of a moral cause? No, but again it is the circumstances of the individual action which determines the morality of the person and not the overall cause involved. Certainly service in a moral cause does not excuse any possible behavior.

Defending your country is morally okay. However, nobody is obligated to defend their country. When I walk along a city street in America and see homeless people being spit on, or hear about stuff like school shootings or a couple putting foster children in cages, I question whether America is worth defending or not.

Instead of forcing democracy on other countries, the United States of America needs to clean up its problems back at home and make America a Shining City on a Hill again. And then if a big country like Russia or China think of stealing a chunk of America, we won't have to worry about finding volunteers for defending our country.

1.) I do not believe in morality, but I do think that there is a common good that must be met for all people in order for their continued survival. When it comes down to it: a soldier does not represent one person. A solider serves his or her country that they are fighting for, and in that they are ambassadors to that country, larger than any one person. Acceptable on the grounds of security... nothing more.

2.) Well, since my personal belief of zero morality anywhere, I do not think that wars can be called moral. But neither do I believe they are immoral either. Wars are the byproducts of intolerance or quick judgement/anger. So, by that token, war simply is.

3.) I do not think that morality (for those who believe in it) can be grouped into castes. One dollar equals one dollar, it is as simple as that. An act of morality is moral; an act of immorality is of the same value of another immoral act. No one person can dictate which act reaps more immorality than another. It all hinges on a point of view.

A question to you both. I'll give you two arbitrary hypothetical scenarios:
1) The speed limit is 65 mph, and the car driver goes 69 mph, breaking the speed limit and senselessly endangering lives.

2)The speed limit is 65 mph, and the car driver goes 125 mph, breaking the speed limit and senselessly endangering lives.

Are these scenarios the same? Most of us have done the first...were we acting as "immorally" as the second scenario? I don't see how one can argue absolutes (it is or it isn't). Obviously morality is subjective. It also seems obvious to me that there are degrees (the legal system reflects this) and it all comes down to context.

I haven't.

I do not have a problem with any person taking his or her life into their own hands, if they feel like breaking several laws and allowing themselves undue danger it is their concern and the people surrounding the careless driver can either yield, increase speed, stop, call the police or do whatever seems fit to them at the time.

The legal system was designed to punish people for their actions, not their morality. I do not see how one act of murder is worse than another act of murder. Is murdering an old woman who lives alone worse than murdering a tyrant of some distant country? Which is more immoral? Are they both not murder? By this I can safely say that morality is not subjective and that all actions are the same regardless of the situation or variables.

You're sort of missing my point, which was designed simply to be illustrative and hypothetical.


Why punish people for anything if there is no moral compass? Is it worse to kill for pleasure or as an act of self-defense? You truly see no difference in these actions? The legal system certainly disagrees with you.

I do not. Whether self-defense or a pleasure kill, they still take someones life. Both acts are murder and there is no grey area in that argument. To take a persons life in the heat of the moment is wrong. To preserve your own life by depriving another of theirs is just the same amount of murder. You cannot put morality into a test tube and measure or change it. All acts are equal regardless of intent or purpose. All wars are wars, no act of patriotism or provocation will ever change that.

So, during the Red Lake School Shooting, the boy who wrestled with the gunman and tried to stab him with a pencil and take the gun from him (to kill him) before he shot more people (his only weapon), in an attempt to keep him from harming others, was acting as immorally (at least by intent) as the gunman? He wasn't a hero but an attempted murderer? And, by that argument, had he succeeded he would be a murderer too though he would have saved many lives? The only moral act would have been to lie down and die and let him shoot everyone?

The boy of which you are speaking was acting to end murder of innocent bystanders. That in itself was serving the benefit, the common good, of those surrounding him. His actions were neither moral or immoral, his choice was in order to end the bloodshed. And as I have already stated, it all hinges on your point of view. I do not think the boys actions were either moral or immoral because that is the way I view things, I think he served a common good, not some sort of moral dictation.

Edited to add: And yes, the boys actions were still qualified under the definition of murder because that is what his goal was, however noble his actions were, they do not strip the real intention of murder from his choice.

Serving the common good is planted in our concept of morality. You might not like the term, but that's what morality is. Folks got together and decided there was a code for the common good, and then they set up a system of laws to reflect this code. That code is "morality". The more the action violates the code, the more illegal or "immoral" that action is. So, offenses like premeditated murder receive a stiffer penalty than self-defense, which usually receives no penalty or potentially even a reward depending on the circumstances. Laws vary throughout the world depending on the moral code of that area...which is why adultery might be a capital offense in some countries where concepts of the "common good" are more religiously based.

No it is not. The concept of common good that I serve is derived from what I view will be beneficial for myself and those in my daily orbit. My concept of allowing others the benefit of the doubt or anything else I permit myself to believe comes from my belief that humanity is not bound by morality but by the ties that hold us together as humans. Morality is void in the equation of common good since one good to one persons morality is immoral to anothers. However, the common good can allow all people life in order to continue this debate on another day.

There is no code, I am not bound by any code to serve any outlined morals or standards. I would love to see a transcript: "Oh, kicking puppies... IMMORAL!" It does not work like that. Every person has his or her own definition of morality but in the end it falls short of a common good that serves everyone without a good or evil to it.

Acting morally is doing the right thing. If the boy in Mrs. P's example had succeeded in killing the gunman, he would not have been a murderer, but a hero. He would've saved many people from death or serious injury at the hands of a maniac, and risked his own life to do so. That's heroism by all the normal definitions, and it would've been the right thing to do. Yes, it would've been killing, but justifiable homicide rather than murder, a category which both the law and traditional Western morality recognize.

And aside from tradition, that applies to Ayn Rand's Objectivism as well: even though Rand was an atheist and her ethics is based on rational self-interest, it still rewards serving the common good, as any non-dysfunctional morality must. If you based a system of morality purely on game theory, i.e. the study of decision making in social situations, it would work the same way.

Well...according to what you said before, from your perspective the common good will not allow all people life. It doesn't allow life for the people who are on the receiving end of a bullet as they are not permitted to defend themselves. Morality by "personal" code without any legal basis for enforcement is anarchy. It would be a rather violent society if everyone was at the receiving end of anyone else's moral code based on what they personally deemed "just".

Again, laws reflect values (IOW morals), and all of us are bound by that prescribed moral code or our right to liberty would be restricted by the government sanctioned use of force.

I love debates like this...

VDemosthenes, I think you are throwing the word murder around too much. Murder is a legal term. It is only murder if it is illegal. So I'd have to agree with Izdarri that the boys actions would not fall under the definition of murder. Killing is killing, but murder is just illegal killing.

I think this debate illustrates why morality doesn't really exist or that if it does it exists outside of our ability to comprehend it.


Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

The answer to all these question is "it depends" I believethat when it comes to morality it is all in how we feel, so whatever we feel is right or wrong is what is immoral and moral.

If a soldier feels it is morally wrong to kill a stranger but does so just to follow orders, than that soldier is acting in an immoral way. However, if the soldier does not feel it is morally wrong to kill the enemy than that soldier is acting morally.

There can be no universal compass in morality. Some people will see absolutes as we have seen in this debate, some will see degrees, as we have also seen in this debate. But the fact that we all have different beliefs, ensures that morality must be relative.

And it doesn't depend on circumstance, rather it depends on what an individual will and won't justify.

Myself, a war can never be moral, because I can not justify the taking of so many human lives. Add to that.... I find it ironic who we laugh at the idea that someone would kill another human because they stepped on their sneakers, but find it acceptable that we should kill someone because someone told us to.

Every war has served a greater good to the side who won. So every war is moral to someone... on both sides, if they are willing to justify the mass slaughter of human life.

For some reason this argument reminds me of something Abe Lincoln once said: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Likewise, calling an immoral act moral because you happen to like it doesn't make it moral. Someone could say killing people for fun is moral because, well, it's fun to watch them squirm as they die, but though in that individual's own twisted mind it may be moral, in the world the rest of us live in, it isn't, and we'll still give him life without parole, or maybe the death penalty for it. But that's not morality, that's the law! Yes and no. The reason we have a law against murder is because according to most of us, it's very immoral. So, is it immoral just because a majority of us have that personal preference? Or is there actually a standard of morality larger than any of us?

I think there is, and there are a number of different sources for it that all pretty much agree on the most important things. You can get it from game theory, from religion (doesn't much matter which one - they mostly agree on the big things), from tradition, from cultural anthropology, from deductive reasoning from the nature of man as a being of volitional consciousness and based on rational self-interest, and all those sources agree: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, robbery is wrong, slavery is wrong. I do think there's a lot of room for subjectivity in the areas where they don't agree, but if my own personal judgements about what's moral disagree with not just one of those sources but all of them, well, I'm probably wrong and they're right, and I need to check first the soundness of my reasoning, and then my premises.

So the war for American independence was immoral? How about the war to end slavery? The war to combat the Nazi takeover of Europe? All immoral as nothing is worth the cost in lives? Why are the lives lost due to inaction somehow irrelevant? That you are able to make this statement because you are surrounded by a blanket of blood-bought protected freedom is the ultimate irony.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

No. But it obviously leds us to when and how do we develop that personal argument.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Yes it is possible for war to be moral. When your country is being invaded and when your life and your loved one's are in jeopardy, then the stranger aligned with the cause of taking the life and liberty of you or your loved one is someone that you likely will have a clear personal argument with even if that person is a complete stranger to you.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

does murder equal killing? In this I am not sure. Is it ever moral to kill? Yes, but this is a thing as rare as storybook true love. The service of a moral cause must be measured on a very short line because it gets easy to add conditions that allow us to do evil "for the common good."

I am not 100% sure the United States has ever been involved in a moral war.
And only on rare occasion have we been involved in a just war.
But we have been involved in many many wars, and the United States tends more than other nations to claim the moral high ground about its wars.

The American Revolution-- a creation story for our nation but not only debatably a moral war. "Patriots" (I have always found it interesting that rebels got the name Patriots) participated in escalating the tensions between the British government and the colonists into warfare. After Lexington and Concord the war was justifiable but the road to Lexington was injustice on both sides.

the War of 1812--well, the United States did a good job of staying out of the wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon and we finally got sucked into this conflict in 1812. Not moral, reasonably justifiable.

several conflicts from 1783 to 1845 with Native American tribes. Never moral, sometimes justifiable.

The Mexican War, not moral, not just

The Civil War, not moral, with room for much better communication and negotiation. Justifiable.

Indian Wars from 1866-1900. Generally not moral, generally not just.

Spanish American War. Not moral, not just.

Philippine War- not moral, debatably justifiable outcome of the Spanish American war.

Roosevelt Corollary interventions 1900-1932 into the Western Hemisphere. generally not moral, sometimes justifiable

World War I-not moral, not just

World War II--moral, just

Korean War, not moral, just

Vietnam War, not moral, not just

Gulf War, moral, just

Iraq War, not moral, not just

Just some opinions about some of the conflicts that American soldiers have been involved in. The most moral wars would be defense against invaders. This thankfully has not happened much in our history.

Izdaari


Actually it does. If you call the Iraq war moral and just, and Eeyore says it is an immoral war that is unjust... who is right??

If someone like VDemos finds all intentional killing immoral and someone like Mrs. P finds that it depends on when, how, where, why, who(circumstances) someone kills before one can determine whether a killing is moral or not, who's moral compass is correct??


Also we can see how time changes morality or how our outlook on morality changes with time. Why do we honor the founders?? George Washington was a slave owner. How can a slave owner be an honorable man?? Was he too stupid to recognize a intelligent human when he spoke to them??? Was his integrity too weak to stop practicing an immoral act , due to the fact that other people were doing it. Or simply put... was owning slaves moral and right?? Is a man that can practice such abhorrently wrong acts to innocent human being worthy of any honor?? I probably already went to far in this... but what I want to illustrate is that if morality is this fluid, this dynamic, then it must be within our heads, whether that be on an individual or social level.

I also want to ask... who is "they" "They" are simply other men

Mrs. P


What freedom was the American War about?? It changed from one elitist controlled society to another elitist controlled society. What about Shays's Rebellion??



Did not he have the right to rebel against the oppression of the newly formed American Government. And if the were wrong to rebel against the U.S.
Government, why were the founder right to rebel against the British?

How about the war to end slavery? If the war was about doing something morally correct why did the U.S. Government allow for segregation after the war. Why did they still treat blacks like like second rate citizens?? The war was about preserving the Union. Isn't that immoral. To mandate a group of humans remain under the control of a government. If the South wanted to be independent of the North, didn't they have the moral right to separate themselves from the North, just as America separated itself from Britain.

What about the Nazi takeover?? Let's talk about the American takeover!! We had a national political called Manifest Destiny



So is our nation is built on immorality? Why was Hitler wrong to have an expansionist policy, but America wasn't. How was Nazi slaughter any worse than American slaughter??


Here's how. They lost, we won.

To your last statement ,please tell me the last war that was fought that protected my right from unjustifiable searches. What about my right free political speech. While you are at, please explain why Canada doesn't have to fight so many wars to keep their freedoms and they even get an extra right to healthcare!! What was the last war where a standing army threatened our soil and our sovereignty??

The fact of the matter is at least a person who steps on your shoe did something to you, what did somebody in Vietnam do to the American sent to go kill him??

Finally someone else is saying this.

The winner is always the ones thats "right".. Strange that, We where good guys during WW1, WW2... WE where the good guys during the Cold War, THEY where bad (they whomever that didnt agree)... Strange..

Perhaps people of certain intellect cant make this simple equation?

The problem is that this view is not only false, it's often self-contradictory.

It is you're judgment call as to whether you adhere to an absolute basic standard of morality, but the fact is most people (and I suspect even you) do so.

Disagreements about applications of this standard to not mean the standard itself is nonexistent.

Clearly the winner is not always right, you will never find one person who'd views actually align with that theory.

In the struggle of European invaders with Native Americans it is very clear that the Europeans (by and large) won and yet most in Europe and Americans of European decent will now agree that the system of legalized theft that enabled this "victory" was wrong.

Certainly some make the mistake of assuming their nation (or other identifying group) is always in the right but that does not make it match with even their standard of morality, the jingoists simply choose not to apply the standard at all.

Does this make any sense?

In brief

Morality as a concept is a platonic absolute, its the sort of abstract thinking that human beings as a species are known for. Akin to concepts like "love" and "justice"

Applications of this concept may not always live up to the absolute, in fact they rarely do.

The same is true of the concept of "love" and yet you would be hard pressed to find too many people who don't believe that love doesn't exist.

I adhere to whatever I feel is ´right´.

This is no absolute, I judge what is ´right´ or ´wrong´, In this, their is no Truth.



I wish to ask you, where do you get this absolute you are talking from? Your God ?

Eeyore, would you please clarify the distinction you are making between ‘just’ and ‘moral’? To me they are essentially one and the same.



I see. Clearly there is no reason why any country should not go on a genocidal conquest to take over the world. No country is without historical flaws, and everyone has a history of wrongdoing so, no act in the defense of others, by anyone, for any reason, could possibly be a moral decision. Also, by your arguments above, apparently even improvements in human rights and newfound constitutional protected freedoms are immoral so long as a society has any other shortcomings. Slavery is the same as segregation, indentured servitude the same as democracy with less than optimal representation. That pretty much epitomizes total moral relativism. I’d say society would not have progressed very far under that reasoning. Actually, thankfully, you don't have to be faultless to make a moral decision.

In practical reality, the truly oppressed of the world don’t spend much time sitting around and pontificating much about such matters. Debating the nature of a moral war is truly a luxury built on security. There was a time when victors of a war either exterminated or made slaves of their captives. That was the way of life for centuries and centuries. There are parts of the world where it is that way today (are they "good" winners? ). That we now have this relatively newfound regard for our fellow humans is not some happy accident. It was bought and paid for by generations of bloodshed. Society has evolved as strong governments offer the service of protection (their main purpose), and enabled the weak enough of a defense against the physically strong to pave the way for the acceptance of those individual rights (via laws) that we take so much for granted.



The most pro-American people I have ever met escaped from Vietnam, though most of their extended family and the rest of their village died in the attempt. What did thousands of south Vietnamese civilians do to be slaughtered like cattle as they ran for the shores? When Nikita Kruschev said “We will bury you” I think he meant it (squabble about the translation if you like). If the Soviet Union had taken over Europe, I doubt they would have had the same rights to free speech as they have today. Now, here or in Canada we may have been unaffected, just as we were unaffected by the Chinese incursions into Tibet. The willingness to fight against the spread of Soviet influence may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, I personally think it did, but in practical reality we’ll never really know. Either way, Canada has participated as a valuable ally in many of the conflicts the US has fought and has enjoyed the freedoms it deserves.

You’re correct that there have been no large standing armies threatening Northern American. In the late 1930’s and early 1940’s there weren’t any either. Lots of European Jews (and minorities) lost their freedoms during this time when we were not threatened.

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?
As best as I can make out there are two principle bases for a universal morality.
1. The Golden Rule. Do or don't do unto others.........
2. The Greatest Good stretching well into the future.

As for common grubby every day morality these also would seem to have two principle bases.
1. What the culture around you (The societal norm) agrees is good or bad, right or wrong.
2. What you simply feel is right or wrong.

Obviously there is lots of crossover but being a categorizing species we need somewhere to start from. There is a wild card here which I would call conscience. Do you own the basis for your moral choices. At a minimum that would mean are you "aware" of them.

To answer your question, yes. If the stranger was in extreme pain without any possible remedy and was about to die and asked me to end their life I would feel it was appropriate to dispatch him/her. Personal self-defense would not apply as you have framed the question. However defending someone I cared about or felt responsible for could, no doubt, apply. Right now I can't think of another good reason.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?
No it isn't in a universal sense. Do you wish on yourself what you are attempting to inflict on your "enemy"? Just war implies a clear moral dividing line between "us" and "them" and the realization that all peaceful alternatives short of war have been tried. It further implies that you and perhaps friends couldn't find a way among yourselves to engage in a more affective form of resistance than employed by the no-questions-asked, line-of-command approach of a standing military. That is quite a set of hoops to jump through.

Obviously in the grubby sense war is moral. One need only apply the standard of flag waving tribal patriotism to feel self-righteous about the whole enterprise.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?
Are there better and poorer remedies to problems? Surely. I don't see why morality would be any different.

War clearly is socially sanctioned murder. The democratic process would seem to give it a somewhat higher standard than say a Mafia hit because those on the bottom had some dilute say in the process. As for the nonparticipating victims I can't see where it makes a lot of difference.

Since morality is multiply frameable you can have moral standards that are in conflict with each other. I don't see how you can have both the moral and immoral within the same ethical universe and be taken seriously.

I have to agree with Eric Stanze that our morality has to do with what we feel is right

Turnea I can agree that many might say the transactions between early settlers with the native Americans were wrong. But this is from a historical point of view. The settlers, themselves obviously didn't think their actions wrong. The soldiers who fought wars against the Native Americans obviously didn't feel themselves immoral. The winners were right. Now it is so far in our history we can grudging call their actions wrong, not necessarily immoral, but unfair. And the only reason why is it is so far displaced from our current circumstances.

If morality in war is absolute... who does set the standard??




Is that what the Nazi extermination of Jews is characterized as.... an "historical flaw" A hiccup, if you will?? Well if Germany would have won who is to say what they would have done. As I understand it, from the German perspective they simply wanted to the end the repression imposed on them from World War I and remove the Jews who were disproportionately wealthy and in power from their political scenery.

I don't think the average German believed themselves as evil, or immoral during the reign of Nazism. But because they lost the war, their "historical flaws" can now be called severe acts of immorality.

Just imagine how evil the founders could be portrayed with their acts of slavery, and slaughter of natives if they were unsuccessful in their revolution or even their expansion.

The Constitution can be neither moral or immoral, so my argument would not state what you are saying it states. Only your idea of what it represent can be considered moral or immoral. It is only people that allow or take away freedom. Whether it is in America, the Congos, or the Soviet Union.

Also... I am not saying that slavery is the same as segregation. I believe both are immoral, but I wasn't saying that either. What I am saying s the civil war was not a moral war to end slavery. It was a war to keep the South in the Union. Now I ask you would starting a war to ensure that a group of people are subject to laws they don't agree with be moral or immoral in your book??

As for the most pro-American family you know, I'm not sure what the point is. Tell me do you believe there are anti American Vietnam families in Vietnam who can attest to American brutality. Their loved ones slaughtered, their villages razed. What about their views on what is moral and isn't? Do those views matter to you?

We were fighting Russian influence and Russia was fighting our imperialism. Which of the two of us had army's all over the world??

We won, they lost... so their spread would mean disaster for the world.

Also, notice something very important. Notice you don't mention many current immoral actions of our government. Are we only immoral after our our immoral acts are in the past. Are we currently immoral?

I guess the distinction I am trying to make is that one can fulfill most of the rules for having a just war while still having an option of avoiding that war.

War is immoral when chosen in almost all cases. To me the best example I can think of following the rules for a just war while still attempting to avoid a war is the Gulf War in 1991. A nation was invaded. Broad international efforts were made at undoing the invasion. Clear rules of engagement were agreed to by a diverse international coalition of nations.

In every day life, one can justify punching someone who constantly baits you into a fight, but that does not make the punch moral.

After reading everyone's comments I still feel that every war is immoral. That is because war by its nature is the negation of everything that is moral. Those who are touched by it whether as soldiers or innocent civilians are made less human. Even a necessary war has this result for most participants.

Previously, I mentioned Chris Hedges views in War is the Force which gives Us Meaning. Here are a few excerpts selected from his recent talk at the University of Puget Sound.

UFPPC Article

Here is the problem with the topic as a whole:

How do we define war?

Is war simply a conflict between nations and peace to be the absense of such conflict? I have a different view of what war is in comparison to other people. When the Rhwandan genocide occured...nobody cared. It was a conflict between different ethnic groups. In Bosnia and Iraq, a similar situation...innocents slaughtered while the world twidled its thumbs. And how about the Sudan today? Same thing. These aren't wars in the definition we have been provided here in this topic. These are 'domestic affairs' and interfering would be infringing on their soveriegnity. But when brutal dictators or groups of murderers commit genocide...they declare war on no particular nation of people but on humanity as a whole!

Can it be a morally acceptable act to kill a stranger with whom you have no personal argument? Why or why not?

As Locke would probably say, if someone is attempting to take away your life and your liberty, than you are justified in taking the life and liberty of that of your attacker.

Is it possible for war to be moral? If you said "no" to the first question, and "yes" to this, how do you reconcile these?

Absolutely. Any war fought for humanitarian intervention, such as preventing genocide or procuring civil rights for the people, is morally justifiable. Not everyone plays by the same rules we do. Because we are a nation of laws and rights for all people...we are restricted in what we can and cannot do to wage war. That gives our foes advantages of not only using terrible tactics but using our freedoms against us. When our liberty is threatened... those who threaten must be destroyed in order to preserve our principles.

Are there "degrees" of morality? Does the 'greater' morality of a war (for example) trump the immorality of murder? Is it acceptable to act immorally while in the service of a moral cause?

There ar degress for morality i suppose. For instance, dropping the a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, in hindsight, immoral killing hundreds of thousands of people. But an invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of a million American GIs and probably another 2 million Japanese soldiers and civilians. So its the lesser of two evils.

The greater morality of war does trump the immorality of war because it is justifiable to defend yourself from an aggressor... even if that means going on the offense.

Immorality in war happens all the time. Torture, unsanctioned killings and such are not acceptable and should never be accepted. However, this is not to say that immoral acts are never necessary. Going back to the A-bomb example....both acts would be immoral...but the second option would be far worse than the first.

This is exactly the point. Not everyone plays but our rules and who's to say they should? Just because we don't like how some country treats its women doesn't mean we should go in guns ablazing killing thousands in turn. Who says our rules are right? I'm all for humanitarian intervention. In fact, I'm wearing one of those Save Darfur wrist bands as I type. But I think using "humanitarian intervention" as a catch all for going to war is a dangerous precedent to set. Would we have allowed the French to come in to America with troops to end slavery, fight for women's right to vote, or end segregation?

I do not believe that this moral relativist theory holds. Just because a culture is different doesn't mean that they do not do things that are wrong. Failure of womens rights in Islamic countries is WRONG. Female mutilation in native tribes are WRONG. People that eat other people are WRONG. They are not 'just different than our culture."

I agree...the rush to got war for humanitarian intervention must be a very pragmatic process...but it also must be swift when it is clear to the world that genocide has occurred. And we are not talking about invading nations that make women wear headscarves... we are talking about heads of state who butcher their own people. That's WRONG. You have to ask yourself this question: What is more immoral, intervening in another country where genocide has taken place or not intervening and allowing the genocide to occur?

Your comparison of France and America is apples and oranges compared to today's geopolitical landscape (i mean are you suggesting France during that time held different positions than that of the US?). There are certain nations that have the power to influence for the positive the way people on this earth live their lives. We do it by lending aid, medical research, and by waging war to protect innocents. Nations that have the power have a responsibility to the people of this planet to ensure that tyrannical regimes will not gas them, or shoot them, or starve them.

Are you stating that at times of slavery or segragation, America should have been invaded and reformed??

By that logic, should the rest of the world unite against us because they consider some things that we do morally reprehensible... or simply WRONG? Such as death penalty... or, to take it one step further, executing retarded convicts? There're very few absolute "wrongs"; what today could be considered a cold-bloodied murder, 100 years ago would be considered a duel. Failure of womens rights in Islamic countries can not be considered WRONG if women themselves do not consider their rights violated.

As i already stated, this analogy is apples and oranges. What was considered acceptable during that point in time is vastly different than in today's. Back then, wars were fought different and people's rights were different...governments were different. Its completely different. Today we have international treaties and a better understanding and compassion for human rights.



By that logic, no the world cannot unite against us because of what they 'consider' morally reprehensible. I was talking about genocide was I not? I mentioned Bosnia, Rhwanda, and Iraq, didnt I? There is a vast different between genocide and well your example the death penalty. In this country, people are put to death (a very minute number at best) after going through due process guaranteed in our US Constitution. They were not just shot without trial like in many nations.

Furthermore, i agree that our perceptions of what is 'wrong' has changed over time and that is why it is ridiculous to compare modern times to the past in this regard. Failure of womens rights in Islamic countries IS wrong. That logic is twisted because then i could say that it is not wrong for a brutal dictator to commit genocide on his people since the people themselves do not consider their rights violated. However unlikely it is... the point is that just because the victim doesnt realize they are a victim doesnt make them any less of a victim.

Welcome to a world without sovereignty. That is what we are discussing is it not? You are engaged in a textbook exercise of moral relativism Lederuvdapac. Who is to say what genocide is? If morality was the impetus for invading Iraq (and subsequently the justification), then isn't the lack of intervention in Darfur immoral, because lesser actions have not prevented the genocide there?

The fact is that if morality is the dictate of international relations, then in reality there are no rules outside of walk softly and carry a big stick. The United States is one of five nations in the world that executes children. Even Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran find the practice barbaric. Yet when people the world over clamour for the United States to stop the practice, the rejoinder is a simple "mind your own business." The short and long of it is that the United States is a sovereign country, and needs no other reason to settle it's own affair as it sees fit. If that standard is not applied universally however it becomes absolutely meaningless.

I've tried to advance the proposition that some wars are necessary but not moral. They can't be moral because they destroy that which societies generally consider moral. If a war is necessary we needn't consider it moral anymore than we consider cleaning out a sewer blockage to be moral. Perhaps a better analogy is a police officer shooting an offending civilian in the line of duty. We don't call it a moral act but generally consider it understandable and perhaps even necessary. At the same time, a life has been destroyed, a family has been bereaved, and the police officer is likely to have suffered psychological trauma. These are hardly moral consequences. War, any war, is infinitely worse!

What I most object to is the identification of a war with a moral crusade and cloaking the horrible acts the war contains within a religious/nationalistic moralizing. When this is done with a necessary and successful war like WWII, the glorification of the war becomes a part of the culture and is then used by others to justify and glorify unnecessary wars.

I would consider stopping genocide as the basis for a necessary war but every effort should be made to internationalize the war in its inception and to make sure it was carried out respecting international rules of conduct and that detained persons had their basic human rights respected. Iraq certainly doesn't qualify. David Swanson had something similar to say recently in Denver only he refers to just wars rather than necessary ones.

Source.

Do we not remember after the Rhwandan genocide when the civilized world said "never again" will we allow such atrocities to go on without intervention? Of course there was then the Bosnia situation where the UN did next to nothing until the US-led NATO effort finally stopped the violence. Sovereignty is not an inalienable right. Sovereignty also has some responsibility to go along with it. Genocide cannot be tolerated by the world community. If you allow it to happen once. It'll happen again and again and again until tempted dictators around the world get the idea that if they try to kill their own people on a massive scale that they will have to deal with the full force of the world's most powerful nations. The rights of those people being killed usurps that of the dictator's power over that territory.

And there is no way i am being the relativist here. You ask who is to say what genocide is like it isnt something a reasonable person can disce