So someone sent me this, and I answered. Tell me if you think my answer does it.
----
Turns out my pastor is in favor of preemptive war. I'd like your advice on how best to respond to his reasoning. He wrote the following on his blog: << Preemption was not necessary before the modern era. A foreign nation could attack and the damage was rarely irreversible, particularly with a nation as powerful as the United States. But things have changed. One electromagnetic pulse attack could put 80% of the United States back in the stone ages for a significant period of time. A nuclear attack could kill hundreds of thousands living in cities of significant populations, so in such cases, the responsible use of preemption is necessary in the modern era. This seems to be of such common sense that one must ask, who could really disagree? I'm sure that some do, but it would be interesting to find out how well those folks understand the stakes. >> Double ugh! He seems to be saying that ethics change if technology changes and becomes too dangerous. What would you say to him?
So I suggested the following:
The problem comes down to the locus of control. Who is in charge of deciding when preemption is necessary? It is the state itself, which has an interest in fomenting war as a way of increasing its power and revenue. The whole history of warfare consists of one nation using war against another to increase its domestic power. If the population grants to the state the right to alone decide when preemption is necessary, you are setting up an incentive to exaggerate or even make up the existence of threats. This is why the rules of war have long said that the state must clearly prove the existence of an immanent threat and otherwise meet a very high standard of evidence. Certainly we would require this in our own communities. We would not let our neighbors start firing on people in the streets based on the supposition that the people were armed and dangerous and were preparing to attack. We would require far more evidence that a threat really exists and that there was no alternative to violence.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
You make a good case Jeffrey, but as a master debater, I would be more likely to just go for the jugular.
This is a Pastor, a man who has committed himself to Christian ethics.
So I would pursue the WWJD approach, and remind him that the commandments say that "Thou shalt not kill", and preemption is murder, and all collateral damage is murder during war. I would ask him under what circumstances is murder responsible, and how many innocent lives does he believe his is worth in trade for security. In other words, by what moral justification does he place his survival, against perceived (real or not) threats from others? Does his responsible use of preemption include killing 2 foreigners for every American? 4 Foreigners? 10, 20, 1,000? How many people should be murdered so that a single American can live?
Now if the Pastor was not a pastor, I might take a different tact, but trying to argue logic with someone who has an irrational POV, and subscribes to an arbitrary code of ethics, usually doesn't get far.
His argument for technology is very odd, given that many Christians will not acknowledge scientific arguments against scripture, doctrine and dogma. He truly is an irrational argumentator.
jtucker:If the population grants to the state the right to alone decide when preemption is necessary, you are setting up an incentive to exaggerate or even make up the existence of threats. This is why the rules of war have long said that the state must clearly prove the existence of an immanent threat and otherwise meet a very high standard of evidence.
Permit me to play the devil's advocate here but what if the population wants to cast away the "rules of war" and grants statesmen the right to be reckless? In that case, there is no valid argument against pre-emptive war if you are carrying the biggest gun. Personally, I think that most people prefer that their statesmen be reckless on foreign lands.
In the end, there is no objective argument against killing somebody first and then asking questions. Given that he is a pastor, the only basis for arguing would have to be morality like LibertyStudent said. If you want to present a practical argument against pre-emptive war, you could simply say that war is expensive. I would point out the lies that are used to support the war. I would point out the commercial interests behind every single war.
That's a good argument, Jeffrey. You might want to add something to appease the ego of a statist, however. e.g. "countries may only go to war when there is proof of danger and the country democratically declares war."
Political Atheists Blog
I believe the best counter-argument to advocacy for preemptive warfare takes the form of reductio ad absurdum.
If it is morally permissible for the Washington Empire (the WE, as opposed to the US) to preemptively attack other nations on the grounds that they might have and use WMDs, then it is certainly permissible, if not obligatory, for those other nations to preemptively attack the WE, since it both has and has used WMDs and is belligerent toward other countries.
Furthermore, if preemption is permissible with regard to other nations attacking the WE, it must also be permissible with regard to the WE's own citizens committing crime, to wit, it may arrest criminals-to-be before the happening of the crime, the way, for instance, the Soviets would. Also, to generalize further, any citizen may attack his neighbor on the grounds that he believes the neighbor intends to attack him.
Of course, neocons (and statists in general) seldom think in terms of whether something qualifies as ethical behavior but whether it is needed ('need' is the most pernicious word in the English language IMO, and probably in most other languages as well).
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Solomon: Furthermore, if preemption is permissible with regard to other nations attacking the WE, it must also be permissible with regard to the WE's own citizens committing crime, to wit, it may arrest criminals-to-be before the happening of the crime, the way, for instance, the Soviets would. Also, to generalize further, any citizen may attack his neighbor on the grounds that he believes the neighbor intends to attack him.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it the whole initiation-of-aggression-thingey that libertarians oppose?
What I meant was that one could attack a guy on the street, simply insist that the victim was "going to attack", and then be vindicated.
Sounds like Minority Report.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Solomon: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it the whole initiation-of-aggression-thingey that libertarians oppose?
1) you are forgetting that you have every libertarian right to defend yourself from a threat of aggression. If you are convinced that there is a threat of attack, you have every right to attack too.
2) we are arguing with non-libertarians. Therefore, you can not hold up the Non-Aggression Principle and expect them to take it as gospel.
Solomon:What I meant was that one could attack a guy on the street, simply insist that the victim was "going to attack", and then be vindicated.
Charles Anthony: Solomon: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it the whole initiation-of-aggression-thingey that libertarians oppose? Two things: 1) you are forgetting that you have every libertarian right to defend yourself from a threat of aggression. If you are convinced that there is a threat of attack, you have every right to attack too. 2) we are arguing with non-libertarians. Therefore, you can not hold up the Non-Aggression Principle and expect them to take it as gospel. Solomon:What I meant was that one could attack a guy on the street, simply insist that the victim was "going to attack", and then be vindicated. Sure but why would anybody else believe you?
Good points. There certainly is a logical threshold that can be reached where evidence is sufficient to suggest an attack is imminent and thus taking action is warranted. It is not reasonable to expect for instance that when your enemy states he intends to attack you that you are required to wait until you are surrounded and fired on before taking action. Since this would apply on an individual level it would also apply in larger groups such as states.
When you consider that the state steals to wage such a preemptive war, the case isn't the same for an individual as it is for the state.
GilesStratton: When you consider that the state steals to wage such a preemptive war, the case isn't the same for an individual as it is for the state.
The question is whether pre-emption can be justified. If it can, then how the entity acquires the resources to fight the war isn't relevant to whether it is justified to take the action.
Charles Anthony:) you are forgetting that you have every libertarian right to defend yourself from a threat of aggression.
No, only from actual aggression.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Charles Anthony: 1) you are forgetting that you have every libertarian right to defend yourself from a threat of aggression. If you are convinced that there is a threat of attack, you have every right to attack too.
What if you're convinced and wrong (it looks like a guy is pulling a gun on you but it's actually his wallet)? Would you have a right then?
Charles Anthony: Solomon: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it the whole initiation-of-aggression-thingey that libertarians oppose? 2) we are arguing with non-libertarians. Therefore, you can not hold up the Non-Aggression Principle and expect them to take it as gospel.
Actually... I was directing the question at you.
But hey, if you don't think NAP is absolutely true...
Charles Anthony: Solomon:What I meant was that one could attack a guy on the street, simply insist that the victim was "going to attack", and then be vindicated. Sure but why would anybody else believe you?
Just replace 'a guy on the street' with 'Iraq' and I think you'll see the validity of my point.
All things considered, I am not so dogmatic as to deny that the rules of the morality of responding to threats with aggression are extremely iffy and debatable. Frankly though, I'm inclined to side with spideynw, as it seems to me that allowing one to attack another who isn't in the act of attacking anyone else undermines all ethics.