One response to “Is Pre-Emptive Strike Morally Justified?

  1. Phil

    What is Just War? The great divide between conservative minds. You have given a very good outline, and I am grateful. However, I see it lacking the full scope of questions.

    To apply moral theology properly, wouldn’t it be more beneficial to the larger picture to apply what you have written to a smaller scale first? If it is true in one situation–the larger scale– doesn’t it necessarily follow that it will be true on a smaller scale?

    I’m not a philosopher, but I wonder how this could be resolved on a one on one situation, that is to say, a man versus another man.

    If a crime is being constructed to kill another–and it is indeed imminent, would the one who is being plotted against have the moral right to end the life of the man perceived to be dangerous, who perhaps has gone to the store and made a purchase of a knife, or a gun? Is his crime the threat of violence coupled with the purchase of a gun?

    If my questions are somewhat naive, I apologize. I would like to think very clearly on this topic, because it is a moral one.

    If there is indeed a moral reason to have this preemptive strike, would it then be the duty of the Church to step in and present this morality to the faithful who are not sold on this being moral at any capacity, but on the contrary, highly immoral?

    “They look to the other categories, but fail to realize that the information necessary to make a judgment about the justice of a war falls within the realm of the competent authority. All sorts of intelligence necessary to make a legitimate judgment is currently lacking because it is still under lock and key by a government. Who are we to judge if a war is just or not if we do not have all the necessary information to make said judgment? So we must be careful, nuanced, and, at best, can propose hypotheses until we have all the information.”

    To which I respond: What if the so-called competent authority is known for aggrandizement (the sin here as per your concluding sentence)?

    You may also note that current military officials cannot speak out against the tone of the State Department and the Defense Department. Taking that into consideration, would it be also prudent to take the case for no military action as presented to us by retired Military men and CIA officials who are now at liberty to speak openly about these subjects? There are actual retired men and women claiming the exact opposite because they are not under pressure to say this or that.

    Thank you again.

    In Christo Rege,
    The curious conservative

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s