Kant’s world view is premised on the belief there is a thing called truth. Mathematics state truths. If you believe as I do that social relations are capable of truth assertions, ones that are not context dependent, then one such truth assertion is killing is wrong.
The problem with what is called international law, is it has become, as i…
Kant’s world view is premised on the belief there is a thing called truth. Mathematics state truths. If you believe as I do that social relations are capable of truth assertions, ones that are not context dependent, then one such truth assertion is killing is wrong.
The problem with what is called international law, is it has become, as if it was ever otherwise, context dependent, which means it is not law at all. Instead, it consists of rules adopted by those with power to say so.
Killing in the act of self-defense or just war are, of course, justifiable. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. If we can agree that killing a human is wrong ab initio then nothing makes it right. A justifiable or excusable killing may avoid punishment for crime, but that is an outcome that we've decided on as a matter of policy, and it is not necessarily so.
I'm talking purely the morality of the act. If killing is always wrong, even killing in self defense is wrong, even if not punishable. War offers the excuse that the other person might be shooting at you, but not necessarily, and certainly not in the case of misplaced artillery fire or bombers hitting their targets but causing "collateral" damage.
Killing a man who is raping someone is not wrong in my book and that isn't even self defense.
Kant’s world view is premised on the belief there is a thing called truth. Mathematics state truths. If you believe as I do that social relations are capable of truth assertions, ones that are not context dependent, then one such truth assertion is killing is wrong.
The problem with what is called international law, is it has become, as if it was ever otherwise, context dependent, which means it is not law at all. Instead, it consists of rules adopted by those with power to say so.
Killing is wrong, under certain conditions, and completely justifiable under others. So much for your one truth assertion.
Killing in the act of self-defense or just war are, of course, justifiable. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. If we can agree that killing a human is wrong ab initio then nothing makes it right. A justifiable or excusable killing may avoid punishment for crime, but that is an outcome that we've decided on as a matter of policy, and it is not necessarily so.
I'm talking purely the morality of the act. If killing is always wrong, even killing in self defense is wrong, even if not punishable. War offers the excuse that the other person might be shooting at you, but not necessarily, and certainly not in the case of misplaced artillery fire or bombers hitting their targets but causing "collateral" damage.
Killing a man who is raping someone is not wrong in my book and that isn't even self defense.