right, in short is there a good impartial way to determine a priori whether use of force, especially use of lethal force, is ethical? see, i’m primarily an absurdist and use of force is the absolute last thing that comes into my mind. i know there’s a lot of literature out there and unfortunately so much of it is copaganda.
part of me just wants to say “pffff l’antisémitisme” but then i’m falling for another trap.
Everyone is going to have their own moral code on that.
My personal belief is that violence is justified when used for defense, my definition of defending goes beyond mortal peril and into more abstract, i.e. health insurance ceo’s.
There’s too much literature at times, I feel some people get hung up on the who said what rather than the general concepts being discussed. I prefer less theory and more praxis.
right, in short is there a good impartial way to determine a priori whether use of force, especially use of lethal force, is ethical? see, i’m primarily an absurdist and use of force is the absolute last thing that comes into my mind. i know there’s a lot of literature out there and unfortunately so much of it is copaganda.
part of me just wants to say “pffff l’antisémitisme” but then i’m falling for another trap.
Everyone is going to have their own moral code on that.
My personal belief is that violence is justified when used for defense, my definition of defending goes beyond mortal peril and into more abstract, i.e. health insurance ceo’s.
There’s too much literature at times, I feel some people get hung up on the who said what rather than the general concepts being discussed. I prefer less theory and more praxis.