RE: Re:virus: Combined post to Casey and Jonathan Davis.

From: Blunderov (
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 14:49:43 MDT

[Jonathan Davis0] [] Thu 2002/08/15 05:13 PM
<q> Self-defense is to be expected, it is not always right. It is not
always wrong to be an aggressor. </q>

Thank you for your reply. I notice that we are talking about "right
and wrong". I expect we will need to be careful about whether we mean
that legally or morally.

Would you care to elaborate on what particular circumstances justify
aggression and why?

[Jonathan Davis2]
Law enforcement for one.

aggression 1 A forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack)
esp. when intended to dominate or master 2: the practice of making
attacks or encroachments, esp unprovoked violation by one country of the
territorial integrity of another 3 hostile, injurious or destructive
behaviour or outlook esp when caused by frustration Merriam Webster.</q>

Law enforcement, as far as I am aware, is not supposed to be aggressive
in any of the above senses, Rodney King notwithstanding. The police are
not supposed to make arrests without some very well defined
provocations, ie that the suspect has himself very probably committed an
act of aggression in that he did violate the law.

I think that it is necessary to be clear that "aggressive" is different
to "robust" (which means vigorous, energetic).

[Jonathan Davis2]
Legitimate self-defence is another.

Again it seems to me that the example fails and for the same reason.
(I am also curious about what circumstances would render self-defence
"wrong". Or do they go together?)

[Jonathan Davis2]
Again, it has to do with circumstances. A paedophile defending himself
from a legitimate police squad trying to stop him raping a child is

This seems to be, in essence, the same argument as "law enforcement"
given above? Again the provocation was indeed present - an attack is
perpetrated on the child. The sworn defenders respond. Unless they are
excessive, they are not aggressive.

[Jonathan Davis2]
You might have gathered that the acts are not informed in and of

I'm afraid your meaning is not clear to me. Would you be so good as to
clarify it for me please?

Can we agree that central to the meaning of the word aggression is a
lack of (proper!) provocation?

In the case of Iraq, the world consensus seems to be that there is not
sufficient provocation, legally speaking, to justify an attack on Iraq.

The remaining question seems to be whether then can be said to be such a
thing as a "moral justification" for attacking another country. What do
you think?

Warm regards

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT