Assassination

[Nihil Obstat]

While I was on vacation last week I had a stray though: is assassination ever morally permissible?

Take this discussion in whatever direction you want. I'm interested to see responses.

[txdinghysailor]

KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dominicansoul]

in extreme cases, such as stopping a tyrant bent on taking over the world and killing as many people as he can...(such as assasinating Hitler)...then yes...

but assasinating for some mundane reason as political power and money...then...no...

[Resurrexi]

[img]http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/0/Y/b/2/DeathofCaesar.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='04 January 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1262640860' post='2029624']
in extreme cases, such as stopping a tyrant bent on taking over the world and killing as many people as he can...(such as assasinating Hitler)...then yes...

but assasinating for some mundane reason as political power and money...then...no...
[/quote]
I don't really like that argument. To me it implies utilitarianism. You're talking about matters of degree. If assassination is permissible, then we'd need to look at something very objective to determine if it's moral in any particular circumstance.

[MIKolbe]

You may not do evil so good may come from it.

even if it is really, really evil for something really, really good.

But then, I am quite pedestrian that way.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Yes. It would be wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa the the willful taking of life is always wrong. To assassinate another is to will the killing of another. The reason just war is acceptable is because it is justly defending or fighting. One intends or wills to repel a force and threat, not to kill. Even in third world countries where capital punishment is permissible since they cannot safely lock someone away for life, capital punishment would be willing the defense of the society as a whole (which is the purpose of the penitential system-to protect society from criminals). This is different from assassination since there are other ways of removing a dictator or eliminating their influence (through trade embargo or aiding those who oppose him). However, to assassinate an individual is to will their removal but through willing their death through killing them. Thus the removal from power of a dictator can be removed from the willing their death. Therefore it must be done. The defense of life is a secondary purpose that is willed since it is not united to something like the penitential system with the sole purpose of the defense of society from criminals.
In the case of just war, the only way to defend society from an invading threat is to meet it with proportional means/force. Only in the context of war are chief leaders liable to be attacked (if one is fighting a war already) when they control the army and are causing the war and/or genocide. Civilians, however, should never be attacked since they are non-combatants.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Nihil Obstat]

What if one were to argue that they were acting out of defense of others by assassinating some very evil person? Not immediate defense, as in the guy isn't imminently about to murder someone, but somewhat more removed, as in he's certainly going to order the murder of some people in the very near and foreseeable future?

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 January 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1262646027' post='2029671']
What if one were to argue that they were acting out of defense of others by assassinating some very evil person? Not immediate defense, as in the guy isn't imminently about to murder someone, but somewhat more removed, as in he's certainly going to order the murder of some people in the very near and foreseeable future?
[/quote]

That doesn't work though because the evil dictator dude isn't directly threatening you or people around you. You can kill someone if he's trying to kill you right then. That's why soldiers can shoot bad guys. But you can't kill some dude just cuz you [i]think[/i] that he's gonna do some bad stuff.

But if you are looking for an assassin, my hatchet is very sharp...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='04 January 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1262647567' post='2029679']
That doesn't work though because the evil dictator dude isn't directly threatening you or people around you. You can kill someone if he's trying to kill you right then. That's why soldiers can shoot bad guys. But you can't kill some dude just cuz you [i]think[/i] that he's gonna do some bad stuff.

But if you are looking for an assassin, my hatchet is very sharp...
[/quote]
Well what is direct, really? What if you can be sure beyond and reasonable doubt that tomorrow a dictator is going to order the murder of 100 innocents? There's a physical difference, but is there really a moral one?

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 January 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1262647757' post='2029682']
Well what is direct, really? What if you can be sure beyond and reasonable doubt that tomorrow a dictator is going to order the murder of 100 innocents? There's a physical difference, but is there really a moral one?
[/quote]

But he might die of natural causes before he orders the murder. Or he might have a huge conversion, which is not unheard of.

Edited January 4, 2010 by txdinghysailor

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='04 January 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1262647889' post='2029684']
But he might die of natural causes before he orders the murder. Or he might have a huge conversion, which is not unheard of.
[/quote]
Same could be said in a case of a direct threat too. The chances are just smaller.

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 January 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1262648003' post='2029686']
Same could be said in a case of a direct threat too. The chances are just smaller.
[/quote]

if there's a dude shooting at me i'm gonna shoot him dead. i think there's a big difference.

[Jesus_lol]

But soldiers rarely walk into dangerous situations and wait until theyare actually being shot at to start shooting back. taking the first, or the last shot, neither are neccessarily damning or redeeming.

and assasination is the targeted killing of a generally public figure. i see no reason it is intrinsically better than less targeted killing of normal people, such as soldiers often do.

[CatherineM]

I just keep thinking about what my dad said about the men he had killed in the war. He said he didn't regret doing it, he only regretted that it was necessary. That's with guys in uniforms shooting at each other who know that they are targets as well. The problem I have with the idea of assassination, is that it is based on someone's personal opinion about another human being. There are people who seriously believe that the Pope's opposition to condoms have killed multitudes by AIDS. Would it have been okay for that person to have assassinated John Paul?