Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 So the historical setting is WWII in Canada or the US. Pretend you are a Japanese American or Canadian. You know yourself to be innocent of any crime. You own a home and work at a normal job. Then your assets are frozen and you are ordered to move into an internment camp. Is resistance moral? Resistance with force? Up to and including potentially deadly force? Or is no resistance whatsoever moral? I think this is an interesting subject, and I am looking forward to seeing some responses. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think whether or not you can use deadly force is dependent on whether or not the aggressors intend to kill you. Proportional response. But if you don't know? Resist, without deadly force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 You don't even have to go back to WW2. The same predicament is faced by people falsely convicted of a crime and imprisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think whether or not you can use deadly force is dependent on whether or not the aggressors intend to kill you. Proportional response. But if you don't know? Resist, without deadly force. My thought on this is that if you resist with any force, they escalate force in order to obtain compliance. The violence continues to escalate until you are forced to choose between complying, and using potentially deadly force. You don't even have to go back to WW2. The same predicament is faced by people falsely convicted of a crime and imprisoned. Funny how those things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I agree with the distinction of intent. If they intend to kill you, potentially deadly force is morally permissible (assuming all other forms of resistance are used first.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 Given how law enforcement operates, I think it is almost a foregone conclusion that any amount of resistance leads almost immediately to life or death resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) Given how law enforcement operates, I think it is almost a foregone conclusion that any amount of resistance leads almost immediately to life or death resistance. I still don't think anyone can rightly use deadly force without exhausting other options that don't lead to death (within reason.) So within this hypothetical situation, being that there is a small and finite amount of time to make a decision, if death occurred because of the force and resistance used, it would not be absolutely morally wrong assuming death wasn't the primary motive in and of itself. Morally illicit? Perhaps. Edited January 13, 2013 by tardis ad astra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 I still don't think anyone can rightly use deadly force without exhausting other options that don't lead to death (within reason.) So within this hypothetical situation, being that there is a small and finite amount of time to make a decision, if death occurred because of the force and resistance used, it would not be absolutely morally wrong assuming death wasn't the primary motive in and of itself. Morally illicit? Perhaps. I have no problem with assuming that one starts off with the intention of proportionate force. I simply think that the nature of the question guarantees that proportionate becomes potentially deadly. And of course we can assume that even while using potentially deadly force, that causing death is not intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I have no problem with assuming that one starts off with the intention of proportionate force. I simply think that the nature of the question guarantees that proportionate becomes potentially deadly. And of course we can assume that even while using potentially deadly force, that causing death is not intended. In that case I believe it is morally justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 I was considering offering a second poll question "To what extent would you personally have resisted, if at all?" But I think such a question may have distracted from the main issue. Obviously even if one considers that resistance up to and potentially including possibly lethal force, he is not thereby obliged to resist to that extent himself. Perhaps he has a family that would suffer enormously if he were killed, etc.. Interesting to think about though. Things like this have happened, even here where we consider ourselves more or less safe. Such situations may very well happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Yearning Heart Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 doesn't this assume that resistance with force of some kind is possible? In many circumstances resistance has been given (of the will), but given the circumstances (strength, numbers of people involved etc) has proven ineffectual in overcoming the original issue-like false arrest when innocent-so an arrest is made, a person is put in an internment camp, and so doesn't result in anyone dying-regardless of my intent to resist. Does the morality of intention of resistance with deadly force apply in that case? I intend to resist with deadly force, knowing that my own death may result, but am unable to resist to the point of it being a successful resistance? Sorry if that's a little jumbled-I'm still thinking on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The problem with resisting the will of a paranoid government is that the government will get even more paranoid, thinking you don't want to go because you have something to hide. I actually visited the site of an internment camp. Definitely not one of Mr. Roosevelt's brightest ideas. They could have at least given them decent housing. Instead they were living sometimes up to ten people a "house", which was in reality more of a tiny shack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 doesn't this assume that resistance with force of some kind is possible? In many circumstances resistance has been given (of the will), but given the circumstances (strength, numbers of people involved etc) has proven ineffectual in overcoming the original issue-like false arrest when innocent-so an arrest is made, a person is put in an internment camp, and so doesn't result in anyone dying-regardless of my intent to resist. Does the morality of intention of resistance with deadly force apply in that case? I intend to resist with deadly force, knowing that my own death may result, but am unable to resist to the point of it being a successful resistance? Sorry if that's a little jumbled-I'm still thinking on it. That basically sounds like the difference between resistance being just, and resistance being obligatory. I think it is entirely possible for resistance with force to be moral, or just, without being obligatory, so in other words one might have the right to resist, but choose not to exercise that right because of external factors. Or, now that I am thinking about it, external factors such as a dependent family may make it rather reckless or imprudent in a given situation to resist with force, but that is an issue not intrinsic to the question we are addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 That basically sounds like the difference between resistance being just, and resistance being obligatory. I think it is entirely possible for resistance with force to be moral, or just, without being obligatory, so in other words one might have the right to resist, but choose not to exercise that right because of external factors. Or, now that I am thinking about it, external factors such as a dependent family may make it rather reckless or imprudent in a given situation to resist with force, but that is an issue not intrinsic to the question we are addressing. It makes God sad when you ignore my glorious posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 It makes God sad when you ignore my glorious posts. So, moving on... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now