Are assassinations ever acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaccheus said:
No. There has to be more reason than “he has power. It’s possible for him to do evil.”
Click to expand...
But to literally think someone out of existence is a very terrifying power to have for a human being. What if such a person had a uncontrollable anger or mental illness and could not control it? I think, besides the moral question, people would try to kill such a person just because of the tremendous power of it.

But i guess that doesn’t mean that’s the moral thing to do.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
But to literally think someone out of existence is a very terrifying power to have for a human being to have. I think, besides the moral question, people would try to kill such a person just because of the tremendous power of it.
Click to expand...
The power to kill is always terrifying to the people on the receiving end. I’m not less dead if you use a rifle than if you use this hypothetical power.

Some people might try to murder the ‘thinker’ just because they’re afraid.
But your question was whether it could be justified.

I say it cannot be justified unless the ‘thinker’ actually begins killing people.
 
Just War theory doesn’t stop with the declaration of war. Not only must one go to war for just reasons, but one must also act justly in the conduct of the war. Not every military action is morally justified merely because the overall cause is just. So assassination has to be judged as a method even in the context of a just war. And Catholic moral theology doesn’t operate on a solely consequentialist basis, so “Fewer people will die if we do it this way” is not, by itself, an automatic justification.
 
I understand, but the point is that when the assassination is part of a war we start down the entire path of thinking you just mentioned, starting with whether the war is just, and then is it a just act in the conduct of the war, etc.
It’s not an assassination standing in a vacuum which would be judged by a different standard.
 
Most Christian churches, including ours, have made their peace with Christian participation in war, yes.

Childoftheday is a Friend, what others sometimes call a Quaker. They have never joined in that particular cultural acquiescence.
 
Last edited:
Salmonslayer said:
Why is it better for 10k men to die fighting on a battlefield than for 1 man to drink a poisoned tea and stop the deaths of 10k soldiers?
Click to expand...
Some people base morality on utilitarian principles, or on consequentialism, but I don’t believe that is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
 
Last edited:
Assassination happens in the Bible I know that.

Read in Judges 3 about Ehud assassinating the Moabite king Eglon.

He tells him “I have a word of God for you o King” then pulls out a dagger and drives it into his gut, then locks the door and runs away.
 
however. God Bless!
[/quote]

Your argument is flawed because Germany was not engaged in a Just War. The Allies were engaged in a Just War against the Axis, but the Axis Powers were not engaged in a just war.

Therefore, Hitler would NOT have been morally able to assassinate anyone.
 
I also have a question for @(name removed by moderator)

Was Ehud’s assassination of King Eglon which Scripture approvingly recounts immoral and/or cowardly?
 
Last edited:
I think it’s legitimate to say that Hitler was always in that state of conflict after the war began.
 
phil19034 said:
Germany was not engaged in a Just War.
Click to expand...
Many Germans and others thought that the Versailles treaty was an unjust treaty and that it was just for them to take back the land which had been unjustly taken from them. Was it just for the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses? Was it just for the US to drop the atomic bomb and murder thousands of children? Was it just for the US to invade Vietnam and kill so many children, setting them on fire with napalm? you are going to have people arguing on both sides which means that it is not clearcut as to whether or not a war is just. Was it just for the US to back the Taliban in Afghanistan when Russia was fighting them, and then when Russia left, the US switched positions and fought against the Taliban? Was it just for the US to support the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran? Some say yes, others say no.
There was a whole lot wrong with what Germany did of course. But did the US and the allies fight WWII according to the principles of how to fight a war justly? Was the bombing of Dresden something that is seen to be in accord with the principles of waging a just war?
Under principles of consequentialism, there can be little doubt that it would have been a lot better to have Hitler and his gang assassinated well before the start of WWII. But my understanding is that Catholicism does not believe in basing morality on consequentialism. And as far as the just war theory goes, it is taught in an ivory tower since it is difficult to come to a consensus as to whether or not a given war going on at the time is just or not. I don’t see too many theologians coming out and saying point blank, the war we are now engaged in is an unjust war and Catholics should not participate in it.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
Germany was not engaged in a Just War.
Click to expand...
Many Germans and others thought that the Versailles treaty was an unjust treaty and that it was just for them to take back the land which had been unjustly taken from them. Was it just for the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses? Was it just for the US to drop the atomic bomb and murder thousands of children? Was it just for the US to invade Vietnam and kill so many children, setting them on fire with napalm? you are going to have people arguing on both sides which means that it is not clearcut as to whether or not a war is just. Was it just for the US to back the Taliban in Afghanistan when Russia was fighting them, and then when Russia left, the US switched positions and fought against the Taliban? Was it just for the US to support the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran? Some say yes, others say no.
There was a whole lot wrong with what Germany did of course. But did the US and the allies fight WWII according to the principles of how to fight a war justly? Was the bombing of Dresden something that is seen to be in accord with the principles of waging a just war?
Under principles of consequentialism, there can be little doubt that it would have been a lot better to have Hitler and his gang assassinated well before the start of WWII. But my understanding is that Catholicism does not believe in basing morality on consequentialism. And as far as the just war theory goes, it is taught in an ivory tower since it is difficult to come to a consensus as to whether or not a given war going on at the time is just or not. I don’t see too many theologians coming out and saying point blank, the war we are now engaged in is an unjust war and Catholics should not participate in it.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you are arguing a strawman. I NEVER argued that that the Iraq War was a just war (I voted for George W. Bush, but was NOT in support of our war against Iraq - if I remember correctly Pope John Paul II called it an unjust war)

I also never argued that Vietnam was a just war. And I surely never argued that dropping the nuke on Japan was just.

What I said, Germany was NOT in a just war during World War II. Rarely can it be argued that starting a war is ever just.

However, I also did not say that the Allies committed zero horrific actions during the war. I feel bombing civilian targets is not just.

The United States is not a Catholic nation, and doesn’t always act 100% according to the Just War principle. Luckily for me, I’m not in the US Military and not a US politician, who needs to directly wrestle with these decisions.

Regardless - Germany was not waging a just war. Perhaps some individuals did think they were just, but objectively, it was a very unjust war.

God Bless
 
When you are talking about a war, the commander in chief and his lieutenants are always a fair target.

Traditionally during war, the kings and nobles were right on the battlefield and always stood a chance of being killed at any time and any number were indeed killed, wounded or captured during major and minor battles.

The fact that modern commanders in chief are in the White House or fuhrer bunker giving commands and directing the festivities doesn’t mean that they are “non-combatants” and shouldn’t be targeted by the enemy.
 
ChristMyLife said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
slavery, prostitution, child sacrifice, lewd drunkenness, and crucifixion
Click to expand...
The difference is those are not recounted approvingly.
Click to expand...
Does the Bible " recount approvingly" assassination as a general principle? Ehud killed King Eglon. That does not mean we have blanket permission to kill kings.
 
Pacifists don’t. However, it is a very reasonable argument that they are unwilling to defend the defenseless. the Just War Theory is still accepted by the Catholic Church.
 
If you are going to justify assassinations, you are giving the green light to countries such as Saudi Arabia which can use such excuses to assassinate those that they consider to be terrorists. They can take the position that a journalist might be a terrorist because of his writings and his previous associations.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/10/14/576947/Saudi-Jamal-Khashoggi-Donald-Trump-Jr
Is it justified to assassinate terrorists?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top