Maybe you would like to support your position here…?
To illustrate - using an extreme example:
Murder cannot be categorized as ‘good.’ The plot to kill Hitler was justified - though I concede Hitler was not an ‘innocent victim.’
Innocent victims die in war. This cannot be categorized as a ‘good’ thing, but the war itself may be a justifiable war. That said, unjustified acts or more simply ‘bad’ acts happen in justifiable wars and considered ‘war crimes.’
A method of determining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is to categorize acts as good or bad, then consider if they are justified. The method is; good/justified, bad/unjustified, good unjustified, bad justified. The last category is the one that gives rise to serious disagreements.
Yes, politicians on all sides are inevitably sinners. But I don’t get the impression that was the point you were making in this thread.
Again using the example of Hitler, we cannot assume every individual involved in the plot to kill Hitler was a ‘good’ person. Neither can we assume they were all ‘bad.’
I kinda hoped that you will modify that argument so that it would fit your position - of course, assuming it is sufficiently close to it…
For at the moment I am not entirely sure what your position actually is…
I would subscribe to the philosophy behind the French revolution and their objectives; disestablishment of absolute monarchy and an elite ruling class, liberty equality and fraternity, the establishment of a Republic and rule by the people for the people. This does not mean I agree with how they went about it, and the reign of terror was ‘good and justified.’
I am in favour of a United Ireland - this does not mean I think the IRA’s methods of achieving this objective was ‘good and justified.’ Nor does it mean I think everyone who desires a United Ireland is a ‘good’ person, everyone who does not and desires to remain in union with Britain is a ‘bad’ person, and all ‘British’ are ‘bad’ people. I agreed with the Anglo Irish Agreement, but I did not by any stretch of the imagination think Thatcher was a ‘good’ person, and can understand why unionists were outraged by the Anglo Irish Agreement in that it was imposed and in it was ultimately a diktat. Furthermore - a dictated peace will always be fragile. Consensual peace through consultation and agreement has a greater prospect of success, and less likely to require the use of military force to maintain.
In my view the philosophy behind the French revolution and political theories that developed offered an alternative to armed insurrection and the use of violence in response to oppression and injustice - but democratic resolution is a slow process that will inevitably involve making concessions, and revolutionaries are not renown for their patience, tolerance and constraint. This does not necessarily render their objectives ‘bad,’ but where the democratic process falters or fails they can difficult to control and deaf to the promptings of moderate leaders that results in uncontrolled armed insurrection, terror and violence.
On a final note Nelson Mandela justified the use of violence to end apartheid on the ground democratic mechanisms were not available and could not be accessed. Was he right? I don’t feel I would be sufficiently qualified to answer that, but in terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ I would categorize apartheid as ‘bad.’
