Skip to main content

Feser: "Sheer sophistry..That a civilian says evil things or sympathizes with evil acts does not magically transform him into a non-civilian or make him a legitimate target of military action..just war principles"

Post

Conversation

Edward Feser
@FeserEdward
What follows is not a comment on current Israeli military action, because I have not followed it closely. It is a comment about the commentary on recent events. I keep seeing too many people, rightly appalled by Hamas’s wicked and utterly unjustifiable attack, expressing the judgement that just any old thing Israel might decide to do in retaliation would be justifiable, and “really” Hamas’s fault – as if, once an aggressor attacks, there are no moral rules governing what sort of retaliation might be inflicted. This attitude is not only irrational, it is evil. It is the same warped thinking that leads terrorists like Hamas to rationalize the murder of babies and other civilians. Related to it is loose talk about what “they” did and what might therefore be done to “them” – as if what can be said about what Hamas has done can be applied to Palestinians in general. This is sheer sophistry. And it is irrelevant to the present point that some Palestinians sympathize with Hamas’s attack. That a civilian says evil things or sympathizes with evil acts does not magically transform him into a non-civilian or make him a legitimate target of military action. Yes, just war principles can be difficult to apply in certain circumstances, especially when evildoers use civilians as shields, etc. But it is one thing to have to muddle through in figuring out how to apply just war principles, and quite another to throw them out altogether.
114K
Views

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more