Democratic Responsibility For Violence (1 Viewer)

MarkK

bit cruncher
Local time
Today, 03:08
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
8,178
If a democracy initiates a war of aggression, invades a country on false pretexts, and kills tens of thousands of its citizens, and not only that, but the leader of that democracy is re-elected post invasion, to what degree are the individual citizens of the aggressive democracy morally culpable for the violence?

Is it morally wrong for agents of the invaded country to target citizens of the aggressor nation with violence? Should this violence, if and when it occurs, be deemed terrorism (and thereby morally wrong) to any greater or lesser degree than the acts perpetrated by the aggressor nation?

More specifically, and apart from any potentionally "right" objective, if it is deemed morally acceptable by Americans that Americans kill Iraqis, it is necessarily morally acceptable that Iraqis kill Americans. But which Americans is it morally acceptable for Iraqis to kill? Only soldiers? And if so, why only soldiers?

By what mechanism does a citizen of an aggressive democracy absolve himself of culpability in respect to violence done by his nation? If more citizens felt more acutely responsible in this respect, would the killing stop any sooner?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom