daveb said:
Then this morality is not absolute because you say there are situations where it IS morally acceptable to kill. You can't say a right to life is morally absolute unless you then say that this is absolute given the condition that it does not interfere with another's right to life. From there, you then have to examine those situations that are "grey" I'm sure if you ask a terrorist, they will say that their, or their children's life is in danger, and believe it.So, in these grey areas, who decides who is right.
No, there is only the appearence of contradiction. With moral absolutes, rights can be abrigated. If you intend to take the life of someone else, you abrigate the right to your own life. This is based more on existential phisosophy then traditionalism. Also, the ananlogy you used of a terrorist is faulty, because it doesn't matter what they say or beleive, the end result is the proof of right or wrong. Killing innocent people cannot be justified, because these people have done nothing to abrigate their own rights.
Second, and here the overlapping issues tend to make things appear relativistic, you do not have a right to take the law into your own hands. The government is the embodiement of the people, meant for the sole purpose to protect and support the society it is made of. Under this protection it has the sole right to punish wrongdoers. Therefore, you alone cannot kill someone who murdered your child, only the government has that power. However, if the government is unable to do its duty, such as the case where your child is about to be stabbed, that moral decision defaults to the only place available: you. You then, the only member of society, i.e. the government, have the ability to due its duty, so you have every right to do so. None of this is dependent on variables that cannot be defined; it is an absolute system that works.
I will grant you that there are several reasons to think that absolutism leads to "grey" areas and ends up as relative. However, absolutism is based in every way on the philosophy of dualism, and when ever there are two quantities the posibility of complexity increases exponentialy with everything there is. Consider, 1+1=2, then 2+1=3, and then 3+2=5, etc. With enough overlapping incidents, objects and time even something as simple as dualism can appear so complexly conveluted that it is easy to throw up your hands and declare it to impossible to be real, and adobt relativism.
So, back on topic, this theory of morrality would state that assissination is better, since it is aimed at the person who is causing harm. I would judge it on a case by case scenario though, balancing the actions of the victim against the results of his actions. If someone is actively harming other people, I see no reason why assassination, if it is the only option, should not be taken, since it leads to a greater good, while minimilizing the damage. After all, isn't it better that one guilty man die to improve the lives of others, rather then have innocents killed simply to make a point? That being said, I go back to my second paragraph with the rights of governments and citizens. An act of assassination can never, by inherent nature, fall under the rules of self-defense, so it cannot be placed in the hands of private citizens.
