Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families'

[shirgall]

I'm an old fart,  definitely crazy to participate here, so no harm done.   Good luck to you all.

 

You don't think it was a productive conversation?

[Des]

I am uncertain that non-aggression is possible for any government, you as a citizen are taxed at a point of a gun as all conflicts at their root are land claims? You don't pay your taxes they will reclaim their land through their power.

It is not possible for a government to honestly offer non-aggression (though non-aggression pacts are a thing - they intend to mean this government won't start a war with that government).

So, yes, I want more people to recognise that governments are aggressive (by collecting tax, and in other ways), and that voluntary associations of people can honestly offer non-aggression for non-aggression, make the trade, stick to the deal, and get the benefit, for their voluntary members, of having a deal to which every person has made a commitment, in which each person has agreed to the remedies for aggressive acts.

[QE Infinity]

It's question about what is useful to some ends, and what are rights of other people.

If we consider value a subjective, then just killing other people as a revenge can be pleasurable in of itself. If the end is in further in future, such as to reduce terrorism, this can achieve the goal or not achieve it.

If we consider the rights of the people involved, the action might or might not be rightful.

An example of an situation, where one might consider violating rights of other person, is the life raft example. One could save his own life by murdering the owner of the life raft, that can only carry one person from the shipwreck. Or maybe the person can save his own life by only stealing few hundred dollars. Or maybe someone murders another person to get the few hundred dollars. These are all violations of rights, that should be compensated to the victim, but we would be more understanding for a guy who steals small amount to save his life, than guy who murders for the money. We can imagine any point between these two extremes and view this as an gradient. 

Regardless, if the targeting of the family is justified, one argument is, that it could reduce terrorist attacks. Other argument is, that it would actually increase them. We cannot disregard either one, and the results might vary by situation. Previous commentator said, that Israel targeting the physical buildings of the terrorists, has not been able to prevent attacks. However, this is not the only solution Israel has tried, and by not doing this, the terrorist attacks are still ongoing, so we have no empirical evidence to either way. What I have red about this policy, it did have some preventive power, but this is not something, that I can verify by myself.

An unjust action can provoke a violent response. If the people see the targeting of families as unjust, they could be agitated to revenge. But if we accept, that we should try to avoid the revenge of terrorists and constraining the military response, we have also proven, that threat of revenge can also be a constrain. If we are afraid of revenge, why wouldn't the terrorists be?

We usually value our own lives very high, and then we value the lives of our family, especially our children. We usually have some value to our local community, would it be our hometown, social circle, ideological group, etc.. These are people we would leave our heritage, and who we wish to prosper after we are gone. Those people usually have some value for us, at least if they expect some heritage. This would also be true if the heritage would be negative. We try to avoid things, that would endanger our children, family or local community after we are dead. If the danger would be a military response from the people one attacks, the attack would be less attractive option. Also if the family and neighbors would expect such attack against themselves, they would also be less motivated in encouraging anyone to such attack and more motivated in preventing it.

Historically such group punishment were the norm, because it has been proven usefully. Every Empire has used this tactics. The Romans took the children of barbarian chief as hostages to prevent any rebellion, so did Japanese Shoguns. If there was a rebellion the whole family was put to death, or in some cases saved, if the rebel leader committed suicide. If members of the family were left alive, they could (and did) stage another rebellion, and kill you and your family. The Arab conquest murdered whole tribes in conquered towns, so no resistance were left. When the Mongols invaded the Arab empire, they murdered whole towns, that did not surrender immediately and piled towers from their skulls to warn other. The town did not rebel again and the others wanted to avoid the same fate.

The ethical question if it is justified to kill the family members. The family can be involved in his crimes, and they can be considered as co-conspirators. Other view is, that they are hostages. In a hostage situation we don't want to kill the hostages, but if they die, the death is the responsibility of the criminal. This would also extend to any neighbors, that dies as "collateral damage" in a drone attack. However, if the terrorist is already dead, it would not make any sense to revenge to the hostages. If we know, that the people are all involved in some organization, that is doing terrorism, then the revenge would be justified. We can say there are places, where huge majority support violent terrorist organizations by vote or in other means(like acting as an voluntary human shields at military targets), so these would not be innocent people, but if there would be possibility of some innocent people being around them, so killing random people would not be justified. A family member might not know anything, if another is plotting an violent attack, so targeting them would not also be justified, even if it would be useful.

The ideas, of justice evolved as a tool, when we had opportunities for mutual cooperation. In war situation, there are not these opportunities, and observing rights of others, is only matter of our own integrity to live by our own values and our willingness to provide better life to other, by not maximizing our own well being. I don't think the situation is yet so bad, that we have to "take out their families".