Was the IRA's war morally right?

[psychocheeseman]

But not all civilians vote for the candidates who support such actions, not all civilians vote at all, and some of them simply cannot vote. So I don't really understand how civilians should take a part of the blame for what their elected officials do. That's like saying I deserve part of the blame for George W. Bush, when 1) I couldn't vote in the 2004 election, and 2) I wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Like i said man, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. perhaps some could arguue that there is collective responsibility? or even so, if some civilians are indeed innocent, the majority are not (due to majority rule democracy)

Those that did not vote for the government would be merely collateral damage...or as Bin Laden once referred to them, regrettable but necessary casulties. (paraphrased from memory, but it was in reference to any innocent people on the planes of 9/11, although i think he may have been referring to any innocent muslims on the planes, which he assumed would be in heaven anyway...)

Obviously, it is misplaced blame (or is it?) and it is a hideously callous act to kill, but you can see the remnants of logic behind such actions. WE all benefit, however unwillingly, from the results of exploitative actions around the world, and we are, in a very small respect, in some way a part of them.

 

[Kelly]

Well I guess I meant the "natural law," as defined by Locke and universally accepted by most of the Western world.

That is going to be a tough one to consider.....

What about Rousseau?

 

[The Senator]

That is going to be a tough one to consider.....

What about Rousseau?

I think Rousseau's theories apply here, to an extent. Those in Northern Ireland essentially have to conform to the laws set by the British to ensure a mutual existence. And in that sense, that's where I believe the IRA is wrong, by deliberately disobeying the law and causing chaos among innocent British civilians who had very little to do with the conflict itself. But at the same time, I believe that Locke holds true, that all men have the right to life and liberty, and the cause of the IRA is noble. However, the terrorism angle does not boost their cause, because they are denying others the rights they themselves seek. I feel that the IRA should work within the confines of the law in order to achieve their goals; but, I still attest that no man who contributed to the denial of the rights of others should have a position in government.

 

[Kelly]

I think Rousseau's theories apply here, to an extent. Those in Northern Ireland essentially have to conform to the laws set by the British to ensure a mutual existence. And in that sense, that's where I believe the IRA is wrong, by deliberately disobeying the law and causing chaos among innocent British civilians who had very little to do with the conflict itself. But at the same time, I believe that Locke holds true, that all men have the right to life and liberty, and the cause of the IRA is noble. However, the terrorism angle does not boost their cause, because they are denying others the rights they themselves seek. I feel that the IRA should work within the confines of the law in order to achieve their goals; but, I still attest that no man who contributed to the denial of the rights of others should have a position in government.

I'll come up with another one later.....

I gotta actually work on the lectures I'm doing next week.......

 

[psychocheeseman]

I think Rousseau's theories apply here, to an extent. Those in Northern Ireland essentially have to conform to the laws set by the British to ensure a mutual existence.

That's more legal positivism than natural law, in which case, what cause of action does a group of people have in response top discriminatory laws? For example, if the British had disallowed breeding or made religious worship illegal, would you say the Irish Had to obey those laws to ensure mutual existence? how far would you let that continue?

And in that sense, that's where I believe the IRA is wrong, by deliberately disobeying the law and causing chaos among innocent British civilians who had very little to do with the conflict itself. But at the same time, I believe that Locke holds true, that all men have the right to life and liberty, and the cause of the IRA is noble. However, the terrorism angle does not boost their cause, because they are denying others the rights they themselves seek.

Well Said Sir!

 

[The Senator]

That's more legal positivism than natural law, in which case, what cause of action does a group of people have in response top discriminatory laws? For example, if the British had disallowed breeding or made religious worship illegal, would you say the Irish Had to obey those laws to ensure mutual existence? how far would you let that continue?

We weren't talking about natural law, we were talking about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who essentially said that man in his natural state is anarchic and uses laws to assure mutual co-operation.

And as I said, below in that post, I believe that citizens have the right, under both Rousseau and Locke, to question authority, but to only do so in a way which conforms to the laws set. They should bargain, protest, and do everything that they can within the limits of the law to ensure mutual co-operation. Never is it justified to kill another man or disrupt social order with violence. And the sentence I just typed, I think, applies to both Rousseau and Locke: With Rousseau, you must abide by the law; with Locke, you must not deny the natural rights of life and liberty to others. These philosophers are different, but they cross paths every so often.

 

[kainedamo]

so jmanspice, how would you have solved the situation here if you were in charge?