This, I think.
toldailytopic: At what point is a revolution justified? (what is the moral criteria)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
This, I think.
Never.
That is kind of like asking why is it never OK to steal.
Property laws exist for a reason. When people steal, they act against proper ownership.
Because government authority exists for a reason. When people rebel, they act against proper authority.
What about when the government steals and is lawless?
Say you are a 12-year-old at the park and you see a family you do not know.
Are you justified in stealing a boy in that family's toy after seeing him hit his sister?
Not analogous. Say you are in China, and government has taken your pregnant wife and is going to murder the unborn baby. That man is justified in using deadly force against the government to stop them. Absolutely and without question.
I never inferred stealing anything from anyone, what I did ask pertaining the question "at what point is revolution ever justified?" Is whether revolution is justified when the government steals and is lawless against the people. Are the people ever justified in their revolt in this circumstance? You say the people are never justified [or at least that is what I thought you inferred], I am positing possible justification or circumstance in which it is justified. After all the United States as well as many other nations came to be by just such circumstances, were these actions by the people never justified?
Define 'steals' and 'is lawless'.
If you get mugged are you justified in killing that person to protect your wallet?
Absolutely! How do I know my wallet is all he is after?
I think it is. In both cases there is the concept of proper authority that cannot be undone from below.
Against the murderer, not the government. He is justified in doing what it takes to protect his child, but he is not justified in attempting to overthrow the government.
Though there are means by which he could become involved in action, including the use of force, to unseat his government, he is not justified in attempting to usurp it himself.
However, this discussion just entered the realms of fantasy because once the man has taken the right course of action in the scenario you presented he would almost certainly be killed.
I was hoping my analogy would answer your question.
My stance is rock-solid. There exists a concept called government. When a government has been established over an area of land, the citizens under its control are not justified in overthrowing it regardless of the government's actions.
Dude, quit hijacking the thread. :nono:
Yes because the person has put you in a position to fear for your life. After all, if someone would willing mug you, it is entirely possible that they would make sure you cannot report them.
If he shows intention to take more (i.e. your life) then you could act accordingly, but until he does?
Then the colonists that overthrew the Kings rule to establish a new government in these United States, by the people, and for the people were just usurpers? They were not justified in their action to break their bonds? If this is your position I have to disagree.
OK.
If someone attempts to take anything from me by force [mugging], I have no way of knowing my wallet is all he is after and I would not wait to find out in this case nor would I restrain myself from taking his life to find out his intentions.
As far as I understand the general situation of the time, the king was in England and the Americans were sorting out what they wanted to have in the land they had moved to.
He sent in his troops and lost.
I'm sure there are finer details where my concept of proper government would have said certain actions by Americans were unjustified, but generally speaking, I don't believe that.
If the case had been that your government's history was defined by a rebellion, say as in France, would you still defend its actions?
The American revolution was a rebellion, the established government in the land which is now the United States was under the Kings rule. The colonists rebelled against the King & his government overthrew it and established a new one. I believe it was a just action, as I also believe one mans rebel is anothers patriot.
...against a king in another land.
I would not use the word "rebellion" to describe it.
- Status