I think the key point to remember here is that your enemy intends to attack you and will do so regardless of your actions. I see no moral failure in striking down someone who is acting in an effort to harm me and my loved ones.
Societies only functions because of shared values allow various factions to comprise through common goals. We can't even agree on reality, such as the definition of woman. Conflict is inevitable, and there is no reason to consider the other side's viewpoint outside of tactical necessity.
No, the correct response to such an attack is to kill the people attacking you.
There is an interesting avenue of moral philosophy to pursue.
If the only possible means of self-defense is a pre-emptive strike, do you have the moral standing to attack first?
I suppose there has been a similar line of inquiry during the MAD days, but even those would be more akin to simultaneous attacks than pre-emptive.
I think the key point to remember here is that your enemy intends to attack you and will do so regardless of your actions. I see no moral failure in striking down someone who is acting in an effort to harm me and my loved ones.
The scary part is when you apply that line of reasoning to percieved, imagined, or otherwise invented threats.
"Of course the Conservatives are going to murder gays and rape women! That's why we need to kill them now!"
Just food for thought.
Societies only functions because of shared values allow various factions to comprise through common goals. We can't even agree on reality, such as the definition of woman. Conflict is inevitable, and there is no reason to consider the other side's viewpoint outside of tactical necessity.
A counter point with some merit, but I would posit that the Left already holds that stance and just hasn't started openly bloodletting yet.