Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. – Sam Harris.
This is a dangerous quote from Mr.Harris because it muddles the line between action and intent. How can there be any sort of dialogue when one faction can be singled out for death for nothing that they have done, but their beliefs.
Consider how easy it would be for opponents of US policy to follow this same doctrine – would they too be taking ethical action?
Harris, in this context, is not adding clarity to the complex problem of the interaction of secular and religious ideals.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
January 31, 2015 at 6:17 am
Steve Ruis
So, if someone truly and deeply believed that you were the Devil and would not stop until he had killed you, you would not try to stop him first, possibly by killing him, either by yourself or with the aid of officials of the government?
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 31, 2015 at 8:23 am
The Arbourist
@Steven Ruis
If a person had clearly stated that and had taken action against me, I most certainly would try to stop him or her.
However, would I sanction killing swaths of people because they purportedly believe in “x”. I would not.
More to the point, should people who believe that your intentions are an imminent threat to them be allowed to take you out preemptively? State capitalism is a clear and present danger to the world and its inhabitants – why shouldn’t adherents and people who benefit from this clearly toxic system be purged with extreme prejudice…?
The US has “run” kill lists of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. The people targeted need now only to conform to a terrorist ‘profile’ – no identification required, just “if it sounds like a duck…” is all the justification needed to bring a hellfire missile their way.
The policy is not working. Nor can it be viewed in any way as being ethical or moral.
So, how many people should be sentenced to death because their beliefs threaten your security? And will killing them and their families improve your security in the medium to long term?
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 31, 2015 at 9:29 am
tnt666
And I think that is precisely the problem here. We are reaching a period in history when we come to realise that our system does not work, that Gandhi’s peace attitude was a lie, that pacifism is a lie, that humans have always fought for all of history, and that as human governments INSIST that humanity must continue to grow even though we are the most populous mammal on the planet, more so than mice and rats, and that the more humans there are the more wars for resources (because it’s ALWAYS ultimately about resources) will occur, even when we don’t call them wars.
That the pacifists were all killed before they changed the world, because it is impossible to stop war, specially with ever increasing population.
So the point is not our religious disdain for death, but of which will die first, or more to the point, who will survive. It’s not that they’re “wrong” and we are “right”, it’s that the advance of Islam is a clear and present danger to women and secularism. And I CHOSE my side, I am with women and secularism.
Pacifism is handing the family jewels to the aggressor.
LikeLike
January 31, 2015 at 10:21 am
The Arbourist
@tnt666
I am also no fan of religious delusional behaviour. I do choose secular values over religious ones. My choices though do not justify the murder of people based on what they *might* do, nor should they.
LikeLike
January 31, 2015 at 11:46 am
marcdhall
Seems there are a couple of problems with the idea. For one beliefs arent a thing that people have, nor are they something we can access. You cant know what people believe, only what they do. Secondly anything can be ethical if you allow any hypothietical situation. In real life its practically impossible to imagine a situation in which killing is the only option and in which their beliefs are the only variable you have access to (if someone is trying to kill you then their beliefs are irrelavent). And if its moral to kill then its more moral not to. So, like a lot of moral landscape, its valid in abstract but cant really be mapped into reality.
LikeLike