The article explores the moral implications of targeted killings, particularly in the context of U.S. actions such as the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. While some argue that assassination is unjustifiable due to the immorality of killing, others suggest that certain situations could warrant such actions. The discussion highlights the pragmatic viewpoint that killing can be justified if beneficial, raising concerns about the implications of such an approach. The author also emphasizes that self-defense and retribution, often cited as justifications for assassination, are moral arguments that need careful ethical consideration.
The definition of 'assassination' can be debated, but it aims to achieve a political, economic, or ideological end and raises moral questions about its justification.
Assassination can be morally warranted in some cases, yet if all killing is deemed wrong, the issue settles that assassination is unjustifiable.
The pragmatic approach suggests that the U.S. should kill when advantageous, which presents a risk: if justified, then every nation can claim the same.
Self-defense and retribution are often used to justify assassination, but these too are moral justifications and demand ethical evaluation.
Collection
[
|
...
]