Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
How about you tell me where to look since I’m not your research arm?
And, again, I asked you about children. The fact that you keep pretending I’m not just indicates you’re discussing this in bad faith.
Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
You need to decide whether you’re talking about philosophy or law, because you keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Another way you are not here in good faith.
They heavily overlap.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
Children are civilians.
Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.
By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention “Palestinians” then they do not protect Palestinians.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.