1) Is it becasue there is initiation of aggression and therefore it isnt morally right?
(If this is the case please elaborate the actual initiation of aggression, as I am in agreement with you that only initiations of aggression are immoral, but fail to see how this is an instance of an initiation of aggression.)
2) Or is there no initiation of agression yet you still maintain that it was still not morally right for reasons besides initiating aggression?
(If this is the case please elabroate on your definition of morality that defines actions as being immoral that don't involve initiations of aggression, as I don't know that I agree that such a thing is possible.)
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators o