The Ethics of Assassination: A Ukraine War Live Stream Discussion
🤖
This summary has been produced automatically by an AI Large Language Model (LLM) without any human intervention. Whilst every effort has been made to prompt the LLM to produce accurate output, there may be inconsistencies, inaccuracies or hallucinations!
Table of Contents 📖
"If I'm going to use Doris again, Doris's house is attacked by Ivan. He comes in. He ransacks the house. It is acceptable for Doris to punch him full in the face... But it's not acceptable for him to do that to Doris... That's not double standards. That is because he is the aggressor. He is the one that's fully in the wrong, and she is defending her house and her sovereignty and her safety."
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:32⏩
- Jonathan introduces the topic of morality, referencing his background as a philosopher and author of books like "Why I am Atheist and Not a Theist," which explores knowledge, meaning, and morality in a godless world.
- He admits he's a bit "rusty" on philosophy specifics due to his focus on geopolitics but will delve into it tonight.
Introduction: Assassination vs Targeted Killings
🎦 00:32-01:15⏩
- The discussion will focus on assassination, or more accurately, "targeted killings."
- The topic arose from recent events and a subsequent viewer comment on a video reporting those events.
- Jonathan clarifies he didn't offer a firm moral stance in the previous video but highlighted the grey areas, referencing ideas he intended to discuss further.
Viewer Comment: Accusation of Immorality and Double Standards
🎦 01:15-02:21⏩
- Jonathan shares a viewer comment (from 'Jantzak') accusing his logic of being "very wrong and immoral."
- The commenter suggests Jonathan's logic would imply Russia could assassinate Western politicians, CEOs, or ordinary citizens helping Ukraine.
- The commenter dislikes double standards and believes something wrong is wrong regardless of which side commits it.
- Jonathan believes the comment is made in good faith but reiterates he didn't cast "steadfast moral proclamations" or "hardcore opinions" in the original video, merely pointing out complexities. Tonight's video aims to explore these issues properly.
Examples: Major General Moskalik and EW Designer Rytikov Killed in Russia
🎦 02:21-04:06⏩
- Jonathan outlines the recent events that sparked the discussion:
- Major General Yaroslav Moskalik: Killed in a targeted car bomb in Russia, away from the war zone. He was clearly military personnel with influence on the war, essentially a combatant (though not actively combating at the time).
- Mr Rytikov (Designer of Krasukha EW system): Killed by a car explosion in Bryansk around the same time (April 17th-18th). He headed a design bureau at an electromechanical plant. Jonathan assumes he was not military personnel but was involved in work directly concerning the war (designing EW systems potentially leading to Ukrainian deaths or protecting Russian soldiers). This raises questions about whether this constitutes an assassination or targeted killing, and the justification for extrajudicial killing.
Example: Daria Dugina Car Bombing and Alexander Dugin
🎦 04:06-05:16⏩
- Jonathan brings up the case of Daria Dugina, daughter of Alexander Dugin ("ultra-nationalist genocidal advocate," Russian philosopher whose thinking underwrites Putin's worldview).
- Dugina was killed in a car bomb in Russia. She shared similar views to her father.
- The working theory is that the bomb, potentially a targeted killing attempt, was meant for Alexander Dugin himself, but they had swapped cars.
- Jonathan notes Dugina was also involved in promoting "distasteful opinions" and could be seen as somewhat culpable.
Philosophical Underpinnings: Morality as a Human Construct (Conceptual Nominalism)
🎦 05:16-09:14⏩
- To discuss justification, one must engage with moral philosophy.
- Jonathan explains his stance as a conceptual nominalist: abstract ideas like morality don't exist "out there" objectively. They are concepts constructed in our minds.
- If sentient life didn't exist, morality wouldn't exist. It requires beings capable of conceiving moral concepts.
- We construct morality, form societies, rules, and laws based on agreed-upon concepts.
- Different laws in different countries and times show moral subjectivity. There might be core rules, but disagreement persists.
- Objective morality (existing independently of minds) is denied by Jonathan. Morality exists "in here," we argue about it, and laws change to reflect societal consensus (or dictatorial decree).
- Governmental structures (democracy vs dictatorship) and judicial systems (independent vs part of government) influence how moral concepts are enacted as law.
Distinguishing Law from Morality
🎦 09:14-10:38⏩
- Law is a societal proclamation based on morality, but individuals can morally disagree with existing laws.
- Example: One might find a law (e.g., related to immigration enforcement under a specific administration) legally valid but morally wrong.
- In democracies, people ideally vote for representatives who align with their moral and legal views to change laws through democratic processes, hopefully reflected by the judiciary (e.g., Supreme Court).
Overview of Moral Theories: Deontology, Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics
🎦 10:38-18:23⏩
- Jonathan notes philosophers remain divided on morality after millennia, supporting his view against clear objective morality.
- Even if objective morality existed, an epistemic barrier prevents us from knowing it definitively. We still have to construct moral frameworks subjectively.
- Three broad moral frameworks (with many variations):
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Some philosophers (like Richard Carrier) argue these frameworks might ultimately converge.
- Jonathan reiterates his moral scepticism: objective morality doesn't exist; we construct it mentally through argument and reasoning.
Moral Scepticism, Grey Areas, and Human Discomfort with Uncertainty
🎦 18:23-19:30⏩
- Jonathan reaffirms his belief that morality exists in our minds and we must agree on it through reasoned argument.
- He admits uncertainty about his own exact stance on targeted killings, emphasising the importance of acknowledging grey areas in morality.
- Humans struggle psychologically with uncertainty and grey areas, preferring black-and-white thinking (good/bad, right/wrong). This discomfort will be relevant to the discussion.
Channel Thanks and Live Chat Acknowledgment
🎦 19:30-20:32⏩
- Jonathan thanks viewers for joining and acknowledges their continued engagement.
- He specifically thanks Jonny Christensen for a Super Thanks on a previous video.
- He postpones addressing live questions/Super Chats until after presenting the main content.
- Thanks the live chat participants in advance.
- Briefly touches on Virtue Ethics (mentioned in Topic 8 summary).
Recap: Subjectivity of Morality, Grey Areas, and Logic
🎦 20:32-21:16⏩
- Jonathan summarises his starting point:
- There will be grey areas.
- There are no objective moral truths independent of minds.
- The only potential route to objective morality would be if logic itself existed objectively, outside human minds (a complex philosophical debate he avoids delving into).
International Law (e.g., Geneva Convention) vs Moral Disagreement
🎦 21:16-22:49⏩
- Moralising and legalising are distinct; one can disagree morally with the law.
- International laws like the Geneva Conventions represent consensus agreed upon by certain groups at a specific time, not objective, immutable facts.
- It's valid to question or disagree with aspects of international law (e.g., the Geneva Convention), provided the disagreement is based on rational justification, not just intuition.
- These laws are useful rules of thumb but may need fine-tuning or might not perfectly apply in every situation.
Just War Theory and its Application to the Russia-Ukraine War
🎦 22:49-24:34⏩
- War itself is essentially state-level mass murder. Can it be justified?
- Just War Theory (e.g., from Thomas Aquinas) provides conditions for justifying war, particularly defensive wars.
- Applying this to Ukraine:
- Ukraine: Fighting a just war defensively against invasion, preventing genocide, torture, and destruction. Morally justified.
- Russia: Actions are genocidal, horrific, morally unconscionable, and totally unjustified as the aggressor.
Defining Combatants: From the Battlefield to Rear Areas
🎦 24:34-26:15⏩
- On the battlefield, soldiers killing each other is accepted warfare, not typically considered extrajudicial killing under international law (like the Geneva Convention).
- The concept extends beyond direct sightlines, e.g., artillery hitting a command post further back is still accepted killing within the theatre of war.
- What about hitting military personnel 200 miles back, involved in the war machine but not on the front line? Example: Major General Moskalik killed in Russia – Jonathan suggests this seems justifiable as he's part of the war machine.
Targeting Politicians: The Hitler Example and Moral Responsibility
🎦 26:15-28:18⏩
- The discussion moves to targeting non-soldiers, specifically politicians like Hitler.
- Even if considered a politician (not a soldier), Hitler directed the army causing mass death.
- Jonathan argues killing Hitler (a politician) would likely be justified from a consequentialist perspective, potentially saving far more lives than killing a single soldier on the front line.
- Politicians making the decisions might bear more responsibility than the soldiers carrying them out.
- Raises the "killing Hitler as a baby" time travel dilemma, highlighting how context and certainty drastically change moral calculations.
Preventative vs Reactive Assassination: Hitler Attempts (1939 vs 1944)
🎦 28:18-30:00⏩
- Preventative Assassination: Acting before harm occurs based on prediction.
- Example: Georg Elser's 1939 assassination attempt on Hitler. Elser feared Hitler would start a devastating war. Was it justified at the time, given the uncertainty? Retrospectively, knowing what Hitler did, it seems more justified. How certain must one be about future predictions?
- Reactive Assassination: Acting after harm has occurred or is ongoing.
- Example: The 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler (by Stauffenberg et al.). Justification seems stronger as Hitler's atrocities were known.
- This distinction highlights the difficulty of justifying actions based on uncertain future events.
Collateral Damage, Consequentialism, and Proportionality (Hiroshima Example)
🎦 30:00-31:39⏩
- Consequentialism raises the question: Is it ever justified to kill innocent people to save more lives? (Trolley problem variant).
- Example: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was killing tens of thousands of civilians justified to potentially end the war and prevent even greater casualties? How certain were the decision-makers of this outcome?
- Collateral Damage: What level is acceptable when targeting someone like Hitler in a public place (e.g., a beer hall)? Killing 20 innocents to get Hitler?
- Warfare frameworks allow hitting military targets in cities if efforts are made to mitigate collateral damage. But where is the line? How many innocent deaths are too many (2, 10, 50, 100)?
- There's no objective answer; it's a fuzzy area where people will disagree.
Terminology: Targeted Killing vs Assassination vs Extrajudicial Killing
🎦 31:39-35:35⏩
- Jonathan refers to Seamus Miller's work ("Shooting to Kill").
- Definitions are imprecise and subjective:
- Targeted Killing: A controversial practice.
- Extrajudicial Killing: Implies unlawfulness; carried out by state operatives without due process (fair trial). Killing another human is generally morally wrong, and extrajudicial killing adds the violation of judicial procedure.
- Assassination: Typically unlawful, often distinguished from targeted killing.
- Key Distinction: Targeted killing is not necessarily extrajudicial or unlawful.
- Example: Targeted killing of enemy military commanders in wartime is generally considered lawful and morally permissible.
Who is a Legitimate Target? Weapon Designers, Politicians, Factory Workers
🎦 35:35-41:19⏩
- When does targeted killing become extrajudicial and unlawful?
- Example revisited: The Russian EW systems designer (Rytikov). If he's knowingly developing weapons for Russia to use against Ukraine, is he a legitimate target?
- Jonathan leans towards yes, arguing he's part of the "war project" or "war machine," even if not military personnel.
- The definition of "combatant" under international humanitarian law is crucial but debatable.
- Should it only include uniformed soldiers? What about politicians ordering the war (like Hitler)? What about those directing the armed forces?
- Jonathan finds it strange to deem soldiers and generals killable but not the politicians ultimately responsible.
- Where does the line stop?
- People making weapons? People ordering the making of weapons?
- People making rations for soldiers? People working on railways supporting the military?
- At what point does someone become a "legitimate target" as part of the war machine? There's no exact point; it's messy and subjective.
Legality of Assassination: Peacetime vs Wartime (Saddam Hussein vs Bin Laden)
🎦 37:41-39:32⏩
- Peacetime: Assassination of foreign political leaders is generally unlawful under treaties (e.g., 1937 Convention on Terrorism, UN Charter). Originally intended to protect heads of state due to destabilising effects.
- Example: George Bush Sr. refrained from killing Saddam Hussein (head of state) during the first Gulf War.
- Shift post-9/11: Despite a 1976 US executive order banning assassination (by Gerald Ford), George W. Bush authorised the CIA in 2001 to kill Osama bin Laden (leader of a terrorist movement, not head of state). Obama maintained this policy.
- This highlights differing views on the justifiability and legality depending on the target's status and the context (peacetime vs war vs counter-terrorism).
Revisiting the Viewer Comment: Aggression vs Defence (Doris Analogy)
🎦 41:19-44:59⏩
- Jonathan directly addresses the viewer's "double standards" accusation.
- He argues it's not double standards because the context of aggression vs defence is crucial.
- Russia is the aggressor, illegally invading Ukraine. Therefore, Russia assassinating Western politicians or supporters is unacceptable.
- Ukraine is the victim, defending itself. Therefore, it is more acceptable (though perhaps still debatable) for Ukraine to target Russian politicians, weapon manufacturers, etc., involved in the aggression.
- Doris Analogy: If Ivan breaks into Doris's house to attack her, Doris is justified in using force (punching him, setting traps) in self-defence. Ivan is not justified in attacking Doris. Her actions are justified because he is the aggressor; it's not a double standard.
- Jonathan concludes the commenter is "deeply, deeply wrong" to call his logic immoral or based on double standards, showing a lack of understanding of the core issue of aggression vs defence.
Principle of Reciprocity and Justifying Targeting Political Leaders
🎦 44:59-48:08⏩
- Jonathan refers back to Seamus Miller and Charles Dunlap's arguments:
- Neither US nor international law necessarily prohibits killing those directing armed forces in war (i.e., political leaders).
- The principle of reciprocity (tit-for-tat) might apply in international law, potentially justifying countermeasures like assassinations.
- Example: Bin Laden could be seen as akin to a military leader directing violence, making his targeted killing arguably lawful.
- Jonathan strongly agrees with the idea that military/political leaders directing atrocities (like genocide) are morally responsible and do not have a moral right not to be killed, any more than the combatants they command.
- Therefore, he believes political leaders ordering war (like Putin) are legitimate targets for the defending side (Ukraine).
Practical Considerations: Legitimacy, Collateral Damage, Long-Term Consequences
🎦 48:08-49:57⏩
- Beyond the basic justification, practical considerations are vital when assessing targeted killings/assassinations:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Risk of legitimising assassination as a normal tool of statecraft.
- Potential for retaliation, escalation, destabilisation.
- Does it actually achieve the desired outcome (e.g., will killing Putin make things better or worse)?
Refining Definitions and Adapting Law to Moral Nuance
🎦 49:57-52:49⏩
- Jonathan returns to Seamus Miller's text.
- The point of war is often to inflict casualties until the enemy capitulates.
- While assassination is generally unlawful, extreme cases (like Hitler in 1944) might be morally justifiable even if illegal.
- This raises the question: Should law reflect morality? Should laws be adjusted to admit exceptions?
- Simple, one-size-fits-all laws often fail in complex situations with competing moral values (like the inquiring murderer).
- Laws become increasingly complex (with subsections, clauses) to account for specific scenarios and nuances (minutiae). Context is crucial.
Targeting Terrorists: Well-Ordered vs Disorderly Jurisdictions (Bin Laden Example)
🎦 52:49-55:30⏩
- Seamus Miller's conclusion (as interpreted by Jonathan):
- Targeted killing of combatants in war = morally permissible.
- Targeted killing of terrorists:
- In well-ordered jurisdictions (where law enforcement can capture and try them, e.g., if Bin Laden was in France): Morally impermissible. Use the judicial process.
- In disorderly states (where the law enforcement model cannot be applied, e.g., Bin Laden in remote Pakistan): May be morally permissible under certain circumstances.
Application to Russia: Lack of Well-Ordered Jurisdiction and the ICC
🎦 55:30-56:49⏩
- Applying Miller's logic to Russia:
- Russia is not a well-ordered jurisdiction where individuals responsible for war crimes can be easily apprehended and brought to justice through normal legal channels by external actors.
- This might strengthen the argument for the permissibility of targeted killings within Russia by Ukraine.
- The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides a mechanism, but relies on individuals leaving Russia and entering signatory states (like South Africa, which Putin avoided).
- People like Putin have arrest warrants, but others like Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov currently travel without being arrested.
Hypothetical: Justification for Targeting Sergei Lavrov (and a Cup of Tea)
🎦 56:49-57:33⏩
- Jonathan poses the question: Would it be justifiable for Ukraine to target Sergei Lavrov?
- Is he part of the war machine enabling/facilitating the invasion?
- Jonathan admits he'd need a long cup of tea (perhaps a bottle of wine!) to properly consider if killing a politician like Lavrov is acceptable, weighing his involvement against potential consequences.
- Compares this difficulty to assessing the targeting of a rations factory – potentially justifiable, but raises questions about innocent workers and mitigating harm.
What is a "Legitimate Military Target"? Conceptual Nominalism & Sorites Paradox
- International law often refers to "legitimate military targets," requiring principles like proportionality and distinction (combatants vs non-combatants).
- Jonathan argues these terms themselves are problematic:
- "Legitimate": Where is the line between legitimate/illegitimate? It's a fuzzy spectrum.
- "Combatant vs Non-combatant": These are invented categories (conceptual nominalism). They don't exist objectively.
- Example: Is a woman doing finance/HR in a military unit (combatant) different from a civilian making essential rations (non-combatant)? Is a non-combatant designing deadly weapons less targetable than a combatant doing admin?
- Sorites Paradox (Heap Paradox): When does a heap of sand stop being a heap as you remove grains one by one? There's no precise point, just a fuzzy transition. Categories like "adult," "species," "combatant" are similar – useful labels, but we impose sharp lines on gradual realities.
- Relying rigidly on these categories can lead to binds where actions seem counter-intuitive (e.g., killing the admin worker but not the weapons designer).
Reviewing Definitions: Legitimate Military Targets and Compliance Challenges
- Jonathan critiques relying on terms like "legitimate military target" without acknowledging their inherent fuzziness and subjective interpretation.
- Is a rations factory, weapons factory, oil refinery, or parliament building a "legitimate military target"? Opinions will differ widely.
- States often justify assassinations as self-defence or neutralising imminent threats, but scrutiny is needed for compliance with legal standards and human rights.
- The legality remains contentious, highlighting the tension between effective warfare and legal/ethical norms. State sovereignty also complicates cross-border operations.
Emerging Technologies and the Future of Targeted Killings
- Technology (drones, AI, autonomous systems) is changing the landscape of targeted killings.
- This allows for potentially greater precision, reducing collateral damage compared to past methods (e.g., WWII blanket bombing).
- However, it also raises new ethical issues (normalisation, accountability, algorithmic bias).
Personal Conclusion: Justification for Targeting the EW Designer
- Returning to the example of the Russian EW designer (Rytikov): Jonathan intuitively feels targeting him is probably justified within the context of war.
- Justification seems stronger if the person is willingly contributing to the war effort, knowing the consequences.
- However, even if the person is acting under duress or is personally innocent, the consequentialist argument (harm for a greater good) might still apply (similar to collateral damage in Hiroshima).
- Perhaps the individual's personal views or level of duress are ultimately irrelevant if they are functionally aiding the enemy war machine in a tangible way.
Q&A: Is Alexander Dugin a Legitimate Target?
- Goose Springsteen asks if Alexander Dugin is a legitimate target.
- Jonathan thinks he personally is, due to his significant influence on propaganda, war support, and genocidal thinking (potentially including Putin's).
- However, he acknowledges counterarguments: Dugin is "just" a philosopher, raising freedom of speech issues. Does hate speech justify killing?
- He questions the metric: Is it just his repellent views? Why him and not pro-Ukrainian commentators? (Jonathan dismisses the comparison, reiterating Ukraine is the victim).
- Jonathan concludes he's unsure and needs more thought (and possibly wine!).
Q&A: Factory Workers as Valid Targets (WWII Context) - Part of the War Machine?
- Goose Springsteen brings up WWII rationale (e.g., Dresden bombing) where civilian factory workers were seen as inseparable from the Nazi war machine.
- Jonathan agrees this view exists and leans towards factory workers involved in war production potentially becoming legitimate targets for the defending side (Ukraine targeting Russian factories).
- Crucial Caveat: Russia targeting Ukrainian factories is not legitimate, as Russia is the aggressor.
- Mitigation of civilian deaths is still incumbent on Ukraine.
- Raises a further point: What if the expertise of the workers, not just the machinery, is the target? Killing 200 specialist workers to cripple the war machine – a consequentialist calculation.
- Jonathan suggests "part of the war machine" might be a better distinction than "combatant/non-combatant."
Q&A: Reciprocity, Russian Morality, and Justification
- Stupidity in Essence comments on Putin's lack of care and suggests an "eye for an eye" (reciprocity) approach.
- Jonathan notes that reciprocity is sometimes argued as a justification, but reiterates that Russia's actions over three years remove justification for them, while Ukraine's actions in response might be justifiable.
Q&A: Fundraiser for Wounded Soldiers & Emotional vs Rational Responses
- Kevin Paul shares his experience meeting severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers at a fundraiser, highlighting the reality of Russian actions.
- Jonathan acknowledges that witnessing atrocities provides emotional fortitude for judging actions against Russia as acceptable.
- However, he stresses the importance of trying to strip away emotional baggage and be as rational as possible when making moral judgments, even though this is difficult. Emotional reactions shouldn't be the sole basis for justification.
Q&A: Killing Hitler/Putin - Predicting Consequences and Probability
- Goose Springsteen raises the point: What if killing Hitler (or Putin) leads to someone worse (Hitler 2.0)?
- Jonathan notes this is the problem with predicting the future. Justification for preventative action depends on the certainty of the prediction.
- Example: Pushing someone potentially carrying a bomb onto train tracks – you need to be very sure. Intentions matter if you're wrong.
- "What ifs" can go both ways (could be better, could be worse). Relying on them is tricky.
- Ultimately, decisions about preventative killings (like targeting Putin) involve probability assessments about the likely outcomes, which are inherently uncertain.
Q&A: Collateral Damage - WWII Bombing vs Modern Precision
- Goose Springsteen notes the vast civilian casualties from Allied WWII raids (e.g., Dresden) but argues they were more justified then due to technological limitations making collateral damage unavoidable to hit Axis war effort targets.
- Jonathan agrees this relates to the impact of emerging technologies. Modern precision allows targeting individuals rather than blanket bombing areas (using a nutcracker vs. a sledgehammer).
- This changes the calculus but not the fundamental ethical questions, although intent might be viewed differently given the available tools.
Q&A: Comparison with Israel/Gaza - Proportionality and Long-Term Consequences
- Goose Springsteen tentatively compares Israeli actions in Gaza causing civilian collateral with Russian actions in Ukraine.
- Jonathan acknowledges the comparison and recalls his previous videos on the topic.
- He argues Israeli actions (e.g., large-scale bombing to target relatively few Hamas members) often seem disproportionate.
- Critically, such actions can be counterproductive, potentially creating more militants (turning family members of killed civilians against Israel) than are eliminated. This relates to the "long-term consequences" consideration.
- He suggests Israel's approach might fail ethical tests regarding proportionality and long-term consequences.
Q&A: Doris Analogy Refined - Burglary vs Home Invasion/War🎦 1:26:53-1:28:41⏩
- Goose Springsteen points out that in the UK, homeowners can be charged with disproportionate force against burglars, seemingly contradicting the Doris analogy.
- Jonathan clarifies the analogy is imperfect and specifically relates to the war context where the invader (Ivan) represents Russia committing atrocities and threatening Doris's (Ukraine's) existence. In that extreme context, lethal force seems proportional.
- If Ivan were merely stealing silverware (simple burglary), the proportionality calculation for Doris's response would be different, aligning more with domestic UK law discussions.
Return to top⤴️
Q&A: Was Daria Dugina's Death Acceptable?
- Paul Gilbert comments that he finds Daria Dugina's death acceptable, even as collateral damage, as it "brought it home to Dugin."
- Jonathan acknowledges that opinions on this are divided, highlighting the difficult moral grey areas.
Q&A: Israeli Post-WWII Extrajudicial Killings (Preventative vs Reactive/Retributive)
- Goose Springsteen asks about Israeli extrajudicial killings of Nazi war criminals post-WWII (e.g., Herbert Cukurs in Uruguay).
- Jonathan, unfamiliar with the specific case, argues against extrajudicial killings in principle, favouring capture and trial, especially in potentially well-ordered jurisdictions (questioning if Uruguay was one).
- Crucially distinguishes between preventative action (stopping future harm, potentially justifiable) and reactive/retributive action (punishing past harm).
- Targeting in Ukraine context = mostly preventative.
- Killing a Nazi war criminal post-WWII = mostly retributive (unless deterring future hostilities, unlikely here).
- Jonathan argues retribution, while emotionally understandable (reactive attitudes), is philosophically unjustifiable, especially from his non-free will perspective. Action should be justified by preventing future harm or upholding justice through due process, not vengeance.
- Therefore, he leans towards viewing such post-war retributive killings as impermissible.
Q&A: Responsibility of Russian Citizens & Protesting in Dictatorships
- Stupidity in Essence suggests Russians should have killed Putin long ago and contrasts their silence with how citizens in democracies might act.
- Jonathan cautions against easy judgment:
- Those who did protest for liberal values in Russia were often arrested, imprisoned, or worse.
- It's easy to say "I would fight" from the safety of a democracy, but the consequences in a dictatorship (long prison sentences, gulags) are severe.
- Protesting might be counterproductive (no effect, protester imprisoned) vs. staying quiet and working clandestinely/engaging in sabotage.
- Citizens have a moral obligation to hold leaders accountable, but this is far harder and riskier in dictatorships. We mustn't project our freedoms onto their situation.
- Protecting due process and democratic freedoms (like in the US/UK) is paramount.
Q&A: Doris's Need to Assess Intent (Overreaction vs Underreaction)
- Suzanne Malendy asks if Doris should first assess Ivan's intentions (theft vs murder) before reacting.
- Jonathan argues that someone smashing down your door gives a strong indication of hostile intent.
- Draws on evolutionary psychology: It's often safer to overreact to potential threats than underreact.
- Tiger-in-the-bush example: Assuming it's a tiger and fleeing is safer than assuming it's wind and being wrong. Running away unnecessarily is a small cost compared to being eaten.
- Therefore, Doris might be justified in reacting forcefully immediately ("thinking the worst") for self-preservation, even if the intruder only intended minor theft. The act of forced entry justifies a strong defensive posture.
Q&A: Final Thoughts on Dugin vs Hamas Influencers as Targets
- Goose Springsteen asks: If targeting Dugin is justified, why not target pro-Hamas social media influencers in the West?
- Jonathan uses this to refine his stance on Dugin:
- He is now reluctant to call Dugin a legitimate target. His initial inclusion was to show a spectrum of cases.
- To justify targeting both, one would need to show their roles and effects are truly analogous. Dugin has political involvement beyond social media.
- He suggests a CEO of a Russian arms company might be more functionally involved in the war machine, and thus a more justified target than Dugin, who is an "ideas man," albeit a dangerous one.
- Putin, being functionally responsible for decisions leading to killing, is a more justified target than Dugin.
Final Thoughts, Health Update, and Call for Feedback
- Jonathan hopes his stream-of-consciousness discussion was coherent, expressing slight worry about his MS affecting his cognition (though his brain seems to be working fine).
- Admits he's not an expert in military ethics and did minimal specific preparation.
- Welcomes corrections and further discussion from experts or viewers in the comments, provided it's respectful and in good faith.
Q&A Clarification: Comparing Maidan Protests (2014) to Russian Protests (2022)
- Stupidity in Essence asks if Jonathan implies Ukrainians shouldn't have protested at Maidan in 2014.
- Jonathan strongly refutes this: The situations are not analogous.
- Ukraine 2014 was a democracy (albeit flawed); Russia 2022 is an established dictatorship under Putin.
- The expectation of state response was different. Maidan protesters didn't initially expect the level of violence (shootings by Berkut forces) that later occurred. Protesters against the war in Russia in 2022 knew they faced immediate arrest and harsh sentences.
- Maidan became a "do or die" moment for Ukraine's future; Russian anti-war protests, while brave, didn't have the same immediate national stakes or potential for success against the entrenched regime.
- The calculation for a Russian citizen involves weighing a brief protest against potentially 20 years in a gulag, questioning its effectiveness vs. personal cost.
Subscriber Demographics
- In response to a question, Jonathan shares his channel's subscriber demographics:
- Largest segment: British
- Second largest: American
- Followed by Canadians, Europeans, and others globally.
- This differs from his philosophy channel, where Americans were the largest group.
Wrap up
- Jonathan thanks viewers again, especially Super Chatters and supporters (Goose Springsteen, Stupidity in Essence, Mark Gould, Kevin Paul/Forst, Johnny Nevergard, Richard Bennett, Suzanne Malendy).
- Reiterates the core point: Russia targeting Ukraine is not the same as Ukraine targeting Russia due to the aggressor/victim dynamic.
- Acknowledges Goose's point about family consequences affecting protest decisions.
- Encourages further respectful discussion in the comments, praising the community. Quotes Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
- Signs off to eat and have a cup of tea.
- Briefly comments on Navalny's difficulty in gathering Russians, suggesting it's a complex topic related to the challenges of opposition in Russia.
🤖❓ AI Debrief (post task) - anything the AI didn't understand
The YouTube video title provided ("The Ethics of Assassination: A Ukraine War Live Stream Discussion") did not contain a date or part identifier (e.g., YYYYMMDDX). The date/part tags are therefore empty.
Could you confirm the spelling/identity of the philosopher mentioned around [30:11] referred to as "Fritzer"?
Could you confirm the name mentioned around [1:29:30] regarding Israeli post-WWII actions? Transcript sounds like "Herbert Cukas or Sukas". (Likely Herbert Cukurs).
Transcription check: Around [52:35], "Mano Ishii" seems incorrect. Was the intended word "minutiae"? (Summary assumes 'minutiae').
Transcription check: Around [1:45:58], was "Europe" meant to be "Ukraine" in the context of the Maidan protests? (Summary assumes 'Ukraine').
Transcription check: Around [1:46:00], was "Beckman" meant to be "Berkut" (Ukrainian special police)? (Summary uses 'Berkut').
Transcription check: Around [1:17:05] and elsewhere, "repricosity" seems incorrect. Was the intended word "reciprocity"? (Summary uses 'reciprocity').
Transcription check: Around [1:34:36], "liberal values in terms of liberal democracy, not like woke or whatever." Jonathan clarifies his meaning, this is accurately transcribed.
Transcription check: Around [1:45:58], "officious" seems an unusual word choice. Was "oppressive" or "authoritarian" intended? (Summary retains transcript wording but notes potential intended meaning contextually).
Transcription check: Around [1:31:44], name check P.F. Strawson and Galen Strawson (father/son philosophers) discussing reactive attitudes. Seems correct.
Transcription check: Around [1:39:38], the concept Jonathan discusses ("overdetermination") seems more aligned with evolutionary psychology's "Hyperactive Agency Detection Device" (HADD) or error management theory, though he uses "overreacting" later which fits the context. Retained transcript term but explained concept.
🤖💭 AI Plan (pre task) - the AI's step by step thought process
Goal: Summarise the provided YouTube transcript from ATP Geopolitics about the ethics of assassination/targeted killings in the context of the Ukraine war, following specific formatting and content rules for the "ATP Distilled" project.
Input: YouTube video title and transcript with timestamps.
Title: "The Ethics of Assassination: A Ukraine War Live Stream Discussion"
Transcript: [{'id': 0, 'start': '00:00.000', 'end': '00:03.420', 'text': " Morality, which we're going to be talking about this a lot tonight."}, ... {'id': 1392, 'start': '01:52:43.621', 'end': '01:52:44.341', 'text': ' Anyway, take care.'}]
Tasks Breakdown:
TASK 1: Title, Date, Part: Extract from the title.
Title: Remove date/part.
Date: Convert YYYYMMDD from title to DD/MM/YYYY. Correction: The provided title does not contain a date or part. I will note this in the queries and perhaps use the processing date as a placeholder if required, but the instructions say extract from the title. So, I will leave the date/part tags empty or note the absence. For this exercise, I'll note the absence in queries and leave the tags empty.
Part: Extract letter if present. None here.
TASK 2: Topic Titles: Split transcript into topics. Assign specific, quantified titles. Include standard "Hello Team" and "Wrap up". Ensure granularity, correct spellings (Kyiv, Odesa, Dugin, etc.), British English.
TASK 3: Topic Timestamps: Record start/end timestamps for each topic matching the transcript. Ensure full coverage and correct format (MM:SS or HH:MM:SS). Check for gaps.
TASK 4: Topic Summaries: Write summaries for each topic using bullet points, markdown. Capture Jonathan's insights, philosophy, analysis, opinions, sources, humour (tea, Doris), correct spellings.
TASK 5: Quote: Select a significant, concise quote. Ensure it makes sense standalone and is corrected for errors.
TASK 6: Queries: List any ambiguities, missing info (like the date), potential transcription errors (e.g., names, terms).
Pre-computation/Pre-analysis:
Read through the transcript to identify major themes: philosophy of morality (nominalism, deontology, consequentialism), definitions (assassination, targeted killing, extrajudicial killing), application to Ukraine war (just war, defining combatants, specific examples like Dugin, EW designer), viewer interaction/Q&A.
Identify potential points for clarification: Specific philosopher names (Fritzer?), terms ("Mano Ishii", "repricosity"), transcription errors ("Europe" for Ukraine?, "Beckman" for Berkut?).
Note key examples used: Major General Moskalik, EW designer Rytikov, Daria Dugina, Hitler, Bin Laden, Hiroshima, Doris analogy.
Note Jonathan's philosophical stance: Conceptual nominalist, moral sceptic, emphasis on grey areas, consequentialist leanings in practice.
Note the context: Live stream, includes Q&A/Superchats.
Step-by-step Execution & Refinement:
TASK 1: Title is "The Ethics of Assassination: A Ukraine War Live Stream Discussion". Date and Part are absent from the title.
TASK 2 & 3: Go through transcript chronologically.
00:00-00:32⏩: Intro about philosophy background -> Topic 1: Hello Team.
00:32-01:15⏩: Introducing topic: assassination vs targeted killing -> Topic 2: Introduction: Assassination vs Targeted Killings.
01:15-02:21⏩: Reading viewer comment -> Topic 3: Viewer Comment: Accusation of Immorality and Double Standards.
02:21-04:06⏩: Examples: Moskalik, Rytikov -> Topic 4: Examples: Major General Moskalik and EW Designer Rytikov Killed in Russia.
04:06-05:16⏩: Example: Dugina -> Topic 5: Example: Daria Dugina Car Bombing and Alexander Dugin.
05:16-09:14⏩: Philosophy: Morality, conceptual nominalism -> Topic 6: Philosophical Underpinnings: Morality as a Human Construct (Conceptual Nominalism).
09:14-10:38⏩: Law vs Morality -> Topic 7: Distinguishing Law from Morality.
10:38-18:23⏩: Moral Theories (Deontology, Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics, Trolley Problem, Inquiring Murderer) -> Topic 8: Overview of Moral Theories: Deontology, Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics. (Decided to combine these as they flow together).
18:23-19:30⏩: Moral Scepticism, Grey Areas -> Topic 9: Moral Scepticism, Grey Areas, and Human Discomfort with Uncertainty.
19:30-20:32⏩: Thanks, Live Chat -> Topic 10: Channel Thanks and Live Chat Acknowledgment.
20:32-21:16⏩: Recap -> Topic 11: Recap: Subjectivity of Morality, Grey Areas, and Logic.
21:16-22:49⏩: International Law -> Topic 12: International Law (e.g., Geneva Convention) vs Moral Disagreement.
22:49-24:34⏩: Just War Theory -> Topic 13: Just War Theory and its Application to the Russia-Ukraine War.
24:34-26:15⏩: Defining Combatants -> Topic 14: Defining Combatants: From the Battlefield to Rear Areas.
26:15-28:18⏩: Hitler example (politicians) -> Topic 15: Targeting Politicians: The Hitler Example and Moral Responsibility.
28:18-30:00⏩: Preventative vs Reactive (Hitler attempts) -> Topic 16: Preventative vs Reactive Assassination: Hitler Attempts (1939 vs 1944).
30:00-31:39⏩: Collateral Damage (Hiroshima) -> Topic 17: Collateral Damage, Consequentialism, and Proportionality (Hiroshima Example).
31:39-35:35⏩: Terminology -> Topic 18: Terminology: Targeted Killing vs Assassination vs Extrajudicial Killing.
35:35-41:19⏩: Who is a legitimate target? (designers, workers, politicians) -> Topic 19: Who is a Legitimate Target? Weapon Designers, Politicians, Factory Workers.
37:41-39:32⏩: Legality (Peacetime vs Wartime - Saddam/Bin Laden) -> Topic 20: Legality of Assassination: Peacetime vs Wartime (Saddam Hussein vs Bin Laden).
41:19-44:59⏩: Revisit comment (Doris analogy) -> Topic 21: Revisiting the Viewer Comment: Aggression vs Defence (Doris Analogy).
44:59-48:08⏩: Reciprocity, targeting leaders -> Topic 22: Principle of Reciprocity and Justifying Targeting Political Leaders.
48:08-49:57⏩: Practical considerations -> Topic 23: Practical Considerations: Legitimacy, Collateral Damage, Long-Term Consequences.
49:57-52:49⏩: Refining definitions, law/morality -> Topic 24: Refining Definitions and Adapting Law to Moral Nuance.
52:49-55:30⏩: Targeting terrorists (jurisdictions) -> Topic 25: Targeting Terrorists: Well-Ordered vs Disorderly Jurisdictions (Bin Laden Example).
55:30-56:49⏩: Application to Russia, ICC -> Topic 26: Application to Russia: Lack of Well-Ordered Jurisdiction and the ICC.
56:49-57:33⏩: Hypothetical: Lavrov, tea -> Topic 27: Hypothetical: Justification for Targeting Sergei Lavrov (and a Cup of Tea).
57:33-1:04:12⏩: Legitimate target? Nominalism, Sorites -> Topic 28: What is a "Legitimate Military Target"? Conceptual Nominalism & Sorites Paradox.
1:04:12-1:06:28⏩: Reviewing definitions -> Topic 29: Reviewing Definitions: Legitimate Military Targets and Compliance Challenges.
1:06:28-1:06:47⏩: Tech & future -> Topic 30: Emerging Technologies and the Future of Targeted Killings.
1:06:47-1:09:05⏩: Conclusion on EW designer -> Topic 31: Personal Conclusion: Justification for Targeting the EW Designer.
1:09:05-1:14:20⏩: Q&A: Dugin -> Topic 32: Q&A: Is Alexander Dugin a Legitimate Target?
1:14:20-1:16:46⏩: Q&A: Factory Workers (WWII) -> Topic 33: Q&A: Factory Workers as Valid Targets (WWII Context) - Part of the War Machine?
1:16:46-1:17:39⏩: Q&A: Reciprocity -> Topic 34: Q&A: Reciprocity, Russian Morality, and Justification.
1:17:39-1:18:56⏩: Q&A: Fundraiser, atrocities -> Topic 35: Q&A: Fundraiser for Wounded Soldiers & Emotional vs Rational Responses.
1:18:56-1:21:51⏩: Q&A: Killing Hitler/Putin -> Topic 36: Q&A: Killing Hitler/Putin - Predicting Consequences and Probability.
1:21:51-1:23:48⏩: Q&A: Collateral Damage (WWII vs Modern) -> Topic 37: Q&A: Collateral Damage - WWII Bombing vs Modern Precision.
1:23:48-1:26:53⏩: Q&A: Israel/Gaza -> Topic 38: Q&A: Comparison with Israel/Gaza - Proportionality and Long-Term Consequences.
1:26:53-1:28:41⏩: Q&A: Doris analogy refined -> Topic 39: Q&A: Doris Analogy Refined - Burglary vs Home Invasion/War.
1:28:41-1:29:07⏩: Q&A: Daria Dugina -> Topic 40: Q&A: Was Daria Dugina's Death Acceptable?
1:29:07-1:33:55⏩: Q&A: Israeli post-WWII killings -> Topic 41: Q&A: Israeli Post-WWII Extrajudicial Killings (Preventative vs Reactive/Retributive).
1:33:55-1:37:56⏩: Q&A: Russian protest responsibility -> Topic 42: Q&A: Responsibility of Russian Citizens & Protesting in Dictatorships.
1:37:56-1:41:18⏩: Q&A: Doris assesses intent -> Topic 43: Q&A: Doris's Need to Assess Intent (Overreaction vs Underreaction).
1:41:18-1:44:07⏩: Q&A: Dugin/Hamas influencer comparison -> Topic 44: Q&A: Final Thoughts on Dugin vs Hamas Influencers as Targets.
1:44:07-1:45:06⏩: Final thoughts, health -> Topic 45: Final Thoughts, Health Update, and Call for Feedback.
1:45:06-1:48:04⏩: Q&A Clarification: Maidan vs Russia -> Topic 46: Q&A Clarification: Comparing Maidan Protests (2014) to Russian Protests (2022).
1:48:04-1:48:57⏩: Subscriber demographics -> Topic 47: Subscriber Demographics.
1:48:57-1:52:44⏩: Wrap up, thanks -> Topic 48: Wrap up.
TASK 4: Write summaries, ensuring British English, correct spellings, capture nuances, philosophy, Doris, tea mention (56:58, 1:52:22). Correct 'Kiev' to 'Kyiv', 'Odessa' to 'Odesa' if they appear (they don't seem to). Correct 'Dugina', 'Dugin', 'Rytikov', 'Moskalik', 'Seamus Miller', 'Georg Elser', 'Stauffenberg'. Address potential transcript errors identified in step 4 during summary writing (e.g., use "minutiae" instead of "Mano Ishii", "reciprocity" for "repricosity", "Berkut" for "Beckman", "Ukraine" for "Europe" at 1:45:58, "oppressive" for "officious").
TASK 5: Select and format quote. The Doris quote seems appropriate and captures a key argument.
TASK 6: Finalise queries based on analysis and summary writing. Include missing date, specific names/terms checks.
Final Review: Check XML structure, tags, British English consistency, adherence to all rules. Ensure timestamps are contiguous and cover the entire duration.
Self-Correction during thought process:
Initially forgot the date/part extraction from the title, but the title provided doesn't have one. Will note this in queries and leave tags empty as instructed.
Considered combining more topics initially, but decided more granularity is better per instructions, especially separating the philosophical concepts, examples, and Q&A points.
Ensured the Q&A section was broken down by specific questions asked in the superchats.
Double-checked timestamp continuity.
Made sure to include specific mentions like the cup of tea and the Doris analogy as requested.
Refined topic titles to be more specific and quantified where possible.
Checked for British English spellings (e.g., 'moralising', 'analyse', 'realised').
Corrected potential transcription errors during summary writing.
🤖💭 AI Plan (pre task) - the AI's step by step thought process The user wants me to summarise a YouTube video transcript from ATP Geopolitics about the ethics of assassination/targeted killings in the context of the Ukraine war. I need to follow the specific structure and rules provided, including XML tags, British English, specific topic titles, timestamps, summaries capturing key points/philosophy/humour, a quote, and queries.
Plan:
Parse Title: Extract title, date, and part. The provided title lacks a date/part.
Segment Transcript: Read through and divide into logical topics based on subject changes, examples, philosophical points, and Q&A.
Create Topic Titles: Write specific, granular titles for each segment, including standard "Hello Team" and "Wrap up".
Assign Timestamps: Match transcript timestamps to each topic. Ensure full coverage.
Write Summaries: Summarise each topic in British English, using bullet points, capturing Jonathan's insights, analysis, philosophy (nominalism, consequentialism etc.), sources (Seamus Miller, Total Military Insight), humour (tea, Doris), and correcting spellings (Dugin, Kyiv, Rytikov, Moskalik).
Select Quote: Choose a representative quote reflecting the video's themes.
Identify Queries: Note missing information (date) and potential transcript issues (names like Fritzer, Cukas/Sukas, terms like 'Mano Ishii', 'repricosity', 'officious', 'Beckman').
Format Output: Assemble the information within the specified XML structure, checking tags and consistency.
