A few in recent history have been moderately wealthy, but their poverty lies not in the economic but rather sexual market. Society has denied their right to reproduce, and did not arrange a marriage for them which could have prevented their killing spree. Were they morally justified to harm others?
You are saying that gives them a license to kill. Society denied them something, so you are saying that a justifiable response is to lash out at others. You see there is no point negotiating with people like that, that's when violence is justified.
If you choose to enslave someone, you can never trust them to not rise up and murder you in your sleep. There is always the chance that they will think it through and reach the morally correct (for them) course of action--to kill the slave-owner. So logically, if you don't want to be murdered in your sleep, you can either abolish slavery, or you can lock all the slaves up every night. Either one of those strategies would work. In different eras, both have been considered the ethically correct action.
The morally correct response for someone denied reproductive freedom by, for instance, laws supporting polygamy, is to break the laws abolishing adultery. If one man has four wives, there will generally be three other men who shouldn't really consider marital fidelity to be all that important. Or maybe some of them won't consider strict heterosexuality to be a culturally critical ideal.
And if that particular society further undermines those men--perhaps by vigorously defending the wives and daughters, and beheading the ones seeking alternate arrangements--they would be morally justified in committing violence against the people and institutions who denied them those benefits of having a civilized society. It is by no means guaranteed that such people will be able to precisely or accurately identify the "correct" people or institutions. They are right to lash out. They are getting shafted by an unfair system, after all, and that system is unlikely to change for their benefit if they continue to passively support it.
As such, it is also morally justified for other societies, recognizing that violent and possibly ignorant potential, to either proactively defend themselves against it, or to deflect the violence towards alternate targets. It is therefore possible for multiple sides of a violent and bloody conflict to all be acting in a manner that they consider to be morally correct.
It would be better for everyone, all around, if civilization did not choose to stratify itself such that a permanent underclass exists. If fewer people were treated unfairly, fewer people would lash out against the unfairness. As the violence is itself usually applied unfairly, unfairness begets unfairness, injustice breeds injustice, vengeance calls for more vengeance.
If you don't want unending spirals of oppression and rebellion, you have to take proactive measures to peacefully increase the perception of fairness in society. There are many ways to accomplish that. If you don't want peaceful, civilized people to wind up dead because there were too many people that saw no benefit from being peaceful and civilized, you should be pushing to bring more benefits of civilization to more people. Or you should be exterminating the "uncivilized" people. Either way. I personally consider one of those to be ethically abhorrent, but civilization as a whole still seems to be on the fence about it.
>It is therefore possible for multiple sides of a violent and bloody conflict to all be acting in a manner that they consider to be morally correct.
So violence is always correct when I do it, but not when my opponent does it against me, right? What an infantile way of thinking.
>It would be better for everyone, all around, if civilization did not choose to stratify itself such that a permanent underclass exists.
Sounds like you believe in a utopian ideal of a classless society.
To me it's just empty words you are saying, you won't take risks for your ideals, like every other middle-class ideological leftist. Move to a low-income neighborhood, experience first-hand what a robbery feels like, or to be on the business end of a gun. Remember that the Red Guard were the first to be executed.
> What an infantile way of thinking.
This is ad hominem. It is not an infantile way of thinking, but it is a distraction from the topic of conversation. It is also a strawman. What I said was that multiple sides can be morally correct, and you recharacterized that into a completely different statement before insulting what you just said. The worst criticism most people would have about my opinion is that they disagree with the idea that murdering a human could ever be morally acceptable, and many of the remainder would disagree that there could be more than one morally correct participant in a war.
> Sounds like you believe in a utopian ideal of a classless society.
I do not. I believe that it is necessary to have a wealthy upper class to advance technology and industrial development at a reasonable rate. I believe it is no longer necessary to have an impoverished underclass, as it is now possible to replace its former role in civilization with robotic labor. As such, social policies enacted to ensure that the underclass would continue to exist are no longer useful, and ought to be repealed, with different policies enacted. UBI is a good start on this, but I don't believe any of the currently popular conceptions for how it would work are economically viable.
I will not continue unless you can accurately paraphrase my position from what I have written. I can only argue as myself, and I won't argue as the opponent you have created in your mind that you wish for me to be.
