> You can surely justify doing whatever you want regardless of how bad it is if your justification is that you're saving all humanity. Even killing the people you want to save.
This is a snide way of saying that no valid justification can possibly exist. Yet you probably think dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan was a good idea. So clearly valid justifications for extreme levels of forceful action against an unwilling party -- far, far, far more extreme than blowing up an oil pipeline -- can and do exist.
> Yet you probably think dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan was a good idea
Does pretending you know my position on topics not discussed make it easier to disagree with me? I'm anti-war and wish everyone would refuse to go to war, individually. Maybe that helps you process my actual comment with that out of the way.
I didn't think it was possible to have such an unserious worldview to the point where you believe that it is inherently and automatically wrong to take any forceful actions against an unwilling third party. So if a brutal dictator takes power, and I wish to take forceful action against that, I will be sure to remember that it is me and not the dictator that is the morally bad party.
Now you know it is, here's a wikipedia page for you to learn more as it is a tenet of several religions and philosophical thinkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
I think it's as childish to discard this as it is to think it's "inevitable" to nuke people or to go to war. Everyone can have their own childish thoughts specially when I'm not in power or seeking a position where I have to make that hard choice, so I choose for me and I'll tell it to whoever asks.
This is a snide way of saying that no valid justification can possibly exist. Yet you probably think dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan was a good idea. So clearly valid justifications for extreme levels of forceful action against an unwilling party -- far, far, far more extreme than blowing up an oil pipeline -- can and do exist.