Seth Dillon
Here Dave argues that morality is objective, like the laws of logic. From there he reasons that the rules or constructs we establish to protect life should be the same in all contexts. We can't pick and choose when wrong is wrong. If killing a civilian is wrong on the street, it must be equally wrong when a civilian is killed as a casualty of war. A couple thoughts: 1. He's right that morality is objective; it's not merely a social construct or useful fiction. It'd be different if atheism were true, but objective morality is one of the ways we know atheism is false. While he used to be an atheist, it seems we now agree on that point. 2. The claim that it's fallacious or arbitrary to judge war differently is where he goes wrong. He says context is irrelevant to moral reasoning, but it's foundational to moral reasoning. Laws that permit killing in self-defense, for example, are not making an exception for something morally impermissible. Rather, they take into account morally relevant variables — like the reason for the killing. Just war theory does the same. It's not a suspension of moral reasoning, but an application of it to situations that differ dramatically from interpersonal conflicts. Failing to take those factors into account would be immoral, not to mention foolish and illogical.
Dave Smith