Assassination by national governments

[brucejoel99]

I think most defenders of such assassinations would argue from a utilitarian standpoint, as it could certainly be argued that, by killing one person (a Soleimani, perhaps), many other people would be saved.

It could also be defended from the perspective of Virtue Ethics: the virtuous man protects & defends the innocent whenever he can. Prudence is also a virtue. Thus, in a situation where the most prudent course of action for defending the innocent is assassination, then the virtuous man would take that approach.

Moreover, they could still be defended from the perspective of Natural Law, too, as it dictates that we must behave according to human nature, & generally permits the taking of an aggressor's life in the defense of the innocent, as that's according to the proper nature of human beings. The law of double effect, it would seem, would permit assassination, provided that the assassinated were guilty of a proportionally heinous crime AND that the assassinated is in such a position that his own state cannot take such action against him (e.g. Soleimani).

Even a Deontological Principle, wherein one is compelled to defend the weak against injustice, could defend this position; indeed, it's pretty easy to do so. If the maxim is "do what you must to protect the innocent," then you will not hesitate to assassinate the guilty in defense of the innocent.