 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:35
|
|
I take this post back, fully. I didn't think it over.
Last edited by Az on 05-05-2004 at 02:13
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
First, LOTM, thanks for your patience. I can expect my point to upset you very strongly (more than many Apolytonites), yet you're the one who is willing to discuss, and to actually share your point of view 
Second, I agree with the fact the hells of war should be limited. Unfortunately, I haven't seen many encouragin things, even since WW2. The war in Vietnam killed millions of civilians. The war in Chechnya completely leveled Groznyi, and I suppose many other cities as well. The war in Korea killed millions (admittedly, many of them were fighters), and pretty much every war so far has been outrageously nasty.
Even in Iraq, where the American efforts of treating the population well to win its heart are to be greeted as good news, torture has been found, indiscriminate violence in war zones has been found, etc. And this is probably the most "humane" war ever waged so far, since the hearts of the Iraqi people are the ultimate military objective!
I wish these people don't get killed. I wish these barbarous acts stop. I can hope for better methods of killing (i.e rockets instead of pump rifles, automatic rifles instead of lynching), but I don't see how the logic of death is any different with the new methods. The soldier that has been killed, whether by a rocket or a dull knife, will continue to leave mourning parents, and maybe mourning orphans. The children who lose their parents, their friends or their homes in an attack will suffer just the same whether the attack has been done by a nice smart bomb, by a bulldozer, or by ye olde TNT.
I would have prefered these Palestinians to scare the hell out of these settlers so that they go back in Israel without muttering. I would have even prefered these Palestinians to capture these people and treat them humanely in some compound. Of course I'd have preferd that over the murder of a pregnant mother and all her children. And obviously, I would have prefered that nothing happens at all instead of this murder (well, maybe not the "scare" part, because I really think these people are the worst thorn to peace on the Israeli side, and their abandoning their homes is absolutely needed if we want to create the conditions for a successful peace).
Maybe that's because I'm a maximalist. But I think war shouldn't happen unless absolutely warranted, because war is the time where every human may turn back into a beast. I don't want to see the day where war will be deemed a palatable political tool, at least in the perspective of the one on the good side of the gun. |
I think i see where we differ.
youre focusing on the results, the utilitarian view of war.
Youre just as dead in WW2 if you were a German killed by an American bomber attempting to hit factory, as if you were killed by a British bomber targeting housing. All that matters is the numbers. In the same sense arent ALL deaths equally tragic?? If World war 2 accelerated the development of Penicillin, would that make it more worthwhile??? AIDS is hell, and traffic accidents are hell, and so are a lot of things.
War isnt hell just because people die, are injured, etc. Peace in lots of places is hell on that ground. War is hell not so much because people die BUT BECAUSE THEY kill. It suspends the moral law that says THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL. It does so inevitably, since a soldier MUST kill to stay alive. And that is why we want to minimize war, and not just check the net death count. Not all wars which can be shown to reduce the net death count (as many wars against dictatorships could) are justified. But that means that there are better and worse hells based not just on the number of deaths, but on the ACTIONS of those who kill. A bomber in WW2 targeting housing was reduced to a deeper circle of hell than one who killed civilians by accident while targeting a factory. And a Soldier firing at another soldier is not reduced as much as one who kills civilians by accident. And someone who kills civilians out of pure hatred, like the Nazis, or like certain instances involving my countrymen and native americans, or like (i believe) the incident in Gaza in the OP, are at the bottom circle. The laws of war matter, and NOT ONLY because they reduce the casualty count (though i think they do)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think i see where we differ.
youre focusing on the results, the utilitarian view of war.
Youre just as dead in WW2 if you were a German killed by an American bomber attempting to hit factory, as if you were killed by a British bomber targeting housing.
[...]
But that means that there are better and worse hells based not just on the number of deaths, but on the ACTIONS of those who kill. A bomber in WW2 targeting housing was reduced to a deeper circle of hell than one who killed civilians by accident while targeting a factory. And a Soldier firing at another soldier is not reduced as much as one who kills civilians by accident. And someone who kills civilians out of pure hatred, like the Nazis, or like certain instances involving my countrymen and native americans, or like (i believe) the incident in Gaza in the OP, are at the bottom circle.
Originally posted by Siro
regarding lotm's post: that's a problem i meet in many people, which i simply can't understand.
they judge falt out according to the result, which often can be misleading and failed, instead of juding actions according to the intent.
[...]
but i think that intention is the only way we can judge morality because morality judges behavior. |
This is a very interesting argument.
I think it transposes to pretty much every discussion on these boards regarding colateral damage (including the recent flamefest in the British torture thread). And I think it is one of the main differences between a European outlook on war, and an American / Israeli one. This may explain why Americans aren't too shy of going to war, while Europeans tend to be extremely reluctant to do so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
Sigh. Arabs shoot at Israeli children, Israelis shoot at Arab children.
Is it any wonder that sometimes the bullets strike home?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000 time: 07:35
|
|
quote: The ends justifies the means?
|
Nope. That's not what I said.
That's exactly what some of the lefties and liberterians here think:
The ends (freedom for palestine) justify the means (cold blooded murder of children).
I fail to see how judging a persons intention justifies any crimes he intentionally commits. Notice the word "intention" and "intentionally".
If the Israeli army would decide to raze a whole city to capture 1 person, unless it is Hitler, I'd be very upset at the Israeli army.
But, if the Israeli army attempts to bomb terrorist training camps in Lebanon and Syria, and accidentally hits a populated civilian center - then I would be upset at the accident, but not at the Israeli army.
Of course there could be criminal neglegance, in which case I would be upset. But in other cases - I would be sorry for the outcome, but won't appologize for the act.
quote: NO, he is saying it is all about the intended outcome, as opposed to the real outcome. So if my intended outcome is to kill a "bad guy" and I end up killing 6 nuns, that makes me morally superior to somoene who killed 6 nuns intending to kill 6 nuns. |
It depends.
If your intention is to kill a bad guy and you think "ah, I need to kill that bad guy, so lets kill those 6 nuns there, and hope one of them falls on him, crushing him to death" - they you'd be giulty.
If your intention is to kill a bad guy, but you accidentally shoot 6 nuns that appeared out of nowhere before you could stop your automatic rifle, then you are not guilty.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Felch
This is what makes you [Spiffor] a sick ****. This is what makes your eye-rolling crap so gut-wrenchingly disgusting. The fact that you think abstract political concepts are worth murdering over, shows conclusively, that the idea of an enlightened Europe superior to America, is a fabrication. |
Ah Felch. The man who wanted the US to carpet bomb Falluja.
Last edited by Tripledoc on 07-05-2004 at 07:28
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|