A Minor Inquiry into Morality

[Gracchus]

When is it justified to drop bombs on innocent civilians?

When their leaders are evil?

When they have something we want?

When someone else has injured us and we can't get back at them?

When it will unify us behind failed domestic and foreign policies, and the politicians who implemented those policies?



I am particularly interested in the answers of Christians who voted for Bush.

 

[Phred]

When is it justified to drop bombs on innocent civilians?

Do terrorists live among them? Are they watching these guys come and go from their homes? Do they, like in Palestine, make these guys heros? That's when it's justified.

When their leaders are evil?

No.

When they have something we want?

That depends. I'd condone a war for oil if we couldn't get it any other way.

When someone else has injured us and we can't get back at them?

Of course not.

When it will unify us behind failed domestic and foreign policies, and the politicians who implemented those policies?

Nope.

I am particularly interested in the answers of Christians who voted for Bush.

Should be interesting.

.​

 

[Gracchus]

Do terrorists live among them?

Do terrorists live among us? What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Are they watching these guys come and go from their homes? Do they, like in Palestine, make these guys heros? That's when it's justified.

So if our heroes are someone elses villains, they are justified in killing them? Do you maintain that there are no innocents?

I'd condone a war for oil if we couldn't get it any other way.

So the Japanese were justified when they invaded Malaysia? If you have something I want, and I am unable or unwilling to pay your price, or you don't want to sell, I am justified in killing you and taking it? How many children are we justified in killing for each automobile? Can we kill more for pickup trucks and SUV's than for compacts?

Should be interesting.

It already is!

 

[Phred]

Do terrorists live among us? What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Who they wish to kill. If they want me dead, they're terrorists. It's all perspective. Still, I have to react to this as the hunted. And yes, the reasons are myriad and many are our fault. Still, if it comes down to my kids or their kids...

So if our heroes are someone elses villains, they are justified in killing them? Do you maintain that there are no innocents?

Oh gosh no. There are many many innocents. I'd bet out of the 15,000 or so dead Iraqis 14,000+ were just trying to get by. Seeing as I think Bush's reasons were a crock, that makes this murder. But let's just pretend his reasons were valid... at what point must one stop when hunting down a threat? Do you really have to wait until you're attacked? How many children can Iran stack if front of a nuclear bomb before we refuse to destroy it? If they put them there, who's responsible when they get killed?

So the Japanese were justified when they invaded Malaysia?

If you ask them they'd say so. I wouldn't say so, but I wasn't alive in Japan then.

If you have something I want, and I am unable or unwilling to pay your price, or you don't want to sell, I am justified in killing you and taking it?

You're not justified in killing me, but I'm justified in killing you. Right is on my side and I really need it. Seriously, if there's a natural resource and our country needs it to sustain our economy, do we let our people feel the hardship or do we use our military and project the hardship onto others? Isn't there a difference between what's morally wrong and what's justifiable?

How many children are we justified in killing for each automobile? Can we kill more for pickup trucks and SUV's than for compacts?

Ouch. Can we keep some alive by buying hybrids?

.​

 

[CypressLB]

I'm so torn up over Bush. I'd want to vote for him because I don't care for democrats taxing my ass like crazy, but Bush can't keep his damn religion out of politics! No offense meant to anyone but I'm just pointing out that it's frustrating having a government who doesn't support any religion and the president is basing his decisions off the bible. Does he know what a sexular government is? Does he prefer back-alley abortions over safe clinical ones? What's his problem with gays, is he a homophobe?

I went a bit off-topic, sorry.

 

[Aimee30]

When is it justified to drop bombs on innocent civilians?

Never really.

When their leaders are evil?

We should drop bombs on the leaders only if anybody.

When they have something we want?

No. Either trade for it, buy it, or get it somewhere else.

When someone else has injured us and we can't get back at them?

No, find the people who have injured us and call them to justice.

When it will unify us behind failed domestic and foreign policies, and the politicians who implemented those policies?

No. Fix your own problems without bothering people people who don't deserve it. Find some well educated people with high I.Q.'s to come up with a solution or if it is socially find some people who are good with dealing with other people.

I am particularly interested in the answers of Christians who voted for Bush.

Sorry, I couldn't vote for the man you speak of--I didn't like the double-dealing and things that too boldly went against the things I believe Jesus would have me do. Especially the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part of Jesus's sayings. Check out my quote in my signature for what I think of the war--it was a song written far in advance of the war but fit the way I thought perfectly. Yes, this is about morality and not politics but these are things I feel I must share in dealing with the morality issues I have with it all.
Thanks.

 

[Lifesaver]

To drop bombs with the purpose of hitting civilians is never right. It doesn't matter in which war.

But if the bombs have another purpose, another end, such as destroying an important base, and civilians end up dying as a collateral effect, then it is not wrong, provided that the collateral effect is not disproportionally greater than the intended effect.

 

[Madcoil]

So one should first drop a ton of bombs, then a few people in parachutes to make sure that fewer civilians died than military personell?

 

[Anovah]

To drop bombs with the purpose of hitting civilians is never right. It doesn't matter in which war.

But if the bombs have another purpose, another end, such as destroying an important base, and civilians end up dying as a collateral effect, then it is not wrong, provided that the collateral effect is not disproportionally greater than the intended effect.

What would be proportionate? Who should decide?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

A freedom fighter is someone who is fighting for freedom. Freedom is so pliable a concept as to make the phrase nearly useless, insurgent or guerrilla are better choices. (Yes, I did understand the reference to the Contras but wanted to clarify the terminology)

Insurgents can also be terrorists and visa versa.

A terrorist is an unidentifiable combatant who attacks non-combatant / civilian / soft targets.

If the person is identifiable as an enemy combatant then they are war criminals.

If the person is a member of the gov't then they are engaging in state sponsered human rights violations.

An unidentifiable combatant who attacks military targets, such as mess halls or navy ships in ports, is acting as an insurgent/guerrilla.

Examples of non-combatant targets include refugee camps, market places and the Twin Towers.

For the purposes of this discussion they do not include police stations.

It isn't clear to me how to classify buildings involved in governence. Hospitals and schools, while gov't funded are none-the-less non-combatant. OTOH the White House is the site of planning against Iraqi insurgents.

Aren't you sorry you asked?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So one should first drop a ton of bombs, then a few people in parachutes to make sure that fewer civilians died than military personell?

So if there is a heavily defended site with nuclear tipped missiles next to a village we should evacuate the village before attacking the site?

What would be proportionate?

Good question to which there is no easy answer.

Who should decide?

The congress and the administration and the people decide whether or not to go to war.
The administration sets policy, the military executes that policy. The administration (and the congress and the people) examine the policy and the execution and modify as needed.

Isn't the ideal world so nice?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Do terrorists live among them? Are they watching these guys come and go from their homes?

and fear for their lives if they pass the information on..

Do they, like in Palestine, make these guys heros?

When you've had your house bulldozed because after waiting months for a building permit you hadn't received any substantial answer to your many inquires and, owning the land and being incredibly crowded you built anyways,
When you've had your house bulldozed because your cousin who came to dinner occasionally was linked to a terrorist activity,
when you've watched your friends taunted into throwing rocks and then shot ...
then you can criticize.
And don't even try to cast me as pro-terrorist or anti-Israel.

That depends. I'd condone a war for oil if we couldn't get it any other way.

We've cut tax incentives to hybrids in favor of fuel cells, which in-and-of- themselves do not save energy, we have a miniscule budget for researching and developing alternative energy sources, we subsidize stand alone houses without any real standards (much less incentives) for insulation, we refuse to increase the mpg standards for cars...

And you're willing to go to war over oil?

 

[SquareC]

We've cut tax incentives to hybrids in favor of fuel cells, which in-and-of- themselves do not save energy, we have a miniscule budget for researching and developing alternative energy sources, we subsidize stand alone houses without any real standards (much less incentives) for insulation, we refuse to increase the mpg standards for cars...

And you're willing to go to war over oil?

I'm not willing, but no-one asked me. I didn't vote for Bush and those you've listed were among the reasons.

I don't think that morality has even entered into the thinking in the current Administration.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I'm not willing, but no-one asked me. I didn't vote for Bush and those you've listed were among the reasons.

I don't think that morality has even entered into the thinking in the current Administration.

Let me put it another way, if we actually needed something for survival and had taken reasonable steps to reduce our need of it and to procure a reasonable supply to it and our supply was cut off as an act of war against us then we would be justified in using force to obtain a supply.

By survival I mean many people starving/freezing despite monumental efforts being made to prevent it.

 

[SquareC]

Let me put it another way, if we actually needed something for survival and had taken reasonable steps to reduce our need of it and to procure a reasonable supply to it and our supply was cut off as an act of war against us then we would be justified in using force to obtain a supply.

By survival I mean many people starving/freezing despite monumental efforts being made to prevent it.

In that situation, I would say yes, we would be justified in using force. Force in response to force is not aggression, that is defense.

But that is far from the case we have here.

 

[Star_Pixels]

When is it justified to drop bombs on innocent civilians?

As much as I hate bombing ANYONE, I'd have to say when they become a threat. If we go to war with somebody extremely nasty who's recruiting a bunch of suicide bombers out of a single city filled to the brim with impressionable young men, then I think it might be neccessary to bomb that city to get rid of the terrorists.

Given that it's the last resort.

When their leaders are evil?

Only if they're falling into line behind him/her.

When they have something we want?

No.

When someone else has injured us and we can't get back at them?

That would depend if the "innocent civilians" were the ones who injured us.

When it will unify us behind failed domestic and foreign policies, and the politicians who implemented those policies?

Now isn't that a matter of opinion whether or not they're false? Since we have no real evidence either way?

 

[Gracchus]

When is it justified to drop bombs on innocent civilians?

As much as I hate bombing ANYONE, I'd have to say when they become a threat. If we go to war with somebody extremely nasty who's recruiting a bunch of suicide bombers out of a single city filled to the brim with impressionable young men, then I think it might be neccessary to bomb that city to get rid of the terrorists.

So it is ok to bomb innocents to protect ourselves from a threat? How scared do we have to be? How certain must we be? And if it turns out we were wrong, were we certain enough?

When their leaders are evil?

Only if they're falling into line behind him/her.

So it's alright to kill patriots if their leaders are evil? If George Bush is evil, I can righteously slaughter anyone who voted for him, or anyone in the armed forces, or anyone who pays taxes? And it's all right to kill children if they believe their parents and teachers? And how do we make sure our bombs don't kill any of those who don't loyally fall in line? What is the acceptable ratio of innocent population/total population that justifies killing innocents because we are afraid?

When someone else has injured us and we can't get back at them?

That would depend if the "innocent civilians" were the ones who injured us.

The question indicated that the innocents were just that. I have to ask myself, and you might want to ask yourself, why you are erecting false justifications and changing the conditions of a hypothetical case. Why are you erecting spurious defenses to a charge that has not been uttered against you? Yet.

When it will unify us behind failed domestic and foreign policies, and the politicians who implemented those policies?

Now isn't that a matter of opinion whether or not they're false? Since we have no real evidence either way?

If the policies are not failed, then the question did not concern them. And we can only determine if they are failed on the basis of evidence. You have thrown up another spurious defense to a charge that has not been brought against you by me? Yet.

KJV Proverbs 28:1

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

Were I your judge, which you should hope I will never be, I could not but note that you are behaving as if you are guilty of something.

If the adversary has entered a charge against you before the Lord, will you dare to enter a false plea? And to what avail? Can you plead ignorance when you should have made sure before killing obvious innocents by bombing "that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand"?

 

[Star_Pixels]

So it is ok to bomb innocents to protect ourselves from a threat?

If those innocents are serving a threat and if it's our only choice, then yes.

How scared do we have to be?

Fright doesn't matter. I'm scared already.

How certain must we be?

Undeniably. Infallibly.

And if it turns out we were wrong, were we certain enough?
No.

So it's alright to kill patriots if their leaders are evil?

Let's say there's a tyrant who wants to murder all the women in the world. A whole bunch of men flock behind him and start to help kill these women...

If those patriots are active in the war, then yes.

If George Bush is evil, I can righteously slaughter anyone who voted for him, or anyone in the armed forces, or anyone who pays taxes?

Let's see: no. Conservatives and people who voted for Bush are not trying to kill you. They are not active in the pursuit of murdering/attacking you or your people.

President Bush has made some terrible mistakes, but he hasn't come anywhere near the extremes that I'd consider "certain enough" to bomb somebody.

And it's all right to kill children if they believe their parents and teachers?

Once again, if those children are actively involved in killing others and there is absolutely no other choice, than yes. However, as I've stated before, I'd hate to bomb ANYONE.

And how do we make sure our bombs don't kill any of those who don't loyally fall in line?

Only bomb the people that certainly do.

What is the acceptable ratio of innocent population/total population that justifies killing innocents because we are afraid?
~Please elaborate.~



The question indicated that the innocents were just that.

Then the answer would be 'no', wouldn't it? Since they are innocent they held no backing in the injuring towards us, and therefore would be safe from any punishment that one might deliver if injured.

I have to ask myself, and you might want to ask yourself, why you are erecting false justifications and changing the conditions of a hypothetical case.

I'm hardly doing that. You asked if it's justified to bomb innocent civilians. The answer was something that clearly stated: if they're truly innocent than no.

If the policies are not failed, then the question did not concern them. And we can only determine if they are failed on the basis of evidence. You have thrown up another spurious defense to a charge that has not been brought against you by me?

What are you talking about? Failed is a matter of opinion because everyone holds a different standard of what success would be.

Were I your judge, which you should hope I will never be, I could not but note that you are behaving as if you are guilty of something.

I was answering your questions. May I ask why you get so hissy over me simply stating what I believe in a non-offensive manner directed towards nobody but rather the questions stated themselves?

To me, it looks more like it is you who are guilty of something.

If the adversary has entered a charge against you before the Lord, will you dare to enter a false plea?

Frankly, I don't like lying. It's a spit in the eye of the Allmother.

Can you plead ignorance when you should have made sure before killing obvious innocents by bombing "that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand"?

As I've stated several times before, I would only bomb somebody on the last resort, and that's only I've made thorough investigates and discerned that without a single doubt those "innocent" bystanders are anything but!

 

[SarcasmDispenser]

I'm so torn up over Bush. I'd want to vote for him because I don't care for democrats taxing my ass like crazy, but Bush can't keep his damn religion out of politics! No offense meant to anyone but I'm just pointing out that it's frustrating having a government who doesn't support any religion and the president is basing his decisions off the bible. Does he know what a sexular government is? Does he prefer back-alley abortions over safe clinical ones? What's his problem with gays, is he a homophobe?

I went a bit off-topic, sorry.

How is he bringing religion into politics? Because he's trying to enforce policies you don't like?

The President bases his decisions off what he feels is right, (he may follow the Bible, yes) what difference does it make where he gets it from?

He prefers no abortions, actually. Unless the life or safety of the mother hangs in the balance. Bush has no problem with gays, just the definition of marriage.

 

[Star_Pixels]

Um, a sexular government? That's the kind Bill Clinton likes, right? XD

Sorry, that was a funny typo. You might want to consider editing it out.