A Minor Inquiry into Morality

[Gracchus]

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.

Innocents are innocent. It is a tautology. And we could chosen to wait until we were sure that the threat was real and not just a politically and economically convenient lie.

How scared do we have to be?

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

If we bomb because we're frightened, then fright matters.

How certain must we be?

Undeniably. Infallibly.

There were no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence of ties to Osama. How certain were we?

And if it turns out we were wrong, were we certain enough?

No.

We weren't certain at all.

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...

ty·rant
Pronunciation: 'tI-r&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tirant, from Old French tyran, tyrant, from Latin tyrannus, from Greek tyrannos
1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tyrant&x=0&y=0

Let's say there is a tyrant who starts an unjust war and bombs innocent people, killing and maiming thousands…

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.

All people are my people, and conservatives and people who voted for Bush are killing my innocent people, and using taxes I pay to do it. Be grateful my protest is not more substantial.

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.

He is certainly bombing innocent people. The question is: How is this to be justified?

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.

An alternative choice would be not to bomb them. An alternative choice would be to not start a war just so the rich could get richer.

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.

Bombs don't discriminate. We are not and cannot be certain. Nor can your words disguise the fact that we certainly bomb innocents. Your words will not bring back the innocent dead, nor heal the crippled bodies, nor assuage the life-long pain.

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

~Please elaborate.~

How many innocents must die for each guilty person you kill? What is an acceptable level of collateral damage?

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 …

But they are NOT safe. They are dead and maimed. They are still dying and being maimed. And as long as Bush, Cheney and Company smell a profit, the dying and maiming of the innocent will continue.

…that one might deliver if injured.

Please clarify. I can discern no certain meaning in this phrase in the context of its delivery.

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.

But you used prolix obfuscation to imply that the innocent were not innocent. You asserted without evidence that some unnamed and undesignated Iraqis were guilty of unspecified offenses against us.

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.

You are right. Bush, Cheney and Company are getting richer. Simple survival is becoming unaffordable for more and more people. We are losing more and more jobs. The poor are becoming more desperate and the middle class is descending into wage slavery. Health care costs are rising four times as fast as the rate of inflation. More and more people are losing health insurance because they can't afford it. Insurance companies refuse to pay legitimate claims because they know most people can't afford to litigate, and would be swamped by the best justice money can by if they could afford to hire a lawyer. A budget surplus has been replaced by the biggest deficit in history, even adjusting for inflation., Clearly, the policies have not failed. The public's attention has been averted from flagrant larceny and murder by a new reality television series: "War". The policies of Bush, Cheney and Company have accomplished exactly what they were meant to do.

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?

First, I am not hissy. I am holding at bay profound disgust,and a dreadful anger. Second, you were not answering my questions, but questions you had substituted for mine.

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.

All the more so is murdering her children for money. Oh, I'm sorry, you said "sPit"!

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!

But the bombing was not a last resort and you seem to support it. And perhaps you would be so good as to give us an example of a dead baby who was not innocent. Easier still, provide an example of any Iraqi living in Iraq who has offended you so badly he or she deserves to die.

 

[Star_Pixels]

Innocents are innocent. It is a tautology. And we could chosen to wait until we were sure that the threat was real and not just a politically and economically convenient lie.

They may be innocent now, but what about later? If a tyrant has control over the "innocents", then chances are they are aiding him. After all, today I may be an innocent but tomorrow I could be a terrorist.

If we bomb because we're frightened, then fright matters.

Nobody said we bomb because we're scared. I don't know how you concocted that out of "I don't really like the idea of bombing ANYONE, but as a last resort..."

There were no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence of ties to Osama. How certain were we?

So in the long run you really don't care whether or not we're willing to bomb innocent people? You're just out to make a political statement against Bush?

Look, you asked if it was okay to bomb innocent people and I answered your question. If you want to make a political statement about Bush, may I suggest not attacking people who never supported Bush's war in Iraq in the first place and not getting mad when people answer a non-political question?

I don't know what has gotten your panties in a bunch, but you have completely missed what I was saying and, furthermore, are just being ridiculous.

 

[Gracchus]

Innocents are innocent. It is a tautology. And we could chosen to wait until we were sure that the threat was real and not just a politically and economically convenient lie.

They may be innocent now, but what about later? If a tyrant has control over the "innocents", then chances are they are aiding him. After all, today I may be an innocent but tomorrow I could be a terrorist.

So it is ok to bomb children because of what they might do in the future? Are you sure you have thought that idea to its logical conclusion?

If we bomb because we're frightened, then fright matters.

Nobody said we bomb because we're scared. I don't know how you concocted that out of "I don't really like the idea of bombing ANYONE, but as a last resort..."

I "concocted" that out of this exchange:

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?

Perhaps I should have added, "…to be justified in bombing innocents because we suspect they might be a threat. I thought my meaning was apparent.

There were no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence of ties to Osama. How certain were we?

So in the long run you really don't care whether or not we're willing to bomb innocent people? You're just out to make a political statement against Bush?

Non sequitur. George Bush is killing innocent people. The reason I started this threat is that I care very deeply about the current mass murder of innocent people. That is a moral objection with political implications.

Look, you asked if it was okay to bomb innocent people and I answered your question.

You answered:

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

You might have answered with a simple "no". But your final answer was "yes". Your answer moved the discussion from the hypothetical to the substantial and strongly implied that we are not bombing innocent people because they are not innocent, and that we had no choice but to bomb them. I pointed out that most of the casualties we inflicted were inflicted on innocent people (e.g. children) and that we could have chosen not to bomb them, in refutation of your rebuttal.

If you want to make a political statement about Bush, may I suggest not attacking people who never supported Bush's war in Iraq in the first place and not getting mad when people answer a non-political question?

This is the "Philosophy and Morals" forum not "News and Current Events", or "Politics". Of course politics does have a moral dimension but I was attempting to elicit views on the morality of the current war.

I don't know what has gotten your panties in a bunch,…

Mass murder for money, with attempts to justify it with obvious lies might have suggested itself to you. That is, if you had been paying attention.

… but you have completely missed what I was saying…

I don't think I completely missed what you were saying, nor did I miss what you weren't saying. When I did not completely understand you, I did seek clarification, which you usually failed to provide unless I continually insisted on it.

… and, furthermore, are just being ridiculous.

Your big finish is a personal attack as feeble as it is egregious. I don't mind, because it reveals much about you, and I would like to understand people better than I do. I am continually overestimating the general level of intelligence and kindness. Folks like you provide valuable reminders.

Thank you very much for your contributions.

 

[Star_Pixels]

You might have answered with a simple "no". But your final answer was "yes". Your answer moved the discussion from the hypothetical to the substantial and strongly implied that we are not bombing innocent people because they are not innocent, and that we had no choice but to bomb them. I pointed out that most of the casualties we inflicted were inflicted on innocent people (e.g. children) and that we could have chosen not to bomb them, in refutation of your rebuttal.

Yeah, right. You've had your head in the political comic strips just a little too long. Now you're not only reading things into every small thing somebody does, but every small thing that people (who don't support Bush, I might add) say online.

Why can't you just go with the simple answer I gave you, eh?

If those "innocents" are truly innocent then we shouldn't bomb them. But if they aren't as "innocent" as they seem and we undeniable proof and there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE (which you also seem to ignore, BTW), then yes.

The final answer wasn't "yes", the final answer was that if they WEREN'T truly innocent then yes. Which of course means "no" since you were giving a hypothetical situation that they really were innocent, and I didn't say to bomb then if they were innocent, now did I?

Of course, the fact that you claim their innocence was hypothetical shows that you actually enjoy the idea of bombing someone since you don't consider them literally innocent.

Or am I just reading into it a bit much and going over the top with stupid personal attacks and getting all political in a morals forum?

 

[Gracchus]

Yeah, right. You've had your head in the political comic strips just a little too long.

Can you tell us which comic strips? How long is too long? Or is this just an unfounded personal attack brought on by your annoyance?

Now you're not only reading things into every small thing somebody does, but every small thing that people (who don't support Bush, I might add) say online.

Small lies can try to hide very large deceptions. Small lies and irrelevancies can be used to try and cover up mass murders.

Why can't you just go with the simple answer I gave you, eh?

But you didn't give a simple yes or no. You qualified your answer with unsubstantiated hypotheses. I suggest you tried to obfuscate by complicating your answer. Nevertheless, you have now clearly admitted that we are not justified in bombing innocent people.

If those "innocents" are truly innocent then we shouldn't bomb them. But if they aren't as "innocent" as they seem and we undeniable proof and there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE (which you also seem to ignore, BTW), then yes.

Of what are they guilty, and what is undeniable truth?

The final answer wasn't "yes", the final answer was that if they WEREN'T truly innocent then yes. Which of course means "no" since you were giving a hypothetical situation that they really were innocent, and I didn't say to bomb then if they were innocent, now did I?

They may be innocent now, but what about later? If a tyrant has control over the "innocents", then chances are they are aiding him. After all, today I may be an innocent but tomorrow I could be a terrorist.

You seem to be saying that we can kill people for what they might do in the future, even if they are innocent now. You seem to be seem to be saying we are justified in killing babies because they might grow up to offend us. Of course they also might grow up to find a cure for cancer, but we mustn't take the risk. You seem to be saying that babies, though possibly only foreign or Muslim babies, are guilty until proven innocent.

Of course, the fact that you claim their innocence was hypothetical shows that you actually enjoy the idea of bombing someone since you don't consider them literally innocent.

Non sequitur. How does it show that? Your logic is so flawed as to be non-existent. Indeed, this is simply another unsupported personal attack. Please support this assertion with logic or evidence.

Or am I just reading into it a bit much and going over the top with stupid personal attacks and getting all political in a morals forum?

Bingo! Give the witch a cigar!

Bottom line: The United States is bombing babies and other civilians who have not been shown to be guilty of anything. Indeed, you have not even made any specific charge against the people of Iraq that could not be with equal validity be brought against the people of the United States. Thus, we have launched a pre-emptive war against them, and have not shown how they had in the least offended or threatened us.

 

[Aimee30]

Okay just make it clear what I think, people who oppose what a person who considers himself religious is doing are not evil. Jesus opposed the Pharisees for using their religion to control and regulate people unecessarily and people can oppose Bush for using unnecessary harshness. The fact is he lept into war unprepared to fight it, he allowed things to happen that people couldn't control, and a lot of people in our country have had to suffer needlessly because of his decision. I'm not sure God wanted that for our country and my morality says that needless war is not something God wants. Jesus did not come to fight wars in the name of religion, he came to make the people right in the eyes of God. Religion and politics don't mix very well unless you use discretion in how its applied. If Jesus said to love everyone--even your enemies--then love them you shall do. Politics are something for the government to decide, and God is for all people who believe or who will believe.
I believe ever more increasingly of seperation of church and state just because of people who can use it to their advantage. I think yes, the society should adhere to morality and the laws of God do provide a base. We should teach some sort of morality to children. And seperation of church and state does not have to mean removing the ten commandments from public areas--as these commandments cause no harm by their presence or outlawing prayer if it doesn't hurt anybody. The seperation should be due to and for people who use religiosity as a means to gain office, to enforce rules, or to cause wars. And sometimes making the right decision in these matters is not something you must make out of what you want to do in the name of religion, but what is best for God's people. If you only have two choices and one is more harmful than the other, even if one believes in God more than the other or shows his religiosity more than the other, the decision must be made based on what good it brings to all of God's children--even the ones (gasp*) who aren't Christian. We can always work on the abortion and gay rights issues later, after we take care of what is necessary to preserve life. What we need is a good leader, not someone we would like to be our pastor, reverend, preist, or whatever. Yes, fight for human rights and freedom of religion, but don't let that cloud your judgement.
*(My attempt at humor).

So my morality is basically the same as stated before in my other post. I think God thinks responsible, intelligent decisions are the most righteous and moral.

 

[Star_Pixels]

Bingo! Give the witch a cigar!

Oh! Now it all makes sense. You really don't care what I believe in politics but RELIGION, possibly because you're some crazed self-righteous nut. Or at least rubbing off as such.

*sing song* Tata!