• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured Is genocide ever right or justifiable...?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Neogaia777, Feb 24, 2019.

  1. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,297
    Presbyterian
    Single
    That would be part of the consideration, the number of civilians affected. It's actually hard to define a distinction for Borgs.
     
  2. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,775
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    The Borg are like the Undead, would that even be considered genocide? It's like killing off a virus that feeds off the population.
     
  3. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,297
    Presbyterian
    Single
    But they aren't undead. They are alive. They are in some sense victims, because they're forced into an overpowering hive mind. But at least two people escaped, Capt. Picard and Seven of Nine. Both became fine people.

    The same may be true in more realistic scenarios. A nation or group can be evil, but once they are defeated, the individuals involved can understand that they were sucked up into an evil culture, and they can repent. There have been several examples. This includes members of the military, many of whom may not want to be there.

    We may still have to defend ourselves against them, but just because a group seems to have no innocent members doesn't mean we can treat them as soulless.
     
  4. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,775
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    That's a good point. I tend to find the balance by exploring the extremes.
     
  5. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,297
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Desmond Tutu gave an interesting speech (which I'm too lazy to look up) talking about how you deal with the aftermath of a situation where most of the population turned murderous. The best example was Rwanda, but he also used South Africa. You can't put half the population in prison, but you also can't ignore the offenses.

    In those two cases they chose to use formal processes where most people would be forgiven if they took public responsibility for what they did. Nurenberg was an attempt at that, but had some defects.
     
  6. Michael Collum

    Michael Collum Everything began with a voice, use yours Supporter

    +3,775
    Canada
    Christian Seeker
    Married
    In the case of "you can't arrest them all" them needing to live with what they've done will need to be prison enough.
     
  7. TheLostCoin

    TheLostCoin A Lonesome Coin Supporter

    +685
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Possibly, but not necessarily. Salvation and a means of Salvation are goods in of themselves, even if nobody chooses to be saved, even if they are able to, and nobody is saved.


    If you consider the death of a rapist in my scenario a “sacrifice,” based on this logic, then yes, absolutely.
    Because you are technically using the death of a rapist as a means to protect your wife.
     
  8. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,940
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    Dr. Crusher, said about doing what they were going to do with the Borg and about sending Hugh (the Borg the captured back) Dr. Crusher said, "So, he (Hugh, the Borg) can participate in the destruction of his entire species!, and then she said, "I know, were at war."

    But just because there were no individuals or whatever, does that mean they are not still and intelligent, or species of intelligent lifeform(s), and extincting that species or whatever, isn't that genocide...? If it's done on purpose or whatever...?

    And don't we have to consider the implications or consequences of that also... The being or entity or species we are about to wipe out of existence forever from that point onward, does it or do they not have as much right to be here and still be here as we do...?

    And the Borg could be brought back to being, and having, and as fully functioning individuals again, with their own independent minds again, or be saved also...

    God Bless!
     
  9. Selene03

    Selene03 Active Member

    342
    +118
    Guam
    Catholic
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    I can understand why Picard took that stand. He was a victim of the Borg; therefore, he felt that the total eradication of the enemy is the right answer. He was responding from experience while Riker responded from his moral conscience. My people were also once victims of genocide, and those who experienced the horrors of the Japanese occupation would most likely responded in the same way as Picard did. However, I have never experienced genocide. My response would be the same as Riker’s response. Every race has a right to live. And just because their government leader gave the order to commit genocide on another group of people doesn’t mean that every single Japanese was in agreement with their imperialistic government leader at that time. In this sense, Riker did the right thing because they were innocent victims who were assimilated into the Borg as Picard was, but were unable to fight the assimilation as Picard had done.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2019
  10. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,940
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    Do you believe the Borg, as an entity itself, has just as much right to be here, or be alive, or exist (here) or "whatever", as we do, or have, or are...?

    God Bless!
     
  11. Selene03

    Selene03 Active Member

    342
    +118
    Guam
    Catholic
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    The Borg is probably an entity different from its unwilling victims. What assimilates them is the Borg itself. Once they are assimilated, they do whatever the Borg commands them, and they become a single unit. It has a right to live because it is a life....an intelligent life, despite that it doesn’t believe in individual freedom. With that said, because of its criminal behavior of preying on unwilling victims, it’s action should be restricted.
     
  12. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,940
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    Have you heard of the Crystaline Entity...? Anyway, it's and entity that just does what it does by nature kind of, but, unfortunately it happens to feed off of devouring and scavenging and stripping entire worlds of all life, leaving the planet dead entirely...

    But, do, or are, or would, or could the same argument ever be made about the Borg maybe...? Like a whale that devours cuttlefish, as Picard put it with the Crystaline Entity anyway...

    And have you seen the second Star Trek TNG movie with the Borg queen...? "We seek to raise quality of life for all species..." "The biological and the synthetic"...

    Some of the Borgs arguments are pretty difficult to deny, if you can see it through, or if you are looking at them through a completely objective lens maybe...?

    God Bless!
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2019
  13. Selene03

    Selene03 Active Member

    342
    +118
    Guam
    Catholic
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    I haven’t seen the second Star Trek with the Borg Queen. But from what I gathered, the Borg feels that assimilating everyone into one where everyone acts and thinks as one is not raising the quality of life. It strips everyone of their uniqueness, character, individuality and distinction as an individual. They all turned into Borg and forced to follow whatever is commanded of them by the Borg. Their freedom to choose is taken away as they force their quality of life on everyone.

    The true quality of life can be found in the Holy Trinity.....three Persons in one God. All three are one, but all three are also distinct from each other as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And all three operate on the principle of Love. In other words, the Son does the will of the Father out of love. God also advocates a better life, but it’s given to those who want it rather than forced upon on everyone. Christ prayed that we be one with Him just as He is one with the Father. The choice is ours to make...to follow Him or not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2019
  14. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,105
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    But I think in this scenario that salvation is the ends and some people, namely the Canaanites, are sacrificed so that other people can achieve these ends. In this case, yes, salvation is a good in and of itself, as it's the end goal, but the humans aren't.

    I would think that it's in fact the rapist who would be treating my wife as a means to an end and thus violating my wife's intrinsic value. I would only be preventing him from using my wife as a means to his ends. Every individual has intrinsic value in-and-of themselves and everyone's lives are not just means to an end, but also ends themselves. So, I would simply be protecting my wife's intrinsic value, and respecting her moral value as a means and ends to herself, against someone violating those principles.
     
  15. TheLostCoin

    TheLostCoin A Lonesome Coin Supporter

    +685
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    But if those people weren’t “sacrificed,” then the Israelites would not survive and salvation, as something more important than the death of the body, would be lost.

    Another thing too - it seems there is a conflation between eternal death and physical death, and it’s a fact that you don’t know the state of each Canaanite post Resurrection.

    But doesn’t the rapist still have intrinsic value? You are ultimately using his death as a means to protect somebody else’s intrinsic value.
     
  16. Yekcidmij

    Yekcidmij Polymath

    +1,105
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Others
    Well, if we're to point out where each other are engaging in speculation, I would point out that through this entire discussion you've assumed the necessity of God's choosing Israel as well as the methods of land conquest, etc... How is it you know that this was the only possible method available to God?

    No, I don't know the state of the Canaanites post-resurrection. All I have available is what I [think I] know about justice in the current world. And I can't say that it's obviously just to treat the Canaanites as a means to an end. I don't know that it's just for the Canaanites to be a sacrifice for my salvation, much less a necessary sacrifice.

    For these reasons, and the ones I posted initially, I can't say that I would buy the idea that the Canaanite deaths were necessary in order to bring about Jesus and secure salvation. God may have different reasons, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

    I think the rapist is under the same moral obligations as everyone else. We could sum up some of these moral obligations by the Golden Rule, what Nassim Taleb has labeled the "Silver Rule" and what I will label the Bronze Rule (but is shamelessly copied from Kant's categorical imperative):

    1) Do to others what you want them to do to you.
    2) Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you.
    3) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

    I put all three of these because I think they all basically say the same thing. The reason these are moral obligations is because each person is an end to themselves. I think being an end to themselves entails certain rights. For the purposes of this discussion the right of self-ownership would be one of these.

    Taking out the rapist isn't treating him as a means to an end. It's treating your wife as an end to herself who has a right to her own life and recognizes that those rights are violated. Doing nothing would treat your wife as a means to the end of the rapist - you would essentially be agreeing with the reasoning of the rapist. The rapist is violating his moral obligations and has forfeited certain rights because by abandoning his moral obligations he has violated, or intends to violate, the rights of another.
     
  17. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +6,443
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The Borg represented a special case in that their collective consciousness allowed all Borg to be equally dangerous. The way they're presented in TNG and First Contact, genocide may very well have been the only way to protect the quadrant from them. Their catchphrase is "Resistance is futile". And they go to great lengths to show how futile resistance actually is. So based on those things, it would seem morally justified to wipe them all out.

    But then Voyager shows that the Borg are not implacable. Janeway concluded a de facto, unofficial peace treaty with them in exchange for offering her assistance with an even more dangerous foe who had been attacking the Borg. There's no reason to think the Borg ever would've violated the peace treaty. But if they were to violate it at some time in the future then defensive measures could be taken or perhaps new peace terms negotiated.

    So with that Voyager stuff in mind, no. I don't think wiping out even the Borg could be morally justifiable.

    But as a general statement, it's kind of ludicrous to think there could never be circumstances were genocide is the only way to defend oneself. It's not impossible. Circumstances could arise where there's no alternative. It's a highly improbable set of circumstances, perhaps. But such circumstances could theoretically exist.
     
Loading...