Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
Was firebombing of Dresden by the RAF a war crime?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bethesda" data-source="post: 61477571" data-attributes="member: 315345"><p>Why isn't it morally justified to use force against an aggressor to save the lives of many innocents who would otherwise die? </p><p></p><p>If something is not morally justified does that make it wrong/bad/evil? Otherwise are we not playing with words. If a man runs into a school with a gun, then to me its not just expedient to use force (not necessarily lethal force but even a Taser or throwing something at him can kill someone) but morally justifiable. If the police could have stopped Anders Breivik earlier by getting a helicopter there and shooting him from it it would have been justified. The aspect in which I can understand the issue is only in that the police officer etc who uses force that ends up killing someone (or seriously injuring them) will not be happy or content about what he did (never mind what people say about 'righteous shootings' or what the TV portrays, PTSD is a far more accurate measure of the stress that having to use violence puts on someone) even though he did the right thing. I think any thinking person who has ever carried any kind of weapon lawfully has thought about the consequences of using it in terms of their own conscience (otherwise they shouldn't carry it and need another job)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bethesda, post: 61477571, member: 315345"] Why isn't it morally justified to use force against an aggressor to save the lives of many innocents who would otherwise die? If something is not morally justified does that make it wrong/bad/evil? Otherwise are we not playing with words. If a man runs into a school with a gun, then to me its not just expedient to use force (not necessarily lethal force but even a Taser or throwing something at him can kill someone) but morally justifiable. If the police could have stopped Anders Breivik earlier by getting a helicopter there and shooting him from it it would have been justified. The aspect in which I can understand the issue is only in that the police officer etc who uses force that ends up killing someone (or seriously injuring them) will not be happy or content about what he did (never mind what people say about 'righteous shootings' or what the TV portrays, PTSD is a far more accurate measure of the stress that having to use violence puts on someone) even though he did the right thing. I think any thinking person who has ever carried any kind of weapon lawfully has thought about the consequences of using it in terms of their own conscience (otherwise they shouldn't carry it and need another job) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
Was firebombing of Dresden by the RAF a war crime?
Top
Bottom