Japan In Wwii

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1270171750' post='2085263']
Think how many more would have died if we'd actually invaded mainland Japan. Not just Americans - Japanese civilians. Some estimates put it in the millions.
[/quote]

Immaterial. Consequentialism is a heresy.

Either say that killing the innocents was a grave evil that should never have been done no matter what, or say that the intention or end of an act can justify the means. There is no middle ground.

~Sternhauser

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 April 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1270172097' post='2085271']
Immaterial. Consequentialism is a heresy.

Either say that killing the innocents was a grave evil that should never have been done no matter what, or say that the intention or end of an act can justify the means. There is no middle ground.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
War is an inescapable fact of human existence. It is bad. But until such time as our fallen natures are amended, the best wars are those fought with a mind toward ending them quickly.

How would you have beaten the Japanese? What's the moral way to fight a war? Let the other guy win?

The killing of innocents was a grave evil among a time of great evils, perpetrated so as to preclude the inevitable occurrence of yet more evil and suffering. There is no middle ground, nor are there better choices.

--Toledo_Jesus_auser

Edited April 2, 2010 by toledo_jesus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1270172483' post='2085273']
War is an inescapable fact of human existence. It is bad. But until such time as our fallen natures are amended, the best wars are those fought with a mind toward ending them quickly.

How would you have beaten the Japanese? What's the moral way to fight a war? Let the other guy win?

The killing of innocents was a grave evil among a time of great evils, perpetrated so as to preclude the inevitable occurrence of yet more evil and suffering. There is no middle ground, nor are there better choices.
[/quote]

Consequentialism. It is a heresy.

~Sternhauser

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 April 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1270172534' post='2085274']
Consequentialism. It is a heresy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Burn me at the stake, after you finish answering my questions.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 April 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1270172534' post='2085274']
Consequentialism. It is a heresy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
oh, 250 words or fewer please.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1270172631' post='2085275']
Burn me at the stake, after you finish answering my questions.
[/quote]

You said that the end justifies the means. But you won't get up the guts up to say it explicitly. I have nothing more to say to someone who cannot come to grips with what he really believes.

~Sternhauser

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 April 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1270172808' post='2085277']
You said that the end justifies the means. But you won't get up the guts up to say it explicitly. I have nothing more to say to someone who cannot come to grips with what he really believes.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
the ends justify the means. Do you need me to quote the questions I had for you?

[Sternhauser]

[quote]Sternhauser, on 01 April 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Yousaid that the end justifies the means. But you won't get up the guts upto say it explicitly. I have nothing more to say to someone who cannotcome to grips with what he really believes.

~Sternhauser[/quote]
[quote]the ends justify the means. Do you need me to quote the questions I had for you? [/quote]


He has a nice flag. Will someone responsible relieve him of it?

~Sternhauser Edited April 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 April 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1270173063' post='2085279']
He has a nice flag. Will someone responsible relieve him of it?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
You could throw me a bone and answer the questions I had. I object to your tone.

Edit to say: tosh and piffle.

Edited April 2, 2010 by toledo_jesus

[CatherineM]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1270173151' post='2085280']

Edit to say: tosh and piffle.
[/quote]
That's the best way to handle an anarchist.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='01 April 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1270173834' post='2085286']
That's the best way to handle an anarchist.
[/quote]
oh no, he's not really??

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1270172483' post='2085273']Let the other guy win?[/quote]
I would have done that rather than drop the atomic bombs. If we cannot live justly, then the time has come for us to die.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Era Might

[dairygirl4u2c]

one could say that engaging in war is 'justifying the means', but traditio says taht it's not. im not sure how else to distinguish this.
as far as civilian casualties, the principal of double effect comes into play, at least in some of the cases. they're bombing to destroy infrastructure, etc. civilian casualty is unintended. ive heard that used for the justificatio of civilian casualty in the invasion of iraq, too.
intentioally killing civilians, though.... i doubt that could be called double effect. but, i dont see aside from the 'that just seems wrong' aspect to it, how it's not just part of war that is otherwise deemed okay (per 'ends means' arguments of deontologists ie those who believe 'the ends dont justify the meansw, ever'.

Edited April 2, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='01 April 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1270174365' post='2085295']
I would have done that rather than drop the atomic bombs. If we cannot live justly, then the time has come for us to die.
[/quote]
Let's keep you away from public office then. I don't believe that's a realistic position.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='01 April 2010 - 11:13 PM' timestamp='1270174392' post='2085296']
one could say that engaging in war is 'justifying the means', but traditio says taht it's not. im not sure how else to distinguish this.
as far as civilian casualties, the principal of double effect comes into play, at least in some of the cases. they're bombing to destroy infrastructure, etc. civilian casualty is unintended. ive heard that used for the justificatio of civilian casualty in the invasion of iraq, too.
intentioally killing civilians, though.... i doubt that could be called double effect. but, i dont see aside from the 'that just seems wrong' aspect to it, how it's not just part of war that is otherwise deemed okay (per 'ends means' arguments of deontologists ie those who believe 'the ends dont justify the meansw, ever'.
[/quote]
I think going after civilians as an objective is wrong in the context of war. But if civilians are killed in the process of destroying your enemy's ability to wage war, that is regrettable, tragic and sadly necessary.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1270174559' post='2085297']
Let's keep you away from public office then. I don't believe that's a realistic position.
[/quote]
It sure is a realistic position. All it takes is a willingness to be killed rather than commit sin.

[Vincent Vega]

Is it immoral to kill a citizen soldier?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='01 April 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1270174715' post='2085300']
It sure is a realistic position. All it takes is a willingness to be killed rather than commit sin.
[/quote]
Which doesn't make any sense in war.

Are we arguing that war shouldn't be? I support that! But war happens. Letting the enemy kill you is poor strategy for protecting the national interest and preventing the suffering of your people.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='01 April 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1270175083' post='2085303']
Which doesn't make any sense in war.

Are we arguing that war shouldn't be? I support that! But war happens. Letting the enemy kill you is poor strategy for protecting the national interest and preventing the suffering of your people.
[/quote]
Personal conscience comes before the national interest.

If being in war means I have to act unjustly, then the choice is clear: I cannot be involved in war.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='01 April 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1270175669' post='2085306']
My conscience comes before the national interest.

If being in war means I have to act unjustly, then the choice is clear: I cannot be involved in war.

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?
[/quote]
Sometimes when there are no good options, the least bad option is the one you have to take. Doing nothing is rarely allowed.

Luckily, we now have a volunteer army. The men in WWII didn't have the option. Unless they were Quakers. Even then, they could still cook or something.

Edited April 2, 2010 by toledo_jesus