A question of moral responsibility
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Since the doctrine is not discussing combat, your question is meaningless.
Since the doctrine uses the word "combat" five separate times; four as the subject under discussion, I guess you don't know what you are talking about -- again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
From anyone else I would find your dishonesty shocking. It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants. In other words all 5 instances are used to describe individuals NOT involved in combat and how they should be treated. I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war. What is your position?
-
From anyone else I would find your dishonesty shocking. It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants. In other words all 5 instances are used to describe individuals NOT involved in combat and how they should be treated. I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war. What is your position?
oilFactotum wrote:
It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants.
Here's a clue: non-combatants are those who are not engaged in combat. So either we are discussing combat when we discuss those who are not engaged in it or we are not. All five references are the same. Since I have a great deal of trouble conceiving of there being something called a non-combatant in a discussion that is not about combat (likewise I have trouble conceving of talking about dishonesty unless we imply that there is something called honesty as well) I am afraid that I find your hair-splitting to be a poor attempt to save face but without validity. Would you like to try again?
oilFactotum wrote:
I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war.
Killing someone you are positive is a civilian when it can be avoided, is the act of a coward and dishonorable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:02 PM
-
From some of us observing from afar it would appear to be open season on India. One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard. But it's no skin off my nose. Good Luck.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
MrPlankton wrote:
One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard.
That's the question the Israelis were asking themselves until a week an a half ago. Well we hear as much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Europe, do you think, when India decides it has had enough - or is that level of opprobrium reserved for the Jewish state?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
MrPlankton wrote:
One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard.
That's the question the Israelis were asking themselves until a week an a half ago. Well we hear as much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Europe, do you think, when India decides it has had enough - or is that level of opprobrium reserved for the Jewish state?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
It's a good point. It would appear Israel was under rocket attack for almost a year. On the other hand, they received allot less casualties then India did. Another thought, India "can't do anything to Pakistan" because it's nuclear, on the other hand Israel is nuclear power and Hamus doesn't care, they continue to launch the rockets.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants.
Here's a clue: non-combatants are those who are not engaged in combat. So either we are discussing combat when we discuss those who are not engaged in it or we are not. All five references are the same. Since I have a great deal of trouble conceiving of there being something called a non-combatant in a discussion that is not about combat (likewise I have trouble conceving of talking about dishonesty unless we imply that there is something called honesty as well) I am afraid that I find your hair-splitting to be a poor attempt to save face but without validity. Would you like to try again?
oilFactotum wrote:
I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war.
Killing someone you are positive is a civilian when it can be avoided, is the act of a coward and dishonorable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:02 PM
Oakman wrote:
So either we are discussing combat
No, we aren't. I have been addressing moral responsibilty in war and I specifically referred to the just war doctrine. You snarkily responded by calling the Catholic Church "men who don't fuck" and "guys who wear skirts" and suggest, by your question, that they have no place determining the "when and who and why of combat". That's not what the doctrine does, so your question is meaningless - as I have already said. Now you can continue to split hairs on whether or not a discussion of how non-combatants are treated is a "discussion of combat", go ahead - it is a red herring and meaningless as well.
Oakman wrote:
Killing someone you are positive is a civilian when it can be avoided, is the act of a coward and dishonorable.
A very narrow answer which does not address either Israeli bombing or Hezbollah Hamas rockets.
modified on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:02 PM
-
I'd disagree. Like the India Pakistan crisis a few years ago there was much blustering, rattling of swords, and other threats made but in the end it was resolved peacefully. Possibly excepting the India/China and China/Russia border clashes (I'm not sure on the timelines) no nuclear power has ever gone to war with a second nuclear power.
dan neely wrote:
no nuclear power has ever gone to war with a second nuclear power.
Only by accident. Luck rather than the influence of MAD. MAD will not prevent Iran/Israel, it fails to persuade those who hope for the end of days...
-
It's a good point. It would appear Israel was under rocket attack for almost a year. On the other hand, they received allot less casualties then India did. Another thought, India "can't do anything to Pakistan" because it's nuclear, on the other hand Israel is nuclear power and Hamus doesn't care, they continue to launch the rockets.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
MrPlankton wrote:
on the other hand Israel is nuclear power and Hamus doesn't care, they continue to launch the rockets.
Hard to set off a nuke, even a tactical one, in your own backyard.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
It's a good point. It would appear Israel was under rocket attack for almost a year. On the other hand, they received allot less casualties then India did. Another thought, India "can't do anything to Pakistan" because it's nuclear, on the other hand Israel is nuclear power and Hamus doesn't care, they continue to launch the rockets.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
MrPlankton wrote:
On the other hand, they received allot less casualties then India did.
Israel is a country of only 7 million, India has over a billion. India's birthrate of over 22/1000 means India produces Israel's entire population in a little over 3 months.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
Steve_Harris wrote:
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
The point of going to war is to win. Once committed, victory is the only consideration. It trumps every other possible concern. If some arbitrary set of moral principles is more important to you than whatever you felt otherwise worthy of defeating, than you should not go to war to defeat it. Any enemy who learns that you have moral limits upon what you are willing to do to defeat him will immediately be found standing on the far side of those limits. Warfare is inherently evil, and should always be considered so, and treated so regardless of how necessary it might be. It is cruelty and there is no refining it, to paraphrase one of our great soldiers. And to try to place some sort of moral boundaries upon it is the grossest form of hypocrisy imaginable.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
Steve_Harris wrote:
or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances
I would think that if you reasoned to yourself that any number was OK, you'd be in danger of loosing track of where to draw the line. There's a moral responsibility to try to avoid hurting anybody regardless of what you are doing. In war, that responsibility is magnified.
Steve_Harris wrote:
Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
They are a side-effect of war, acceptable or not. And many wars cannot be avoided. So I would suggest that they are as unacceptable in any number as they are unavoidable nonetheless.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
So either we are discussing combat
No, we aren't. I have been addressing moral responsibilty in war and I specifically referred to the just war doctrine. You snarkily responded by calling the Catholic Church "men who don't fuck" and "guys who wear skirts" and suggest, by your question, that they have no place determining the "when and who and why of combat". That's not what the doctrine does, so your question is meaningless - as I have already said. Now you can continue to split hairs on whether or not a discussion of how non-combatants are treated is a "discussion of combat", go ahead - it is a red herring and meaningless as well.
Oakman wrote:
Killing someone you are positive is a civilian when it can be avoided, is the act of a coward and dishonorable.
A very narrow answer which does not address either Israeli bombing or Hezbollah Hamas rockets.
modified on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:02 PM
oilFactotum wrote:
You snarkily responded by calling the Catholic Church "men who don't f***"
You're not going to tell me they do? :omg:
oilFactotum wrote:Now you can continue to split hairs on whether or not a discussion of how non-combatants are treated is a "discussion of combat"
I suspect you don't know how ludicrous that sentence is.
oilFactotum wrote:
A very narrow answer which does not address either Israeli bombing or Hezbollah Hamas rockets
But an honest answer from a man who knows the difference between Hizbulluh and Hamas - and can spell them. You, of course, as a noncombatant have nothing to say on the issue worth listening to. As to the Israeli bombings, I take them at their word that they are attempting to avoid killing civilians. The Hamas rockets, of course, are aimed at civilians by people who blow up school buses at close range.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances
I would think that if you reasoned to yourself that any number was OK, you'd be in danger of loosing track of where to draw the line. There's a moral responsibility to try to avoid hurting anybody regardless of what you are doing. In war, that responsibility is magnified.
Steve_Harris wrote:
Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
They are a side-effect of war, acceptable or not. And many wars cannot be avoided. So I would suggest that they are as unacceptable in any number as they are unavoidable nonetheless.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
They are a side-effect of war, acceptable or not. And many wars cannot be avoided. So I would suggest that they are as unacceptable in any number as they are unavoidable nonetheless.
I like that, but I think I have a slightly more.. integrated.. view of the subject. Because civilian casualties are such an effective means of attaining victory, one has to take that into consideration before ever even entering a war in the first place, because not all wars are avoidable. The problem with "clean" wars is that they simply encourage more wars. Imagine the logical conclusion of this, where humans no longer die in a war and all we do is throw robots at each other - there would be absolutely zero impetus to avoid war, short of the financial cost, which for most countries is not something they seriously consider (and in capitalist countries, at least until recently, wars actually tend to encourage growth and innovation). Frankly I think war is and should stay dirty. If you're going to get into a war, kill as many as possible, to make people think not twice, not thrice, but 100 times before ever getting into one. The cost is supposed to be high. Bringing it down just encourages conflict.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
They are a side-effect of war, acceptable or not. And many wars cannot be avoided. So I would suggest that they are as unacceptable in any number as they are unavoidable nonetheless.
I like that, but I think I have a slightly more.. integrated.. view of the subject. Because civilian casualties are such an effective means of attaining victory, one has to take that into consideration before ever even entering a war in the first place, because not all wars are avoidable. The problem with "clean" wars is that they simply encourage more wars. Imagine the logical conclusion of this, where humans no longer die in a war and all we do is throw robots at each other - there would be absolutely zero impetus to avoid war, short of the financial cost, which for most countries is not something they seriously consider (and in capitalist countries, at least until recently, wars actually tend to encourage growth and innovation). Frankly I think war is and should stay dirty. If you're going to get into a war, kill as many as possible, to make people think not twice, not thrice, but 100 times before ever getting into one. The cost is supposed to be high. Bringing it down just encourages conflict.
Actually that's a great point. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two large exclamation points on it. Most Japanese I've talked to (lived there for a while) think that those two bombs were probably the right thing to do. They recognize that the emporer was more than ready to throw every man woman and child at the war, and that many many more would have died on both sides had we not obliterated two cities in short order. At the same time, I'd like to carry a stick to use on the empty heads of war protesters. Those who just protest "war". WWII is a good example of a war that needed to happen, even without Japan attacking us. Hitler needed to be stopped one way or another, and I'm pretty sure deplomacy wouldn't have done the trick. Of course that's not an argument for Iraq, I have mixed feelings on it. I think it needed to happen sometime, but not necessarily us and almost definitely not when it did. But what the hell, I haven't seen the intelligence reports. Those at the top know far more about the situation that us peons, we just have to hope and pray we pick the right people to be at the top. (Which is harder to do when we don't actually do the picking)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You snarkily responded by calling the Catholic Church "men who don't f***"
You're not going to tell me they do? :omg:
oilFactotum wrote:Now you can continue to split hairs on whether or not a discussion of how non-combatants are treated is a "discussion of combat"
I suspect you don't know how ludicrous that sentence is.
oilFactotum wrote:
A very narrow answer which does not address either Israeli bombing or Hezbollah Hamas rockets
But an honest answer from a man who knows the difference between Hizbulluh and Hamas - and can spell them. You, of course, as a noncombatant have nothing to say on the issue worth listening to. As to the Israeli bombings, I take them at their word that they are attempting to avoid killing civilians. The Hamas rockets, of course, are aimed at civilians by people who blow up school buses at close range.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Univoters of the hard left unite!
Oakman wrote:
I take them at their word that they are attempting to avoid killing civilians
Just because Isreal has more and larger guns, nobody seems to remember that Hamas (and all their ideological cousins) target civilians MOST of the time. On purpose! As standard operating procedure! Slightly off topic... I just about fell out of my chair when I heard that after Hamas' little rocket display, and Isreal's devistating response, that Hamas says "we will turn Isreal into a graveyard!" Pure lunacy!
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Univoters of the hard left unite!
Oakman wrote:
I take them at their word that they are attempting to avoid killing civilians
Just because Isreal has more and larger guns, nobody seems to remember that Hamas (and all their ideological cousins) target civilians MOST of the time. On purpose! As standard operating procedure! Slightly off topic... I just about fell out of my chair when I heard that after Hamas' little rocket display, and Isreal's devistating response, that Hamas says "we will turn Isreal into a graveyard!" Pure lunacy!
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I just about fell out of my chair when I heard that after Hamas' little rocket display, and Isreal's devistating response, that Hamas says "we will turn Isreal into a graveyard!" Pure lunacy!
Remember Saddam's Spokesman? He kept holding press conferences talking about how the U.S. was getting its butt kicked, even while Abrams tanks were rolling by his building.
BoneSoft wrote:
Univoters of the hard left unite!
Never did understand why someone would 1-vote the guy he was arguing with. Either he's making enough sense that it's worth arguing with him, or he's an idiot and worth 1-voting, but not both.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Actually that's a great point. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two large exclamation points on it. Most Japanese I've talked to (lived there for a while) think that those two bombs were probably the right thing to do. They recognize that the emporer was more than ready to throw every man woman and child at the war, and that many many more would have died on both sides had we not obliterated two cities in short order. At the same time, I'd like to carry a stick to use on the empty heads of war protesters. Those who just protest "war". WWII is a good example of a war that needed to happen, even without Japan attacking us. Hitler needed to be stopped one way or another, and I'm pretty sure deplomacy wouldn't have done the trick. Of course that's not an argument for Iraq, I have mixed feelings on it. I think it needed to happen sometime, but not necessarily us and almost definitely not when it did. But what the hell, I haven't seen the intelligence reports. Those at the top know far more about the situation that us peons, we just have to hope and pray we pick the right people to be at the top. (Which is harder to do when we don't actually do the picking)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Most Japanese I've talked to (lived there for a while) think that those two bombs were probably the right thing to do.
What pissed me off about the doctrine that Oily linked too was the Catholic church condemning the US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I probably shouldn't have called them men in skirts though :-O
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I just about fell out of my chair when I heard that after Hamas' little rocket display, and Isreal's devistating response, that Hamas says "we will turn Isreal into a graveyard!" Pure lunacy!
Remember Saddam's Spokesman? He kept holding press conferences talking about how the U.S. was getting its butt kicked, even while Abrams tanks were rolling by his building.
BoneSoft wrote:
Univoters of the hard left unite!
Never did understand why someone would 1-vote the guy he was arguing with. Either he's making enough sense that it's worth arguing with him, or he's an idiot and worth 1-voting, but not both.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
Have you looked in the mirror recently?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
if morality is real
You talking about morality is like a fly on a steaming pile of manure, talking about table manners.
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
blah blah blah................ how many here wading into this esoteric discussion have family / relatives actively putting their lives in harm's way? I need to start a poll....
Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go. —Michelle Malkin