Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 13  Next

Same to you.

   

Both sides here are wrong-headed.

The question of the morality of the killing has nothing to do with the dead, because, (as one side here suggests), dead is dead anyway you look at it.

What morality does have to do with is the appropriate response of the living. And there cause of death does matter. There is a difference between an accidental death and a deliberate murder. If six million Jews had died of an exceptionally cold winter instead of gas chambers, it would have been tragic, but not grotesque. ---But the difference is primarily for those who have to go on living with what has happened.

Or as Quote Oliver Wendell Holmes once said "Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked."

   

So wouldn't you agree that passing off civilian casualties as an unavoidable part of war is an unappropriate reaction?

   

Moral relativists Using your misguided logic, you'd label Allied soldiers as war criminals for the collateral casualties inflicted on enemy civilians, during WW I and WWII and Korea. Our laws clearly make a distinction between deliberate intent and accidental death and which is considered more heinous by society. Dead is dead for the victim but the way in which the perpetrtor carried out the killing is just as important because they are still around. War is not an exact science and innocents will be hurt and killed during armed conflicts. I am only to aware how conflict's legacy (minefields and UXO) is just as horrible.

As I mentioned above there were plenty of innocent children killed during the bombing of the Axis nations. However can these unfortunate deaths be compared to the children who were intentionally and systematically gassed by the National Socialist regime??? This is not an apples and oranges comparison. Intentionally targetting innocents with the sole purpose of murdering them and someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time are two different matters all together.

   

Certianly. I ahte to break the news to you, but morals are relative. They adapt to their environment, like anything else. Darwin.

   

Note both my posts were in the form of questions... I realize how unobvious the answers are, and I'm not confident enough to state much for sure in this case.

Next question:

The issue is accountability. Now, is one accountable for his intentions, or the results of his actions?

One thing I am sure of: the unavoidability of civilian casualties shouldn't be used as an excuse to be sloppy with where you drop bombs. If there is a chance of civilian casualties, that risk shouldn't be taken.

   

Good post.

   

No, the exact opposite.

   

I understand the sense in which you mean that, and I agree with you.

But I think to believe in morality, a believer has to commit to absolutes.

   

It's less worse to drop a bomb on a house with a prime target and end up killing two civilians than it is to let that prime target escape who will lead to the death of many, many more.

At that point, it's not blind pre-emption when the alternatives are so very, very clear.

   

OK, I will use some common scenarios and I want to hear how you would handle it.

Terrorists begin firing at police and military personnel from within a crowd of civilians, what do you do??

Terrorists fire rockets, mortar rounds and automatic gunfire, into a market, hotel, military base or school, from a building that is also a residential building.

Do you stand back and allow the terrorists, who deliberately use civilians as shields, to continue their murderous acts or do you try and minimize casualties? Remember you could have friends or family amongst those being fired upon

   

I'm not interested in imagining who I'd hypothetically kill. You can therefore assume I concede the point, if you want.

Now, since we're playing the hypothetical game, I've got one, which you can choose to answer:

The terrorists isn't shooting at your family in that last scenario. Instead, your family is the shield. What do you do?

   

I would have double or triple troop strength in the country that I had just invaded and make sure that the people had what they neede to live a half decent life. ie power, water, food, doctors. Then I would open up that oil pipeline full blast baby and spread the cash around to all the people in the land. Then when the people had their shit together and we had an agreement in place for some cheap oil and gas, I would collect my people and get the F outta there and come home.
Or better yet, I would first finish that other war in afghanistan first.

   

The decision would likely be out of my hands to begin with, but as I have stated, you try your utmost to minimize casualties. If I knew that there were terrorists, within a crowd or in my building, I would locate my family elsewhere. Many of the collateral casualties in these actions, know that there are 'bad people' in their midst and do nothing about it.

Parents who drag their children to or allow them to participate in actions that they know will result in gunfire and probable injury or death are even more guilty than those who react to the armed response.

   

I don't know if this will help,..

as I am sure you know, there is Common Law and Civil Law, Common Law countries trace their lineage to England, Civil Law to the rest of Europe.

Generally speaking,...

Common Law jurisdictions are much more based on what you actually do, where Civil Law jurisdictions on what you intend.


It might, at first make Civil Law jurisdictions seem more humane, but Common Law jurisdictions have a different advantage of greater certainty.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 13  Next