Morally Acceptable?

With reference to the question in the OP, is this morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    0
#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Is killing a man who presents no direct threat (unarmed at the time), therefore operating as both judge and jury in passing a death sentence more or less morally acceptable than torturing and individual, yet leaving no long term physical damage?
 
#2
#2
Probably a question that you should ask the families that lost people on 9/11/2001.
 
#3
#3
I voted yes. But I qualify it by adding that it be applied directly to Osama Bin Laden and those associated with 9-11. As a generality I oppose it.
 
#5
#5
orangeblooded2 said:
I voted yes. But I qualify it by adding that it be applied directly to Osama Bin Laden and those associated with 9-11. As a generality I oppose it.
Click to expand...

Can you offer insight on why you say that it is more morally acceptable to kill bin Laden, if indeed he was unarmed and posing no direct threat, than to waterboard and/or torture captured terrorists (like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)?
 
#6
#6
Trut has made this his little agenda obviously. I wish your thread success. I'm certain you'll enjoy it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
TXVOL07 said:
Trut has made this his little agenda obviously. I wish your thread success. I'm certain you'll enjoy it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am just interested to see how an individual could look down upon waterboarding terrorists yet celebrate the killing of an unarmed man who had no right to any kind of trial or tribunal.

From my perspective, those positions are morally contradictory.
 
#8
#8
Loaded question but you knew that. I am all right in this case in saying yes and can live with my opinion and not lose sleep. In an absolute world the answer would be no. All human life should be treated equally regardless of what actions they taken or not taken.

But as I posted in another thread, I don't care the sob was yielding a flower, take his *ss out. I'm also ok with the questionable torture techniques of the individuals to find this bastage and other bastages who mean to do nothing but harm.
 
#9
#9
therealUT said:
I am just interested to see how an individual could look down upon waterboarding terrorists yet celebrate the killing of an unarmed man who had no right to any kind of trial or tribunal.

From my perspective, those positions are morally contradictory.
Click to expand...

We actually agree on this.
 
#10
#10
Dude is a mass-murderer and was proud of it. No need for judge or jury. The government of the country he attacked carried out the mission, should be no issue unless someone is looking to make it more complicated than it is.
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
I am just interested to see how an individual could look down upon waterboarding terrorists yet celebrate the killing of an unarmed man who had no right to any kind of trial or tribunal.

From my perspective, those positions are morally contradictory.
Click to expand...

We don't act in rogue capacity, as you know. Higher deemed this action, and several similar (various ROEs) to be legit. The courts have decided that CiC is legally justified, and is thusly acting as judge and juror. The shooter is merely carrying out sentence.

As for torture. It has no standing in US law.

As for morality, it is at the whims of society, and often reflected in law.

My take.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
JZVOL said:
Dude is a mass-murderer and was proud of it. No need for judge or jury. The government of the country he attacked carried out the mission, should be no issue unless someone is looking to make it more complicated than it is.
Click to expand...

I always look to make things more complicated than they are.
 
#14
#14
Torture is a moral necesssity. Don't have the time or energy to go into it, but I read a really good argument the other day why torture as an immoral act is wrong.
 
#15
#15
fl0at said:
We don't act in rogue capacity, as you know. Higher deemed this action, and several similar (various ROEs) to be legit. The courts have decided that CiC is legally justified, and is thusly acting as judge and juror. The shooter is merely carrying out sentence.
Click to expand...

Well said.

fl0at said:
As for torture. It has no standing in US law.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. There are certainly provisions against "cruel and inhumane punishment", as well as are obligatory respect and reverence given to the Geneva Conventions; however, I would like to bring up the following:

  1. Terrorists and insurgents are not privy to Geneva Conventions protections.
  2. The prohibition against "cruel and inhumane punishment" seems to be in place to protect American citizens (as our Constitution does not always apply to non-citizens and persons not on US soil).
  3. Is this torture "punishment" in the pure sense of the word? Or, is it a technique used to extract information? Seeing as how we are only torturing those individuals whom we feel have access to important, relevant, and actionable information that they are not revealing; and, also seeing that if they revealed it willingly they would not be tortured, I would say they are not being "punished" for any past or present transgressions. They are simply being "worked" for further intel.
I know, it is definitely a semantics game. :hi:
fl0at said:
As for morality, it is at the whims of society, and often reflected in law.

My take.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would like to imagine that morals and ethics are more concrete than that; yet, I do understand that many in society do not have a solid grounding in the philosophical fundamentals of their moral stances.
 
#16
#16
Who cares? A mass murderer got what he deserved
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
Dude had 10 years to turn himself in. So now that we found him, he is automatically given the chance? Sorry
 
#18
#18
Not enough information.
If he was standing there with his hands up trying to surrender (which I doubt)
I would say no, don't shoot him.
 
#19
#19
oklavol said:
Not enough information.
If he was standing there with his hands up trying to surrender (which I doubt)
I would say no, don't shoot him.
Click to expand...

I agree. Likely, they asked him more than once to surrender, he spouted off some jaw-jaw hitlery message and we shot him.

Also, I vote in favor of torture, especially waterboarding, in specific cases like this one. The courrier took [I don't know] 1-2 rounds and gave up OBL. Dry him off, give him some food, water, and a prayer mat. Then off to take of business.
 
#20
#20
oklavol said:
Not enough information.
If he was standing there with his hands up trying to surrender (which I doubt)
I would say no, don't shoot him.
Click to expand...

bingo.

he's the #1 terrorist in the world and some idiots think our guys should assume he's not dangerous?
 
#23
#23
therealUT said:
Is killing several thousand people who present no direct threat (unarmed at the time), therefore operating as both judge and jury in passing a death sentence more or less morally acceptable than torturing and individual, yet leaving no long term physical damage?
Click to expand...

FYP. Now ask yourself that question. He had no remorse over ordering the deaths of thousands of people that did absolutely nothing to him or anybody he even knows. But you seem to feel sorry for him because he had no weapon on him when he was shot and held his wife in front of him as a shield. I do not understand your logic or lack thereof.
 
#24
#24
superdave1984 said:
FYP. Now ask yourself that question. He had no remorse over ordering the deaths of thousands of people that did absolutely nothing to him or anybody he even knows. But you seem to feel sorry for him because he had no weapon on him when he was shot and held his wife in front of him as a shield. I do not understand your logic or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I do not have to ask myself that question; I do not base my morality off the morality of terrorists.

Also, where did I say that I feel sorry for him? I have stated that I think the right thing to do was to kill him; I have also stated that I agree with waterboarding and torturing the terrorists we catch.

The question, if you care to actually read the thread, concerns the moral dilemma for those that do not support our use of waterboarding and torture yet celebrate this action.

If you do not understand my logic, then that is a personal problem you should probably try to address by reading some Aristotle.
 
#25
#25
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top