Morally Acceptable?

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

  • Total voters
    0
#151
#151
On the mindset issue, I use mindset and compliant because that is basically what all interrogation techniques do. They are different paths to the same end goal - get the person to release information that they would not otherwise release.

Seems like the basis for one vs the other is that if it's "widely accepted" it's moral; if not it's not moral. Not sure that is the basis for morality. The simple example is slavery - immoral then and now but certainly widely accepted then. It was the right thing not to enslave people then but it was a widely accepted practice. The same could be said for women's rights, etc. Morality =/= public opinion.

I still think the collateral damage argument is rationalization - we know we are likely to kill innocents but if we try hard not kill them or kill many of them then we are morally clean. If it is moral then it is a moral code based on cost/benefit analysis and the same is true for WB.

The very fact that it is not black and white is why there is a legal component.
 
Last edited:
#152
#152
Would it be, IDK, "reverse collateral damage" to accept that a very few might take it on the chin (get WB, etc) if the result was actually saving innocents? As stated almost at the very start of the thread I have extreme issues with certainty in who knows what and how that is determined. However, if I know I'm dealing with someone who is a known terrorist and his intent and others he serves is the death of innocents and our soldiers I am basically without remorse about this poor little cherub's comfort.

Here's a little sci-fi oriented experiment. Let's say any one of us here could step into a chamber and undergo some real world pain. Guys, it'd suck...passing a kidney stone/gout/migraine/menstrual cramps all at once. At the end of a day it'd be over and you'd step out of the chamber exhausted and miserable BUT you just guaranteed that a US soldier that was otherwise going to come home in a flag covered casket was now going to come home alive. Would you do it? Would you make that trade? I would. I bet a lot (maybe most) of us here would. Hell, I bet thousands...even millions, of Americans would. These are "innocent" people willing to suffer to keep their own safe. On the other hand a tiny group of pure scum are having to put up with some discomfort with some EIT that is meant to save innocent lives and/or those of our servicemen & women. Sometimes there is no "happy" answer but that doesn't mean some answers aren't happier than others. I'll trade a terrorists* comfort for the safety of innocents all day, every day and always. If that makes me immoral...so be it.

*Just wanted to make sure there's no misunderstanding here. When I say "terrorists" I mean we KNOW, everybody involved (including the terrorist) knows exactly what the score is.
 
#153
#153
volinbham said:
On the mindset issue, I use mindset and compliant because that is basically what all interrogation techniques do. They are different paths to the same end goal - get the person to release information that they would not otherwise release.
Click to expand...

I think the path is important. And, if all interrogation techniques functioned equally the same, this discussion would be without merit.

Seems like the basis for one vs the other is that if it's "widely accepted" it's moral; if not it's not moral. Not sure that is the basis for morality. The simple example is slavery - immoral then and now but certainly widely accepted then. It was the right thing not to enslave people then but it was a widely accepted practice. The same could be said for women's rights, etc. Morality =/= public opinion.
Click to expand...

I won't defend slavery or a woman's plight, but I will say that I think you are taking a bit of a lead off the base. Slaves, women, other religious members, cultures, kingdoms, cities, towns, ad infinitum were all perceived as lesser individuals, and that it was the "right" thing to, as The White Man's Burden shows, rule over and assimilate all "lesser" individuals.

Luckily times change, as do moral viewpoints. But, I think you would be hard pressed to convince the 1600s that slavery was immoral, that women were equal and that Europeans were not "god given" saviors of all godless heathens.

What is considered moral today is most definitely different than the past. For if morals were ingrained within all, well, the past would be so different than the present.

I still think the collateral damage argument is rationalization - we know we are likely to kill innocents but if we try hard not kill them or kill many of them then we are morally clean. If it is moral then it is a moral code based on cost/benefit analysis and the same is true for WB.

The very fact that it is not black and white is why there is a legal component.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as cost to benefit. I haven't seen the standard issue 15 children, 2 women, 4 males, 1 terrorist go card and the 17 children, 3 women, 5 males, 1 terrorist stop card.
 
#154
#154
hndog609 said:
Would it be, IDK, "reverse collateral damage" to accept that a very few might take it on the chin (get WB, etc) if the result was actually saving innocents? As stated almost at the very start of the thread I have extreme issues with certainty in who knows what and how that is determined. However, if I know I'm dealing with someone who is a known terrorist and his intent and others he serves is the death of innocents and our soldiers I am basically without remorse about this poor little cherub's comfort.
Click to expand...

"As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
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?
Click to expand...

You live by the sword, you die by the sword, or as i like to put it Reap the WhirlWind OBL!

It is what it is and the world is a better place.
 
#157
#157
fl0at - using your moral compass rules was our bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki moral or immoral?

We did not try to minimize collateral damage and actively knew we would be killing innocents. Active intent.
 
#158
#158
fl0at said:
I don't see it as cost to benefit. I haven't seen the standard issue 15 children, 2 women, 4 males, 1 terrorist go card and the 17 children, 3 women, 5 males, 1 terrorist stop card.
Click to expand...

Clearly we avoid bombing in some cases because we believe the collateral damage will not justify the target. In other cases we determine the target justifies the collateral damage. It could be concern for human life or concern for consequences for killing innocents and likely is a combo of both.
 
#159
#159
volinbham said:
fl0at - using your moral compass rules was our bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki moral or immoral?

We did not try to minimize collateral damage and actively knew we would be killing innocents. Active intent.
Click to expand...

These are the kinds of moral dilemmas which pop up. Which would be a more acceptable outcome in terms of casualties -- dropping two nukes or more fire bombing and a land invasion? We might have still been duking it out on Honshu by the time we invaded Korea.
 
#160
#160
milohimself said:
These are the kinds of moral dilemmas which pop up. Which would be a more acceptable outcome in terms of casualties -- dropping two nukes or more fire bombing and a land invasion? We might have still been duking it out on Honshu by the time we invaded Korea.
Click to expand...


It was expected that 100,000 Americans would die landing on Japan soil. It was seen to be more moral for Japan to bare the burden of loss to end the war.
 
#161
#161
But the Americans were soldiers, while women and children were among the affected Japanese population. So does that still hold up?

However, what would have been the effect on casualties among Japanese civilians alone, comparing a lengthy land invasion vs two nukes?
 
#162
#162
volinbham said:
fl0at - using your moral compass rules was our bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki moral or immoral?

We did not try to minimize collateral damage and actively knew we would be killing innocents. Active intent.
Click to expand...

Hiroshima was unprecedented. Nagasaki was immoral.

And I know, I know. "We wouldn't have won the war without them," "The Japanese were ready to dig in, and it would have cost 16 billion lives."

3 days. Three. Days.
 
#163
#163
I think the fact that we had been fighting two wars for a while and just wanted an end. This was the fastest and safest for us to get that end for the pacific front.

It also gave us a chance to flex our super power muscle to the rest of the world.
 
#164
#164
fl0at said:
Hiroshima was unprecedented. Nagasaki was immoral.

And I know, I know. "We wouldn't have won the war without them," "The Japanese were ready to dig in, and it would have cost 16 billion lives."

3 days. Three. Days.
Click to expand...


How is it immoral when the bombing of Nagasaki is what broke their will to fight?

It isn't like Hiroshima ended the war and we still dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki for shats and giggles.
 
#165
#165
Volst53 said:
I think the fact that we had been fighting two wars for a while and just wanted an end. This was the fastest and safest for us to get that end for the pacific front.

It also gave us a chance to flex our super power muscle to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

All great reasons to beat your wife after a long argument.
 
#167
#167
Volst53 said:
I don't see the connection.

I'm just a simple minded man, maybe you could explain this view.
Click to expand...

You and your wife get into a long argument, several day argument, maybe your daughter joins in, and you are tried of fighting and just want it to end, so you lay wifey out.

All quiet on that front, and you got to flex your superior muscle for the rest of the house.
 
#168
#168
milohimself said:
These are the kinds of moral dilemmas which pop up. Which would be a more acceptable outcome in terms of casualties -- dropping two nukes or more fire bombing and a land invasion? We might have still been duking it out on Honshu by the time we invaded Korea.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree - I'm just trying to see if I understand fl0at's decision criteria.

What you've expressed is what I've expressed - a tradeoff analysis to determine what is morally right. If I'm reading fl0at's view correctly, moral or not is primarily determined by active intent. Intend to harm = immoral; harm without intending to = moral.
 
#170
#170
fl0at said:
Hiroshima was unprecedented. Nagasaki was immoral.

And I know, I know. "We wouldn't have won the war without them," "The Japanese were ready to dig in, and it would have cost 16 billion lives."

3 days. Three. Days.
Click to expand...

Okay that helps me understand your position but I still don't see the distinction between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We knew in both cases we would be intentionally killing innocents with a goal of preventing further loss of life in the future.
 
#171
#171
Volst53 said:
How is it immoral when the bombing of Nagasaki is what broke their will to fight?

It isn't like Hiroshima ended the war and we still dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki for shats and giggles.
Click to expand...

There was a three day window between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During which, the Japanese were in the process of working out the surrender.

My turn: How many days after Nagasaki did it take for them to surrender?

Hiroshima broke them, coupled with the Russian declaration. We dropped on Nagasaki anyway. Earlier than planned... and not even the target of choice.
 
#172
#172
fl0at said:
You and your wife get into a long argument, several day argument, maybe your daughter joins in, and you are tried of fighting and just want it to end, so you lay wifey out.

All quiet on that front, and you got to flex your superior muscle for the rest of the house.
Click to expand...

Seems like a stretch to me.
 
#173
#173
fl0at said:
There was a three day window between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During which, the Japanese were in the process of working out the surrender.

My turn: How many days after Nagasaki did it take for them to surrender?

Hiroshima broke them, coupled with the Russian declaration. We dropped on Nagasaki anyway. Earlier than planned... and not even the target of choice.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you justify either as being morally okay given the "intent" criteria.
 
#174
#174
I see that, but I also see you trying to connect my view to a stance that I can't defend, when in fact there is no connection at all.

I don't agree with a man that beats his wife/child, but that has nothing to do with the US wanting to end the war to save American lives and bring an end to a bloody long war of two fronts

You see the world as black and white. The world is seldom in those shades, but we love to try to force our views and understanding of the world into them. At times the wolves has to protect the flock.
 
Last edited:
#175
#175
volinbham said:
Okay that helps me understand your position but I still don't see the distinction between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We knew in both cases we would be intentionally killing innocents with a goal of preventing further loss of life in the future.
Click to expand...

Hiroshima was the first of its kind. Precedent had not been set.

After Hiroshima, after we knew the immediate consequences, and before we gave the Japanese adequate time to council on surrender, we dropped on Nagasaki.

And ever since... we've had all these policies, issues and problems with nuclear weapons.

Which could lead one to believe that, yea... maybe not a great idea to actually use them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top