 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Me either. You're right, there's something a little off with that definition as written. As long as you assume that they felt they were on the side of good and their target was on the side of evil (that's the part that matters, not that GWB (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) One way or another 8?( (...) I don't really look at it as valid - I'm not sure they (Al Qaida, whoever we're fighting...) view it that black & white either. But I would also ask, does it matter which side is "good" and which is "evil"? Does (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument. Unless it can be shown that it is NOT a subjective judgement (that is, that it's not just a morally relative judgement), we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as evil and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Typo alert! (...) This should say "we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as good and us as evil as JUST AS VALID as our own finding of the opposite" Too many negatives and I got confused, I guess. Sorry about that, peeps. (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Aren't you saying that it's not the case that you didn't know that what you hadn't said contradicted what he had said wasn't the case? Dave! (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I've never lived in MA so I have no idea if I am saying that or not. Besides I was up late last nite building and sorting so my brain is a bit mushy yet this morning. (note to Dan: I'm not talking to you and that was a humorous (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless your ends are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out immoral anyway. If the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) In your defense, though, I would assert that it's not necessary (possible?) to be completely moral. However, in a field of several choices, the greatest "net good" outcome is preferable to less "net good" outcomes. We can be criticized after (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | broad brush terrorists (was Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I could, but I do not agree that terrorism is immoral. It depends on what the fight is against. There are instances where terrorists get broad based support for their actions where they are viewed as fighting against "immoral" regimes. If we (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
