 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
