Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:31:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
560 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 end was intended to be immoral, no amount of moral
> (humane, good, etc. taken in the smaller context of specific to that action)
> actions can make the end moral.
>
> So terrorism, I think, by definition, is immoral, and taints the outcome of
> whatever it supports.
>
> That by the way puts the onus on me more than ever to demonstrate that the
> a-bomb usage wasn't terrorism and wasn't immoral, else our "good" taking on
> the Axis "evil" is tainted nonetheless as not completely moral.
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 the fact, as we've seen, but only in terms of
alternative outcomes extant at the time.
I wouldn't care to posit the specific calculus, but I don't think the
concept is too far off the mark.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
