Subject:
|
Re: Tangents (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:44:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
589 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > So I'll ask you plainly: do you feel that the Sept 11 suicide
> > > > > bombing, in which civilians (in a nation that was not at war)
> > > > > were used as missiles is morally equivalent to the death of
> > > > > civilians in a nation that had declared war on its enemy, during a
> > > > > time when Japan was certainly aware of the war?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of
> > > that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his
> > > rationale?
> >
> > I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning
> > before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about • morality
> > in there.
>
> Er, yes, there is. Read Dave's statement, to which you replied
> "Yes," again. You say, thus, that they *are* morally equivalent.
> The term isn't the problem (it hasn't been for most of the
> .debaters), it's the semantic baggage that goes with a term
> that has so many necessary connotations as "terrorism" does.
> That's what I, at least, have been arguing here--the *moral*
> equivalence just isn't there. I don't see it from my personal
> experience as a human being, and I don't see it as a professional
> historian. The only moral agreement you're liable to see wide-
> spread is that "violent, arbitrary death sucks." I'd wager
> that's true no matter who it's happening to, and probably for
> most of those perpetrating it as well (modified, of course, by
> whatever doctrine one's espousing).
Lets take it back to another example (and no, it's not an analogy). If an
escaped murderer breaks into my house, ties up my family and threatens to kill
them, but I manage to evade him & get to where my gun is. What should I do?
What's morally right? Shooting to kill (assuming I'm a good shot) would
(arguably) be better for humanity, but is it morally right? I could shoot to
wound, but that might mean he's still able to hurt my family. I still say it's
the moral option, even if my aims not as good as I thought, and I kill him
anyway. That's not to say, in the heat of the moment, I definitely wouldn't
choose the "morally wrong" option - doesn't make it any less wrong if I do,
though.
If we'd made some attempt to spare the lives of civilians, I doubt I'd consider
it morally wrong. We didn't.
> I think Dave made some pretty good points re: war, though.
> The point has also been made (by Tore, interestingly) that
> the word "terror" and its derivatives aren't necessarily inter-
> changeable. just because terrorism involves terror (in fact,
> that's its purpose), not all things that create terror are
> terrorism.
>
> But wasn't the original question "was Hiroshima necessary?"
Yep.
> Is this a giant tangent?
All tangents are infinite.
> Are mutant green llamas going to
> come steal my bottlecaps?
Debatable, but (IMO) no.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Er, yes, there is. Read Dave's statement, to which you replied "Yes," again. You say, thus, that they *are* morally equivalent. The term isn't the problem (it hasn't been for most of the .debaters), it's the semantic baggage that goes with a (...) (23 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
