Just imagine if this was an Iranian drone strike on a Western nation

[bilby]

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

But a war (any war) isn't just a single discrete moral enterprise that's either good or bad. The balance of morality says that the Allies were better than the Axis - they did more good than harm, rather than vice-versa. But that doesn't justify or nullify the bad things done by the Allies. Area bombing of German and Japanese civilians was a war crime, an atrocity, and absolutely does render those who ordered it "bad guys".

There are plenty of instances of needless cruelty and barbarism by Allied forces in WWII, and one of the key things that sets the Allies apart from the Axis and makes them better than their opponents is their willingness to face up to, admit, and prosecute at least some of these crimes, rather than just acceping them as an unavoidable part of the wider conflict. These acts of barbarity were neither unavoidable nor even necessary (indeed I would agree that those unpleasantnesses that were necessary were not unreasonable, no matter how unpleasant).

If you want to be the good guys, you have to accept responsibility for your side's evil actions.

If the only way to win the war is unacceptable that is saying we should have surrendered instead.

The notion that it's most important not to commit evil yourself regardless of how that turns out is actually a vile position.

If you re-read my comment in parentheses, you will see that not only does your response fail to rebut what I said, but it actually is a restatement of a part of my position.

Civilian deaths are not necessarily problematic in pursuit of a noble goal. But that's not a licence to needlessly kill civilians, nor to target civilians for the purpose of demoralising an enemy population (which has been shown to be counterproductive anyway - targeting civilians strengthens their resolve and their support for the regime under which they live).

 

[James Madison]

Declaring war on another nation is putting the key in the ignition and sending an empty truck onto a busy freeway. Civilians will die. Of starvation and illness if not by direct violence, and there will be plenty of that anyway. There has literally never been an extended military conflict that did not kill substantial numbers of non-soldiers. Not in the entirety of history. If you voluntarily declare war on someone, you are morally culpable in the charnel house that ensues.

You are adroit at repeating this line of reasoning. But this line of reasoning has been addressed with several criticisms and objections. To these objections, you repeat your same reasoning. Engaging in an act voluntarily does not mean moral culpability attaches.

Perhaps death of civilians is an unavoidable consequence of a war voluntarily engage in, it is inevitable civilians will die. But such inevitability does not mean when and where civilian deaths occur, their death is immoral. Fatalities as a result of voluntarily operating a motor vehicle, and by this I mean one car collides or hits another or the operation in some manner of one car is the cause of death of another person, is an unavoidable consequence of driving a motor vehicle. Yet, that inevitable result hardly transforms such a fatality into moral culpability on behalf of the person who operated the vehicle in such a manner that resulted in death of another. As I said previously, it is desirous for notions of morality not to attach to those voluntary acts which by mistake, or certain instances of neglect, results in harm or death to another. Your reasoning condemns as immoral purely mistaken conduct, pure human error, that results in death. Again, it is desirous for morality not to attach to human error.

I think you are confusing culpability with a specific moral judgment. It's true that I find deaths in wartime unconscionable, but merely considering someone responsible for the results of their actions doesn't necessarily mean finding them guilty of a crime. You could say "I accept responsibility for this drone strike, but believe that it is sometimes morally acceptable to blow innocent people to pieces if the consequence of not doing so would be worse than if I refused to", and I would consider that a valid argument even if I didn't agree with your conclusion. What doesn't work is to say, "I accept no moral responsibility for this (postively or negatively) because it happened in war". That doesn't follow, because you knew or should have known the consequences when you supported going to war in the first place.

I think you are confusing culpability with a specific moral judgment. It's true that I find deaths in wartime unconscionable, but merely considering someone responsible for the results of their actions doesn't necessarily mean finding them guilty of a crime.

I’ve never entertained criminal culpability. I specific said “moral culpability,” not “criminal culpability.” I’m not confusing any of the concepts you allege me to be.

You could say "I accept responsibility for this drone strike, but believe that it is sometimes morally acceptable to blow innocent people to pieces if the consequence of not doing so would be worse than if I refused to", and I would consider that a valid argument even if I didn't agree with your conclusion. What doesn't work is to say, "I accept no moral responsibility for this (postively or negatively) because it happened in war". That doesn't follow, because you knew or should have known the consequences when you supported going to war in the first place

I have alternatives. In some instances it isn’t “morally acceptable” to kill civilians. In some instances maybe it is morally acceptable to kill civilians. In some instances it is desirable not to associate moral judgments with the death of civilians.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't think of a single instance where is it "morally acceptable" to kill civilians. Its inevitability doesn't equate to its moral standing. To willfully murder a civilian is worse than to kill civilians in collateral damage or in the complications of warfare. But that doesn't make any unpremediated civilians death moral.

War is immoral as all heck, and it isn't a bad idea that people remind themselves of that. Wars can become necessary to defeat a greater evil, but it is still wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your problem is that you think the war was "good guys" vs "bad guys", and that as we were the good guys, we did nothing wrong.

But a war (any war) isn't just a single discrete moral enterprise that's either good or bad. The balance of morality says that the Allies were better than the Axis - they did more good than harm, rather than vice-versa. But that doesn't justify or nullify the bad things done by the Allies. Area bombing of German and Japanese civilians was a war crime, an atrocity, and absolutely does render those who ordered it "bad guys".

There are plenty of instances of needless cruelty and barbarism by Allied forces in WWII, and one of the key things that sets the Allies apart from the Axis and makes them better than their opponents is their willingness to face up to, admit, and prosecute at least some of these crimes, rather than just acceping them as an unavoidable part of the wider conflict. These acts of barbarity were neither unavoidable nor even necessary (indeed I would agree that those unpleasantnesses that were necessary were not unreasonable, no matter how unpleasant).

If you want to be the good guys, you have to accept responsibility for your side's evil actions.

If the only way to win the war is unacceptable that is saying we should have surrendered instead.

Repeating your illogical strawman does not make it true.
For some reason, you appear unable to grasp bilby’s last sentence. Perhaps because it is not a comic book view of good vs evil with no gradations.

The problem is the evil actions are being portrayed as a reason for paralysis.

 

[laughing dog]

Repeating your illogical strawman does not make it true.
For some reason, you appear unable to grasp bilby’s last sentence. Perhaps because it is not a comic book view of good vs evil with no gradations.

The problem is the evil actions are being portrayed as a reason for paralysis.

The problem is your straw men, snd a comic book view of good vs evil that allows you to defend the killing of civilians

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Civilian deaths are not necessarily problematic in pursuit of a noble goal. But that's not a licence to needlessly kill civilians, nor to target civilians for the purpose of demoralising an enemy population (which has been shown to be counterproductive anyway - targeting civilians strengthens their resolve and their support for the regime under which they live).

The problem is the left takes it as a given that there was a better answer and thus the civilian deaths are needless.

 

[bilby]

Civilian deaths are not necessarily problematic in pursuit of a noble goal. But that's not a licence to needlessly kill civilians, nor to target civilians for the purpose of demoralising an enemy population (which has been shown to be counterproductive anyway - targeting civilians strengthens their resolve and their support for the regime under which they live).

The problem is the left takes it as a given that there was a better answer and thus the civilian deaths are needless.

I don't know or care who the left is, or what they think.

The problem is that YOU take it as a given that there was NOT a better answer, and thus the civilian deaths are not an issue.

But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true. And your approach is used to excuse the lack of any investigation of whether or not it was true - leading to murder without consequences.

When people (who are already objectified as "the enemy", and who are therefore not given sufficient consideration as human beings) can be killed with impunity, needless civilian deaths rapidly become an accepted part of warfare, to be dismissed with a shrug. But killings should be investigated, to determine whether they are unlawful. They shouldn't be accepted as lawful automatically on the basis that the deceased is not part of your own tribe.

Without an investigation, the assumptions of lawfulness, justice, and moral good are unwarranted. So those assumptions must not be used as a justification for not investigating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Civilian deaths are not necessarily problematic in pursuit of a noble goal. But that's not a licence to needlessly kill civilians, nor to target civilians for the purpose of demoralising an enemy population (which has been shown to be counterproductive anyway - targeting civilians strengthens their resolve and their support for the regime under which they live).

The problem is the left takes it as a given that there was a better answer and thus the civilian deaths are needless.

I don't know or care who the left is, or what they think.

The problem is that YOU take it as a given that there was NOT a better answer, and thus the civilian deaths are not an issue.

But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true. And your approach is used to excuse the lack of any investigation of whether or not it was true - leading to murder without consequences.

When people (who are already objectified as "the enemy", and who are therefore not given sufficient consideration as human beings) can be killed with impunity, needless civilian deaths rapidly become an accepted part of warfare, to be dismissed with a shrug. But killings should be investigated, to determine whether they are unlawful. They shouldn't be accepted as lawful automatically on the basis that the deceased is not part of your own tribe.

Without an investigation, the assumptions of lawfulness, justice, and moral good are unwarranted. So those assumptions must not be used as a justification for not investigating.

You're doing exactly what I pointed out--assuming there is a better solution.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know or care who the left is, or what they think.

The problem is that YOU take it as a given that there was NOT a better answer, and thus the civilian deaths are not an issue.

But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true. And your approach is used to excuse the lack of any investigation of whether or not it was true - leading to murder without consequences.

When people (who are already objectified as "the enemy", and who are therefore not given sufficient consideration as human beings) can be killed with impunity, needless civilian deaths rapidly become an accepted part of warfare, to be dismissed with a shrug. But killings should be investigated, to determine whether they are unlawful. They shouldn't be accepted as lawful automatically on the basis that the deceased is not part of your own tribe.

Without an investigation, the assumptions of lawfulness, justice, and moral good are unwarranted. So those assumptions must not be used as a justification for not investigating.

You're doing exactly what I pointed out--assuming there is a better solution.

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know or care who the left is, or what they think.

The problem is that YOU take it as a given that there was NOT a better answer, and thus the civilian deaths are not an issue.

But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true. And your approach is used to excuse the lack of any investigation of whether or not it was true - leading to murder without consequences.

When people (who are already objectified as "the enemy", and who are therefore not given sufficient consideration as human beings) can be killed with impunity, needless civilian deaths rapidly become an accepted part of warfare, to be dismissed with a shrug. But killings should be investigated, to determine whether they are unlawful. They shouldn't be accepted as lawful automatically on the basis that the deceased is not part of your own tribe.

Without an investigation, the assumptions of lawfulness, justice, and moral good are unwarranted. So those assumptions must not be used as a justification for not investigating.

You're doing exactly what I pointed out--assuming there is a better solution.

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

"But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true."

 

[laughing dog]

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

"But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true."

Then there would be no need for sn investigation / something bilby advocates, .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

"But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true."

Then there would be no need for sn investigation / something bilby advocates, .

Did you not notice the quotation marks? I was identifying specific words in Bilby's post.

 

[laughing dog]

Then there would be no need for sn investigation / something bilby advocates, .

Did you not notice the quotation marks? I was identifying specific words in Bilby's post.

And I pointed out that he advocated an investigation to find out exactly what happened - which would not be the case if he was assuming there was something better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then there would be no need for sn investigation / something bilby advocates, .

Did you not notice the quotation marks? I was identifying specific words in Bilby's post.

And I pointed out that he advocated an investigation to find out exactly what happened - which would not be the case if he was assuming there was something better.

He is saying most of the time there was a better answer. No evidence has been even suggested for this, it's basically left-wing faith that there is a good answer if you look hard enough.

 

[laughing dog]

And I pointed out that he advocated an investigation to find out exactly what happened - which would not be the case if he was assuming there was something better.

He is saying most of the time there was a better answer. No evidence has been even suggested for this, it's basically left-wing faith that there is a good answer if you look hard enough.

I realize taking a partial quote to derive a straw man is your MO, but repeating it does not make it true.

Using your mode of constructing an argument, you are repeating the right wing faith that killing civilisns is the best answer because that involves no thinking or moral sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I pointed out that he advocated an investigation to find out exactly what happened - which would not be the case if he was assuming there was something better.

He is saying most of the time there was a better answer. No evidence has been even suggested for this, it's basically left-wing faith that there is a good answer if you look hard enough.

I realize taking a partial quote to derive a straw man is your MO, but repeating it does not make it true.

Using your mode of constructing an argument, you are repeating the right wing faith that killing civilisns is the best answer because that involves no thinking or moral sense.

You're still presenting no evidence there are better answers. As I said, you're taking it on faith.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize taking a partial quote to derive a straw man is your MO, but repeating it does not make it true.

Using your mode of constructing an argument, you are repeating the right wing faith that killing civilisns is the best answer because that involves no thinking or moral sense.

You're still presenting no evidence there are better answers. As I said, you're taking it on faith.

You say lots of bs.
You’re the one making unsubstantiated assertions of fact and persistently pushing straw men,
Unilaterally denying there are better alternatives to killing civilians in a case by case basis is a perfect example of faith-based reasoning.

 

[bilby]

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

"But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true."

"most" <> "all"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That us ridiculous. He is saying one cannot assume anything without an investigation,

"But the fact is that most of the time, that's simply not true."

"most" <> "all"

Most is still an unsupported assertion.

 

[laughing dog]

"most" <> "all"

Most is still an unsupported assertion.

So are your claims about the left and that there are not better solutions than needlessly killing civilians in every case.