Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on May 4, 2011 at 10:17am

Morality is what protects the greatest number of good people. It is not always black and white. Sometimes all of the alternatives involve harming some good people. Under these circumstances the most moral is the one that harms the fewest. Having the courage to choose it sometimes involves being attacked politically by people who, in order to promote their own self-serving agendas, attempt to depict it as immoral by presenting it out of context. The way to protect the most good people is to have al-Queda deflated even if it involves water-boarding someone like Osama bin Laden. Remember that bin Laden was living a life of luxury with nine wives while expecting little nobodies to commit suicide for him. I am sorry that you resorted to name calling but I am not surprised.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 10:18am

And to me, morality is not that flexible.  You have to have standards that you don't cross.  Would you assault a child so her parent would tell you were the bomb in some city is? 

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 10:42am

 I might. I dont know and i hope no one is ever faced with this situation. As far as assasination goes...this is war. We killed an enemy combatant, a self declared enemy combatant.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 12:13pm

We killed an unarmed enemy.  Anyways, assassination of someone hiding out isn't the same as killing a general in the field or killing a soldier shooting at you.

 

My morality would forbid me from hurting the child.  I can't condone the use of someone's life without his/her consent, and a child can't consent.

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 12:19pm

 The consent point...i always agree with. But the larger question takin on a personnal level I think would become an emotional nightmare. And I dont know what I would do.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on May 4, 2011 at 12:33pm

These soldiers aren't standing out in the field and acting like normal combatants.  They're hiding away in safe houses, then sending out one fanatic with huge amounts of explosives on him to blow up a hundred civilians.  They changed the rules of engagement, not us.

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 12:38pm

Yup..The rules changed sometime ago.

Permalink Reply by Meddlesome on May 4, 2011 at 2:29pm

The rules are just pretty ideas on a bit of paper. They have never been followed 100%

 

M.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on May 4, 2011 at 3:23pm

Really.  If you are for it are you for forced organ donation?  Forced blood donation?  How about forcing a person to go fix the nuclear reactor in Japan?  Sure he/she will die, but it could say thousands so lets do it.

 

How many lives does it take to make the killing of an innocent person worth it?  Ten?  One hundred?  A thousand? 

 

And Stephan, not Stephen.

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 10:54am

If you knew torture would save thousands it becomes an easy choice...

  

    i agree.

  

Permalink Reply by John Jubinsky on May 4, 2011 at 7:33pm

bin Laden was not a child.

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 4, 2011 at 12:15pm

  Marc

   I dont question your motives. I believe your motives are probably as pure as the drivin snow. I have NO reason to think otherwise. Nor do I question your character. You have a bias opinion as do I when it comes to these topics.

  SO, perhaps we should both continue this discussion in the original vain. Which for me I dont think there is much to say, some will agree some will disagree with the killing of Bin Laden. He is dead. Now where do we go from here?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page