Haditha - Moral Question

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Seems to me those who believe in the greater good and judge Haditha immoral dont really believe in the greater good because they made their judgement based on what happened to people there and not on the future fall out which could result in fewer total deaths.

Again, the problem here is that you're assuming that fewer total deaths is the only way to define the greater good. Many people here disagree.

The greater good requires waiting to see the future effects of an atrocity before making a moral judgement about the atrocity.

Then why even have ethics?

[Berzerker]

If we go by "the greater good" and define that as fewer dead people, "Nazi" tactics can be justified if the result of using the tactics is fewer dead people.

The Nazi example isn't valid though, the Nazis were immoral regardless of what tactics they employed to suppress insurgents. But one could make a moral argument for invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam, especially if "the greater good" is the basis of that moral argument. Just speculate about a mushroom cloud over NYC and you've got your greater good.

[Berzerker]

Again, the problem here is that you're assuming that fewer total deaths is the only way to define the greater good. Many people here disagree.

So why does the greater good require more dead people than fewer dead people?

Then why even have ethics?

Ask the people who believe in the greater good. I'd like to know how someone with this philosophy can judge any action without waiting to see what happens.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Seems to me those who believe in the greater good and judge Haditha immoral dont really believe in the greater good because they made their judgement based on what happened to people there and not on the future fall out which could result in fewer total deaths. The greater good requires waiting to see the future effects of an atrocity before making a moral judgement about the atrocity.

So, if some Jew who was never born because his parents died in Auschwitz could have turned into a super-villain worse than Hitler himself, then the Holocaust was actually justified because it served "the greater good" and therefore we have no right to judge anyone who took part in it?

I say that's stretching it pretty far...


In moral terms, it doesn't matter what the long term effects of an action may or may not be - an atrocity still is and will always be an atrocity. If - in serving "the greater good" - people turn themselves into nazis, then they will have destroyed the very things that they claimed to be fighting for in the first place and those who have died will have died in vain.

I personally feel that it's better to have 50 people die for a good cause than to have 25 people die for a lie.

[Seeker]

Question: How did the Japanese control Viet Nam with minimal insurgency problems while the french and americans had big problems? Even fighting the same people like Ho Chi Minh.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If we go by "the greater good" and define that as fewer dead people, "Nazi" tactics can be justified if the result of using the tactics is fewer dead people.

The Nazi example isn't valid though, the Nazis were immoral regardless of what tactics they employed to suppress insurgents. But one could make a moral argument for invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam, especially if "the greater good" is the basis of that moral argument. Just speculate about a mushroom cloud over NYC and you've got your greater good.

There are those who would argue that this is MORE likely to happen now, not less as you seem to assume. Once again, only time will show...

But what if a mushroom cloud over NYC could actually prevent something even worse some time in the future?

Then wouldn't your "greater good" require a mushroom cloud over NYC ?

[Berzerker]

So, if some Jew who was never born because his parents died in Auschwitz could have turned into a super-villain worse than Hitler himself, then the Holocaust was actually justified because it served "the greater good" and therefore we have no right to judge anyone who took part in it?

I say that's stretching it pretty far...

Then dont stretch it, just deal with my question. If Haditha, or more specifically, the tactic of targeting towns supporting insurgents, suppressed the insurgency ending the war sooner, wouldn't the greater good require the brutality?

There are those who would argue that this is MORE likely to happen now, not less as you seem to assume. Once again, only time will show...

Ah, only time will tell... So how does a person who believes in the greater good condemn an action on its face without waiting for time to tell?

But what if a mushroom cloud over NYC could actually prevent something even worse some time in the future?

Then the greater good requires the mushroom cloud if it prevents something worse, true?

Then wouldn't your "greater good" require a mushroom cloud over NYC ?

I dont share this reverence some people have for the greater good.

Question: How did the Japanese control Viet Nam with minimal insurgency problems while the french and americans had big problems? Even fighting the same people like Ho Chi Minh.

They were more brutal

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Then dont stretch it, just deal with my question. If Haditha, or more specifically, the tactic of targeting towns supporting insurgents, suppressed the insurgency ending the war sooner, wouldn't the greater good require the brutality?

No, because the outcome of the war matters, not just how soon it ends.

Ah, only time will tell... So how does a person who believes in the greater good condemn an action on its face without waiting for time to tell?

Because that's what ethics and moral codes are all about. There are things that can be fairly done and there are things that can not be done. If you can't judge any action without waiting to see the long term effects of it, then we can't have laws, we can't have judicial systems, we can't have organizations of any kind... we can't have a society.

Then the greater good requires the mushroom cloud if it prevents something worse, true?

I didn't suggest that. You did.

I dont share this reverence some people have for the greater good.

Me neither, it seems.
That is, I do believe in a greater good, but my definition of it is a bit more complex than yours.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Perhaps, but Saddam stayed in power a long time by using this very tactic. Thats how dictators usually stay in power, you piss them off and they not only kill you they hurt or kill your family.

Saddam also did a lot more then just killing a handful of civilians. It's not that you can kill 10 or 100 people and then the rest just does what you like, you have to execute power in that way constantly all over Iraq in the same way Saddam and his minions did. Are you willing to go down the same path? I somehow doubt that.....And even if the US would start that now, with the level of violence already so high I doubt it would do much to scare insurgents away, at least not the religious types.

But it would be the end of the US as we know it.....

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Lancer
When the nazis marched into Holland and a sniper was active in a town, they killed ten or a hundred or whatever for every one of theirs killed. The sniping stopped.

This works, but after that you're just a bunch of nazis.

QFT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It intrigues me that Berz is arguing that the 'greater good' = less deaths. In fact that is the argument advanced by those who propose, for lack of a better word, nanny laws. Ie, banning drugs like cocaine and heroin is for the greater good because less people will die because less people are taking harmful drugs. In other spheres, the argument made by Berz or likeminded individual is that the greater good ISN'T less deaths. In that case it is liberty.

So, it intrigues me that the argument is the greater good is less deaths, even over moral concerns.

Though, I would say, if David Floyd was still around, he may argue against Berz (I seem to recall Floyd saying that if he could save 1,000 lives by killing 1, he wouldn't do it, because it was immoral to kill that one person).

[Arrian]

Very non-Libertarian argument, yeah. Sorta like breaking eggs to make omlettes. Maoish.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Today, really yesterday, a woman and....I'm thinking cousin drove through a barricade. Troos opened fire. Killed was the driver and the pregnant woman she was rushing to a hospital.

Who was wrong? How would the military know the circumstances? Answer: They couldn't. You have to assume the worst.

[dannubis]

Yes MrFun, in texas **** 'just' happens - but only to the other people...

[Victor Galis]

If the US were to resort to this sort of tactics, than we REALLY would have been better off leaving Saddam in power.