Haditha - Moral Question

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not arguing for the greater good, I'm asking those who believe in the greater good to explain how they can condemn brutality if it saves lives.

Because the 'greater good' may not simply be a simple calculation of lives saved.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You missed the entire point, MrFun. In fact, it is whooshing over your head higher than the 747s carrying passengers above your house.

If the US killed as many civilians per year, indiscriminately, as Saddam did (or likely more) would the ordinary Iraqi really be any better off?

Fine, let me ask you the same question in regards to a different war then.


Was the Allied victory of World War II worthless considering all the civilians that were killed due to Allied aerial bombings, and ground attacks?

You know, considering we saved free government in western Europe and put an end (belatedly) to Hitler's Holocaust?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
Fine, let me ask you the same question in regards to a different war then.


Was the Allied victory of World War II worthless considering all the civilians that were killed due to Allied aerial bombings, and ground attacks?

You know, considering we saved free government in western Europe and put an end (belatedly) to Hitler's Holocaust?

Different situation entirely. Hitler kind of started the whole shebang by invading countries left and right. The Allied victory was at the end of that conflict. Secondly, the Allies weren't trying to "win the hearts and minds" at the same time.

Vietnam is probably more apt, but that doesn't exactly fit either.

If the US started indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians than we are no better than Saddam, and when the US ultimately leave, that violence will beget more violence and probably end up in a civil war with the potential for a worse leader than Hussein.

So, yes, if the US started indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians, then we shouldn't have even bothered with the war at all and Iraq would have been better off with Saddam in charge. Thousands wouldn't have died as a result of a lie, for one.

[Berzerker]

Terra

These are not moral values, they are physical objectives. "Lower body count" and "length of insurgency" are simple strategic measures of success. There's no difference between this and, say an engineer trying to minimise MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure). So did you intend to ask a question about morals or not?

The greater good is a moral principle many people use in their ideology. Morality is better served if fewer people die in a conflict than the alternative of more people dying because the US wasn't brutal enough.

Would killing 20-30 people save lives in the long run?
What you're asking here is an operational question, not a moral one.

What does the greater good require?

Is this for the greater good?
This might have been a moral question, but you have manipulated your definition of "good" into a simple repetition of the first question.

Well, is it for the greater good?

Where is your moral question?

Does the greater good - a moral principle for some - require occasional massacres if the result is a shortened war with fewer dead people?

[Berzerker]

Because the 'greater good' may not simply be a simple calculation of lives saved.

Then what is it? I'd like to hear how the greater good requires more people to die instead of fewer people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then what is it? I'd like to hear how the greater good requires more people to die instead of fewer people.

Are you serious? You remember the moral questions of if 100 people are about to die and you are the only one who can save them, but you have to kill one person, would you do it? The 'greater good' would vary based on the individual.. can't you see how someone would say the greater good would require that he doesn't murder that person, even if it saves 100 people?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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.

The French didn't have trouble until after WW2. The Japanese used the propaganda of Asians freeing Asia from white domination to get a few years of peace in most of their captured lands. By the time the war was over most locals had seen that things could function just fine without the French (as the Japanese had showed) so they resisted the return of the French.

[Terra Nullius]

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

Humanae Vitae

[Berzerker]

Are you serious? You remember the moral questions of if 100 people are about to die and you are the only one who can save them, but you have to kill one person, would you do it? The 'greater good' would vary based on the individual.. can't you see how someone would say the greater good would require that he doesn't murder that person, even if it saves 100 people?

The greater good was argued by those who said we should kill the 1 to save the 100, Floyd and I argued the greater good cannot define morality. So the debate wasn't between people with different definitions of the greater good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hint... you and Floyd weren't the only ones on that side. OTOH, in the question of LETTING either 1 or 100 people die, you have a different story (instead of you having to kill someone).

[Berzerker]

I remember the debate and no one on our side argued the greater good required letting 100 people die to avoid killing 1 person. The greater good side argued the 1 should die to save the 100.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I remember the debate and no one on our side argued the greater good required letting 100 people die to avoid killing 1 person. The greater good side argued the 1 should die to save the 100.

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

ARGGGGH!!

Letting a person die to save 100 versus ACTIVELY KILLING someone to save 100 are vastly, vastly different things. Please, for the love of God, understand this simple premise!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I like this analogy:

7 shipwreck survivors are in a life raft that is only designed to hold 6; the weight of the extra person is endangering the buoyancy of the raft.

One of the 7 people in the raft is parapalegic; he will be unable to resist an attempt to throw him overboard and, if thrown overboard, will be unable either to swim to safety or to attempt reboarding the raft.

Do you throw the parapalegic overboard? Does throwing the parapeligic overboard serve the greater good?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Haditha - Moral Question

Originally posted by Berzerker
does it work or does it just fuel the opposition?

In the short run, it fuels the opposition. In the long run, it works. But you have to kill a lot of people. Do you think all that counter-insurgency stuff in the 80s that we taught the Latin Americans wasn't also learned by our own boys?

[Berzerker]

Letting a person die to save 100 versus ACTIVELY KILLING someone to save 100 are vastly, vastly different things. Please, for the love of God, understand this simple premise!

As I recall, in the previous debate a 3rd party was introduced to put us in the position of deciding if 1 person dies or if 100 people die. If we throw the switch (or whatever "Saw"like mechanism was used to kill), 1 person dies and 100 live, if we dont throw the switch the 1 person lives and the 100 people die.

And stop with the BS, you did not take Floyd's side in that debate with any argument about the greater good. All the people arguing in favor of the greater good said the 1 should die so the 100 can live. So why are those who advocate the greater good philosophy arguing that the body count doesn't...ahem...count?