Haditha - Moral Question

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Seeker
Question: How did the Japanese control Viet Nam with minimal insurgency problems while the french and americans had big problems?

The insurgency didn't start until the Japanese occupation, so they were rather new at it. Even still, they caused the Japanese a great deal of grief. Had the war gone on longer, I expect that the Vietnamese would have thrown the Japanese out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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?

If we leave out the 1st Gulf War (Iran-Iraq) then we are killing as many Iraqis per year as Saddam did, and that's not even using the Lancet study (which most people reject simply because they don't like the numbers which it arrives at--numbers which are artificially low, I might add).

The sad truth is, Iraq was better off under the Butcher of Baghdad. Women had social rights, the people had electricity, food, medicine (not so much during the blockade). Today, women's rights are being eroded, crime is rampant, kidnapping is the number one industry in the country, there is less electricty today than before the war, food and medicine are scare, and there is not security. It is ridiculous that Hussein was a better governor of Iraq than we are.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The greater good is a moral principle many people use in their ideology.

That's not my impression. I'd be more inclined to say the "greater good" is an idea invoked by ideologues, dictators and totalitarian states in order to subvert the moral order to their individual purposes.

But anyway, there is no such thing as "good" except by definition. So I don't see how you can argue the point without first specifying your metaphysical standpoint.

That which is 'good' differs for a Buddhist, a Christian, a Taoist and so on. There is no such thing as one cohesive world system of thought in which to argue the point. So, unless you actually say what 'good' means for you, you're saying nothing.

If you define 'good' as "lowering the body count" then the "greatest good" is that which most effectively lowers the count. That's a question of strategy, not ethics.

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

Depends entirely upon your ethical values.

Are there any (non-Texans) who actually recommend such a course of action?

[Berzerker]

Depends entirely upon your ethical values

thanks, I feel so...informed now

comeback when you got an answer

any other defenders of the greater good care to explain why the greater good requires more dead people rather than fewer dead people?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You are still arguing the tactic doesn't work by introducing other variables. So people would get mad at the US, and fewer people would die in Iraq. What does the greater good require?

Your question:

If it does work, and I think it works more often than not, wouldn't killing 20-30 people save lives in the long run? Isn't this for the greater good?

A tactic is necessarily small scale. Even if it works in Iraq it will damage worldwide social cohesion. So it will not save lives in the long run.

[Berzerker]

You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work instead of answering the question.

and the continues

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And if the outcome is more death because the US wasn't brutal enough in the short term?

Then that's the price the US has to pay for being "good guys".

If you run around doing evil, you yourself will be considered evil, and even if it turns out 50 years from now that your evil was the lesser of two evils, it will still be evil and it won't make things any better here and now.

But the greater good is a moral principle, one that requires the test of time. Didn't you mention Hitler? Knowing what he became, would we really condemn some guy who kicked Hitler's mom in the stomach when she was pregnant preventing his birth?

Yes, because there's no way anyone possibly could know that at the time, nor would anyone ever find out if he was never born.

Now, I'm not expecting those with this philosophy of knowing the distant future but we can certainly expect a more delayed judgement by an open mind when it comes to tactics being used in an ongoing war.

In that case, the US can not claim to be the "good guys" because there's no way to know who is good or bad.

So your greater good might require more people to die rather than fewer?

Yes, it might.
Some times the greater good might require greater sacrifices, and if you don't think it's worth it, then you shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Bebro

Most of Saddam's massacres were in response to rebellions and the war with Iran, so he didn't need to do this constantly, just when rebels acted up.

Have you an idea of Saddam's bodycount vs. his own people? Would you accept similar numbers of people killed by the US to have "silence"?

Not to mention little things like systematic torture etc.....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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?

Bull****. Most people said they would not ACTIVELY kill someone to save 100 people. On the question of letting someone die to save 100 people is another question entirely.

You'll find most people who believe in the greater good would not actively do harm. As the posted Vatican treatise says, actively doing harm to another to save more is not in the greater good. The greater good is not all about body counts.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So why are those who advocate the greater good philosophy arguing that the body count doesn't...ahem...count?

I'm not saying it doesn't count, I'm just saying it alone does not determine whether an action is good or bad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work

They're wrong. It does work. How many revolutionary governments do you see in Central America today?

Your premise, however, is flawed. You ask as though there is an absolute moral good, rather than the reality of relative moral goods. For the ruling members of society, it is good to kill as many people as possible to keep a grip on society, their possession, keeping the people believing in GOD, etc. Humanists care about the absolute numbers of people.

Let's put it another way. In the capitalist world, the number of people who die every decade because of the failings opf the system equal the number of people that the Communist governments of the world murdered in seven decades. If you accept the premise that it is good to kill many innocent (or not so innocent) people to save many more in the long run, then you should embrace Stalinism.

[Arrian]

Let's put it another way. In the capitalist world, the number of people who die every decade because of the failings opf the system equal the number of people that the Communist governments of the world murdered in seven decades.

Yeah, ok. And add in the number that died because of the failings of the communist system (on top of the deliberate killings) and it's a whole 'nuther level.

But anyway, if you take the concept of "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one" to its logical conclusion, you end up a Stalinist/Maoist.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you accept the premise that it is good to kill many innocent (or not so innocent) people to save many more in the long run, then you should embrace Stalinism.

Just that Stalin didn't kill people to save more later. Most of his actions where rather the opposite. He killed to secure his power, not to save more other people later.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You're still arguing the tactic doesn't work instead of answering the question.

You're stretching the notion of 'worked' to breaking point. Come on, no bad consequences ever?

[Lancer]

The other option is to just go for a swim...

Originally posted by 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?