Haditha - Moral Question

[germanos]

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.

This sniping period is new to me. Good you give a source that sniping was a structural problem in the Netherlands for the Germans?

Secondly: the resistance here was active during the entire war. Assasination of ordinairy soldiers was not their main goal, disrupting anything that helped the occupation was. Dutch colloborators and high ranking German officers or bureaucrats were assasinated right to the end.
German reprisals did as well. Not only for these assasinations, but as well for every kind of sabotage. Whether their reprisals increased resistance or subdued it is hard to say.

Brutal force to supress the resistance seldom works IMO. Especially not if it's retaliation. Brute and wanton terror might do the trick though. But then you're stuck with a country full of numb people and it won't be of any use for the occupier. Unless you need slaves.


It's amazing though that an american even contemplates the thought.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

Yes and yes

[Kuciwalker]

What kind of country do you end up with if you implement the policy? No, it doesn't serve the greater good, even if it saves more lives than it takes.

[MOBIUS]

I thought this 'war on terror' after 9/11 was supposed to help protect American lives - at the rate things are going now, the number of American's killed in Iraq is going to surpass the total number of people killed during 9/11 some time next year...

And just to show how ****ed up this war on terror is, the Bush administration is now allied to the very warlords in Somalia responsible for the humiliation and deaths of US soldiers, of the 'Blackhawk Down' episode so they can fight the islamists there...

How ****ed up is that!?

[Ecthy]

I once read on this site that the US occupation force in Germany once used a tactic like this to pacify a city - wipe out an entire street as a response to some singular killing. Not that I could find any backing up for this though

[Seeker]

Perfect timing...documents have just come out confirming the US massacre of civilians at Nogunri here in Korea, and the fact that firing on 'approaching refugees' was an official policy.

[Joseph]

The young girl who lived, said today that she expected the bomb to go off any time. They knew the IED was there but did not tell the Marines. So are they part of it or not?

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Berzerker
comeback when you got an answer

You asked: "Is this the greater good."

There is no "greater good."

Had you asked "Do you believe this is a greater good?" then I could give a different answer.

For example: In hierarchical, Thomist thought,
[inanimate matter < plant life < animal life < human life]
It is proper for a human to make moral decisions affecting the disposition of lower forms. It is not proper for a human to act in a way which impedes the power to operate of another human since they belong to the same moral order.

Or, to put it another way, a human is bound by the condition of being human. As such, it is not possible for a human objectively to judge the moral value of itself or of another human being. Any such judgement is necessarily reflexive. Hence, the decision to kill, or to commit suicide is not proper to the human person.

In complex numbers, the statement: 2i < 3i is meaningless.
Two times something-which-does-not-exist is neither greater, nor less than three times something-which does-not-exist.
In the same way, one dead person is not morally greater nor less than 100 dead people.
We cannot objectively judge the moral value of human life.

Or, in Buddhist thought, the basic quantum of reality is suffering. Now, if I chop off my arm, and you chop off your leg, who will suffer the most? Who will feel the most pain? It's not possible to quantify, so the question of "greater" or "lesser" good simply does not arise.

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

I hate people.

I believe the world would be a better place without them.

Therefore, more dead people = ++good.

[BeBMan]

World without people would just be a place, not better or worse because nobody is there to judge

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Haditha - Moral Question

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay, if this was a massacre of innocent people perpetrated by emotionally wore out soldiers in retaliation for the death of a comrade, what if the effect is to reduce logistical support for the insurgents by the general population? Isn't this how many occupiers suppress insurgencies? They make an example out of a town loyal to enemies of the occupation. Brutal? For sure, but does it work or does it just fuel the opposition? 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? No, I'm not saying this was intentional, I'm just thinking of cause and effect and reflecting on the tactics of history's world powers...

So, for the sake of my question assume the tactic of wiping out small numbers of people to suppress an insurgency works better than trying to avoid hurting the innocent. Wouldn't the greater good require enough attacks on the innocent in unfriendly towns to teach them not to hang around or help the insurgents?

Look at it this way - what would you do if your friends/family/acquaintances were targeted this way by foreign invaders? Doesn't matter if we or they (at least some of them) welcome us - we're still foreigners who entered and remain in their land by force.

I have no question what I'd do, as soon as I got my kids hidden as far away from any fighting as I possibly could, I'd be shooting back. So your premise is a crock of shiite.

The "greater good" would be served by never invading in the first place.

[Dr Strangelove]

Here, here.

[Berzerker]

Guardian

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.

So is the lesser of two evils the greater good?

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.

Then you're not making your judgement on the greater good because its clear the greater good would have been served by Hitler's early death.

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 the greater good requires waiting

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.

So the greater good is not measured in people who are dead or alive, what then?

Bebro

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.....

Thats how he stayed in power, some here argue such brutality doesn't work rather than deal with the question.

Imran

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.

Stop the BS Imran, you did not take Floyd's side in that debate with any argument about the greater good. The greater good side argued the 1 would have to die to save the 100. A 3rd party was doing the killing and people were going to die from both our action and inaction. Throw the switch and someone dies, dont throw the switch and 100 die.

Che

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.

"Greater good" assumes at least 2 competing - relative - "moral goods" so I dont know where you got the absolutism from.

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.

Stalin saved more people from death than he killed?

Sandman

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

Bad consequences alll around, thats why we're dealing with the greater good. You gotta real simple question: does the greater good require more dead people or fewer dead people (and why)?

MtG

I have no question what I'd do, as soon as I got my kids hidden as far away from any fighting as I possibly could, I'd be shooting back. So your premise is a crock of shiite.

How many shiite shot back at Saddam? Not enough to remove him from power.

The "greater good" would be served by never invading in the first place.

How do you know?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stop the BS Imran, you did not take Floyd's side in that debate with any argument about the greater good. The greater good side argued the 1 would have to die to save the 100. A 3rd party was doing the killing and people were going to die from both our action and inaction. Throw the switch and someone dies, dont throw the switch and 100 die.

How can you be so blockheaded is beyond me. If a 3rd party was doing the killing, and we had nothing to do with it (other than trying to save one group or the other), how does it compare with actively killing one group to try to save the other?

And if you forget, part of Floyd's side was that he wasn't morally responsible for any side, so he could let both die. If he actively had to throw the switch, there were plenty of people arguing they wouldn't throw the switch to kill one to save 100.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG

How many shiite shot back at Saddam? Not enough to remove him from power.

Saddam wasn't a foreign invader, and the balance of forces and other factors (presence of informants, active secret police and security services, etc.) make direct comparison of Saddam's "results" and ours impossible.

How do you know?

There is no "moral" greater good to be satisfied by the invasion and casualties on all sides. Saddam wasn't capable of threatening anyone externally, and internal conditions were relatively stable at the time. There is simply no imperative moral basis for invading in the first place, so no "greater good" exists that could have been served by the invasion.

[Berzerker]

How can you be so blockheaded is beyond me. If a 3rd party was doing the killing, and we had nothing to do with it (other than trying to save one group or the other), how does it compare with actively killing one group to try to save the other?

Throwing the switch ends a life, not throwing the switch ends 100 lives. You make it sound like damn near everyone agreed with Floyd and me when I remember we were in the minority. And NO ONE argued for our side based on the greater good. The greater good side argued the 1 should die to save the 100. The greater good argument is not that the 100 should die to save the
1 The 3rd party now is the US military and we can save one group or another, larger group. The greater good requires saving the larger group. And if brutality saves the larger group, then the greater good requires such brutality.

And if you forget, part of Floyd's side was that he wasn't morally responsible for any side, so he could let both die. If he actively had to throw the switch, there were plenty of people arguing they wouldn't throw the switch to kill one to save 100.

Floyd said he wouldn't act, the 3rd party was responsible for the situation. If anyone dies, the 3rd party is the culprit. Once he acts, throws the switch, he is taking part in someone's death. But since you forget, the other side argued the greater good philosophy so why are you even bringing it up?

Saddam wasn't a foreign invader, and the balance of forces and other factors (presence of informants, active secret police and security services, etc.) make direct comparison of Saddam's "results" and ours impossible.

So his brutality was effective? I'm told brutality doesn't work.

There is no "moral" greater good to be satisfied by the invasion and casualties on all sides. Saddam wasn't capable of threatening anyone externally, and internal conditions were relatively stable at the time. There is simply no imperative moral basis for invading in the first place, so no "greater good" exists that could have been served by the invasion.

Nukes in the hands of Muslim radicals intent on wiping out infidel cities?