A premise on the difficulty of deciding to kill civillians
If Civilians are an important part of the war effort then to win the war you must eliminate all important means of the enemies war effort this includes civillians. If you go by the moral clause of not eliminating civillians and if that directly means your defeat in war, then you must either be horrible and kill or accept your own defeat. The only way to morally overcome this dilemma is to not go to war.
Comments (70)
Quoting Vishagan
You could be facing an enemy with the same value for civilian life, that is only attacking your military targets, or beat an enemy that is willing to kill your civilians by attacking their military targets and having a larger, more powerful military.
Though ultimately people will pick government that promise to protect them by any means necessary.
You have 2 competing rules:
1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You are forbidden to kill the innocent.
Your question is what happens when the killing of the innocent is required to defend yourself, which is often the case in war.
You conclude you must allow yourself to die if the killing of the innocent is required, but that doesn't follow. That conclusion only follows if you choose to negate Rule #1 by prioritizing Rule #2, but you provide no basis for that choice.
I'd submit the opposite as you have, and hold that self-preservation is of the highest priority, meaning you have the right to kill the innocent to save yourself, meaning I prioritize #1 over #2 when there is a conflict.
This conflict betweenv#1 and #2 is an ancient one, resolved by distinguishing between (1) killing and (2) murdering. Note that the Biblical prohibition is not correctly translated as "thou shalt not kill, " but it is "thou shalt not murder." That is, that set of ancients saw a need to distinguish differing sorts of killing.
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/
The concept of self defense being a duty (not just a right) also has roots in secular Western philosophy, meaning pacifism for the sake of protecting the innocent among your enemy is itself immoral.
https://www.dcs.training/the-moral-right-to-self-defense/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20we%20have%20the,doesn't%20befall%20innocent%20persons
I have not seen any evidence for this? Immoral to protect innocent people?
Required? The "Fog of War" syndrome is working overtime here. Mistaking an innocent for an aggressor is one thing in war, but one being required to kill non-aggressors so as to defend oneself from aggressors is incredibly topsy-turvy reasoning.
Person A holds an innocent child in front while holding a loaded gun at person B. Person B is not thereby required to shoot the child. Person B has options; the more forethought, the more options available given the particular context. And if person B were to have no other option while being an upright individual, person B's then murdering of the child (the newspeak Orwellian language of "collateral damage") so as to save their own life would weigh heavy on person B's conscience. For why ought person B judge their own life more valuable than that of the child's?
Quoting Hanover
So what, then, makes it immoral for one or more of those innocents you speak of to hold the same exact views toward their assailants (e.g., in regard to their assailants innocent loved ones) in the name of self-defense, and to then act accordingly in return?
Short of immorality in willfully killing innocents, can you spell out the "vague case" here. I'm so far having a hard time understanding it.
Once a nation goes to war, and thus commits itself to mass murder, it must accept that it has lost any and all rational ground upon which it might consider itself 'moral'.
The only question is how deep it is willing to sink into depravity in order to attain victory - on the individual level, how much of one's humanity one is willing to sacrifice for survival.
And the mass murder of civilians is used as an example, but this is not a prerequisite. The idea that soldiers are fair game and may be butchered by the thousands without moral cost is philosophically short-sighted, repulsive even.
So I agree with the premise; the only moral option is not to go to war.
Quoting Hanover
I would note here that war itself is not an act of self-defense, and that self-defense only applies when one has ran out of viable alternatives.
One could address the issue via individuals or via groups of such. War, or course, consists of the latter. But since addressing individuals is far more simplistic:
If person A is walking home and person B assaults and batters person A, person A can either do nothing and potentially end up dead or could defend themselves for as long as person B persists their aggressions. This, I believe, would be a just use of aggression on the part of person A. What would be an unjust use of aggression would be for person A to then assault person B beyond what is needed for person B to stop their unprovoked violence. (To not here also address person A's aggression toward non-aggressors as being unjust.)
Same, I so far believe, can be said for groups of people - where the term "war" can become appropriate. If group B assaults and batters group A, then group A is justified in using aggression in the same manner as person A is, and this to the same limitations: no more aggression than is required to desist group B's aggression, and no willful aggression toward non-aggressors.
Would you disagree with the examples just given?
When a person is backed into a corner and has no viable alternatives, that is in my view when self-defense appiles.
As long as a person has other options open to them, which includes running away, it is not self-defense.
And it should go without saying that self-defense only ever means the protection of oneself and harm that may befall others whilst protecting oneself can only be excused if it is unavoidable and unintentional.
So I agree with the first example since it clearly states person A has no other options besides protecting themselves or suffering serious harm/death.
The second example I don't agree with.
The stretch is taking the defend our citizens to defend at all costs.
To say this is somehow a Western philosophy is a bit of a stretch too. It is a human condition with multiple examples throughout history - across the globe. Ghengis Khan springs immediately to mind. For a modern day example there are unfortunately too many examples of this on the African continent too.
Where there is patriotism people will die for an imaginary force; just as you do for religion. Nothing I have seen makes such an idea specific to any particular continental trend. I am guessing maybe it could be also be tied to judeo-christian commonalities as opposed to more eastern mindsets? Even then many questions.
I am still not entirely sure what Western means and/or whether anyone is referring to the same item when they say Western.
Tough shit, suckers!
But this is what I'm challenging, which is that you can have an ethical ethics system if it gives advantage to those you consider unethical.
Ethics is not a suicide pact.
It's worthy to note that no one abides by such an intellectually concocted theory anyway, which is why nations go to war with minimal philosophical hand wringing when threatened or attacked.
Then you can't have an ethical system; you are reduced to 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' backed up with 'an eye for an eye' and 'God favours the big battalions.' And the good are no different from the bad.
To proclaim yourself super-moral for allowing the murderers to take over your society when you had the means to stop it makes your morality not just unsustainable, but, I'd submit evil and not moral at all.
As I've also noted, the morality I've described is what prevails in most every nation. To the extent that is now challenged is what poses the greatest risks today to those countries. We cannot civilize ourselves to literal death.
Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders?
Quoting Vishagan
I've never heard this idea i.e. "we must kill all their civilians or be killed ourselves" as an actual thing. Soldiers should never intentionally target civilians, otherwise they are murderers and not soldiers. But yes very often civilians will die in the course of a country targeting legitimate military targets and this is a legitimate ethical question, i.e. how many enemy civilian casualties ought a country tolerate in bombing a legitimate target?
But it's not as simple as "oh our sense of humanity holds us back" because often news spreads of dead "enemy" civilians and there are repercussions and the populace turns may turn more against you.
While everyone agrees with your premise as written, it underscores a different issue, namely that a leadership structure when faced with external threats to their power, rally their constituants by posing the threat in exactly the overly simplistic terms that you used. "Evil band of murderers" indeed.
As they say, the first casualty of war is truth.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing the practice since telling simple folk what they want to hear is an extremely effective strategy.
Sure. I'd urge everyone to get out of there.
So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them.
You need to show that what prevails is moral. And you need to show how a moral individual, or a moral society behaves differently to an immoral one. If your morality is simply to sink to the level of behaviour of the worst, then whatever you call it, I will call it immorality. But if a moral society or a moral individual behaves differently on principle to an immoral person or an immoral society, then to that extent the moral are at a disadvantage . Have it which way you want, but not both ways. Don't claim the moral high ground and the right to murder, rape torture etc. Virtue has a price.
This is not the scenario that I posed to Tzeentch. I posed him a hypothetical one involves tribes in antiquity.
Sure. The choice between my soul and my possessions is easily made.
What do you think the ratio of Germans who killed Jews versus Jews who killed Germans was in 1945? Do you think the Jews ought to have "gotten even?"
In the case of the nakba it's a little more complex because immediately after Israel declared/gained statehood, the Arabs attacked so Israel had to counterattack and in doing so annexed "Palestinian" land. We wouldn't be in this situation had there been no aggression from the arab states/palestinians.
I didn't. Rape, murder, and torture isn't necessary for the protection of one's society. I do impose a duty on a society to defend aggressively in order to protect the civility within its own walls from the barbarism outside its walls. That is the case even if that aggressive defense allows for some acts that may be moral violations within its walls.
While it's understandable that someone steeped in the traditions of inside the walls will protest the actions of those protecting the walls, that protest is not a special right, but it's only a privilege provided by those protectors.
Protection has a price.
Where we differ most is my assertion that protection is a virtue.
Immediately upon declaring statehood they were attacked.
Quoting Vaskane
Or because Jews are not murderous people. They are used to be being minorities in countries and having to keep their heads down. They also possess a tradition that places a high value on courts and the rule of law rather than wanton murder.
They are used as weapons of war. If you don't use them, then my original point stands, that the virtuous put themselves at a disadvantage by renouncing immorality. Once we have agreed that far, we can argue about what acts in particular we might find it seemly to renounce in all circumstances, and what killings and maimings of innocents we can tolerate while still enjoying our moral superiority in difficult situations.
You've misread if you've read a moral subjectivity into what I've said. Morality is contextual, not subjective. All matters must be considered, including the net result of not aggressively defending and what that would mean to the now defeated previously moral nation and what would happen to those citizens.
As a slight interlude: The ethical dictum of "an eye for an eye" strictly upholds a 1:1 ratio of retribution as moral. So both a 100:1 or a 10:1 ratio would be misaligned to it, and thereby immoral.
Just wanted to say it.
:100:
No it doesn't. Your literalist, four corners reading isn't consistent with how those who actually use that document for moral guidance interpret that passage of Leviticus.
So how ought it to be properly interpreted? You take out one of my eyes and I take out both of yours, kind of thing? Or something else?
In an entirely unpredicted way:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/479511/jewish/What-Does-Eye-for-an-Eye-Really-Mean.htm
These biblical interpretations tend to pull in so many sources, you're never safe to assume they are used in a literal way.
After all, given what I've gathered in my life, the dictum, though metaphorical, makes plenty of sense at multiple levels of interpretation: generally, when someone does you unwarranted wrong retribution should be in like measure (even if in a different form), but going beyond this leads to you then doing unwarranted wrong against your opponent (as in, fully blinding him when he did not do that to you) ... and thereby leads into a downward spiral of wrongdoing, since your opponent is the justified in seeking retribution against you.
More mathematically speaking, this very strategy has been evidenced to be the optimal means of assuring reciprocal altruism. As a brief synopsis:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
I can expand on this at some later time, but I'm still interested in an answer to my initial question.
Quoting Vaskane
I would take biblical history relating to the 2nd millennium bc with a grain of salt, but regardless, point taken -- Israel was bloody in those times! I am sure there were civil wars. I don't believe in the historicity of the Joshua conquests though. But yes, I do believe that 3300 years ago the ancient Israelites got their hands dirty. What exactly was going on in those days we'll never know, and it should also be clear that the Israelites of Moses's time (~13th century BC if not earlier) did not remotely resemble the ethno-religion of Judaism which is only first mentioned in the 6th century BC, AFAIK -- book of zechariah. They were surely not even monotheists that far back.
Ooh, this is an event that I am not too familiar with. How many Arabs do you figured were killed by Jews working under Wingate? But I'm sure you're familiar with the Hebron massacre of '29 and the Jaffa massacre of '36 among others, where Jews, lacking protection, were massacred by Arabs bearing primitive tools going from house to house with the permission of the authorities. I don't believe the Arabs of the 20s and 30s believed in the inevitability of Israel but perhaps I am wrong?
You can arrive at your own interpretation, but I was offering one that those who are committed to using those words as a guide to living actually use it.
I brought it up because in the context we're speaking against the backdrop of the war in Israel is that some might believe the Israeli response is motivated by an eye for an eye mentality. As you noted, that might require a 1:1 ratio, as if to imply an Israeli response is inconsistent with Jewish morality. My point was that an eye for an eye response to life is inconsistent with Jewish thought regardless of ratio
Reading this charitably, I already knew that. "Do not commit undue harm" to me seems more in keeping with the Jewish thought I've been primarily exposed to. But this does not nullify the validity of heuristic I've previously expressed.
Quoting Hanover
I, personally, uphold this to be true. See, for example, the aforementioned.
It's not a renouncement of morality when you have to resolve a moral dilemma in a real world situation. A dilemma arises not when you have to choose between being moral or not (e.g. should I lie and get the job or not?), but when there are two equally compelling choices based both upon equally justified bases (e.g. should I throw a person into the sea to keep the boat from sinking or do we all have to sink?).
In the scenario posed, the question is whether we can shoot a child who is being used as a human shield in order to save our city (or, in the alternative, whether we can invade a hospital in order to remove an enemy military base underneath). We have two competing moral rules: (1) protection of the innocent vs. (2) protection of ourselves. I've resolved this issue by prioritizing my own safety and the safety of my city, and I do think that justifiable under various ethical theories, particularly Utilitarianism. I place a higher duty on the protection of those closest to me as well, meaning I do have a higher duty to my children, my family, and my general community. I also think it's necessary to ask what it would mean to allow the enemy to prevail in the conflict in terms of the suffering that would result from that.
To offer a legal analogy, we don't consider it an abandonment of the law when courts are called upon to interpret the interplay of laws and resolve conflicts in laws. That's just how law works and that's how ethics works.
The world is usually more complicated than trolley-like thought experiments make it out to be Start with doing what's right and then you might see that there are alternative courses of action that weren't obvious at first.
You may also see that you wanted to simplify things because what you really wanted was revenge, not defense.
I'd say the opposite and argue that usually the world is more complicated than black and white, particularly in situations involving war where there are many competing interests. We typically try to find our best and brightest to resolve our ethical and legal issues due to their complexity and nuance.
Quoting frank
Bias of the decision maker is always an issue in every decision, which requires that person making the decision to be self-aware and have the proper temperment, but I don't think it is impossible to make decisions where your own interests will be affected.
To be able to sustain your argument that the decision was based not upon ethical reasons but upon personal vendetta, you would have to show that the ethical basis provided for the decision was not reasonable, as opposed to just presenting a vague concern over what the hidden motivations of the decision maker might be.
You were earlier indicating that you reserve the right to work out the moral solution to a thought experiment, but now you say it's beyond you and we need to outsource these judgments to the special few? How do you choose these best and brightest if you don't know right from wrong yourself?
Quoting Hanover
I would encourage you to rethink the link between morality and reasonableness. Look at this:
Are you making the argument that Jews are in fact a murderous people from time immemorial? Is it something in the Jewish blood or culture do you suppose that makes them such animals?
I'm not interested in these meta-meta discussions that lead us to the place that none of us have a view from no where, so we all are biased and there is not such thing as objectivity. We function very well with all our baggage and are able to make decisions daily is the best I can say.Quoting frank
The video doesn't address what we're discussing.
There are (1) ethical reasons and (2) pragmatic reasons. If I want to steal your belongings that you are not watching over and I can do this without any possibility of being caught, there are a variety of ethical reasons not to do that. For those reasons, I will not do that.
There are a number of pragmatic reasons I should steal your belongings, namely that I will get some cool shit for free. I will not do that, though, because the ethical reasons prevail over the pragmatic because I wish to be an ethical person. But, sure, if I steal under the cover of night in full disguise in order to avoid detection, I am being rational in the sense I've arrived at ways to achieve my pragmatic (yet unethical) goal.
When I say I am looking for a reasonable basis for making an ethical decision, I am not interested in the pragmatic, but I am interested in the ethical. I fully understand that Stalin might have been very rational in the sense that he formulated reasons for his brand of evil, but he was entirely unreasonable if he thought that the basis he provided for his actions were based upon ethical reasons and not just pragmatic ones.
take over Canada by invading and pillaging, there are numerous ethical reasons why that is wrong. For that reason, I will not do it.
We do. We're just sharing our views on ethics. One way we pick up on our own pathological biases is by listening to each other, for instance, I tell you that you put "rape" into every post you made about the recent attack on Israel, but then supported Israel's attack by referencing the defense of Israel. The rape of a Jewish woman has nothing to do with the defense of Israel. It looks like your ability to talk about morality might be sidelined by the desire for revenge. I'm guessing you already know that?
Quoting Hanover
The point was that reason is not the anchor of morality. It can support either moral or immoral behavior. Therefore, assuring yourself that you're reasonable is not the way to make sure you aren't about to become a Nazi.
And the answer you give is yes. The answer I give is no.
Incidentally, I understand that British policy is never to negotiated with hostage takers, on the grounds that to negotiate would be to encourage hostage taking in the future. I don't know if the policy is implemented on every occasion, but it is certainly advertised. Strange that tough minded Israel doesn't follow such a policy. All a matter, I have to suppose, of whose child it is whether it is or isn't moral to sacrifice them.
Of course it does. Israel doesn't want its citizens raped again, so they are dismantling their enemy's ability to do that.Quoting frank
I'm just not agreeing that there isn't a rational basis for ethical reasoning, even if the source of decisions rests additionally in the emotions. If you're an ethical emotivist, that's just a difference between the two of us. I also am not conflating pragmatic reasons with ethical ones, which is what I think you're doing here. I get that Jeffrey Dahmer had his reasons for his vile acts and that he wasn't entirely irrational else he could not have carried them out. I do not think, however, that he had any valid ethical reasons for why he acted as he did.
It's immoral to sacrifice children in the advancement of a political objective, which is what makes Hamas immoral in their doing that. Israel is also trying to protect its children by exchanging Palestinians who have actually attacked and murdered Israelis for the return of its innocent children.
The party guilty for the death of the children are those who drape themselves in the children while attacking, not the person protecting themselves.
I don't see the moral equivalence you're trying to draw.
You know, I really believe you don't. That is the tragedy.
But "Hamas made me do it" is pathetic.
Comment #1 says something about Jews. In particular you said that they are a murderous people. Comment #2 says something about everybody.
You did not say "Jews are not a peaceful people, but, then again, no one is, just look at the word "mean" and "villa."
You also did not say something about Israel. You said something about Jews.
Quoting Hanover
That's just ridiculous.
Quoting Hanover
Sure. Hitler's Mein Kampf, on the other hand, is very well thought through and supremely reasonable. He was just trying to defend Germany. For real. Read it.
I still think you know what you saying is wrong, you just can't keep your from saying it.
I'm sincere regardless of whether you believe me.
The cause of the attack on Gaza was the Hamas invastion that preceded it. The cause of your shooting an intruder was the intrusion.
That's not an argument. That's just a wrong evaluation. The invasion of Gaza absolutely had to do with the invasion by Hamas, which was, as I recall, the murder of children, raping of women, and the kidnapping of the elderly and the young. Had that not happened, today would be a normal Monday and not one with Gaza under heavy attack (although they are paused momentarily).
Quoting frank
Your inability to keep straight that there are moral justifications and pragmatic justifications is where you have gone wrong. A vicious murderer can be rational. I've already conceded that and that was the point of the video that was provided, to establish that it is not irrationality that drives people to evil decisions, but that it is a lack of moral reasoning that does. The reason Dahmer did as he did isn't because he lacked the abilty to do otherwise, but it's because he thought out a vile plan and did it. Had he an ounce of moral reasoning, he wouldn't have.
I'm not sure why this is difficult to follow.
Very well. But, so you know, my objective wasn't just to be contrary. I find your position as absurd as you find mine. Worldview difference maybe.
I didn't think I needed an argument. Hamas fired 5000 missiles at Israel. That is why Israel retaliated. That is why the west, with Joe Biden in the lead, is supporting Israel's offensive. If it just been a few cases of rape, infanticide, and kidnapping, today would be a normal Monday.
Can you give me all the data that was available to Israeli intelligence that day? I'll meet you in the war room and we'll figure it out.
It's obviously a myriad of factors, but the paratroopers marked an actual boots on the ground invasion which certainly gave Israel a basis for the attack, even absent the 5000 missiles. Whether the 5000 missles alone would have raised security concerns high enough to necessitate the current invasion, I'm not sure. In any event, my statement that this invasion has much to do with the real security issue that needed to be resolved when the women were raped was hardly ridiculous.
You're not? You're not sure 5000 missiles warrants military action, but you're sure rape does? I think you're just messing with me.
Quoting Hanover
The rapes were cotemporaneous with the 5000 missiles, that's true. The rapes are not the reason Israel invaded Gaza, though. The rapes are the thing that upset you the most. They're the reason you cheer on the invasion and sanction the attack on civilian men, women, and children. Right?
The rapes were the result of their actually sending soldiers over and invading the country. It established a much higher risk to personal safety of the citizens than did the missles. It brought the battle to an entirely different level, just as when the Israeli boots hit the Gaza siol.
That you think I cheer or whatever you're saying is just your incorrect interpretation of my position in order to fit your narrative that this has to do with vengence. It doesn't.
Please stop equating the state of Israel with the Jewish people. All that pattern of argument does is invite prejudice. Now you're arguing in a way that sounds like Jews Bad vs Jews Good. Be more careful or posts will start disappearing.
Edit: that goes especially for you @Vaskane, be careful.
I have no idea what you're talking about. We were talking about human shields.
I'm not speaking as a partisan in this debate, I'm just modding it in the forum.
There's a sense in which Israel can be accused of being a Jewish supremacist state, which does not entail that the Jews as a collective perpetrate those (alleged) acts of supremacy.
"The Jewish people are violent" or "The Jewish people are peaceful" - these are racial stereotypes.
"The state of Israel is violent" or "The state of Israel is peaceful" - those are judgements of a state's actions, and not prejudiced without further qualification.
"The Jewish people support Jewish supremacy" - borderline antisemitism, it's at best a racial stereotype.
"The state of Israel supports Jewish supremacy" - in need of qualification, but it can be said without bigotry and with reasonable justification.
If you're unable to see the difference between these senses, there isn't too much I can do to help you. I'm willing to read what you're saying charitably - like you're talking about the state of Israel, rather than the Jewish people, and what's happening in this thread is the usual equation of the state of Israel with the Jewish people that occurs... Just be careful around it alright.
That also goes for you @BitconnectCarlos
It is quite an interesting time we live in, in which wars are fought on the premise of not killing innocents. In all of history, the only reason more soldiers were killed instead of innocents in the heat of battle was due to soldiers being more of a threat. But wars were generally about going into a land, kill as much as you can, loot their supplies and install your own power. Today, every nation has some kind of trade interest in another and any attempt at conducting war by the old strategy is met with such a global ostracization that you will cripple your own economy and the living standards of your country. You will also, by your actions, create a moral perspective and prejudice against your nation and your people in a way that can last for years.
Look at Russia and look at how much shit China got by even intel rumors of invading Taiwan. And it has created a situation in which Russians will be treated with suspicion for maybe decades.
So the question then becomes, how can you win a war by killing civilians if the amount of collateral damage, and especially if your troops kill civilians on purpose reaches such high numbers that the entire world turns against you?
There's a positive aspect to this, and it's a political and economical deterrent. You could argue that a nation like Russia will manage anyway, but the crippled culture and hate against them could drain its potency in the future. Most nations benefit from exchange of trade and experts and if they have little to none left and no new people immigrating, that will set them back on the technological and cultural stage more and more.
So today, no nation really benefits from invading and killing everyone. It's a political death sentence.
How about "the Jewish people are learned" is that also a stereotype or just a cultural observation? Are we allowed to comment on Jewish culture or is that stereotype? If we can comment on Jewish culture and Jewish cultural influences, then why not on Jewish people?
I didn't say Jews weren't aggressive. I said they aren't murderous and this view will bear out if we look to homicide rates in Jewish communities. We can also look to prison population numbers.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That is the dynamic between you two that I'm modding, yes. Keep your chat to the state of Israel. Keep inferences about the Jewish people out of it.
Odd mod.
You think that's odd? @Hanover made me stop talking to him.