5 ms·

Are saying that collateral damage is not justified under any circumstance? Otherwise your witty response does nothing to adress the point that I made. We alread

by jules 11y ago

Are saying that collateral damage is not justified under any circumstance? Otherwise your witty response does nothing to adress the point that I made. We already do not condone murder nor rape.

varjag 11y ago
War is a barbarism at industrial scale, which humanity, unfortunately, haven't managed to eradicate. There are however certain undertakings to reduce human suffering: bans of certain particularly inhumane or indiscriminating weapons, prohibitions of deliberate targeting of civilians, and yes, elimination of torture. If you make an effort to reduce suffering it comes as a complete package: people quick to torture are the same people who would use Sarin on civilians. There is simply no middle ground. The concept of innocence doesn't come into play anyway. Wars are mass murders stemming from greater social and political processes; a conscript soldier guarding a fuel depot is not any more "guilty" apriori than his civilian relative. There is more or less intellectual consensus that wars cause suffering, and attempts are made to reduce the misery. Propagating torture is not serving a good cause here. You essentially argue that a "lesser" crime is acceptable in context of a "greater" crime going on anyway. If one's going to kill the victim might rape her anyway.
- jules 11y ago
  That is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that compared to collateral damage the discussion about torture is completely out of proportion. Of course the concept of innocence comes into play. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about drone strikes against terrorists which also kill their wives and children vs torturing a terrorist. The drone strikes are an almost unimaginably greater evil, and yet time and time again you have people taking a hard line stance against torture yet are willing to make a cost-benefit analysis in the case of drone strikes or special forces operations. Note that I am not taking any pro or contra torture position. I'm merely pointing out the moral inconsistency.

by jules 11y ago

Are saying that collateral damage is not justified under any circumstance? Otherwise your witty response does nothing to adress the point that I made. We already do not condone murder nor rape.

varjag 11y ago

War is a barbarism at industrial scale, which humanity, unfortunately, haven't managed to eradicate. There are however certain undertakings to reduce human suffering: bans of certain particularly inhumane or indiscriminating weapons, prohibitions of deliberate targeting of civilians, and yes, elimination of torture. If you make an effort to reduce suffering it comes as a complete package: people quick to torture are the same people who would use Sarin on civilians. There is simply no middle ground. The concept of innocence doesn't come into play anyway. Wars are mass murders stemming from greater social and political processes; a conscript soldier guarding a fuel depot is not any more "guilty" apriori than his civilian relative. There is more or less intellectual consensus that wars cause suffering, and attempts are made to reduce the misery. Propagating torture is not serving a good cause here. You essentially argue that a "lesser" crime is acceptable in context of a "greater" crime going on anyway. If one's going to kill the victim might rape her anyway.

jules 11y ago
That is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that compared to collateral damage the discussion about torture is completely out of proportion. Of course the concept of innocence comes into play. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about drone strikes against terrorists which also kill their wives and children vs torturing a terrorist. The drone strikes are an almost unimaginably greater evil, and yet time and time again you have people taking a hard line stance against torture yet are willing to make a cost-benefit analysis in the case of drone strikes or special forces operations. Note that I am not taking any pro or contra torture position. I'm merely pointing out the moral inconsistency.