4 ms·

You suggest that there exists some "moral code" which justifies killing each other in certain circumstances. Combat is never respectful, nor is it ever moral. T

You suggest that there exists some "moral code" which justifies killing each other in certain circumstances. Combat is never respectful, nor is it ever moral. To make honorable rules of engagement is to obscure the horrific violation of humanity that war is. In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others. If we aren't willing to carpet bomb a school, we should not be willing to destroy the family that depends on it. And yes, the video is horrific.

sliverstorm 17y ago
idk, I've always felt killing someone in self-defense is moral. Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. minor nitpick with your overall salient point. I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.
- oconnore 17y ago
  True, I wasn't all that clear about self defense. I think self-defense is really the one instance where you would be willing to wage total war (whether as a country, or as a person). In that case, the country (or person) would do whatever it takes to survive. Good point.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    Not the only one. It's a little hard for many of us in the modern world to imagine being that dedicated for something other than self-defense, but conquest also has history of summoning total war. However, self-defense is definitely the most reliable for bringing public opinion to bear. Probably a lot easier to find a war dissenter in Germany in 1944 than in Britain. (This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)
- sid0 17y ago
  > Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. Typically "good" in this context is equated with "moral", so I'm a little confused with your statement. Could you please elaborate?
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    I consider good to be positive while moral is closer to justified- not necessarily positive, yet always fair.
    - sid0 17y ago
      Positive in what sense? Positive in the sense of greatest good of the greatest number? That sounds awfully like utilitarianism, where the definition of moral and your definition of good would roughly coincide. It seems like you're unable to decide between utilitarianism and some notion of "fair"ness (reason perhaps?) as your central moral philosophy. Note that utilitarians generally define fair as "greatest good of the greatest number".
      - sliverstorm 17y ago
        I was thinking mostly of good in the sense of, it'd be great if nobody had to die- that would be the best outcome, the good outcome- but often that can't happen, so you're left with the not bad, just less good outcome. You're right though, my views are often very utilitarian. Although, while 'fair' on the large scale applies to 'greatest good for greatest number', I would very rarely condemn someone for acting out of self-preservation, even if it was not 'fair' on the large scale. Generally speaking I hold our own right to defend ourselves, and those we love, above 'fair'. Generally speaking.
cynicalkane 17y ago
To make honorable rules of engagement is to obscure the horrific violation of humanity that war is. This is the whole point of rules of engagement. Making war a lesser--or "more obscure", if that is your semantic preference--violation of humanity is the goal, the whole idea, the very point of these rules. We live in a time where we can easily afford not to have total war--not that it was ever a good idea in the first place. You think as long as we're killing people, it's OK to carpet bomb schools? As long as you're doing bad, might as well not be selective about it? Might as well go for the big enchilada? Maximize body count, like a video game? You're an idiot of the first class. Not just because of the foolishness of the idea, nor because of the lazy faux-intellectual rationalization therefor, but because of how easily you justify the obliteration of lives and nations when such a thing is not even close to necessary. Thank God that America abandoned your mindset after Vietnam; too bad they didn't abandon it earlier.
- oconnore 17y ago
  You flew right over the point, and you had to slather your post in ad hominem to get there. It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting when you don't have to. Vietnam was a horrible idea, not because we didn't have precision munitions and rules of engagement, but because we didn't belong there in the first place. War used to be a big fucking deal. Now, George Bush gets on the television and says "don't worry, we won't hurt any kids, we're using JDAMs." And it's bullshit, we end up killing tons of civilians because people think that ROE and precision munitions will actually make war zones safe. News flash: they aren't, and they never will be. If people realized that, then we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, which is the right thing.
  - cynicalkane 17y ago
    You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others." If that's not what you meant, then you need to seriously re-examine what you are saying, or else don't act offended when people read your words and not your mind. Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong. And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me. Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

sliverstorm 17y ago

idk, I've always felt killing someone in self-defense is moral. Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. minor nitpick with your overall salient point. I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.

oconnore 17y ago
True, I wasn't all that clear about self defense. I think self-defense is really the one instance where you would be willing to wage total war (whether as a country, or as a person). In that case, the country (or person) would do whatever it takes to survive. Good point.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  Not the only one. It's a little hard for many of us in the modern world to imagine being that dedicated for something other than self-defense, but conquest also has history of summoning total war. However, self-defense is definitely the most reliable for bringing public opinion to bear. Probably a lot easier to find a war dissenter in Germany in 1944 than in Britain. (This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)
sid0 17y ago
> Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. Typically "good" in this context is equated with "moral", so I'm a little confused with your statement. Could you please elaborate?
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  I consider good to be positive while moral is closer to justified- not necessarily positive, yet always fair.
  - sid0 17y ago
    Positive in what sense? Positive in the sense of greatest good of the greatest number? That sounds awfully like utilitarianism, where the definition of moral and your definition of good would roughly coincide. It seems like you're unable to decide between utilitarianism and some notion of "fair"ness (reason perhaps?) as your central moral philosophy. Note that utilitarians generally define fair as "greatest good of the greatest number".
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      I was thinking mostly of good in the sense of, it'd be great if nobody had to die- that would be the best outcome, the good outcome- but often that can't happen, so you're left with the not bad, just less good outcome. You're right though, my views are often very utilitarian. Although, while 'fair' on the large scale applies to 'greatest good for greatest number', I would very rarely condemn someone for acting out of self-preservation, even if it was not 'fair' on the large scale. Generally speaking I hold our own right to defend ourselves, and those we love, above 'fair'. Generally speaking.

cynicalkane 17y ago

To make honorable rules of engagement is to obscure the horrific violation of humanity that war is. This is the whole point of rules of engagement. Making war a lesser--or "more obscure", if that is your semantic preference--violation of humanity is the goal, the whole idea, the very point of these rules. We live in a time where we can easily afford not to have total war--not that it was ever a good idea in the first place. You think as long as we're killing people, it's OK to carpet bomb schools? As long as you're doing bad, might as well not be selective about it? Might as well go for the big enchilada? Maximize body count, like a video game? You're an idiot of the first class. Not just because of the foolishness of the idea, nor because of the lazy faux-intellectual rationalization therefor, but because of how easily you justify the obliteration of lives and nations when such a thing is not even close to necessary. Thank God that America abandoned your mindset after Vietnam; too bad they didn't abandon it earlier.

oconnore 17y ago
You flew right over the point, and you had to slather your post in ad hominem to get there. It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting when you don't have to. Vietnam was a horrible idea, not because we didn't have precision munitions and rules of engagement, but because we didn't belong there in the first place. War used to be a big fucking deal. Now, George Bush gets on the television and says "don't worry, we won't hurt any kids, we're using JDAMs." And it's bullshit, we end up killing tons of civilians because people think that ROE and precision munitions will actually make war zones safe. News flash: they aren't, and they never will be. If people realized that, then we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, which is the right thing.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others." If that's not what you meant, then you need to seriously re-examine what you are saying, or else don't act offended when people read your words and not your mind. Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong. And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me. Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem