4 ms·

>"One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions." In the case of Fritz Haber, it's the same man who sav

>"One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions." In the case of Fritz Haber, it's the same man who saved billions from hunger and killed millions by prolonging World War-I. Excellent article on the same - https://medium.com/the-mission/the-tragedy-of-fritz-haber-the-monster-who-fed-the-world-ec19a9834f74 https://medium.com/the-mission/the-tragedy-of-fritz-haber-th... Sometimes, the decision isn't clear as black & white; especially when you mix nationalism & patriotism into it.

sundvor 9y ago
That was a thoroughly depressing read, but a most excellent one as such. Thanks.
deft 9y ago
That's totally different. He chose to kill the people and did it intentionally out of hate / pride for his country. This thread and the posted link are discussing whether something is immoral or not. He knew it would kill a ton of people and designed it to on purpose. That situation is totally black and white. Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that.
- peteretep 9y ago
  > Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that Nope. Bomber Command in WWII and the use of nuclear weapons in WWII are both examples where you will find nuanced, intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not. What you describe as "hate / pride for his country" ... but isn't that the reason most soldiers kill? That you even bother to call this out shows that you know the reasons for killing people need to be taken into account. I'm not making a statement on whether or not mass killing is wrong here, simply pointing out what seems obvious: it's far from black and white.
  - SeriousM 9y ago
    "intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not" I'm sorry, but this sentence contains already the problem.
- bb88 9y ago
  > Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that. In shooting war, both sides have already ceded that killing people is morally justified. And now you're in the unenviable position arguing about how much death is too much, and what are the proper ways to kill people in a war setting. And then you get asked moral dilemmas if killing 100,000 people is okay if it saves 1,000,000 people from dying further. This is the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question in a nutshell. I don't know that answer, but then I didn't fight a brutal war for four years, watching my friends, family, and countrymen die at the hands of a brutal regime.

sundvor 9y ago

That was a thoroughly depressing read, but a most excellent one as such. Thanks.

deft 9y ago

That's totally different. He chose to kill the people and did it intentionally out of hate / pride for his country. This thread and the posted link are discussing whether something is immoral or not. He knew it would kill a ton of people and designed it to on purpose. That situation is totally black and white. Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that.

peteretep 9y ago
> Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that Nope. Bomber Command in WWII and the use of nuclear weapons in WWII are both examples where you will find nuanced, intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not. What you describe as "hate / pride for his country" ... but isn't that the reason most soldiers kill? That you even bother to call this out shows that you know the reasons for killing people need to be taken into account. I'm not making a statement on whether or not mass killing is wrong here, simply pointing out what seems obvious: it's far from black and white.
- SeriousM 9y ago
  "intelligent debate on both sides of the argument of whether "mass, intentional killing" being wrong or not" I'm sorry, but this sentence contains already the problem.
bb88 9y ago
> Mass intentional killing is wrong, pretty much everyone agrees with that. In shooting war, both sides have already ceded that killing people is morally justified. And now you're in the unenviable position arguing about how much death is too much, and what are the proper ways to kill people in a war setting. And then you get asked moral dilemmas if killing 100,000 people is okay if it saves 1,000,000 people from dying further. This is the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question in a nutshell. I don't know that answer, but then I didn't fight a brutal war for four years, watching my friends, family, and countrymen die at the hands of a brutal regime.