3 ms·

> Shipping weapons to Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory is also a good. But it creates evil by escalating battlefield lethality and depending on the ser

> Shipping weapons to Ukraine to defend its sovereign territory is also a good. But it creates evil by escalating battlefield lethality and depending on the service (and often sacrifice) of brave Ukrainians. Shipping those weapons does not create evil. The evil (Russian military aggression) is already there, the evil is responding to the weapons with escalation in an attempt to overwhelm to prevent defeat. The proof is in not shipping the weapons: subjugation, slavery, for the Ukrainian people (quite possibly for generations to come). It can mean the complete wiping out of their culture, in the style of Tibet. The weapons draw out a more dramatic response from the attacking evil, they do not create more evil; and they - ideally - prevent an even greater evil, which is the enslavement of the Ukrainian people if the war effort is lost. All the weapons do is pull some of the future suffering forward in time (you suffer more now, so your people hopefully suffer dramatically less later), however the trade, the potential upside, is obviously the possibility to achieve freedom and vanquish the aggressor. The aggressor creates all of the evil, all of the suffering, they're solely morally responsible for it. The weapons make a positive possible, the lack of said weapons guarantee only darkness. Putin's conquest effort isn't going to be stopped by peaceful protest (some authoritarians might bend for that under some circumstances, he won't). The point is, the evil is already there. If you leave it alone (don't challenge it), you'll suffer more over a longer period of time. If you challenge it, you may suffer more short-term, however that challenge isn't creating any additional evil, it's creating the potential for good for the people of Ukraine. The suffering and evil can't be avoided, the only choice is whether you want to try to defeat it, or roll over and hand yourself over to its long-term chains.

basedgod 5y ago
This is the same logic (albeit different analogy) of closing your eyes, outstretching your arms and swinging them widely. Somebody is still going to get hurt, even if they really should get out of the way. Strewing together moral absolutes means you stop living in the real world. Violence and war brings more evil to the world, even if it is morally justified. Your failure to acknowledge any of this is appalling. Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation. Weapons, in this case, escalated the conflict and created evil for this person, no amount of moral whitewashing over "freedom" and "vanquishing the aggressor" absolves this. It may very well be the case that the net utilitarian impact of Ukraine escalating their response to the invasion justifies the resistance, but we live in the real world, and nothing is as cut and dry as you claim, not even a hostile invasion by a despotic power.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation. Please go ahead and make the same argument for the German Nazis. I really want to hear it. I realize in the past that Godwin would be invoked at this point, but we are now in a time where 1:1 comparisons are much more apt, especially when Russians are falsely labeling Ukrainians as "Nazis". What you're basically saying is that we should just let invaders commit their violence and trust that we will be better off laying down than standing up. You say that someone whose lost their entire extended family and village would have been better off surrendering to the invaders who killed them. Why? Why does that follow? What is stopping the invaders from killing your friends and family and razing your village after they have conquered your country? At some point you actually have to stand up to protect your family from the people trying to kill them. Because what's to prevent them from setting up death camps at that point? What if their goal is not to occupy your country but to exterminate it? And what of Ukraine? What happens to the country when Russia takes over? They will destroy that which makes Ukraine unique and rewrite the history for its people and the world. The Republic of Venice remembers what happens when you let the invaders take over. Hundreds of years after the republic surrendered to the invading Napoleon, the Republic of Venice still has not recovered and may never. For a lot of Ukrainians, this could mean the literal end of their country. Where do you live? Do you love your country? Would you appreciate if some people decided they wanted to erase the country you love from world maps? Would you fight to protect it or would you just let it happen?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The lesser of two evils is still evil. Both arguments to the contrary that you've advanced, (1) that it doesn't create any more evil & (2) that any non-evil side effects are justified because of moral and/or utilitarian superiority, are slippery slopes to moral absolution of any reaction. An action can be just, and right, and practical, and the best available option... but still be evil. And the difference between being a despotic megalomaniac is equal parts actions undertaken and honesty about those actions. The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers. I support this and believe it to be the best action possible, but I also deeply and resolutely believe it's evil.

basedgod 5y ago

This is the same logic (albeit different analogy) of closing your eyes, outstretching your arms and swinging them widely. Somebody is still going to get hurt, even if they really should get out of the way. Strewing together moral absolutes means you stop living in the real world. Violence and war brings more evil to the world, even if it is morally justified. Your failure to acknowledge any of this is appalling. Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation. Weapons, in this case, escalated the conflict and created evil for this person, no amount of moral whitewashing over "freedom" and "vanquishing the aggressor" absolves this. It may very well be the case that the net utilitarian impact of Ukraine escalating their response to the invasion justifies the resistance, but we live in the real world, and nothing is as cut and dry as you claim, not even a hostile invasion by a despotic power.

ModernMech 5y ago
> Somebody whose lost their entire extended family and village by mortar fire because the Ukrainians fought back will be in an objectively much worse position than under a harsh Russian occupation. Please go ahead and make the same argument for the German Nazis. I really want to hear it. I realize in the past that Godwin would be invoked at this point, but we are now in a time where 1:1 comparisons are much more apt, especially when Russians are falsely labeling Ukrainians as "Nazis". What you're basically saying is that we should just let invaders commit their violence and trust that we will be better off laying down than standing up. You say that someone whose lost their entire extended family and village would have been better off surrendering to the invaders who killed them. Why? Why does that follow? What is stopping the invaders from killing your friends and family and razing your village after they have conquered your country? At some point you actually have to stand up to protect your family from the people trying to kill them. Because what's to prevent them from setting up death camps at that point? What if their goal is not to occupy your country but to exterminate it? And what of Ukraine? What happens to the country when Russia takes over? They will destroy that which makes Ukraine unique and rewrite the history for its people and the world. The Republic of Venice remembers what happens when you let the invaders take over. Hundreds of years after the republic surrendered to the invading Napoleon, the Republic of Venice still has not recovered and may never. For a lot of Ukrainians, this could mean the literal end of their country. Where do you live? Do you love your country? Would you appreciate if some people decided they wanted to erase the country you love from world maps? Would you fight to protect it or would you just let it happen?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The lesser of two evils is still evil. Both arguments to the contrary that you've advanced, (1) that it doesn't create any more evil & (2) that any non-evil side effects are justified because of moral and/or utilitarian superiority, are slippery slopes to moral absolution of any reaction. An action can be just, and right, and practical, and the best available option... but still be evil. And the difference between being a despotic megalomaniac is equal parts actions undertaken and honesty about those actions. The US is shipping weapons to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers. I support this and believe it to be the best action possible, but I also deeply and resolutely believe it's evil.