4 ms·

> War is Bad Compared to what?

by peteradio 3y ago

postsantum 3y ago
Our noble war is good compared to their barbaric war. Simple as
- rzzzt 3y ago
  War! What is it good for?
  - seanhunter 3y ago
    Good god y’all! Absolutely nutthin. Say it again!
    - aatd86 3y ago
      They didn't get you, given the downvotes. Could at least have watched rush hour or something if they don't listen to music :-D
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    For the winners? Traditionally: slaves and loot. Or new land to settle. Today it is somewhat more complicated, but there are still winners in war. It usually just ain't those, who are fighting in it. And obviously not those, who just get bombed to death.
mrangle 3y ago
It's perfectly valid to make that statement without a requirement for relativism. War is bad, absolutely. Our enemies may be worse than war, but that doesn't change the fact.
- peteradio 3y ago
  You can make that statement but all decision making is relative.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    Lol this Warlord trying to impart their Martian philosophy. Respectfully, you can't "but" a statement as an effective rebuttal when the statement addresses the exact "but" that you claim. I can make that statement because while all decision making is relative, characteristics of those decisions still have an absolute nature. War (intense pain, psychological destruction, mass violent death, generational effects, the freedom to commit evil acts only for the sake of them) is bad, period. Whether or not the decision to wage it is for a relative good (except when it isn't). The only escape from this moral reasoning is nihilism. That is, giving up one's human nature. Taoism aside.
    - peteradio 3y ago
      You can make the case that everything you do in life is bad for something else, the point is that all choices must be ranked so stating that something is BAD is useless because arguably everything is BAD. That is not nihilism and I'm certainly not an advocate for war, I am an advocate for seriously considering choices. I said "compared to what", stating that "war is bad" again does not address the question.
      - mrangle 3y ago
        It is nihilism, as explained. I did address the question. One can't make the case that "everything arguably is bad", unless you are relativistic and reductionist to the point that any "arguable" negative consequence to anything is morally tantamount to the negative consequences of war. This is the type of moral absurdity that nihilists deal in. Considering choices has nothing to do with the absolute characteristics of those choices. Only nihilists feel the moral freedom to re-label absolute bad as not, if it is for their relative benefit. I didn't say that you weren't free to do bad (I'm purposefully not using the word "evil" in order to maintain a tight reign on adjective use) in the service of what you feel is good. That might be an aspect of inescapable human nature (see factory farming). What I imply is that human action isn't completely morally relativistic. Only nihilists or zealots with occluded moral reasoning think otherwise. No offense. Maybe taoism is for you. It would allow you to resolve moral absurdity that you are otherwise trying to escape with nihilism. Personally, I'm not as atheistic as that. But at least it would be more consistent.

> War is Bad Compared to what?

postsantum 3y ago

Our noble war is good compared to their barbaric war. Simple as

rzzzt 3y ago
War! What is it good for?
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Good god y’all! Absolutely nutthin. Say it again!
  - aatd86 3y ago
    They didn't get you, given the downvotes. Could at least have watched rush hour or something if they don't listen to music :-D
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  For the winners? Traditionally: slaves and loot. Or new land to settle. Today it is somewhat more complicated, but there are still winners in war. It usually just ain't those, who are fighting in it. And obviously not those, who just get bombed to death.

mrangle 3y ago

It's perfectly valid to make that statement without a requirement for relativism. War is bad, absolutely. Our enemies may be worse than war, but that doesn't change the fact.

peteradio 3y ago
You can make that statement but all decision making is relative.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Lol this Warlord trying to impart their Martian philosophy. Respectfully, you can't "but" a statement as an effective rebuttal when the statement addresses the exact "but" that you claim. I can make that statement because while all decision making is relative, characteristics of those decisions still have an absolute nature. War (intense pain, psychological destruction, mass violent death, generational effects, the freedom to commit evil acts only for the sake of them) is bad, period. Whether or not the decision to wage it is for a relative good (except when it isn't). The only escape from this moral reasoning is nihilism. That is, giving up one's human nature. Taoism aside.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    You can make the case that everything you do in life is bad for something else, the point is that all choices must be ranked so stating that something is BAD is useless because arguably everything is BAD. That is not nihilism and I'm certainly not an advocate for war, I am an advocate for seriously considering choices. I said "compared to what", stating that "war is bad" again does not address the question.
    - mrangle 3y ago
      It is nihilism, as explained. I did address the question. One can't make the case that "everything arguably is bad", unless you are relativistic and reductionist to the point that any "arguable" negative consequence to anything is morally tantamount to the negative consequences of war. This is the type of moral absurdity that nihilists deal in. Considering choices has nothing to do with the absolute characteristics of those choices. Only nihilists feel the moral freedom to re-label absolute bad as not, if it is for their relative benefit. I didn't say that you weren't free to do bad (I'm purposefully not using the word "evil" in order to maintain a tight reign on adjective use) in the service of what you feel is good. That might be an aspect of inescapable human nature (see factory farming). What I imply is that human action isn't completely morally relativistic. Only nihilists or zealots with occluded moral reasoning think otherwise. No offense. Maybe taoism is for you. It would allow you to resolve moral absurdity that you are otherwise trying to escape with nihilism. Personally, I'm not as atheistic as that. But at least it would be more consistent.