6 ms·
Let's say best case scenario, zero innocent casualties and a democratic government takes over and Venezuela prospers - would you still consider it immoral?
by mupuff1234 9mo ago
Let's say best case scenario, zero innocent casualties and a democratic government takes over and Venezuela prospers - would you still consider it immoral?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 9mo agoJust like Iraq. Remember?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- tclancy 9mo agoThat isn’t how morality works. It’s expressly the opposite, a restating of “end justifies the means”. It’s a defensible position to hold, but not a moral one.
- mupuff1234 9mo agoIt's a philosophical question, I don't think there's a single objective truth. Regardless I'm curious as to what is inherently immoral in arresting a dictator?
- bogdan 9mo agoThere is a single objective truth, it's just, not only unfeasible, but also undesired to determine it.
- the_overseer 9mo agoUSA invaded a country. It was unprovoked, Venezuela did not pose any immediate threat to the safety of USA. There is no moral justification for any of this no matter how you try to spin it. Now Putin can gleefully say: "See? I told you that the West is full of warmongering fascists!"
- tclancy 9mo agoWhat is inherently true about the words “arresting” and “dictator” here?
- adastra22 9mo agoPlenty of moral frameworks (there are more than one!) would hold that view. You don’t have a monopoly on the word “moral.”
- npilk 9mo agoConsider this, from an FAQ on consequentialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism): > The end does justify the means. This is obvious with even a few seconds' thought, and the fact that the phrase has become a byword for evil is a historical oddity rather than a philosophical truth. > Hollywood has decided that this should be the phrase Persian-cat-stroking villains announce just before they activate their superlaser or something. But the means that these villains usually employ is killing millions of people, and the end is subjugating Earth beneath an iron-fisted dictatorship. Those are terrible means to a terrible end, so of course it doesn't end up justified. > Next time you hear that phrase, instead of thinking of a villain activating a superlaser, think of a doctor giving a vaccination to a baby. Yes, you're causing pain to a baby and making her cry, which is kinda sad. But you're also preventing that baby from one day getting a terrible disease, so the end justifies the means. If it didn't, you could never give any vaccinations. > If you have a really important end and only mildly unpleasant means, then the end justifies the means. If you have horrible means that don't even lead to any sort of good end but just make some Bond villain supreme dictator of Earth, then you're in trouble - but that's hardly the fault of the end never justifying the means. (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140220063523/https://www.raiko...) Note that it's not clear whether the end does justify the means in this specific case, and likely won't be for some time, if ever.
- tclancy 9mo agoHang on you’re asking me to consider a philosophy that is explicitly aligned with the concept as a counterpoint? Admittedly I was raised Catholic and it was pretty much the opposite of that. I’m not holding to any one point I guess. I just feel like I “know” regardless of outcome, the current administration did what they did for all the wrong reasons.
- 7952 9mo agoWhy stop there? The best case scenario would include prosecution of Trump and his administration.
- mmcwilliams 9mo agoVideos from the event already show that civilians were targeted during the attack.
- grumple 9mo agoSource?
- mmcwilliams 9mo agoNYT published confirmation from the USG that at least 40 people were killed.
- vermilingua 9mo agoWe are well past the point that “videos from the attack” can be trusted, no matter which argument they support. It’s a terrifying state of affairs.