Re: The Three Trillion Dollar War
- From: The Real Doctor <ubergeekian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 06:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
On 7 May, 01:12, ijda...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ian Davis) wrote:
Well, in that case I've been needlessly troubling myself with a perceived
position, which was not an actual position, made doubly troubling because
it was perceived to be a position held by someone who absent that one
perceived position, seemed to talk an awful lot of sense.
Have you considered the possibility that it might be your perception
which is wrong?
I hold that the right or a wrong of an action is in the action itself. My
central concern is not harm itself, but the lawfulness of an action.
That's intriguing. So you would say, would you, that the death penalty
is perfectly right in Paris, Texas (where it is legal) but wrong in
Paris, France (where it is illegal). In other words, you have no
standards of right and wrong beyond legislation?
There is no law against murder in the UK. Does that mean you think
It is just plain difficult for me to compute that a decision
to continue or stop doing something might or should be predicated on which
choice would cause less harm, because for me the equation is much simpler...
it is always right to cease doing wrong, even if the continuing to do wrong
might have some logistic advantage or justification.
You have said that "right" and "wrong" depend solely on legislation.
What law says that "it is always right to cease doing wrong"? You
appear to invoking moral absolutes in order to disprove moral
For me, though perhaps my take is by most peoples standards
a rather extreme one, rape is to be preferred to war, because the one inflicts
trauma on the few, while the other inflicts trauma on all but a few.. likewise
child abuse is to be preferred to war, because few children are harmed by the
one while few children are not harmed by the other.
And how often are these alternatives?
... to a paradym (as established subsequent
to WWII) that makes the starting of war an automatic war crime, if not first
approved by the UN security council.
Pointless. The winners will always prove that the losers started it.
Britain declared war on Germany in 1939. By your reckoning, Britain
would have been guilt of war crimes if Germany had won.
Incidentally, I think we should pull out of Iraq as soon as physically
- Prev by Date: Re: The Three Trillion Dollar War
- Next by Date: Re: Are the New Testament miracles plausible?
- Previous by thread: Re: [SRQ] The Three Trillion Dollar War
- Next by thread: Re: [SRQ] The Three Trillion Dollar War