To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral — frank
Does pacifism allow violent resistance to violence in your book? — fdrake
If am violently attacked I shall likely resist as personally militaristic-ally as possible.
Am I therefore immoral — raza
, this pacifism as an ideal gives a comparative advantage to immoral violence as a strategy. — fdrake
War is fun, at least for the politicians who wager they can win. — darthbarracuda
It's also immoral to value a city or cultural center over human life. So the moral response to invasion is to flee. During flight, immediate self defense is moral. — frank
any society because society is and always will be constituted by inequality. Crime, including murder, is a reflection of the current state of a society as much as it is a reflection of the individual's mental state. That crime is "separate" from society (and in particular, the state), is sort of an illusion, I think. That the "state" exists to keep crime in check is ridiculous because the state is the condition from which crime couldn't exist without — darthbarracuda
Possibly. Russians have historically robbed invaders of any prize by abandoning their cities. But if we stipulate that pacifism encourages invasions, that doesn't address the claim that any coordinated military action is immoral.
Have you read Augustine's City of God? He points to the storage of excess wealth that goes on in cities as the real cause of invasions. — frank
But if one is fighting for liberty, is it really moral to kill another for the sake of your own freedom? — frank
The barbarians sacking the city for economic resources is somewhat incidental nowadays, — fdrake
Anyway, it doesn't address whether coordinated military action is immoral if you construe morality as an intellectual exercise towards good conduct out with any context of decision. That's exactly what I'm criticising; military resistance to military oppression and terror is a no-brainer but not a blank cheque. — fdrake
Are you suggesting that it would be more moral for the North Koreans to live for the next thousand years under an oppressive, murderous regime than to rebel today and live the next thousand years in freedom? — Hanover
Really? Certain parties find themselves being invaded and it's just incidental that they're sitting on top of a lot of oil? Yes there are complexities to our world that didnt exist back when, but our prioritiea are fundamentally the same. — frank
In what context is the death of an innocent bystander ok with you? — frank
The barbarians don't want your stuff, they want to secure their interests or develop what's now their property, or both at once. — fdrake
Since I'm the moral arbiter of the entire world why don't you come up with some situations and I'll tell you once and for all if they're good or evil. — fdrake
Inevitably innocents suffer in a bloody revolution. Life has no price. My interest in NK emancipation doesn't change that. — frank
That question suggests that you believe there are situations where you'd give a thumbs up to the death of an innocent. — frank
You're deliberating about what's moral or immoral without reference to any choices which are actually made. This comes equipped with its dual - an ethics of ideas without actions, in which disembodied propositions float above the world as impossible maxims. Ethical dilemmas, in all their ambiguity and sacrifice, are beneath this perspective. — fdrake
Yeah, well, this post just seems so poorly thought out as you sit wherever you are in your freedom, reaping the benefits others provided you, at the cost of countless lives. — Hanover
someone threatened to kill my cat (which I unfortunately do not have because allergies) I would go defensive. — darthbarracuda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.