The Tipping Point of Evil. — Jacob-B
Moral purists tend to condemn any action that results in harm to civilian, but could the defeat of Nazi Germany or ISIS had been achieved without the killing of thousands of civilians? — Jacob-B
So, it seems that God’s guiding principle when judging the fate of humankind is not the amount of evil but the existence of a minimal quantity of righteousness which one might call it the quanta of righteousness. — Jacob-B
This, to me hides an important distinction. There is collateral damage and there is intentional targeting of civilian populations, like say in Dresden. I don't think things like this shortened the war. And I don't think the German bombing of civilian London helped their cause and perhaps actually made the British more determined.Moral purists tend to condemn any action that results in harm to civilian, but could the defeat of Nazi Germany or ISIS had been archived wi without the killing of thousands of civilians? — Jacob-B
This, to me hides an important distinction. There is collateral damage and there is intentional targeting of civilian populations, like say in Dresden. I don't think things like this shortened the war. And I don't think the German bombing of civilian London helped their cause and perhaps actually made the British more determined.
I think that's possible, though there are many who think that Nagasaki was in excess and was more of a message for the Russians that Hiroshima was no fluke. I do wonder if there could not have been some way to simply show the Japanese military command without taking down a city or two. And I am not will to simply concede on consequentialist grounds that these were ok civilian attacks, however I think an argument can be presented here because the weapons were utterly new and overwhelmingly powerful. Nothing about Dresden would have suprised the Nazis tecnologically or in the number of bombs, so I don't think it did anything.I want to point out that the intentional bombing of civilians almost certainly DID help shorten the war; case in point Nagasaki and Hiroshima. — BitconnectCarlos
The Dresden bombing was ordered by President Eisenhower, because intelligence suggested there were weapons of mass distructions hidden there. — god must be atheist
Moral purists tend to condemn any action that results in harm to civilian, but could the defeat of Nazi Germany or ISIS had been archived wi without the killing of thousands of civilians? — Jacob-B
I can’t help but be reminded of the famous story of Winston Churchill not ordering the evacuation of (I think it was) Manchester prior to a major bombing raid, because it would have tipped off the Nazis that they had cracked the Enigma code, thereby nullifying the enormous strategic advantage provided by the code breakers. Many thousands died as a consequence. — Wayfarer
I think he would have said that the decision was made to avoid a greater evil. — Wayfarer
Instead I would look at the bombing of Dresden by British and American forces. — Brett
All that is required is one kernel of good, at any given time, because the good will take root and flourish, while the evil will die off in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’m inclined to viewing that [firebombing of Dresden] as a war crime.
— Wayfarer
Is that because it’s an act of evil? If not what could it be? — Brett
The broader point is: can there be a 'just war'? I — Wayfarer
By which I mean the idea that the world might be destroyed when evil reaches a certain level. — Jacob-B
Do any religious text supports this idea? The Bible does although in an inverted way. — Jacob-B
You've framed the issue in terms of an imbalance between the forces of good and evil; thus we have a "a tipping point" at which evil overcomes good and you know the rest. — TheMadFool
What exactly are these forces of good and evil? — Brett
I don’t think evil will ever “ die off”, because it’s inherent in all of us. — Brett
To me the first part of the sentence outweighs the second. I could deal with some illegal shooting of the entire Nazi command. IOW if the 'revenge' actually hit the people responsible or at least people potentially responsible for other war crimes, or aware and in their silence complicit, or some such. But the bombing of civilians is just hurting other innocent people. I know the context. I understand that it was in a context where the Germans were now know to have done other terrible things. If someone beats up my brothers and I meet someone of the bully's nationality on the street or heck, even the bully's second cousin, on the street and beat him up, I don't have much moral ground to stand on. I don't think we should muddy the water. I am not calling for any potential survivors to be put in front of some tribunal. I would hope that in future wars, people no longer think that one atrocityWhilst two wrongs do not make right, the bombing of Dresden has to be viewed in the general context of WW2. — Jacob-B
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.