If the real intent is to kill civilians, then both are morally equivalent.

Yet armament factories ought not to be in the same place where civilians live. As usually intelligence is scarce and likely wrong, naturally many "civilian" targets can be judged to be "military" targets. And many what is basically civilian infrastructure is also military target, when the enemy uses them: train stations, bridges, harbours etc. Some (not me) will argue that Hiroshima was a military target.

From the perpetrators side it's the age old question, is there a difference with the soldier that kills with a bayonet or a soldier that fires an artillery gun never knowing who it hits? Artillery kills the most in wars, still even today, but usually we don't hate the artillerymen for being murderous mass killers.

The immediate judgement about the "morality of war" vs the "morality of murder" is largely guided by whose ox is getting gored. "Group B" in your example will condemn the attack as savage brutality, murder, aggression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and more. "Group B" will retaliate with what "Group A" characterizes as savage brutality, murder, aggression, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and more. Both groups will be more or less correct in their description of what happened to them.

The acts of A and B are morally indistinguishable and equivalent.

The difference between shooting "innocent civilians" and soldiers in war and shooting random targets in the United States (like the 18 people just killed in Maine) is that the latter is a matter of national policy and the former is a matter of severely disordered behavior.

We have rules of engagement, international laws about conducting wars, and various ideas about the morality of war. The trouble with these various guides is that in principle "war is hell" as Union General William Tecumseh Sherman said, as he burned Atlanta and marched through Georgia.

The hell of war, as it is generally conducted and experienced, renders finicky questioning about the morality of this or that tactic moot.

If the actions of Group A and Group B are morally indistinguishable and equivalent, how should everyone else (call it Group C) act with respect to the immoral acts of A and B?

Many people will identify with either A or B and assent to whatever their preferred group does. The choice of one's preferred group will be debatable. Some will call for a plague on both their houses. That approach is often a cop-out, as is dismissing both sides as crazy extremists. Quite a few people will not have been paying attention and will not have heard about it.

Can one identify with both A and B, and recognize that an equivalent tragedy is happening to both sides?

Not morally equal at all. One group (B) tries & intends to strike only or mainly military sites. It minimizes civilian deaths & injuries, as best it can.

The other group of thugs murders & slaughters civilians with abandon.

This seems like a trick question to me. You ask if the pilot and the men from group A are equivalent, not the person in group B who ordered the pilot to do the bombing, which is who I would expect to focus on. The pilot's intent is not to murder, as measures are taken to minimize casualties, whereas the armed men in group A intend to murder. In that regard they are not equivalent. So, unless the pilot mows down a few extra people, I would say she is okay morally.

However, if group B knows that a hundred civilians could die because of the bombing and they just don't care, then their intent to minimize casualties is not enough to absolve them, as they are intentionally killing some civilians. So, in terms of consequences, there is very little difference and the actions of both groups A and B pretty much equate to terrorism. B is just in a better position for arguing for their terror, as the brutality of group A will evoke horror from just about anybody.

Not morally equal at all. One group (B) tries & intends to strike only or mainly military sites. It minimizes civilian deaths & injuries, as best it can.

The other group of thugs murders & slaughters civilians with abandon. — Nicholas

How is that worse than intentionally killing an equal amount of civilians merely because you do not care if they die? Is this armament plant worth those deaths? Maybe it was a bad - perhaps even evil - decision if the intelligence was so wrong that a hundred civilians were killed?

So yes, still screw Hamas - if that's what you want to hear.

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

Of course not. Intentional and unintentional killing are not morally equivalent.

(I didn't understand the substance of the question until I saw the sophists arrive, claiming moral equivalence.)

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

That depends on their motivation and circumstances. Both actions result in indiscriminate deaths, but there are significant differences in the scenario as given.
The first action generates a great deal of terror, both to the victims before they are reached and to the neighbourhood at large, in addition to the pain and death. The second attack is unexpected and sudden. Group A chose its intended victims and systematically carried out the slaughter, while Group B behaved according to the protocols of [presumably] declared international hostilities and killed civilians by happenstance. The motivation of Group A is not specified; it may have been retaliation for a similar attack on their own homes, or a mob worked up to frenzy by an agitator: we don't know. Group B is carrying out their duty as they see it, for a purpose they are convinced is right.

War is insane, and sometimes, so is murder. People in mobs and gangs are prone to contagious violent outbreaks. In very large numbers such as nations, the madness presents every appearance of method and reason - within its own internal rules and logic.

It's interesting how, in describing the two events, the actions of Group A are described more emotively, with butcher and smashed. One's own ethical code shows in one's descriptions.

In practice Group B are also butchering, and their actions smash children against walls too. They don't do it with their bare hands, though.

When I was a teenager it took me ages to recover from reading Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five' about the Allied bombing of Dresden, which had then caused me to discover in the library how Bomber Harris and the heroes of the RAF had killed thousands of Germans - in what is mostly thought of as a failed effort to sap German civilian morale.

He's just framing the question in such a way he can feel good about himself for continuing to support Israel by pretending it's a war and not an occupation, Israel doesn't commit targeted killings (it does) and that scenario 2 isn't in fact a decades long list of Israeli crimes against humanity (it is). As documented by Bt'selem, HRW and Amnesty.

Let's ignore all that and pretend it's just about the latest Hamas attack and one bombing run with "regrettable" collateral damage. Never mind Israel just switched of water, electricity and stopped food and medicine. I'm sure the elderly, disabled, sick and injured Palestinians got in their fine BMWs and drove to their vacation homes in Dubai just in time before their regular home was bombed. 5,000 dead and over 50% of buildings damaged. How many displaced?

There's indeed no moral equivalency. Hamas' violence is a drop in the ocean of Israeli aggression.

Group B's [...] actions smash children against walls too. — mcdoodle

Do you suppose there are a lot of children hanging out at armament factories during the night?

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

Of course not. The oppressor (group B) is more morally reprehensible than the oppressed (group A).

Hey which is worse?

A group of armed Jews in 1944/45 who go from house to house murdering German civilians with guns and blunt weapons.

A German pilot in WWII who bombs an English armaments factory but intends to destroy only military targets.

I would tentatively say that the Jews are worse, on a personal level taking the incident isolated.

Krauts!

There's indeed no moral equivalency. Hamas' violence is a drop in the ocean of Israeli aggression. — Benkei

I'm the Jew but you apparently hate Nazis more than me. :chin:

.

Hey which is worse?

A group of armed Jews in 1944/45 who go from house to house murdering German civilians with guns and blunt weapons.

A German pilot in WWII who bombs an English armaments factory but intends to destroy only military targets.

I would tentatively say that the Jews are worse, on a personal level taking the incident isolated. — BitconnectCarlos

That's funny, my gut feeling is the German pilot is worse. Those German civilians (collectively) ushered in and supported the Nazi's, so screw them. Now, if the armed Jews knew they were anti-Nazi civilians, that would be different.

Nazis were genocidal oppressors and Jews et al were the oppressed and mostly slaughtered by Nazis. I'm consistent, BC – no matter how bestial the oppressd (dispossessd) become, IMO, the oppressor (dispossessor) is always worse. :mask:

Where does that put the British and American strategists who started the whole mess?

I condemn anyone who uses such tactics. I'd condemn a Jew who intentionally murdered German civilians in WWII. Thankfully I don't know of any historical instances of Jews resorting to those tactics. On an individual level I think higher of a theoretical "humane" Nazi bomber who strives to play by the rules than the murderous Jew.

On an individual level I think higher of a theoretical "humane" Nazi bomber who strives to play by the rules than the murderous Jew. — BitconnectCarlos

So... not a fan of the Irgun?

So... not a fan of the Irgun? — Vera Mont

:smirk:

Purposeful murder and accidental manslaughter are not morally equivalent.

But what group B is doing is not accidental. It is calculated, just like group A.

Both groups willfully accept that the deaths of innocents is expected and warranted in pursuit of their goals.

If I got bombs, I'd rather use bombs and not risk my own skin. If I got guns I'll use them; if all I got is piano wire, I'll throttle you with that, because you are the baddie and I am the goodie.

If civilians are all innocent and all equal, then fighters are all guilty, and all equal. The distinction between group A and group B is arbitrary and has no moral significance, unless it already has that moral significance.

When a group of people wants something badly enough to kill and die for, that is what they do. The methods employed depend on their relative position. Only the faction with the superior strength has the luxury of discrimination, of options in when, where and how to strike, of claiming to 'minimize collateral damage', of moral justification. The insurgents, rebels, resistance or whatever the weaker side is called, being consistently outnumbered and outgunned, resorts to guerilla tactics, which can't be as tidy as a nocturnal air-raid. But then the well-planned military operations of the superior power are rarely as surgically efficient as their press-releases make out.

Would you rather have your baby shot to death or blown into little pieces by a bomb? Looking at it from the perspective that matters, it doesn't matter much.

Would you rather have your baby shot to death or blown into little pieces by a bomb? Looking at it from the perspective that matters, it doesn't matter much. — Baden

Would you rather have your son killed fighting for the Nazi's or fighting against them? Dead is dead, right? Except it's not really. If it is my kid's fate to die in combat, I would prefer he die fighting for a good cause. Wouldn't you?

Tell me TPF, is there an equivalence here? In this scenario A and B are at war.

Scenario 1: Armed men of group A come into a residential neighborhood of group B and go from house to house shooting and using blunt force weapons such as axes against civilians. They go from house to house and butcher 100 civilians before leaving. Babies are killed in their cribs and children are smashed against walls.

Scenario 2: A pilot of group B is conducting a strike on armaments factories of group A. The flight is done at night to minimize civilian casualties. Fliers are also dropped to minimize casualties. The bombs are dropped using a precision missile yet debris from the explosion kills 100 civilians.

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

IMO, you have to look at what the groups are fighting for. What are their goals? In WW2, both sides deliberately killed untold numbers of civilians. Does that make the Allies and Axis morally equivalent? Does the slaughter of innocents by both sides mean we just throw up our hands and say, "I guess it doesn't matter who wins. A plague on both your houses!"? Obviously not. I'm glad the Allies won. Aren't you?

You're answering my relevant question with an irrelevant question of your own. The OP is focused on civilian victims of conflict and makes no mention of military casualties fighting against Nazis etc. And unless you think babies can be Nazis then, any way you look at it, you seem to be engaged in a distraction. Anyhow, fighter pilots don't drop moralities on their victims and assassins don't shoot immoralities. The means is not what's important. The ethical point centres around the killing of innocent civilians.

For the thought experiment, it's not necessary to consider what they're fighting for because that's not the focus. Let's just imagine they are both fighting for their own interests without bringing the Nazi trope into it, which just makes the whole exercise pointless.

For the thought experiment, it's not necessary to consider what they're fighting for because that's not the focus. Let's just imagine they are both fighting for their own interests without bringing the Nazi trope into it, which just makes the whole exercise pointless. — Baden

You can't look at two warring groups in a vacuum. Why they're fighting is as important as how they're fighting. Both the Allies and Axis did horrible things to civilians. Did that make them morally equivalent? Yes or no?