No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. — schopenhauer1

For the worse, actually.

It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.

Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century.

So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? — Vera Mont

Les take an example that is really easy to understand.

A lawyer has the ethical responsibility to keep quiet about everything to do with his client that dos not already reside in the public domain, especially things that might harm the case.
A newspaper or TV reporter is ethical bound to divulge that same information if he has it.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.

But then maybe there is a secret witness that would be in serious danger if his name was revealed, the report would be remiss in naming him without his permission.

They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit. — Vera Mont

If as, I had indicate, had you done some investigation on the topic of roles you would have found quite a few.
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas or look up the things you do not understand.
Saying that I did not provide examples of something that should be basic knowledge lays the blame for your ignorance on me and that is not a nice thing to do.

Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other. — Sir2u

Rules of 'engagement', yes. Two different people in two different roles. So far, no ethical conflict.

So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information?
If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation?

Now, it's unlikely that a journalist practices law as a hobby or vice versa, so the same person probably won't wear those different hats. Maybe each can reconcile his occupational responsibilities with his own civic and personal ones, if not the other person's.
But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime.
What ethical conflict would arise among those roles, and how is she to work out such a conflict?

I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields.

It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. — Sir2u

No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.

I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas — Sir2u

That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance.

So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information? — Vera Mont

It is not my contention, I have nothing to do with the laws of any country.
In most countries he is forbidden from revealing any information that his client has confided to him personally. I am not sure how far it goes with information gathered from other sources.

If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation? — Vera Mont

Most journalist I believe would publish anything they can find to get a scoop on the other news outlets. And I am not sure if it is legal for any jury lis to be kept from the public.

But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime. — Vera Mont

As I said earlier, you need to understand the concept of different hats used in different roles. If you will not make an effort to do that then you will never understand.
A mother of a child does not need to be a salesperson, a taxi driver, a nurse or any other job for that matter.

A mother is by nature a nurse when she looks after sick kids, she is a taxi driver when she takes her kids to school or games, she is a cook and a waitress when her kids are hungry, she is the washer women when there are dirty clothes, a councilor when the kids have problems and a lawyer when they are in trouble. These are the roles I was talking about.

It has nothing to do with her job or a side hustle, but with the work inherent in bringing up kids.
And pleas do not start talking about how that is going against the equality of women. If what I said bothers you for the obvious stereotyping just read father for mother or the parents to get equality.

I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields. — Vera Mont

You can suggest all you like, you will not be the first one to do so and not even the last. The world has been turning for a very long time and people have come up with so many IDEAL moral theories that you would need a couple of life times to read and try to understand them all.

No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.

I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas — Sir2u

That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance. — Vera Mont

I made no broad claim, I gave you the way to find out what we were discussing by doing some investigation. The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. It was your responsibility to find out about it before making ridiculous claims about mothers having side hustles.

Do you think that someone saying that you are ignorant is disrespectful? When someone does no know something, they are ignorant. I am ignorant about brain and tree surgery. even more so about digital money.

The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. — Sir2u

I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience.

But you do agree that depending on the role the outcome of an ethical decision may be different?

I personally think, which is also why I didn't become a lawyer, that client confidentiality goes too far. If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C. I think disclosures should be permitted as long as it doesn't frustrate the defence of murder A since B and C is gratuitous information that is in principle irrelevant for my defence and therefore continues to protect the principles of due process (there could be a timing issue to avoid bias during trial, so a lawyer would have to sit on the information until after trial and appeals are exhausted). In other words, the client should've paid more attention and kept his mouth shut about B and C.

Unfortunately, this would get me disbarred in no time.

But you do agree that depending on the role the outcome of an ethical decision may be different? — Benkei

If the deciding agent uses a different set of rules, of course. That's why we can't tolerate heads of state with principles: we need them to be morally flexible for every occasion. It's okay for them to be sworn in on a stack of bibles, as long as they don't take the Christian ethic too seriously.

If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C. — Benkei

I don't know what the laws are in your country, but in Canada, there are exceptions, where the lawyer is required to divulge information or is permitted to divulge it at his own discretion.

Public safety can trump privilege where a lawyer reasonably believes that a clear, serious and imminent threat to public safety exists.

; in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is void.

in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is nullified. — Vera Mont

Yes, this concerns probable future events. A well-known exception. I think we need one for past events as well which doesn't exist in Anglo-Saxon countries as far as I know and doesn't exist in the Netherlands either.

You were faster than me
In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't.

I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience. — Vera Mont

If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.

And if you had actually read and understood my post;

And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family. — Sir2u

I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.

In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't. — Vera Mont

Seriously. i think that you should stop quoting things you see on the screen and do some actual research on the topic. I would certainly like to see those laws.

This could be true in Canada but I know it's not the case in the US.

This could be true in Canada but I know it's not the case in the US. — Benkei

So maybe Vera can give us a link to the laws.

For the worse, actually.

It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.

Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century. — ssu

Yes wars can be brutal, and civil wars especially. But I'm interested in your response to the rest of my last post:

Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan? (Edit: I mean, the Germans especially didn't vote in the Nazis with a majority, and by 1939, anyone who spoke out against the Nazis would be imprisoned or killed. Shouldn't the air raids over Britain, and the total conquest of France, Netherlands, and Poland NOT BE a good excuse to completely demand total surrender from Germany? Again.. to be read with heaping dose of sarcasm here.. but you get the point).

Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).

Now you might say, that wasn't a civil war, or an insurrectionist war, but a war of aggression.. But of course, Germany might frame that differently.. And the allies might frame the differently..

The immoral thing is not to demand the total surrender of a neighbor but that one doesn't have a plan for what to do with it afterwards to prevent a second war.. WWI is an example of not doing this right, for example, but post WW2 is in terms of how to defeat an enemy who is implacably aggressive until they get everything they WANT.

I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question. — Benkei

No you misinterpreted what I meant then.. Let's replace Hamas with Nazis if that helps you be more unbiased about it.. If Nazis don't think that a freely run Netherlands should exist independent of their domination, or of France, or of Eastern Europe, and freely decide that bombing Britain is best, and that America should be defeated using their ally, Japan... What should the defender do in response to that? And hence I said this in another post:

Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan? (Edit: I mean, the Germans especially didn't vote in the Nazis with a majority, and by 1939, anyone who spoke out against the Nazis would be imprisoned or killed. Shouldn't the air raids over Britain, and the total conquest of France, Netherlands, and Poland NOT BE a good excuse to completely demand total surrender from Germany? Again.. to be read with heaping dose of sarcasm here.. but you get the point).

Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).

And thus my point is, war is almost never the case of stealthy Rambos going in, involving no one but the combatants, and ending the war quickly. And hence I posted the ridiculous Rambo video as a fantasy position that people naively claim war should look like. Should I post it again?

What does a just war look like if any civilian dies in it? If Germans die fighting Nazis, is the war against the Nazis wrong? Let's say there were individual soldiers, leaders, or strategies that were wrong, indeed, they should be punished.. But war itself entails some amount of destruction and death on the people involved. Hell, the US and the Soviets had a policy of MAD.. The strategy was literally both sides getting annihilated in a nuclear holocaust in one wrong move. Why was that even a thing? Well both sides wanted to keep their sphere of influence "safe" from the other, along with their own territories. Let's say the US did NOT have nuclear weapons, and the Soviets did, does that mean they had a right to wield them to take over the world because any conventional war could possibly mean that that other side would be annihilated. No, nuclear war is terrible, but it was better that the US had them then didn't IF the Soviets had them.. Because, simply "non-violence" towards aggressive actors by itself seems pretty wrong.. No defense against violent actors means might makes right, even if that means LESS violence to fight against the aggressors.

How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know. — Benkei

No, I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.

It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse. — Benkei

But being at a state of war means what to you? Again, shall I post that fantasy Rambo ideal of war being in some remote jungle whereby an elite team/individual just goes in blows up the perfectly out-in-the-open combatants? If only it was open fields, and people wearing Blue and Grey...

Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course). — schopenhauer1

Surely the German leadership would have preferred to that especially in 1945, but here again one has to remember that WW1 had happened. A negotiated peace when Germany wasn't fighting in it's own territory (yet) and the ideas of Dolchstoss and basically Hitler's coming to power ...because of the lost war.

It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything.

Again. Nobody argues against a right to self defence so if anybody is raising a straw man, then this is it.

What I take issue with is the idea that the lives of enemy non-combatants are less than your "own". This is not supported in any historic tradition, law or indeed sensible moral thinking for the reasons I've repeated twice. Everything else you pull into your Rambo fantasies are entirely yours.

It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything. — ssu

Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2?

Also, it's entirely possible within the just war tradition to reach the conclusion that it's more just to not defend against armed force. Some reasons could be:

1. There's no chance of winning
2. Or it won't lead to a better peace
3. The price in human lives is too high
4. The armed force itself was a just exercise of force

If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality. — Sir2u

Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? (Who said anything about its quality?)

Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family. — Sir2u

And neither is an ethical response and neither is a decision to take specific action.

While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker. — Sir2u

That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior.

I would certainly like to see those laws. — Sir2u

They're as available on line to you as they are to me.

I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. — Sir2u

I see no way in which a non-schizophrenic can manage that feat of multiple-think.

I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.

And this brings us back to Rambo...
You agreed:

Nobody argues against a right to self defence so if anybody is raising a straw man, then this is it. — Benkei

But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...

So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality..

And this ties in with my conversation with @ssu about WW1 and WW2 and the differences in how those ended, and the goals of a "defensive war" (certainly a case can be made for this in WW2)...

I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution. — schopenhauer1

I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. Not my problem you don't like the outcome but that's the consequence of principles: they tend to be difficult to stick to.

Just that we could be swayed by emotions to make different choices doesn't mean that choice all of a sudden becomes moral.

But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...

So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality.. — schopenhauer1

That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.

Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2? — schopenhauer1

WW2 should be remembered really, as the name says, as a continuation of WW1 or the end result of WW1 and the afterward made peace. Losing WW1 is the reason why the gang of mr Hitler came into power. Yet many times people just start with Hitler rising to power without considering just why this happened.

Also the winning powers were in 1945 fully aware of how badly in hindsight the Paris peace talks went in securing peace.

I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. — Benkei

Benkei, are you able to actually abide by this morality or are we ruminating in theoryland?

If your son and another random child were drowning at sea and you could only save one, would it be wrong to favor your own? Should you maybe flip a coin to not show preference? Go ahead, treat your own family like anyone else in the world. You're all equal, after all - individual moral units.

EDIT: And when you do swim out to save him then you're morally wrong (for showing filial bias) and worthy of condemnation. This puts a new perspective on your condemnation of Israel.

All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate. — Benkei

I agree with this.

Specifically going after the combatants and simply denying them any territory from which to operate is already quite decisive way to end a war. Here it must be understood that if the combatant force, one side's army etc, is destroyed or surrenders, but the civilian society then start itself to attack the forces, they are then illegal combatants. There's no problem here in the case of laws of war. However civilian you are, if you start shooting enemy soldiers, they have the total right to shoot you. However if they shoot you assuming you could potentially pick up a rifle and fight them, that's another thing.

Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity.

Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? — Vera Mont

What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? How is that even part of the discussion?

(Who said anything about its quality?) — Vera Mont

You did, or do you not remember what you write!

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior. — Vera Mont

All I can say now is that you are not even trying to understand, The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. While her morale compass would not let her put anyone in danger, she would not hesitate to grab a spot by going a different route to the rest of the queue.

They're as available on line to you as they are to me. — Vera Mont

You are the one making broad claims about the laws, it is you that is supposed to show proof of your claims. I have made no claims so I do not have to do anything. So I just just ignore the comment.

I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye.

What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? — Sir2u

just there:

If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality. — Sir2u

Who said anything about its quality?) — Vera Mont
You did, or do you not remember what you write!
" It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?" — Sir2u

In response to a previous post, attempting to clarify this:

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling. — Sir2u

The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. — Sir2u

Behaviour, yes. Ethics, no.

You are the one making broad claims about the laws — Sir2u

Fairly narrow ones, actually, in a different conversation, with links where appropriate.

I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye. — Sir2u

I'll get therapy and hope eventually to get over the loss.

Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity. — ssu

What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2?