tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4648494224402869789..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Weigel’s terrible argumentsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37205715538984882392023-07-26T15:39:10.981-07:002023-07-26T15:39:10.981-07:00Bishop Baron, in a review titled "Oppenheimer...Bishop Baron, in a review titled "Oppenheimer's Frown" of the film “Oppenheimer” by Christopher Nolan, posted yesterday:<br /><br />https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/oppenheimers-frown <br /><br />Excerpt:<br /><br /><br />But what began to bother him more was whether this awful weapon should have been used. When he visits President Truman, he comments, with real pain, that he feels he has blood on his hands. Catholic moral teaching would support Oppenheimer’s reservations, for the atomic bombings, which resulted in the deaths of over one hundred thousand innocents, clearly violated the principle of discrimination, which dictates that in any act of war, one must distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Though a number of characters in the film, including an admittedly cartoonish version of Harry Truman, trot out the familiar consequentialist justification that the attacks saved lives in the long run, Catholic teaching would never countenance doing something intrinsically evil in order that good might come of it. <br />Charles E Flynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16415098278821828266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34124085356195227952022-02-24T14:27:26.571-08:002022-02-24T14:27:26.571-08:00Weigel is a neocon, so his support anything Americ...Weigel is a neocon, so his support anything America does, right or wrong, is not surprising. He supported the war in Iraq, after all. Too many Catholics have become neocons, apologists for the American Empire. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90262855055110731192020-11-23T15:56:47.393-08:002020-11-23T15:56:47.393-08:00The difficulty is that while Thomas Aquinas falls ...The difficulty is that while Thomas Aquinas falls down firmly on behalf of innocent life even in war, he doesn't spell it out in detail.<br /><br />It's not in enough detail to the satisfaction of Post-Thomists who buy into the liberal concept of the value of innocent life being a variable which decreases in modern war or guerrila war. Whereas Thomas Aquinas, would have been horrified at the use of explosive weaponry on civilian cities. <br /><br />Keep in mind that Thomas Aquinas lived in a time with very limited weapons such as bow, sword, and catapult and would never have approved of widely destructive weapons which would have killed civilians. <br /><br />Such thinkings are a liberal deviation and an indication that many so-called Thomists are just conservatives in Thomist's clothing.Red and White and Bluehttps://redandwhiteandblue.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46124163468453480202020-10-28T05:40:32.549-07:002020-10-28T05:40:32.549-07:00Anscombe wrote that moralists have sometimes to co...Anscombe wrote that moralists have sometimes to confront difficult cases, but that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not one of them.<br />In difficult cases one is ever led by the principle of bonum faciendum malum vitandum. The resolution, nowever difficult must be defensible in these terms.<br />Difficult cases exist (That was the point of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia.) But one cannot do evil that good may come. (That is the point of John Paul II in Veriotatis Splendor.Carl Kuss, L.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10348528727574912301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68131103012330444372020-10-26T02:46:28.008-07:002020-10-26T02:46:28.008-07:00Contrary to what militarists tend to think, power ...Contrary to what militarists tend to think, power is more than just who has the biggest weapons abd destructive potential. Even if one nuclear country managed to conquer all nin-nuclear countries, it's nigh impossible to get all the peoples in the territories you've conquered to do what you want then to do; eventually your empire will collapse through softer forms of resistance and subversion. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-658734572368756712020-10-19T06:34:21.408-07:002020-10-19T06:34:21.408-07:00Miguel,
" Why the urgency? "
To end the ...Miguel,<br />" Why the urgency? "<br />To end the war, obviously. Huge numbers of people were dying every day on both sides.<br /><br />Ending the war as fast as possibly was of the utmost urgency.<br /><br />"It seems the real reason for the bombings was to intimidate the Soviet Union,"<br />No, not to intimidate the USSR, rather, to prevent Japan from becoming another East Germany. <br /><br />Wherever the USSR occupied the people lived in subjugation under oppressive dictatorship. <br /><br />Wherever the Allies occupied the people returned to live as free people in a free nation in an amazingly short period of time.<br /><br />Not only was dropping the bombs the best thing for the USA, it was by far a huge life saver and freedom creator for the Japanese people.<br /><br />Truman was 100% correct in dropping the bombs.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89505198527932761782020-10-19T05:39:04.395-07:002020-10-19T05:39:04.395-07:00The argument for using the bomb against those Japa...The argument for using the bomb against those Japanese cities just doesn't get off the ground. Why the urgency? It seems the real reason for the bombings was to intimidate the Soviet Union, at that time still without nuclear weapons. This must be even more immoral than trying to end the war against Japan quickly. Miguel Cervantesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53637572153965598442020-10-17T03:31:12.740-07:002020-10-17T03:31:12.740-07:00"Weigel also notes that 'the constraints ..."Weigel also notes that 'the constraints on the bombing of cities set by the just-war tradition of moral reasoning had been breached long before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' So, what? This proves only that those earlier bombings were wrong too, not that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not wrong."<br /><br />I agree that morally the nuclear bomb is no different from the massive conventional bombing done by the Allies in both theaters. But then, this leads us to the problem, how does one win WW2 without strategic bombing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7048275231018961852020-10-13T22:16:50.165-07:002020-10-13T22:16:50.165-07:00Stardust, and the rest of the board.
Is it not u...Stardust, and the rest of the board.<br /><br />Is it not unreasonable to trust (have fait) in reason such as we do. If reason comes from something that is not all all knowing and all good. There may be intermediaries that are not all knowing but if they are not all good then again we couldn't trust reason 100 percent. Almost any level less than 100 percent trust would lead to low levels of probability in arguments.<br /><br />It could be Nagels view on materialism of 50 percent. Or somewhat higher. If it applies for all premisis then you would get A (being the probablitity) to the power of the number of premisis in ones argument. Even if the argument logically followed. Say Leibniz cosmological with 3p. If its .5 then .125 if its. 90 then 0.73. Are not any objections to theist arguments assuming reason is stronger than is warranted on materialism certainly. Is not science one long chain of reasoning from inductive observation. Is not then science at best probabilistic sense if one has a view that cannot resonably maintain the certainty of reason as being accurate? What about the problem of miracles changing experimental results. Do we not need to rule our one way or another atheism(no supernatural miracle working being/beings) or establish theism all good ground of being that cares about us enough to not fool or allow other being to fool us as we seek to discover the mathematical side of reality. Without that is not apealing to technology a large hot hand fallacy. Should not the probability of an argument on the grounds of its conclusion affect the probability of the argument? As Nagel suggests. <br /><br />In the absence of a proof should not a resonable man go where the most probability lies. Perhaps those whose mind has the scale almost even would stay agnostic.<br /><br />But act follows from though and if you have narrowed things down to atheism following mans will and theism following God however haltingly. Would not Pascal wager apply to theism vs atheism. Is man rational who for the sake of a gee hrs a day or out of distaste of repentance would risk a lottery let alone this. <br /><br />Would a good condemn an innocent. If in good faith do not know which Church is true would God condemn you for it? But one must also ask is my hesitation due to the moral requirements does my desire to not obey what I resonably think is true make me not enter? How can a man be sure. Perhaps one should diminish ones passions. If one hates army life one should need an extreme reason to join perhaps 9 11 or a draft. If one has a character that gets joy out of meaningful suffering and wishes it would suck more one not only joined but tries to get closer to the tip of the spear. One would choose a combat arm that is more physically rigorous or a position in Ranger battalion etc. The diffrence between a man that chooses a comfortable desk job vs being a grunt lies as much in his will than his worldview though the two usually have some connection. <br /><br />If we are to deify man how can we claim human equality is real. Unless we don't subjectively care about anyone more than others. I care about me and mine more than all humanity. But I hold that human rights are held by a high authority such that all subjective differences are obliterated. Not that they disappear and I must do as much for a stranger as my mother but that my will can and is wrong on points and must be corrected. <br /><br />You seem to take a circular view like Singer that democracy is true based on democracy. That democratic assessment of what humans want is moral truth. That majority will to use traditional language is the voice of God. What stand in the way of a small child breaking the spell. If all is based on human will why would anything let alone democracy be true why would the strong care for the weak. Only the strong deserve life and afterall outside our mind its the law of the jungle as Darwin proclaimed. Some life is unworthy of life. This child could realize. If killing of innocents can be sanctioned by goverment then not all will stop were you do.<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73267352614104468262020-10-13T20:19:41.698-07:002020-10-13T20:19:41.698-07:00"The point is the inaliable right to life.&qu..."The point is the inaliable right to life."<br />There is no absolute right to life.<br /><br />The right to like, like all rights, is conditional and does not take precedence when it comes into conflict with other rights, such as the right to self defense.<br /><br />The US had and has the right to national self defense. The bombs dropped on Japan were fair and right and justified by our right to defend ourselves.<br /><br />Consequences matter, most especially in the decision making process of the POTUS.<br /><br />Dropping the atomic bombs saved huge numbers of lives, especially Japanese lives. Japanese deaths would have been in the millions if we had not dropped the atomic bombs. American deaths would easily have gone over one hundred thousand.<br /><br />The Japanese army and navy had a fanatical fight to the death ethic. A prisoner was a coward and a traitor who dishonored himself, his family, his country, and the emperor by failing to fight to the death.<br /><br />That fact was shown again and again as the bloodiness got worse and worse as we closed in on the home islands.<br /><br />For much or most of the Japanese population the only way to defeat them in an invasion would have been to kill them, because they would just keep fighting until they were killed, because that was their cultural ethic.<br /><br />Consequences matter. The deaths due to the atomic bombings were small compared to the deaths surely to be suffered in an invasion.<br /><br />Fortunately for the Japanese people the combined effects of the blockade, loss of external territory, relentless bombing deeper and deeper into Japan, and the two atomic bombs convinced the emperor to surrender, thus sparing millions of Japanese lives he surely realized would be lost in an invasion. StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60802165175489798892020-10-13T16:34:47.149-07:002020-10-13T16:34:47.149-07:00Stardust,
Killing an innocent moral being is far ...Stardust,<br /><br />Killing an innocent moral being is far worse on your view then Fesers. Same with abortion if we have one life it is far more important to determine if the little one is human and to refrain when in doubt. It would be an even greater evil to anhiliate an innocent moral being intentionally. You have annihilated them and took the only life they would ever have so that you the rich having already had a chance to live life can have a longer enjoyable existance. Is this not one of the reason you are likaly against the death penalty of tough sentencing? Do you still think there is such a thing as objective justice or is punishment only about reforming the person so is openeneded and there is no defense against re-education camps. Save pragmatic ones (consequentialist.)<br /><br />Also your consequentialist view would lead to execution being part of some baptismal rights. If all that matters is the end or consequence and the means does not matter why should someone not baptise and execute you right after then go to confession or pull an Constsntine and do alot of that then get baptized themselves? If you say that the means can be justified by the ends what argument do you have against religious people that do things you don't like or that but agaisnt your worldview?<br /><br />How is it neutral to tilt morality to your world view. That's not a neutral society but an atheist society. That's hardline integralism. Are you for everyone being a hardline integralist? I am not. It leads to alot of political tension and violence. <br /><br />How do you justify your trust in reason when your worldview is sinking sand. You have faith in reason (trust) but your creator is untrustworthy. It is worse than a bad God scenario. Could it not in your view be an illusion. How do you defend against Nagels rather generous assessment that you can't be more than 50 percent confident of your position that all is matter? Including your mind. <br /><br />Based on how I trust other things I would put it at 10 percent at best if that. I don't trust thermometers to tell me the pressure of a vessel directly. Nor would I trust a complex temp measurement device to tell me pressure directly. Less still would I trust a thermometer which a monkey (seems the favorite stand in for chance) modified. Spandrels would be the former epiphenom the 2nd. I read once there are 2 other materialist views but I lost that screen shot. I don't trust instruments that are complex/composites to be accurate for things that they are not directed towards. <br /><br />I'd your skeptical towards your world view on the is side why so certian on the ought side? Your not saying we cant be sure of the law which would be criminal negligence but that we know for certian that it was ok. Are you opposed to the nuremburg trials? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85317627540549438412020-10-13T16:04:57.194-07:002020-10-13T16:04:57.194-07:00Stardust,
Also if murdering in the name of countr...Stardust,<br /><br />Also if murdering in the name of country isn't jingoistic nationalism then what is? Hoe can you oppose colinizations worse episodes if they were just bringing bad cultures to heel such as the Mayans. Is the only problem you have is that they didn't rebuild things. With a far lower level of tech and wealth and administrative controal. Where the rules the same then or diffrent and if diffrent how do you know them?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30616884367783750272020-10-13T16:00:09.684-07:002020-10-13T16:00:09.684-07:00Stardust,
Are you aware what many high level athe...Stardust,<br /><br />Are you aware what many high level atheists still get say that Copernicus denoted humans. Which is a silly statement an is geographical location does not equal an ought. Nor is it really rational to think that it would matter to a father where their child is. Do you value a child in DC more than in Dallas? Also it was wrong about the world view (Greek) that the center was the most corrupt part. Yet the fopernican demotion is still rolled out by high level scientists......Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1227491299759099052020-10-13T15:54:25.344-07:002020-10-13T15:54:25.344-07:00Stardust,
What's your view on the problem of ...Stardust,<br /><br />What's your view on the problem of evil?<br /><br /><br />Is all suffering bad?<br /><br />Also if life is just about freedom from pain. Then are not mothers bad if this world is so evil that God could not have made it they why should they bring new people into it. <br /><br />If things are all about pain is not bringing a butterfly boy into the world "child abuse" do abortion should not be a subjective decision.<br /><br />If you like Dakwins hurls child abuse accusations around do you not sit and think about what an annihilation view of death means for a child. Speaking personally that cause far more pain than a painful after life view. I have always though little of pain and would rather be alive and suffering insensly than dead.<br /><br />Valhalla offers much of the pain of the crudest views of hell. Battles every day but far better company. Plus a glorious last stand. <br /><br />In that vein who dosn't want to have fought at Jadotville, Castle Itter and to have been one of the 40 Begian rifles holding off the German advance all alone.<br /><br />If Men are supposed to love (Agape not eros) ladies and or children. Not just American children. Would not a man rather his goverment send him into harms way that target a child for death? <br /><br />The terrible nature of this gets worse if this life is all there is that innocent child had their life cut short to let adults live longer. That's fairly vampiric. If 70 year olds wer fighting fit a good civilization would send them to fight first so a good civilization would send single men to fight first. <br /><br />If winning is all the matters why not just tear up the Geneva convention and say there are no such thing as war crimes. Is winning I'd the only point of war not winning well then there are no war crimes. If it's a sliding scale you think a culture under fear and worry wont think the bare has been passed?<br /><br />If directly intentionally killing innocent children isn't a war crime nothing is.<br /><br />A male human that would use children as a sheild in battle is no man at all. <br /><br />If life is all about pleasure people are means not ends.<br /><br /><br />How much do you agree with Peter Singer? I don't think he has gone far enough to fully realise his world views logical conclusions. But he goes further than most but also undermines it if human will sents the standard truth dosn't set the standard and so he has no objection within his system to fidelism. Plus the problem worsens as he bases things on feeling not truth so on what grounds does he place his atheism that it comforts people. Therefore one should be an atheist or is he being immoral in his atheism. <br /><br />So far as I am aware sam Harris just apeals to peoples care about others suffering. Was that effective with the japanese will that be effective ever? If that's the best reason can do then is it not just going to be alot of violence amongst intrest groups. Where those outside the group are outside the moral circle. If humans decide the moral circle is your problem with Nazis that they wern't democratic in their exclusion of certian people form the moral circle? <br /><br />What grounds do you have for human exceptionalism such that pig slaughter house are ok and the holocaust and Japanese atrocities?<br /><br />Atheism keeps saying that they are going to ground morality some how that is they are fidelist about a certian type of morality being true within their world view.<br /><br />On what consistent grounds do they then condem fidelism elsewhere?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57708383823482634282020-10-13T14:58:09.547-07:002020-10-13T14:58:09.547-07:00Stardust,
"The Japanese brought it all on th...Stardust,<br /><br />"The Japanese brought it all on themselves and utterly deserved every bomb we dropped on them."<br /><br />There you go with group guilt again. Can the state kidnap a drug kingpins family and threaten them to get him to turn himself in why not?<br /><br /><br />"Victory was by no means assured."<br /><br /><br />That is laughable victory was certain so long as the US and USSR had the will power. Material and resource wise Japan had no chance if Japan was a European country not influenced by a non western death of God ideology like Germany. It would have likaly surrendered at a far earlier point. Bit since they (Japan) valued human life more like you do they were a harder nut to crack no doubt. <br />Who are you kidding you had the USSR and the US vs a weakened Japan strangled from resources. You are defending it because less death va more death. So on utilitarian grounds rejecting the principle that you can't knowingly directly kill an innocent human being. If this is not what you are doing are you making the argument that they were collateral damage? That they were not the intended target or that that strike was proportional enough to be one on a hard target with collateral damage. If you remove the principle that killing innocents directly is wrong. Then you are saying at least sometimes terrorism I<br />Is ok amongst alot of other things. If you are advocating for murder in war. Then why not canablism or rape so long as they are effective. Why not shoot medical personnel as this would help your army to win. This approach would have its pragmatic advantages in hostage situations just level the place once negotiations break down. Your arguments against genocide can only be consequential not based on the principle that killing innocent human life is a grave wrong.<br /><br />Taking this principle out what are tour grounds for saying the Japanese were so bad did they not need farmland to feed their country? I'd do avoid some military casualties it's ok to directly kill innocents then why not in a starvation situation? Ia your argument against the Japanese just that they didn't have a good enough reason to kill innocents or that they killed too many?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Ok, unknown, you have gone wacky. Done."<br /><br />Says the murder apologist....<br /><br />You have repeatedly said that you can kill innocents to pursue public safety. Since you did not seem to make a collateral damage argument. You have removed the principle that we cannot kill an innocent human beings. So we then must discuss when else we can kill innocents. Else you are basing your morality on desire it seems not reason. Is there on rule of consequantial which is true that would allow this but not allow a domestic policy that allowes for innocents to be executed. Afterall high standard of guilt puts the community at greater risk. <br /><br />The 10 guilty men going free standard is based on not punishing the innocent if we can punish the innocent to get what we want why not jail time and executions in peace to get greater community safety. Or do american lives matter more than Japanese lives. <br /><br />Are you so blind you cannot see this?<br /><br />Yes it's a provocative argument. <br /><br /><br />"The Japanese brought it all on themselves and utterly deserved every bomb we dropped on them."<br /><br />So for a modern terrorist just replace Japan with great satan and dropped with used and it's ready to be shouted from the rooftops. <br /><br />Are we not supposed to have neutral principles or are yours just about what you consider good and then you get to do things others don't.<br /><br />Are you saying someone saying that the Sanish inquisition stopping the witch crazes in Sapin justifies it or that 1209 22 july at beziers was justified because the children has incurred guilt due to their parents.<br /><br />I'm intrested as to what you think the story about the Cananites which seems not to be a metaphor. Since you have abandoned that killing innocents is intrinsically evil. Is your argument just because you think the Cananites didn't behave as poorly as the Japanese did. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50652709580159998912020-10-13T14:57:42.345-07:002020-10-13T14:57:42.345-07:00Stardust,
I find almost every post you write to b...Stardust,<br /><br />I find almost every post you write to be "wacky" but I don't insult you and then think I have refuted you. Why do you think that this is how to reason?<br /><br /> <br />You have an odd view of there being a law above secular authority but then this law is very biased towards your side politically. So these aren't neutral applications. Since you seem to be saying murder (killing innocents.) Is something humans are allowed to do tour objections to the Japanese behaviour can't be on principled grounds. Life is afterall the 1st inaliable right. From which all other rights folw upon recognition of why that right to life exists. Given your world view I'm not sure how you would support that right being inaliable. But you may still hold it. Or perhaps you think rights only come from governments? <br /><br />"I deeply respect the fine Americans of that generation who gave so much to meet, counter, and defeat that grave and present danger." <br /><br />They only became a danger to the US because the Philippines was close to the shipping route from the Dutch east indies where they went for oil. <br /><br />I don't disagree you just may put more people into fine than I do I don't put murderers and rapists into the fine category. If I did then there would be no non fine people. I understand that the service men may not have had the mind for full intent at the time. So I'm not speaking about the bombing crews I'm not sure about their mental status. I have served I have always been of the mind that I would not firebomb a city no matter the cost.<br /><br />I have had diffrent views on the nukes over the years. Bit unless the non combatants were collateral damage then they were wrong. I'm not nudging from that murder is evil. Life is the 1st inaliable right. A government can murder but it cannot decide what is murder since the right comes before goverment. <br /><br />"They were lucky we are basically such a peach loving and generous nation because after we beat them down we helped to build them up." <br /><br />If your not arguing that it was collateral damage but that it was deliberate and intentional that children were killed to get surrender. That is a political objective. Then you have just defended terrorism.<br /><br />Yes the dead children were so lucky.<br /><br />You argue for pure utilitarian action. If so why not in all areas. I mean it's an easy ethic especially if one values ones own life more. <br /><br />Peace loving so you excluding all the wars against Mexico and the natives and what is now Canada and the Civil war. So on and so forth. American was isolationist before ww 2 not entirely peace loving but when ones has conquered most of a continent you tend to be at peace. The feather in Americas cap is that it never took over Canada so yes more peace loving than some but not entirely. Countries have a bunch of different people some love peace some do not. Andrew Jackson was not a peace lover. <br /><br />Switzerland has better claim to being peace loving. <br /><br />Generous hmm you mean it was altruistic not based on self intrest? Countries generally don't behave in an altruistic manner very much. Afterall the war against Japan was not because of what they did to the Chinese but because of pearl harbor. They though they had 6mths to knock the US out of the war after pearl or else they would be destroyed. After midway Japan would have needed some brilliant battles of their own. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51967112947729672872020-10-13T14:53:45.906-07:002020-10-13T14:53:45.906-07:00Stardust,
Are you calling the Japanese wrong on n...Stardust,<br /><br />Are you calling the Japanese wrong on natural law grounds? What lawful authority was there above the Japanese government?<br /><br />What is your view on the inaliable right to life? Do you reject it as religious?<br /><br />This is where the crux of the issue is so instead of giving examples and such and possible ramifications of dropping this view let's get to the heart of it.<br /><br />I have posted some other critiques bit above is the more pertinent point. <br /><br />"Ok, unknown, you have gone wacky. Done."<br /><br />You write some pretty wacky stuff on the regular. I'm being serious but you perhaps fail to see the point. The point is the inaliable right to life. Now if rights come from our governments then they are not human rights and the Japanese did not have any claims to rights vs the American government. If however we have inaliable rights then governments are not supposed to violate them. If the goverment violates other humans inaliable rights why not it's citizens? Perhaps it would take a more pressing political concern like climate change. If we are just like other animal why not cull the herd? If the planet is in grave danger? Now we are still as a society so influences by Jesus that we are not going to go there yet. Did the Japanese behave much differently than ancient cultures. Was Pagan Rome much different? Why was Japans behavior diffrent then Americas why was their culture different? You seem to reject post modernism. On what grounds do you judge between cultures? Tou seem to be claiming to get messages from or to be an authority above a state that is not your own at a time where you were not alive. Do you also judge the ancient past? <br /><br />You may apeal to the majority will while saying that minority will is bad (priestly lies) but then you have to explain why 0 authority plus 0 authority even if with a large group. <br />Gets you sufficient authority to define moral reality. In a way that can stand withering critique. <br /><br />Does a country with more people get to do whatever they want to a smaller country. If majority will is the starting point then why not? There is another problem in that majority will does not shine by it's own light and that it has the same problems as DCT plus others. DCT is a better moral theory than democratic command theory. <br /><br /><br />How much do you disagree with Peter Singer and why he seems to not go far enough given his world view which is similar to yours. He seems to ground things in majority will and dosnt see how that means its unmoored from truth. While he may be trying to see the truth of his position and I give him kudos for that he has made pleasant lies morally obligatory. Also he has an objective view of morality and ethical obligation while basing it on subjective will. Perhaps because he sees that the war of all against all would be violent and alot of suffering would result. But of it's all subjective minds I think no one has any better claim than any other and a group has no more authority than an individual just more power. But if might makes right what does that do to the problem of evil. Plus one is faced with that idea that objective good could change. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45400640284601298542020-10-13T11:25:34.572-07:002020-10-13T11:25:34.572-07:00@Tony,
Yeah, I suspected that as well. Thanks fo...@Tony,<br /><br /><br />Yeah, I suspected that as well. Thanks for the clarification!JoeDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69307020840897688942020-10-13T07:33:51.738-07:002020-10-13T07:33:51.738-07:00Those who have objected to Americans (and the othe...Those who have objected to Americans (and the other Allies) demanding "unconditional surrender" have regularly brought forward evidence that the Japanese high command was already making hints and suggestions of a conditional surrender. The fact that they were already doing so, in July and early August, shows that at least to some degree, they already viewed continued resistance as nearly futile. This adds weight to the suggestion, above, that the Japanese had little capacity to engage in an EFFECTIVE resistance to Allied invasion by November. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73209111302239275672020-10-13T07:19:27.036-07:002020-10-13T07:19:27.036-07:00That is, that personally considering oneself a com...<i>That is, that personally considering oneself a combatant and formally cooperating with acts of war would very likely make you one?</i> <br /><br />Perhaps so. Seems likely to me. <br /><br />However, that would not include small children, who are unable to make such determinations. So it would still not make the <i>entire population</i> a just military target. Which still leaves A-bombing them out of order. As I understand it, no degree of militaristic aggressiveness by the population at large, (including teens) can make infants and toddlers into just military targets. Unlike an intentional conversion of a iron foundry into a plant making war materiel, (which would turn it into a legitimate military target), a whole population is <i>never PRIMARILY</i> aimed at prosecuting the war. <br /><br />I admit that there seems to be a large gap in most accounts of just war theory on who counts as a combatant. The theory seems to work fine with a dedicated soldiery, but less so when the fighters are militia taken from the ordinary citizens, and still less so when everybody old enough is helping to the extent they can - such as men fighting on the walls, and women and youths carrying supplies to them. It also doesn't work as well when the enemy army has broken down the walls and is looting (but not yet raping the women and killing bystanders) where a youth picks up a pole to defend his family's home. And there is a gray area of ordinary citizens turned into "illegal" soldiers (non-uniformed "insurgents" fighting guerilla-style from the countryside) because the enemy army is perceived to be engaging in unjust methods (such as the raping and killing of women). Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82016906096470736712020-10-12T22:07:35.790-07:002020-10-12T22:07:35.790-07:00"What reason could you give to not participat..."What reason could you give to not participate in the German or Japanese atrocities against civilians."<br />Human empathy. We are a social species. Most of us find that harming other is repulsive, the sight of blood is at least a bit uncomfortable, or often repulsive.<br /><br />" If all Chinese were combatants then were there even any atrocities? "<br />Japan invaded China, not the other way around. China is perhaps the least invasive or expansionist or colonialist major power in history. Given the size and military power of China they have done relatively little to invade other countries.<br /><br />" It seems you have made a religion out of politics that's your willing to kill innocents for."<br />It all seems so easy in hindsight, but the fact is we got hit hard in the Pacific and the Japanese invaded and won and held vast territory in the Pacific.<br /><br />Victory was by no means assured.<br /><br />A very large number of fine American men paid with their lives and their injuries to fight a terrible brutal battle of uncertain outcome because we were attacked and nations North and South were attacked and invaded by the Japanese.<br /><br />The Japanese were a brutal, genocidal, expansionist, murderous nation that had to be beat down and defeated utterly.<br /><br />I deeply respect the fine Americans of that generation who gave so much to meet, counter, and defeat that grave and present danger.<br /><br />The Japanese brought it all on themselves and utterly deserved every bomb we dropped on them.<br /><br />They were lucky we are basically such a peach loving and generous nation because after we beat them down we helped to build them up.<br /><br />" No need to be guilty to be executed."<br />Ok, unknown, you have gone wacky. Done.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77434372280538132402020-10-12T21:51:33.988-07:002020-10-12T21:51:33.988-07:00"An honest recruiting poster by your view&quo..."An honest recruiting poster by your view"<br />I am not recruiting anybody. You can agree with me or disagree with me, up to you.<br /><br />" That is by being a free rider."<br />Go ahead and be a free rider is that is what you want. If the free ride you choose is to beg on the streets you will find life very uncomfortable and short.<br /><br />If the free ride you choose is crime you will again find life very uncomfortable and short.<br /><br />If you really want to get away from it all you can buy some survival gear and go to Idaho to make a living hunting and gathering while you live in a cabin you made from logs you cut down yourself.<br /><br />Whatever, up to you, free ride as you wish.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82465386309309916982020-10-12T21:43:47.567-07:002020-10-12T21:43:47.567-07:00"On your grounds their invasion was ok if it ..."On your grounds their invasion was ok if it was to feind off starvation"<br />Japan was and is a powerful and rich industrial country. They had the money and the means to build vast weapons systems.<br /><br />The people of Japan did not need to invade others because they were starving. Where did you even get that idea from?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1234812297001260112020-10-12T21:38:40.087-07:002020-10-12T21:38:40.087-07:00Unknown,
“You apeal to that you have one life and ...Unknown,<br />“You apeal to that you have one life and use this apeal to snuff out others one life.”<br />Indeed, in self-defense.<br /><br />My one precious life takes precedence over the one life of my attacker. My attacker, by mortally attacking me, has forfeited his claim to have his life respected.<br /><br />“Are not all things permissible?”<br />No.<br /><br />“Your apeal to they will be ok afterwards could be used by a serial killing rapist as well”<br />No, it could not.<br />The rape victim has perpetrated no attack against the rapist; therefore the rapist has no justification for perpetrating his rape.<br /><br />The POTUS cannot go to the parents of hundreds of thousands of dead men and tell them that he had a means to save their lives but he chose not to use it because a pope had some kind of theory about right and wrong.<br /><br />Think about it, if Truman were to walk up to the parents of every dead American young man and tell each one, in person “I ordered your son to be killed because I read a theory of right and wrong written by a pope, even though I had the means to instead win the war and send your son home alive and well.<br /><br />Then Truman would have to go to all the hospitals and meet a million men, one at a time, and tell each man “I could have prevented you from having your legs blown off, your eyes destroyed, your face burned off, your spine severed, but I chose to inflict your injury on you because I read a theory about right and wrong written by a guy who calls himself pope.”<br /><br />Presidents don’t get to live in some pie in the sky parallel universe where consequences don’t matter. Leadership is all about consequences. Leaders make decisions based on projected consequences, anything less being a gross abdication and failure of their grave responsibilities.<br /><br />Truman saved American lives.<br /><br />Truman saved Japanese lives.<br /><br />Consequences are of supreme importance, while a pope’s little theories are worthless to leadership.<br /><br />“In reference to a different post you state that no simple uncomposed mind can exist”<br />Indeed, how would that even work? How can a perfectly simple thing think vast and complex thoughts? Preposterous. Such a suggestion is a statement of opposites, that simplicity is complexity. Absurd.<br /><br />“Given your low view of reason simply about survival”<br />I never said that. Reason is an evolved capability. Evolution is the result of selection for reproductive advantage, of which survival to reproduction is a necessary but not sufficient component.<br /><br />But not all traits have a reproductive advantage. Sometimes called spandrels, or side effects, organisms have many traits that in some sense just come along for the ride. Our ability to reason as we do on specific modern subjects is an incidental side effect of our evolved ability to reason in our previous hunter/gatherer environment.<br /><br />“what grounds do you have to be absolutely confident that this is so”<br />I think therefore I am absolutely certain that something exists. There are some other absolute certainties based on my self-awareness, but beyond them absolute confidence ends.<br /><br />“your confidence about much is unreasonable”<br />I am as confident in my conclusions as I am confident in the basic reliability of human senses and human reasoning.<br /><br />“your mind must be thought of a complex”<br />Indeed, the notion of a perfectly simple mind is incoherent, preposterous, and absurd. I am astounded that otherwise intelligent people can even utter such an assertion as a perfectly simple mind. What an inane utterance indeed.<br /><br />“we cannot trust complex minds”<br />Right, I don’t function on trust, don’t need it, why would I?<br /><br />“Or complex objects to have meaning”<br />Meaning is relative. One thing has meaning relative to something else.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10815856056375984272020-10-12T21:30:40.709-07:002020-10-12T21:30:40.709-07:00Stardust,
What reason could you give to not parti...Stardust,<br /><br />What reason could you give to not participate in the German or Japanese atrocities against civilians. As well in your view how many were non combatants? If all Chinese were combatants then were there even any atrocities? Why would you hold that a soldier should refuse a rape order or slaughter order let alone try to stop them. Why not use captured children to clear minefields for your shock troops or your own? If killing innocents to get political victory is ok then what's the big deal? Why not killing prisoners of war to free up troops. Or serve in a death camp if this life is of prime importance? You would of course most likaly save your own life by doing so. The Germans at least to a degree though they were saving the species what can go up can go down without the pressure or survival. You don't even seem to be arguing that it's collateral damage. It seems you have made a religion out of politics that's your willing to kill innocents for. Also your maral foundation like Peter Singerseems to be human wish fulfillment. Which is an issue why is it rational for moral arguments when it is used as an argument against theism. If survival andpleasure are the base line lies then truth is not. Children suffer when they think that death is an annihilation of the self. <br /><br />Also to consider is how dominant the US was at the time the argument that this was the only way is false. If safety justifies killing innocents why not change the court system. No need to be guilty to be executed. Perhaps no due process for men...<br /><br />Your view of Hell is sophomoric we choose it. God pronounces on a character that we have chosen. It is only in his permissive will that we go there if his active will is done then Hell would be empty. Given human selfishness all is hopeless given Gods love there is hope for all perticular individuals (not universalist.) A being cut off in eternity will not be who we know them as. Was Hitler so evil at 2?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.com