What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Can the killing of innocents ever be morally justifiable? (1 Viewer)

Is the killing of innocents ever morally justified?

  • No. There are NO circumstances that EVER justifies killing innocent people.

    Votes: 14 22.6%

  • Yes, but only in wartime, so long as they are not deliberately targeted, and all efforts are made to

    Votes: 26 41.9%

  • Yes, but only in wartime, so long as they are not deliberately targeted.

    Votes: 8 12.9%

  • Yes, but only in wartime.

    Votes: 5 8.1%

  • Yes, to gain a political goal.

    Votes: 9 14.5%
  • Total voters
    62
timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bullet_star_rated.png
Yes, to gain a political goal. (1 votes [20.00%])
Click to expand...
How many innocents would I need to kill in order to free the people of North Korea?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wars are based on political goals so IMO people voting for 'only wartime' are also voting for political goals.

 
cstu said:
bullet_star_rated.png
Yes, to gain a political goal. (1 votes [20.00%])
Click to expand...
How many innocents would I need to kill in order to free the people of North Korea?
Click to expand...
Great question. Let's flip it around: how many innocents would you be willing to kill in order to achieve that goal? Suppose I told you that, if you were OK with 100 American children under the age of 10 being assassinated, all of North Korea would be forever free. Would you go for that?

 
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. IF those are your only two options.

But your question, like mine about North Korea, is highly unrealistic. A more realistic scenario would be that you THINK you might survive longer if 10 people are removed, but you're not sure. Maybe if you just wait a little longer someone will come by and save you. Nothing is guaranteed one way or the other. What then?

 
timschochet said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. IF those are your only two options.

But your question, like mine about North Korea, is highly unrealistic. A more realistic scenario would be that you THINK you might survive longer if 10 people are removed, but you're not sure. Maybe if you just wait a little longer someone will come by and save you. Nothing is guaranteed one way or the other. What then?
Click to expand...
Hey, it my scenario, junsie. I chose a lifeboat to remove the inflammatory nature of geo-politics.

 
timschochet said:
cstu said:
bullet_star_rated.png
Yes, to gain a political goal. (1 votes [20.00%])
Click to expand...
How many innocents would I need to kill in order to free the people of North Korea?
Click to expand...
Great question. Let's flip it around: how many innocents would you be willing to kill in order to achieve that goal? Suppose I told you that, if you were OK with 100 American children under the age of 10 being assassinated, all of North Korea would be forever free. Would you go for that?
Click to expand...
Assuming such a guarantee were possible, it would be immoral not to.

 
The poll options list political goals and declarations of war, but morals should transcend government and politics. A war or political goal could be moral or immoral.

 
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?

 
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Is it ever this cut and dry in a real life scenario?

 
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the drone attacks we have carried out were to intentionally kill a terrorist target, and that the innocent people who have also died as a result were not deliberately targeted. Therefore, since we are in a state of war against these terrorists, this falls under options #2 or #3 in my poll (I would actually argue for option #2, since a drone is far more accurate than any previous weapon we have used, such as dropping a bomb from an airplane.)

Now, if you have evidence that we used a drone to deliberately target innocent people, that would be an act of terrorism, yes. Do you have evidence that we have done this? I do not.

 
timschochet said:
cstu said:
bullet_star_rated.png
Yes, to gain a political goal. (1 votes [20.00%])
Click to expand...
How many innocents would I need to kill in order to free the people of North Korea?
Click to expand...
Great question. Let's flip it around: how many innocents would you be willing to kill in order to achieve that goal? Suppose I told you that, if you were OK with 100 American children under the age of 10 being assassinated, all of North Korea would be forever free. Would you go for that?
Click to expand...
Isn't this the Pharaoh Scenario?

 
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
Tim, I'm going to help you out here.

No, if an American bomb hit a German town in WW2 and unfortunately killed a German child that is not morally equivalent to the German SS soldier who shot a child in the back because she was Jewish.

Take this one to your rabbi and let us know how he responds to this moral "quandary" of yours. - YWIA.

 
The General said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Is it ever this cut and dry in a real life scenario?
Click to expand...
Pipe down or you are one of the 10 getting tossed overboard, mister.

 
msommer said:
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?
Click to expand...
I asked a question.

 
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?
Click to expand...
I asked a question.
Click to expand...
I asked first

 
msommer said:
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?
Click to expand...
Of course we have.

 
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
"Necessary evils" are morally justifiable even though the acts involved are still immoral.

Sometimes the "right thing to do" is immoral.

 
FUBAR said:
msommer said:
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?
Click to expand...
Of course we have.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for Tim's reply actually.

 
msommer said:
FUBAR said:
msommer said:
Cliff Clavin said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
If the Taliban was using drones in the US would it be war or terrorism?
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the US engages in terrorism and kills innocents?
Click to expand...
Of course we have.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for Tim's reply actually.
Click to expand...
I provided one. See post #20.

 
Walking Boot said:
The General said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Is it ever this cut and dry in a real life scenario?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you provide an example? Because I can't think of one.

 
Collateral damage is a part of war. Most times it is not intentional. However, when assessing damage, both politically and humanely, collateral damage is appropriate. Not tasteful, but war is not tasteful.

 
timschochet said:
Walking Boot said:
The General said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Is it ever this cut and dry in a real life scenario?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you provide an example? Because I can't think of one.
Click to expand...
HELLO! HAVE YOU EVER SEEN TITANIC?

 
Walking Boot said:
timschochet said:
Walking Boot said:
The General said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Is it ever this cut and dry in a real life scenario?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you provide an example? Because I can't think of one.
Click to expand...
Plenty of historic incidents of lifeboat situations, stranded on an island, plane crashes, or failed expeditions where one healthy person was killed to feed the others.

The documentary "Touching the Void" dealt with the aftermath of a mountain climbing party where climbers were tied together for safety, then one went over the edge and was dragging the whole team to certain death. Guys best friend had to cut the rope to let him go so the others wouldn't die too.

Stuff happens all the time, Tim. Think sometimes.

It's also currently an issue with programing self-driving vehicles. Legally and morally, should we program a car to slam itself into a wall, potentially killing the driver, if a child should run in front of it? What about a dog? What if a child steps in front of the car, but the only way to avoid hitting him is to swerve into an elderly couple walking on the sidewalk? Google is debating these very issues right now, and may define a moral ethic for future generations.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of governments taking such action for political or military reasons. Of course you're right about the stuff you mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.

 
Walking Boot said:
timschochet said:
Mr. Know-It-All said:
Okay, so you are on a lifeboat, and 50 people are with you. You must throw ten people off to survive. Guaranteed survival if you throw ten people off, guaranteed death for all on the lifeboat if you do not eliminate 10 persons. Is it morally justifiable to kill 10 to save 40?
Click to expand...
Yes of course. IF those are your only two options.

But your question, like mine about North Korea, is highly unrealistic. A more realistic scenario would be that you THINK you might survive longer if 10 people are removed, but you're not sure. Maybe if you just wait a little longer someone will come by and save you. Nothing is guaranteed one way or the other. What then?
Click to expand...
So, if you agree with the lifeboat scenario, aka The Trolley Problem, where is the option for that in the poll?
Click to expand...
Yeah, was expecting this to be an option.

 
timschochet said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the drone attacks we have carried out were to intentionally kill a terrorist target, and that the innocent people who have also died as a result were not deliberately targeted. Therefore, since we are in a state of war against these terrorists, this falls under options #2 or #3 in my poll (I would actually argue for option #2, since a drone is far more accurate than any previous weapon we have used, such as dropping a bomb from an airplane.)

Now, if you have evidence that we used a drone to deliberately target innocent people, that would be an act of terrorism, yes. Do you have evidence that we have done this? I do not.
Click to expand...
Well, the definition of a terrorist target is apparently 'somewhere we think but do not know there might be terrorists'. That comes perilously close to targeting innocents.

 
msommer said:
timschochet said:
msommer said:
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing in that sentence that US drone strikes are synonomous with terrorism?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the drone attacks we have carried out were to intentionally kill a terrorist target, and that the innocent people who have also died as a result were not deliberately targeted. Therefore, since we are in a state of war against these terrorists, this falls under options #2 or #3 in my poll (I would actually argue for option #2, since a drone is far more accurate than any previous weapon we have used, such as dropping a bomb from an airplane.)

Now, if you have evidence that we used a drone to deliberately target innocent people, that would be an act of terrorism, yes. Do you have evidence that we have done this? I do not.
Click to expand...
Well, the definition of a terrorist target is apparently 'somewhere we think but do not know there might be terrorists'. That comes perilously close to targeting innocents.
Click to expand...
:no: :fishing:

 
timschochet said:
This is a spin off from the Taliban thread. I offered some choices, but the truth for most people is probably somewhat in-between, and if you feel you need to make a longer and more accurate answer, please do so.

Essentially, IMO, if you checked the first box, that no killing of innocents is ever justifiable, you are a pacifist, since there is no means to conduct human warfare without killing innocent people. If you checked the last box, and believe that the killing of innocents is justifiable to achieve a political goal, then your views are basically synonymous with terrorism.
Click to expand...
Terrorists do not believe in "innocents" or the innocence of their victims. Nor did the SS officer who led their victims to the firing squad or gas chamber due to ethnicity or religion or political beliefs, and the same goes for the several other evil ideologies that have plagued this earth for lo these many millennia but especially so much since the start of the 20th century.

The poll is a null because it's based on false assumptions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The insistence on placing this in the context of "wartime" is another reason this is a nullity. The situation is no different than the bank robber who is holding a hostage and on the brink of killing a hostage because he has not gotten what he wants a police officer on the scene shoots and kills the robber but the bullet passes through the robber's body and hits a child who was at the bank with her mother. Ascribing motives as "political" inherently confuses a situation where a soldier acts on behalf of his country which is trying to stop another country or group from acting in an unjust, immoral or amoral way way towards actual innocents, which is really what's going on in almost all situations that are being considered here.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Terrorists do not believe in "innocents" or the innocence of their victims. ...
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this. Terrorist, at least today's depend on the randomness of the immediate victims, the randomness of the act to create the terror among others which are the true targets that they could be next which results in the kind of irrational responses that are counterproductive to the victims. "innocence" of the immediate victims is almost a requirement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Terrorists do not believe in "innocents" or the innocence of their victims. ...
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this. Terrorist, at least today's depend on the randomness of the immediate victims, the randomness of the act to create the terror among others which are the true targets that result in the kind of irrational responses that are counterproductive to the victims. "innocence" of the immediate victims is almost a requirement.
Click to expand...
I think they're aware of the moral pain it causes us but they act feeling themselves right and that there is no such thing as an innocent. The terrorist hates x government, the citizens of x support that government and enjoy their benefits and do nothing to stop their actions, thus they are not innocent. As I said another example is the SS officer who led a prisoner to his/her death. They may further view the victim as subhuman or hated by their god because of their ethnicity or religion. They all "deserved" to die in that officer's mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The insistence on placing this in the context of "wartime" is another reason this is a nullity. The situation is no different than the bank robber who is holding a hostage and on the brink of killing a hostage because he has not gotten what he wants a police officer on the scene shoots and kills the robber but the bullet passes through the robber's body and hits a child who was at the bank with her mother. Ascribing motives as "political" inherently confuses a situation where a soldier acts on behalf of his country which is trying to stop another country or group from acting in an unjust, immoral or amoral way way towards actual innocents, which is really what's going on in almost all situations that are being considered here.
Click to expand...
Police action and war is fundamentally different. We, or more accurately, our political leaders choose to go to war. While that individual police officer chose to be a cop, he did not choose the place or circumstances of the robbery. The other actor created the circumstances in which the cop chooses whether to respond with force or let the situation continue.

I don't understand your last sentence.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

woodstock
This Article Is Righteous And Prescient About So Many Things, Oh, and Nü-Metal And Twilight Are The True Outsider Art, The Only Rebel Poets
Replies
7
Views
612
rockaction
rockaction
Worm
The Case of the Missing Rabbit
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
5K
munga30
munga30
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Writing A Novel Without Experience Of Issue - Cancel Culture
2 3
Replies
108
Views
3K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top