Heroes live, cowards die : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Resetting
Why they did was reference the real world, rather than the world of notional abstract speculation. And that is a critical issue when you want to make assertions about morality. And thus they most certainly DO support my argument, not least becuase they are not my own words.
No, causation of harm to another thinking, feeling being is not inherently immoral. How many people do you think you will find who consider killing Saddam Hussein to be IMMORAL? Very few I'd venture, and probably only those with a dogmatic hostility to violence.
If someone is strangling you, is it IMMORAL to kill them? If you are starving and others are guarding the granary, is it IMMORAL to eat over their dead bodies?
This is fantasy-land I'm afraid. Make a perfect, unconflicted world, and then you can say that violence is immoral. In this real, material world, violence is NOT inherently immoral - it may be a bad idea, it may even be traumatic for everyone involved, but IMMORAL it is not. You say that others are "not so casual" about death but they most certainly are - they were in fact SO casual about it that the majority supported an illegal war that killed a hundred thousand people very recently, didn't they?
You say my arguments have not "stacked up" more than any other arguments, but I say the same.
Re: Resetting
As well, just because it is necessary does not mean it is the best possible solution, or that there are not better solutions. Again, this is mistaking one thing for another: as in the previous post "because it is, does not make it right."
As to your "Well, everybody else..." arguments, I'm sorry but you're basing your arguments on a logical fallacy: the bandwagon. But you should first note I wasn't talking about majorities and minorities of thought when I made my statement about others not viewing the practice casually.
Note that I said "others" not "everyone else" or "the majority" or "most people"...just "others", so when you argue about how many people voted to go to war, or how many people would kill Saddam (and there it is again, "because everyone wants to, it is right?"), you aren't even responding to a claim being made, you're just up finding an excuse to be up bitching on your personal soapbox.
You also contradict yourself by arguing this: if violence is civilization and it is not wrong to utilize violence upon a perceived or possible threat, then what's wrong with the war? How is the war illegal or unjust if violence against Saddam Hussein and his regime was not immoral?