benlehman

Yes, it is immoral, in both instances. Just because you aren't getting what you want (ie: survival) doesn't make the action any more right. The idea that killing and/or violence is /necessary/ does not make it /morally right/, it only makes it necessary.

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?