Wrong and right is something measured by the effects on those involved, the eventual benefits/losses and the possible alternative scenarios. It's a point of view matter I think, but harmfull to one of the parties involved in this eqasion anyhow. Kinda comes down to 'how much do you deserve to put another down for your own benefit, and on what scale?'
Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
It doesn't matter. It still applies. Just because your in war doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
Originally posted by chithappens
But in the case of war there would never be an "ok" situation.
I agree 100% with chit here
War is by it's definition morally wrong, trying to say what is or is not acceptable while engaging in morally wrong action is moot as far as I am concerned.
In my opinion, rules and morals of war are acts of self legitimization and justification for the wrong actions that it is sometimes necessary to make.
Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
Even if they're doing it with the "best intentions"? Your contradicting yourself.
How? You need to explain that.
War is not about best intentions. Countries do not go at war because they are trying to help those who can not help themselves. Countries war based on utilitarian principles; there is no concern for the enemy.
Best intentions in war equate to "**** you! Pay me!" kinda stuff. No soldier is going to give a damn about a soldier on the other side. In the case of war, if an enemy soldier is caught under a burning car, your "best intention" would be to leave him there. The burning soldiers says "That's ****ed up!" I tip my hat and say, "Just doing my job sir." I say right, he say wrong.
Morality does not exist in war.
Best intention can not exist in war, and is simply a PR way of feeding it the public of your country.
You are contradicting yourself. You gotta come better than that.
Re: Food for Thought
Originally posted by Storm
Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right reasons?
They're both the same.
A right thing done for wrong reasons is wrong, and a wrong thing done for right reasons is still wrong. But if it was a matter of life and death to choose between the two, I would choose the latter. Only because intentions at times carry more weight than the act committed.
Originally posted by chithappens
How? You need to explain that.War is not about best intentions. Countries do not go at war because they are trying to help those who can not help themselves. Countries war based on utilitarian principles; there is no concern for the enemy.
Best intentions in war equate to "**** you! Pay me!" kinda stuff. No soldier is going to give a damn about a soldier on the other side. In the case of war, if an enemy soldier is caught under a burning car, your "best intention" would be to leave him there. The burning soldiers says "That's ****ed up!" I tip my hat and say, "Just doing my job sir." I say right, he say wrong.
Morality does not exist in war.
Best intention can not exist in war, and is simply a PR way of feeding it the public of your country.
You are contradicting yourself. You gotta come better than that.
So Soldiers who are "defending their homeland" don't have good intentions?
Their are many US Soldiers in Iraq right now who honestly believe that by being in this war they are doing the right thing, saving the world from terrorists. In Vietnam, I'm sure their were some Soldiers that actually believed that they were saving S.Vietnam from the "horror" that was Kommunism. In World War II, I'm sure their were Soldiers who thought that by killing as many Japanese soldiers as possible, they're somehow saving the world.
Trust me, PLENTY of morality exists in war, just not to certain people. And feel free to explain how I was contradicting myself.
my basic morals would say that to do anything for the right reasons that can be justified by your principles is right. but if the reasons are backed up by your principles you shouldnt be able to do the wrong thing... but if you can justify doing something you have a clear conscience, the outcome isn't bad
Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
So dropping the Nuclear bomb on Japan was not wrong, because we did it for okay reasons?Yes, Japan, we did just basically ass rape you, destroy your economy, kill your women, children, and elderly people, radiate your soil for the next hundred years..but we did it with the best intentions 😄
No. No way in hell.
I don´t think bombarding Japan with a nuclear bomb had a good reason. Perhaps we never have good reasons when using nuclear bombs.
I think the reasons depend on the consequences of the action, so for when we judge if the reason was good or not we have to consider the deaths and the radiation as well. Thats why I do not see it as a "good reason".
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I don´t think bombarding Japan with a nuclear bomb had a good reason. Perhaps we never have good reasons when using nuclear bombs.I think the reasons depend on the consequences of the action, so for when we judge if the reason was good or not we have to consider the deaths and the radiation as well. Thats why I do not see it as a "good reason".
The reason was so that the war would end quicker. Less American soldiers would die, and less rescources would have to be wasted.
I don't agree with it, and I certaintly don't agree that the ends justify the means, but that was the reason.