In all fairness Markor, it's as unreasonable for you to assert that use of nuclear weapons was the wrong choice as it would be for me to assert it was the right choice. It was a momentous decision, and considering how many civilians it killed it was morally reprehensible. But the action itself changed the thinking of literally billions of people across the world.
Today, we know that somehow this combined with the Japanese surrender put Japan in position to be the second largest global economy. We know it resulted in a democratic Japan. And you probably wouldn't have Akira, three choices of home video game consoles, or cheap hi-def televisions either. Of course, on the other hand it contributed to the cold war, Viet Nam, and the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
To claim that you are capable of sorting out all these far reaching effects to determine what is right or best for billions of people is arrogant.
Besides, the risk of nuclear is highly exaggerated. If you want to worry about a generation destroying the world, worry about GenX/GenY. The accidental risks from nanobots and genetic engineered bacteria probably exceed the risk from nuclear warfare.
The ends don't justify the means in this case. Iraqis might be better off when they're fully subjugated too, even while they're toiling 12 hours a day for 25 cents an hour making cheap stuff for us; that doesn't make it right. Arrogance is suggesting otherwise.
What might happen with genetic engineered bacteria is besides the point, obviously.
The ends don't justify the means in this case. Iraqis might be better off when they're fully subjugated too, even while they're toiling 12 hours a day for 25 cents an hour making cheap stuff for us; that doesn't make it right. Arrogance is suggesting otherwise.
What might happen with genetic engineered bacteria is besides the point, obviously.
I never suggested that the ends justifies the means. You make the decision at the outset however. Sitting around 70 years later with no perspective and calling out an entire generation who should have done it 'your way' is extremely arrogant.
Iraq on the other hand is something contemporary and we should do something about it. The right thing was to never go to war. It's less clear what the right thing is today.
Sitting around 70 years later with no perspective and calling out an entire generation who should have done it 'your way' is extremely arrogant.
Suppose US troops invaded Japan then and killed toddlers by slowly pouring sulfuric acid on them in front of their parents, until Japan surrendered. Some things are obviously wrong (which is why nukes haven't been used in war since then) and it is not arrogant at all to say so.
Iraq on the other hand is something contemporary and we should do something about it. The right thing was to never go to war. It's less clear what the right thing is today.
There is nothing about time that makes something wrong today but okay in the past. For example, the "Great" Generation knew (or should have known) it was wrong how blacks were treated, esp. in the southern states. In the past, people got away with more, because society is evolving from a more-brutal past. But that doesn't make misdeeds right at any time we've been capable of understanding them as misdeeds.
Some things are obviously wrong (which is why nukes haven't been used in war since then) and it is not arrogant at all to say so.
First, you're walking on loose footing by saying anything is obviously right or obviously wrong, unless you are referring to some consistent and reliable system like mathematics. Otherwise you're discussing agreement of morals. You and I might agree that nuclear warfare is wrong. We might even agree that all warfare is immoral, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. And if a person doesn't believe that war is wrong, but does belief nuclear warfare is wrong, then they must be choosing an arbitrary point where war goes from being moral to immoral.
Let's take the bomb example. How many kilotons of explosive does it take to make a bomb immoral? If can produce a classical bomb with that degree of destruction, is that OK? Or what about a nuclear bomb with less power? This is a legitimate question. Or how about the firebombing of Dresden?
And FYI, the decision not to use nuclear warheads in the last 60 years had little to do with morals. It had a lot more to do with Mutually Assured Destruction. Read 'On The Beach' or watch Dr. Strangelove to get a better understanding how people viewed the bomb in the 70s, and why it actually was never used again.
I stand by my opinion that some things are obviously wrong. I don't know how decent people can disagree with that, but I acknowledge that some do (I also observe that most vote for a particular political party).
I don't have anything against using nukes, or firebombing cities, or even napalming children, when necessary. I think it is obvious that nukes weren't necessary in the case of Japan.
And if a person doesn't believe that war is wrong, but does belief nuclear warfare is wrong, then they must be choosing an arbitrary point where war goes from being moral to immoral.
True. Society makes these kinds of decisions, and modifies them, all the time. For example, if a bank robber is holed up in the bank with hostages, it is considered an unacceptable solution for the bank to be leveled by a bomb. However, if we replace the bank robber with a freedom fighter defending his country against American imperialism, it is considered acceptable to level the bank with a bomb, or even the bank plus the nearby grade school.
If someone supports something that I consider to be obviously wrong, I say they are wrong and I am right, and I stand by that opinion. To do otherwise is to have no principles.
How many kilotons of explosive does it take to make a bomb immoral?
It's mainly the circumstances of the use of the bomb that determines whether the usage is moral or immoral.
What if it could be proven beyond argument that by using 2 atomic bombs in WWII the less people, on both sides, were killed.
In other words about 200,000 Japanese were killed by the two atomic bombs. What if not using those two atomic bombs resulted in 400,000 Japanese and 100,000 Americans being killed from the continued fighting.
Is the use of the atomic bombs in the above scenario still absolutely wrong.
btw...200,000 killed by the atomic bombs, but over 300,000 killed by the firebombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities.
True. Society makes these kinds of decisions, and modifies them, all the time. For example, if a bank robber is holed up in the bank with hostages, it is considered an unacceptable solution for the bank to be leveled by a bomb. However, if we replace the bank robber with a freedom fighter defending his country against American imperialism, it is considered acceptable to level the bank with a bomb, or even the bank plus the nearby grade school.
This is a poor analogy, because the two situations you describe are not as similar as you think. In one, the intent is to kill the terrorists. In the other, the intent is to save the citizenry. Both the robber and the citizens near the terrorist are considered collateral damages. Their deaths are weight against how valuable the objective is, and that decision is not always trivial. What you're ignoring is really the intent.
All moral arguments hinge on intent. I can say this, because if the Sun explodes and kills all of humanity it is not immoral, the sun has no intent and therefore is an amoral entity - it is a tragedy though.
faster asks the question as a matter of moral absolutism: every death is bad, so fewer deaths are always better. But most people operate on relative morals. This is why the media decries every US soldier's death while largely ignoring the significantly larger Iraqi death toll. It's also why people drive large SUVs knowing that in an accident they will kill the other guy but their own family will be safe.
If someone supports something that I consider to be obviously wrong, I say they are wrong and I am right, and I stand by that opinion. To do otherwise is to have no principles.
What you describe isn't principles, but rather pompous behavior. If someone says something you consider wrong, and they consider what you say wrong, it means you both need to stop and consider. Perhaps you are both wrong, or perhaps you are each right in some things and wrong in others.
Ironically, it's the very "I'm right and you're wrong" "principles" that you believe in, which led our president to decide occupation of Iraq was a good idea. I guess if someone else is stubborn, it's pride. But if oneself is stubborn, it's principles.
.
Wow! This thread sure took an unintended turn. For what it's worth, much greater minds than ours have pondered and debated these type issues for a long time.
. Moral relativism
. Moral absolutism
.
General Motors, a symbol of American industrial might and the world's top seller of motor vehicles since Herbert Hoover was president, has finally been caught by a foreign rival.
.
GM conceded Wednesday that Toyota Motor Corp. pulled even last year, each of them selling about 9.37 million vehicles, in another sign that the balance of corporate power is shifting from West to East.
.
It's the first time GM has been anything other than the exclusive global sales leader since 1931......
.
What if it could be proven beyond argument that by using 2 atomic bombs in WWII the less people, on both sides, were killed.
If the nukes were the best choice, then using them was not wrong. But the best choice was obviously to not use the nukes, at least not on their cities, because the Japanese were already contained on their mainland by that point, and no longer a threat that warranted killing 200,000 of their civilians.
In other words about 200,000 Japanese were killed by the two atomic bombs. What if not using those two atomic bombs resulted in 400,000 Japanese and 100,000 Americans being killed from the continued fighting.
If some general or the US president or the American people really wanted Japan to surrender, that's not a good enough reason by itself, no matter how many lives would have been lost to make Japan surrender without the use of nukes. The decision whether to use nukes (i.e. whether it's the best choice) must also include an assessment as to whether Japan needed to surrender in the first place.
Is the use of the atomic bombs in the above scenario still absolutely wrong.
Using nukes would not have been wrong if a greater loss of life (without nukes) was virtually guaranteed with the US on defense only. But that is clearly not the case. America wanted Japan to surrender; it did not need Japan to surrender. Then using the nukes was offense. Even if one assumes that Japan needed to surrender, using nukes on their cities initially (vs., say, just outside of them) was not warranted, esp. since the US had the ability to produce many more of them.
This is a poor analogy, because the two situations you describe are not as similar as you think. In one, the intent is to kill the terrorists. In the other, the intent is to save the citizenry. Both the robber and the citizens near the terrorist are considered collateral damages. Their deaths are weight against how valuable the objective is, and that decision is not always trivial. What you're ignoring is really the intent.
You seem to imply that any objective can be right, if it's sufficiently valuable. That's false. If the objective is to annex a country and subjugate its citizens for profit, that's wrong, no matter how large the prize is, or how small the collateral damage is. "Terrorists" or "insurgents" are not necessarily bad. If they are on defense, and their actions are the best choice for minimizing damage/death, they're in the right. People like to pretend that many situations are so complex that only the "experts" can make the morally right decisions. That's bullcrap. A big reason people do this is so they don't feel as guilty when they benefit from wrongdoings. Almost every situation is clear cut given enough information.
faster asks the question as a matter of moral absolutism: every death is bad, so fewer deaths are always better.
Less death/damage is better, but any death/damage can be wrong. For example, a bank robber doesn't get kudos for not killing hostages.
What you describe isn't principles, but rather pompous behavior.
Is it pompous to think it's obviously wrong for someone to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy? Serious question.
If someone says something you consider wrong, and they consider what you say wrong, it means you both need to stop and consider. Perhaps you are both wrong, or perhaps you are each right in some things and wrong in others.
If someone thinks it's okay to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy, they're wrong, period. They may disagree, but the majority of society will support my position. In other cases the majority of society may disagree with me; I don't care--they're still wrong if I think so. To have no principles is to take no position on the toddler being kicked in the face.
Ironically, it's the very "I'm right and you're wrong" "principles" that you believe in, which led our president to decide occupation of Iraq was a good idea. I guess if someone else is stubborn, it's pride. But if oneself is stubborn, it's principles.
In my opinion our president chose to invade Iraq for profit; those were the only principles involved. The prez is a rotten person.
.
Wow! This thread sure took an unintended turn. For what it's worth, much greater minds than ours have pondered and debated these type issues for a long time.
. Moral relativism
. Moral absolutism
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, on a consequentialist account, a morally right action is an action that produces good consequences.
For me, that would not extend to logic like this: "Japan is doing great today, therefore nuking them in WWII was morally right". If only because the logic ignores those who died in the nuking. To me, a morally right action is that which can be predicted with good odds will lead to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole.
....If someone thinks it's okay to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy, they're wrong, period.....Is it pompous to think it's obviously wrong for someone to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy? Serious question.......
To me, if an adult purposely kicked a toddler in the face for dropping a toy, it is not a moral issue as much as it would be a sanity issue. What sane, rational adult would kick a human baby in the face for dropping a toy. I propose that you consider the possibility that your strong feelings of a baby being kicked in the face as being wrong are largely a result of being genetically encoded to be protective toward a baby human. Are you outraged at lamb chops being sold in the grocery store? Does it bother you to step on a baby cockroach?
.....To me, a morally right action is that which can be predicted with good odds will lead to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole....
Again, it's a matter of perspective. Use of atomic weapons ended the war concisely and quickly and led "...to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole", in my opinion. You might also consider the fact that people make decisions based on their beliefs and info available at the time of the decision. It's easy to criticize past actions with 20 / 20 hindsight.
Markor – I admire your lofty, if somewhat naïve, standards. Good luck at changing the world.
..
I propose that you consider the possibility that your strong feelings of a baby being kicked in the face as being wrong are largely a result of being genetically encoded to be protective toward a baby human.
I propose it's because I'm genetically encoded to know right from wrong in general, as is everyone else of sound mind. It doesn't have to be a human. Torturing a pig to death is obviously wrong too.
Are you outraged at lamb chops being sold in the grocery store? Does it bother you to step on a baby cockroach?
Killing for food is not wrong in my book (although I don't eat meat, in large part because it isn't necessary to eat animals to be healthy). Intentionally stepping on a cockroach that does not pose a threat to you (health or property) is wrong in my book.
Yes, but "good consequences" are a matter of perspective.
Yes. Still, someone who disagrees with me about obviously wrong things, is wrong.
Again, it's a matter of perspective. Use of atomic weapons ended the war concisely and quickly and led "...to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole", in my opinion.
That's okay to have your opinion. But I think you're wrong in this case. To me it was clearly overkill for a profit motive. If you kicked a toddler in the face for dropping a toy, I'd declare you wrong about that too, regardless of your opinion.
The reason why almost every American would agree with me about the toddler (just not the argumentative ones), but not about the Japan nukes, is because Americans by and large don't really care about what happens to people of other countries. They will kill them in gruesome ways for a tiny gain. Most Americans would assume I'm talking about an American toddler. If I tell them it's an Iraqi toddler, they won't be so against the kicking of it. The kicking will become "collateral damage", which is a euphemism that helps people to institutionalize their wrongdoings so they don't feel as guilty.
You might also consider the fact that people make decisions based on their beliefs and info available at the time of the decision. It's easy to criticize past actions with 20 / 20 hindsight.
Not about the obviously wrong stuff. For example, those who burned people at the stake for not converting to Catholicism were just as wrong then as they would be today.
Markor – I admire your lofty, if somewhat naïve, standards. Good luck at changing the world.
Not trying to change the world, just calling a spade a spade. The Great Generation was not so great when you consider the whole picture.
......I'm genetically encoded to know right from wrong in general, as is everyone else of sound mind.....
I totally disagree. If what you say is true, how can it be that what's right and moral in one culture may not be right and moral in another. If a sense of morality or right / wrong is instinctual or hereditary, why is there such diversity between cultures? Why are practices such as slavery, polygamy, and cannibalism considered perfectly okay in one culture and rejected as immoral and wrong in others?
In your example of kicking the baby, it is wrong on two levels. It would be wrong as it goes against the instinctual drive for perpetuation of the species and it would be wrong as a member of our society because we are taught that it is unethical to harm the weak and innocent.
.........someone who disagrees with me about obviously wrong things, is wrong......
.....obviously wrong stuff. For example, those who burned people at the stake for not converting to Catholicism were just as wrong then as they would be today....
Don't assume that what is "obviously wrong" to you is "obviously wrong" to others. The Inquisitors thought that they were being extremely righteous by burning unrepentant heretics at the stake. It wasn't "obviously wrong stuff" to them. Their morality was a matter of perspective shaped by their culture and by the Catholic Church.
I totally disagree. If what you say is true, how can it be that what's right and moral in one culture may not be right and moral in another. If a sense of morality or right / wrong is instinctual or hereditary, why is there such diversity between cultures? Why are practices such as slavery, polygamy, and cannibalism considered perfectly okay in one culture and rejected as immoral and wrong in others?
Things that are obviously wrong can be "right" in some cultures simply because not everyone's opinion in the picture is considered; i.e. you're not seeing the big picture. Slavery is certainly not right from the slaves' perspective. They don't go around saying, "Well I should be a slave, because it's right". Instead they don't have a say in their enslavement; if they protest, or try to escape, they are beaten or killed or whatever punishment, which is of course wrong. From their masters' perspective slavery is "right" because they (the masters) profit from it, but deep down they know it's wrong.
Polygamy is not right from the perspective of the 12-year-old girl who is forced to marry her 40-year-old sleazy uncle, or else be beaten or left homeless or whatever other tactic is used to make her submit. From the ringleader's perspective polygamy is "right" because, at middle age and a pedophile, he gets to screw and slap around a 12-year-old girl, but deep down he knows it's wrong.
People who are strongly against cannibalism will resort to it when push comes to shove (like the airplane accident victims in the movie "Alive"), and they remain decent people even as they eat other people. Deep down people around the world know that cannibalism is not wrong.
Let's consider polygamy among consenting adults of sound mind. Why is this wrong in our culture, but maybe not all cultures? Perhaps because it can easily lead to inequity, like rich guys having harems, which reduces the pool of women available to other men. It's not the polygamy per se that is wrong, it's the inequity it leads to, and maybe some cultures have resolved those inequities. For example, in Polynesia circa 1900 women would have sex with multiple partners, and that was okay in that culture. But it worked because babies belonged to the whole society. Pregnancies were greatly appreciated by all of society, and the baby essentially had multiple moms and dads from birth. In our society women having sex with multiple partners often leads to kids having no dad involved, which leads to other societal problems.
In your example of kicking the baby, it is wrong on two levels. It would be wrong as it goes against the instinctual drive for perpetuation of the species and it would be wrong as a member of our society because we are taught that it is unethical to harm the weak and innocent.
Where is that taught? Schools wouldn't touch teach that; after all, corporations and the military have a strong vested interest in harming the weak and the innocent, and kids are their future recruits. How many parents teach their kids about ethics? No, that it's wrong to unnecessarily harm other beings—not just humans—is innate, and societies like ours go to great pains to offset that, like with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Don't assume that what is "obviously wrong" to you is "obviously wrong" to others.
It's wrong for me to assume that?
The Inquisitors thought that they were being extremely righteous by burning unrepentant heretics at the stake. It wasn't "obviously wrong stuff" to them. Their morality was a matter of perspective shaped by their culture and by the Catholic Church.
If at that time you plucked one of the Inquisitors and punished him long enough, he'd eventually break down and tell you that he knows it's wrong, but some higher-up made him do it, or else he'd be punished himself. If you worked your way up the chain of command that way you'd eventually reach the pope, and if you punished him long enough, he'd eventually break down and tell you that he knows it's wrong, but the lust for money & power made him do it. You'd get the same confession from the current pope.
Think about the Nuremberg trials. According to the defendants, they didn't really think it was right to kill Jews. Their real motivation was fear of punishment for not obeying orders, and of course the money & power that their position brought them.
Re your link to moral dilemmas, it doesn't suggest anything about whether right/wrong is innate, as far as I can tell.
Things that are obviously wrong can be "right" in some cultures simply because not everyone's opinion in the picture is considered; i.e. you're not seeing the big picture.....
You've made my point. Morality is a matter of perspective.
If you punished someone long enough they might also admit that speaking out against the government is wrong. So what?
Punishment can just be loss of freedom and privileges. Yes if you jail someone long enough they'll probably say anything to get out. You could also find out the truth by subjecting them to the same thing they did to others. For example, make the master a slave. Eventually the enslaved former master will tell you that slavery is wrong. Have they been coerced by something they think is right?
In one of my favorite sci-fi books, the spectators of a bullfight are made to experience the bull's pain, and bullfighting is no more thenceforth. I think the result would happen just like that.
It doesn't matter what the wrongdoers say though. They need not confess that what they did is wrong. We imprison pedophiles even if they insist that molesting kids is right. We do that because we believe that they know that it's wrong, regardless what they claim.
No, you missed my point. People call things that are obviously wrong, and that they know deep down are wrong, "right", and vice versa.
Okay, let's try this - Hitler really believed that certain "non-Germans" were subhuman and so did many of his followers. Deep down, they really believed that they were right and anyone who did not agree with them was "obviously wrong". That was their perspective. That was their morality. Some call it "Nazi morality".
.
It doesn't matter what the wrongdoers say though. They need not confess that what they did is wrong. We imprison pedophiles even if they insist that molesting kids is right. We do that because we believe that they know that it's wrong, regardless what they claim.
"And therefore if you disagree with Markor, then you condone pedophilia."
I'm not going to argue either way in this discussion. I'm just going to point out bad arguments.
Okay, let's try this - Hitler really believed that certain "non-Germans" were subhuman and so did many of his followers. Deep down, they really believed that they were right and anyone who did not agree with them was "obviously wrong". That was their perspective. That was their morality.
I covered that situation above. Hitler sought money & power. Killing off an identifiable class of people & distributing their assets to the others is a longstanding strategy to gain money & power. The Romans perfected it. Hitler and his henchmen knew what they were doing was wrong. They did not truly believe that any group of people was sub-human.
The contemporary example is calling Iraqi freedom fighters "insurgents" or "terrorists". It's a way to make decent people sub-human so we can feel better about killing them to annex the oil fields.
Yes, Hitler "deemed the jewish people as sub-human". Why? Because it brought him fabulous money & power, not because he believe it. It made him King of the Hill for a while, and lots of people will sell their soul to experience that.
Comments
Today, we know that somehow this combined with the Japanese surrender put Japan in position to be the second largest global economy. We know it resulted in a democratic Japan. And you probably wouldn't have Akira, three choices of home video game consoles, or cheap hi-def televisions either. Of course, on the other hand it contributed to the cold war, Viet Nam, and the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
To claim that you are capable of sorting out all these far reaching effects to determine what is right or best for billions of people is arrogant.
Besides, the risk of nuclear is highly exaggerated. If you want to worry about a generation destroying the world, worry about GenX/GenY. The accidental risks from nanobots and genetic engineered bacteria probably exceed the risk from nuclear warfare.
What might happen with genetic engineered bacteria is besides the point, obviously.
I never suggested that the ends justifies the means. You make the decision at the outset however. Sitting around 70 years later with no perspective and calling out an entire generation who should have done it 'your way' is extremely arrogant.
Iraq on the other hand is something contemporary and we should do something about it. The right thing was to never go to war. It's less clear what the right thing is today.
There is nothing about time that makes something wrong today but okay in the past. For example, the "Great" Generation knew (or should have known) it was wrong how blacks were treated, esp. in the southern states. In the past, people got away with more, because society is evolving from a more-brutal past. But that doesn't make misdeeds right at any time we've been capable of understanding them as misdeeds.
That is just my opinion of course.
First, you're walking on loose footing by saying anything is obviously right or obviously wrong, unless you are referring to some consistent and reliable system like mathematics. Otherwise you're discussing agreement of morals. You and I might agree that nuclear warfare is wrong. We might even agree that all warfare is immoral, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. And if a person doesn't believe that war is wrong, but does belief nuclear warfare is wrong, then they must be choosing an arbitrary point where war goes from being moral to immoral.
Let's take the bomb example. How many kilotons of explosive does it take to make a bomb immoral? If can produce a classical bomb with that degree of destruction, is that OK? Or what about a nuclear bomb with less power? This is a legitimate question. Or how about the firebombing of Dresden?
And FYI, the decision not to use nuclear warheads in the last 60 years had little to do with morals. It had a lot more to do with Mutually Assured Destruction. Read 'On The Beach' or watch Dr. Strangelove to get a better understanding how people viewed the bomb in the 70s, and why it actually was never used again.
I don't have anything against using nukes, or firebombing cities, or even napalming children, when necessary. I think it is obvious that nukes weren't necessary in the case of Japan.
True. Society makes these kinds of decisions, and modifies them, all the time. For example, if a bank robber is holed up in the bank with hostages, it is considered an unacceptable solution for the bank to be leveled by a bomb. However, if we replace the bank robber with a freedom fighter defending his country against American imperialism, it is considered acceptable to level the bank with a bomb, or even the bank plus the nearby grade school.
If someone supports something that I consider to be obviously wrong, I say they are wrong and I am right, and I stand by that opinion. To do otherwise is to have no principles.
It's mainly the circumstances of the use of the bomb that determines whether the usage is moral or immoral.
It was wrong.
In other words about 200,000 Japanese were killed by the two atomic bombs. What if not using those two atomic bombs resulted in 400,000 Japanese and 100,000 Americans being killed from the continued fighting.
Is the use of the atomic bombs in the above scenario still absolutely wrong.
btw...200,000 killed by the atomic bombs, but over 300,000 killed by the firebombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities.
This is a poor analogy, because the two situations you describe are not as similar as you think. In one, the intent is to kill the terrorists. In the other, the intent is to save the citizenry. Both the robber and the citizens near the terrorist are considered collateral damages. Their deaths are weight against how valuable the objective is, and that decision is not always trivial. What you're ignoring is really the intent.
All moral arguments hinge on intent. I can say this, because if the Sun explodes and kills all of humanity it is not immoral, the sun has no intent and therefore is an amoral entity - it is a tragedy though.
faster asks the question as a matter of moral absolutism: every death is bad, so fewer deaths are always better. But most people operate on relative morals. This is why the media decries every US soldier's death while largely ignoring the significantly larger Iraqi death toll. It's also why people drive large SUVs knowing that in an accident they will kill the other guy but their own family will be safe.
What you describe isn't principles, but rather pompous behavior. If someone says something you consider wrong, and they consider what you say wrong, it means you both need to stop and consider. Perhaps you are both wrong, or perhaps you are each right in some things and wrong in others.
Ironically, it's the very "I'm right and you're wrong" "principles" that you believe in, which led our president to decide occupation of Iraq was a good idea. I guess if someone else is stubborn, it's pride. But if oneself is stubborn, it's principles.
Wow! This thread sure took an unintended turn. For what it's worth, much greater minds than ours have pondered and debated these type issues for a long time.
.
Moral relativism
.
Moral absolutism
.
And maybe Japan didn't really lose the war after all .......
Toyota Catches GM in Global Sales
General Motors, a symbol of American industrial might and the world's top seller of motor vehicles since Herbert Hoover was president, has finally been caught by a foreign rival.
.
GM conceded Wednesday that Toyota Motor Corp. pulled even last year, each of them selling about 9.37 million vehicles, in another sign that the balance of corporate power is shifting from West to East.
.
It's the first time GM has been anything other than the exclusive global sales leader since 1931......
.
If some general or the US president or the American people really wanted Japan to surrender, that's not a good enough reason by itself, no matter how many lives would have been lost to make Japan surrender without the use of nukes. The decision whether to use nukes (i.e. whether it's the best choice) must also include an assessment as to whether Japan needed to surrender in the first place.
Using nukes would not have been wrong if a greater loss of life (without nukes) was virtually guaranteed with the US on defense only. But that is clearly not the case. America wanted Japan to surrender; it did not need Japan to surrender. Then using the nukes was offense. Even if one assumes that Japan needed to surrender, using nukes on their cities initially (vs., say, just outside of them) was not warranted, esp. since the US had the ability to produce many more of them.
Less death/damage is better, but any death/damage can be wrong. For example, a bank robber doesn't get kudos for not killing hostages.
Is it pompous to think it's obviously wrong for someone to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy? Serious question.
If someone thinks it's okay to kick a toddler in the face because the toddler dropped a toy, they're wrong, period. They may disagree, but the majority of society will support my position. In other cases the majority of society may disagree with me; I don't care--they're still wrong if I think so. To have no principles is to take no position on the toddler being kicked in the face.
In my opinion our president chose to invade Iraq for profit; those were the only principles involved. The prez is a rotten person.
For me, that would not extend to logic like this: "Japan is doing great today, therefore nuking them in WWII was morally right". If only because the logic ignores those who died in the nuking. To me, a morally right action is that which can be predicted with good odds will lead to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole.
To me, if an adult purposely kicked a toddler in the face for dropping a toy, it is not a moral issue as much as it would be a sanity issue. What sane, rational adult would kick a human baby in the face for dropping a toy. I propose that you consider the possibility that your strong feelings of a baby being kicked in the face as being wrong are largely a result of being genetically encoded to be protective toward a baby human. Are you outraged at lamb chops being sold in the grocery store? Does it bother you to step on a baby cockroach?
Yes, but "good consequences" are a matter of perspective.
Again, it's a matter of perspective. Use of atomic weapons ended the war concisely and quickly and led "...to a worthwhile and just benefit on the whole", in my opinion. You might also consider the fact that people make decisions based on their beliefs and info available at the time of the decision. It's easy to criticize past actions with 20 / 20 hindsight.
Markor – I admire your lofty, if somewhat naïve, standards. Good luck at changing the world.
..
Killing for food is not wrong in my book (although I don't eat meat, in large part because it isn't necessary to eat animals to be healthy). Intentionally stepping on a cockroach that does not pose a threat to you (health or property) is wrong in my book.
Yes. Still, someone who disagrees with me about obviously wrong things, is wrong.
That's okay to have your opinion. But I think you're wrong in this case. To me it was clearly overkill for a profit motive. If you kicked a toddler in the face for dropping a toy, I'd declare you wrong about that too, regardless of your opinion.
The reason why almost every American would agree with me about the toddler (just not the argumentative ones), but not about the Japan nukes, is because Americans by and large don't really care about what happens to people of other countries. They will kill them in gruesome ways for a tiny gain. Most Americans would assume I'm talking about an American toddler. If I tell them it's an Iraqi toddler, they won't be so against the kicking of it. The kicking will become "collateral damage", which is a euphemism that helps people to institutionalize their wrongdoings so they don't feel as guilty.
Not about the obviously wrong stuff. For example, those who burned people at the stake for not converting to Catholicism were just as wrong then as they would be today.
Not trying to change the world, just calling a spade a spade. The Great Generation was not so great when you consider the whole picture.
Wow...that's an interesting opinion.
I totally disagree. If what you say is true, how can it be that what's right and moral in one culture may not be right and moral in another. If a sense of morality or right / wrong is instinctual or hereditary, why is there such diversity between cultures? Why are practices such as slavery, polygamy, and cannibalism considered perfectly okay in one culture and rejected as immoral and wrong in others?
In your example of kicking the baby, it is wrong on two levels. It would be wrong as it goes against the instinctual drive for perpetuation of the species and it would be wrong as a member of our society because we are taught that it is unethical to harm the weak and innocent.
Don't assume that what is "obviously wrong" to you is "obviously wrong" to others. The Inquisitors thought that they were being extremely righteous by burning unrepentant heretics at the stake. It wasn't "obviously wrong stuff" to them. Their morality was a matter of perspective shaped by their culture and by the Catholic Church.
Test; Moral Dilemmas
.
Polygamy is not right from the perspective of the 12-year-old girl who is forced to marry her 40-year-old sleazy uncle, or else be beaten or left homeless or whatever other tactic is used to make her submit. From the ringleader's perspective polygamy is "right" because, at middle age and a pedophile, he gets to screw and slap around a 12-year-old girl, but deep down he knows it's wrong.
People who are strongly against cannibalism will resort to it when push comes to shove (like the airplane accident victims in the movie "Alive"), and they remain decent people even as they eat other people. Deep down people around the world know that cannibalism is not wrong.
Let's consider polygamy among consenting adults of sound mind. Why is this wrong in our culture, but maybe not all cultures? Perhaps because it can easily lead to inequity, like rich guys having harems, which reduces the pool of women available to other men. It's not the polygamy per se that is wrong, it's the inequity it leads to, and maybe some cultures have resolved those inequities. For example, in Polynesia circa 1900 women would have sex with multiple partners, and that was okay in that culture. But it worked because babies belonged to the whole society. Pregnancies were greatly appreciated by all of society, and the baby essentially had multiple moms and dads from birth. In our society women having sex with multiple partners often leads to kids having no dad involved, which leads to other societal problems.
Where is that taught? Schools wouldn't touch teach that; after all, corporations and the military have a strong vested interest in harming the weak and the innocent, and kids are their future recruits. How many parents teach their kids about ethics? No, that it's wrong to unnecessarily harm other beings—not just humans—is innate, and societies like ours go to great pains to offset that, like with the Pledge of Allegiance.
It's wrong for me to assume that?
If at that time you plucked one of the Inquisitors and punished him long enough, he'd eventually break down and tell you that he knows it's wrong, but some higher-up made him do it, or else he'd be punished himself. If you worked your way up the chain of command that way you'd eventually reach the pope, and if you punished him long enough, he'd eventually break down and tell you that he knows it's wrong, but the lust for money & power made him do it. You'd get the same confession from the current pope.
Think about the Nuremberg trials. According to the defendants, they didn't really think it was right to kill Jews. Their real motivation was fear of punishment for not obeying orders, and of course the money & power that their position brought them.
Re your link to moral dilemmas, it doesn't suggest anything about whether right/wrong is innate, as far as I can tell.
You've made my point. Morality is a matter of perspective.
.
In one of my favorite sci-fi books, the spectators of a bullfight are made to experience the bull's pain, and bullfighting is no more thenceforth. I think the result would happen just like that.
It doesn't matter what the wrongdoers say though. They need not confess that what they did is wrong. We imprison pedophiles even if they insist that molesting kids is right. We do that because we believe that they know that it's wrong, regardless what they claim.
Okay, let's try this - Hitler really believed that certain "non-Germans" were subhuman and so did many of his followers. Deep down, they really believed that they were right and anyone who did not agree with them was "obviously wrong". That was their perspective. That was their morality. Some call it "Nazi morality".
.
"And therefore if you disagree with Markor, then you condone pedophilia."
I'm not going to argue either way in this discussion. I'm just going to point out bad arguments.
The contemporary example is calling Iraqi freedom fighters "insurgents" or "terrorists". It's a way to make decent people sub-human so we can feel better about killing them to annex the oil fields.
I don't see how you've done that.
Really? I think you may find a few people that disagree with you.
Untermensch
The Nazis, The Holocaust
The Hidden Holocaust
..
People who say they don't recognize the bad arguments that they are using are either trolls or simply ignorant.
In either case, I am ejecting from the this thread.
But in the event that the latter is the situation, I leave you with this:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html
Yes, Hitler "deemed the jewish people as sub-human". Why? Because it brought him fabulous money & power, not because he believe it. It made him King of the Hill for a while, and lots of people will sell their soul to experience that.