Philosophical Question?

[Bear76]

Kill them all. Then I will rule the world muahahah 

[999000]

The bad man is the Bad man.... the good man is the Good man......The Good man is only the Good man if he tries to stop the evil man ..In this action of stopping the bad man, the good man   demonstrating essence  and  Truth of his good being.
<S> 999000



The good man's action can only be called into question if he had demonstrated malfeasence , nonfeasence or gross negiligence.

[Sloehand]

Actually, most wars thoughout history were fought for two reasons, neither of which require a noble moral imperative.

Power and Self-Preservation.

There is a big third reason.  Religion, which IMO, does not ever have ANY noble moral imperative.

[SD67]

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than under any other guise.

[Zazen13]

There is a big third reason.  Religion, which IMO, does not ever have ANY noble moral imperative.

Warfare for the purpose of exerting state religious authority over another is just another aspect of the quest for power. The church in the latter middle ages often had larger standing armies than the King of the country. It wasn't long before the church became the largest single real estate holder in the western world making the hierarchy very wealthy and powerful. In a lot of ways it was a country without borders and therefore similarly bereft of moral cause. Therefore, conducting warfare for equally mundane purposes then simply using religious morality as a coercive tool to manipulate the masses rather than a reason unto itself in order to secure and retain its accumlated power and wealth.

[dedalos]

The study of military history will show this is often not the case. States go to war for other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with any subjective concept of relative good or bad (power, resources, self-preservation, political ideology, ethnicity, religion. etc.). It is the task of the political leadership to imbue its populace and fighting forces with a moral "cause" for which to fight that may have nothing or very little to do with the real reason for war. This is the essence of propaganda. It's really quite fascinating to study this aspect of military history. The lengths political states go through to attempt to fabricate some kind of "good" vs. "evil" justification meant to serve as a catalyst to motivate its population and fighting men is amazing.

There are many countries that go to war for other reasons, but fail to create a moral imperative that its populace can truly believe in, the outcome is almost always defeat. It is almost impossible to successfully wage a protracted war without a collective sense of moral justification. But, a collective moral impetus is never a prerequisite to go to war and can even be established or reinforced after the fact by the political leadership. This is the reason countries on the brink of defeat vigorously destroy information and victorious countries seek to uncover and document atrocities for public consumption, for the denial of and quest for a retroactive moral imperative for war.

Zaz, you are confusing the why wars happen with the why a guy will pick up a gun and go kill someone.

[Zazen13]

Zaz, you are confusing the why wars happen with the why a guy will pick up a gun and go kill someone.

I'm not, I was replying to you and Baitman who brought up wars.

You said...

exactly.  Both sides fight for what they know is right or belongs to them.  The winner gets to be the good guy.

In reply to Baitman who said...

No army in the world ever went to War to fight the good guys. They (doesn't matter which side) always were the good (or right) fighting the bad (or evil).

Then I replied to your post to address both ideas. 

[dedalos]

I'm not, I was replying to you and Baitman who brought up wars.

You said...
In reply to Baitman who said...
Then I replied to your post to address both ideas. 

 

[john9001]

bad man worse, bad man guilty of murder, good man guilty of manslaughter.

[Hornet33]

What is worse.  The bad man who kills people or the good man who unintentionally kills "innocent" people in a bid to defeat the bad man?

This is a thinking exercise.  There is no true or right answer.  Just answer what you think and leave it at that.  No agreement shall be reached, but it is interesting to see what and how others think.

Here is my take on this.

The "bad" man who kills people will do so without regard for his victims. He will kill for personal power, sexual gratification, or any other host of reasons and will feel no remorse for his actions at the end of the day.

The "good" man will kill only when it's absolutely the last option to prevent the "bad" man from killing others. He will conduct himself with due regard for others around him and try his best to prevent the loss of innocent life. When he fails in that and takes innocent life while trying to defeat the "bad" man he will feel remorse for his actions, possibly to the point were he is no longer able to function in a positive way to protect the innocent any longer for personal fear that he might take anouther innocent life again. That is not something a "good" man wants to live with on his conscience. The "good" man will feel a deep personal loss because he failed to protect the innocent.

What is worse? The good man. It's worse because not only are the victims dead, but the good man is emotionaly destroyed as well.

[Charon]

There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

I been sayin' that (poop) for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a mother(flipper) before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some (poop) this mornin' made me think twice.

Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous bellybutton in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that (stuff) ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.


Charon

[Erkel]

Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous bellybutton in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that (stuff) ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

Charon

Goin' "postal" alert!!!