Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AAolds on August 03, 2008, 09:24:04 PM
-
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.
-
Who'd you kill?
-
Seems like this question belongs in the O'Club
-
I think the premises are screwy.
-
:noid
-
I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.
This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...
Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount of life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect, become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by indirectly contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.
-
Damn Zazen, where'd you graduate from?
- muppet school has no grounds for this question. :D
-
I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.
This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...
Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount if life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect, become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.
You're hired.
-
:rofl Zazen, you know you're full of crap? :rolleyes:
-
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.
it's a tough question, but a very good one.
the bad man is worse. if he is allowed to do what he does that makes him bad, and the good man waits him out, for fear of hurting or killing innocents, then more bad men will follow. they will do the same things he does. and they will progresivly get away with more and more.
on the other hand, if the good man sees the things the bad man is doing, and does whatever is necessary to stop the bad man immediatly, or in vry short order, at the cost of innocents, the bad men thst may have followed, will think twice about bothering wiht the good man that did what he had to do. they'll go somewhere else, or possibly not even do the things they were going to do.
no one wants to see innocent people killed for any reason, but sometimes it is necessary, and un-intended results of needed actions.
i think this is also alluding to the other topic where it morphed into the bombing in japan and germany.
japan brought all of their peoples suffering on wiht their actions by attacking pearl harbor. the bombing of civilians was designed to hurt their morale. i think they were warned for the civilians to get out before any bombs fell.
the bombings in germany, i think were for the same reason, and for the fact that the germans didn't build things in a single place. they(if i recall) spread things out into small towns.
-
:rofl Zazen, you know you're full of crap?
:cry
-
Damn Zazen, where'd you graduate from?
A Zen Buddhist Monastery outside of Kyoto, Japan. ;)
-
Zazen - great explanation in terms of quantative methods for decision making.
The bad man must be killed (neutralized). We know that for sure. The real question is what price will we pay for that. Further, is any life cost worth it. Are 5 good guy lives (defenders not innocents) worth it?
Answering in an altruistic way I believe the neccesity of good to conquer over evil is paramont. For the good of all, the bad man must be neurtralized and that may require a price of considerable cost. Good can not exist without some inherint badness. Unfortunalty we can not destroy or create energy we can olny transfer it. The same applys here. In order for good to triumph over evil the good must be willing to sacrifice something of great value to keep the good. We can only transfer the good to bad or the bad to good. Either way it will cost something in terms of humanity.
-
A Zen Buddhist Monastery outside of Kyoto, Japan. ;)
for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/kung_fu.jpg)
-
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 rediculous.
You're basically asking who is worse... A) The psychopath who breaks into an house in the middle of the night and murders a family... OR B) The husband and father who tries to shoot the psychopath with the revolver that he has tucked away in the night table next to the bed, but misses, and shoots through a wall accidentally killing the neighbor who just happened to be walking his dog outside at 2am.
Which of those two seem worse to you? Which do you think would actually be convicted to prison?
But wait! Since this was inspired by the other thread, I think a more correct analogy would be...
The neighbor walking the dog on the sidewalk at 2am just happens to be the father of the psychopath who is at least partially responsible for the mental state of the psychopath...
The premise is rediculous.
-
The premise is rediculous.
:lol
It most certainly is not.
This is a question posed every day. Not always in terms of life and death but in terms of good and bad. Most times to conquer bad requires some cost.
How about this. Do you save the women and children first or the stronger men and some of the women leaving the all the children behind? Do we choose to leave hehind the weak in favor of stronger chances for survival? In this situation we are all good. So we must be bad in order to be good.
This is a fundamental question of humanity.
-
There is no good or bad, just individual or group discretion as to what behaviour is acceptable for the individual or group. Good is whatever side the individual or group agrees with and bad is what the individual or group defines as wrong. The key word is individual, because all it takes is one mind to define good or bad and behave accordingly. The larger the group the more widespread the definition becomes yet it is no more correct than the definition decided by the individual.
The first problem arises when a large group following one definition confronts the individual of another belief and instantly we have crime and punishment. The second and more devastating problem is when two large groups following different definitions clash producing war. Good and bad is then defined by which definition you believe in. Once doubt is spread within the large group the war is almost certainly lost.
As to your question, it is clearly a no brainer. The person deliberately inflicting harm is bad. The good man was just unlucky but his intentions remained good. The only reason this is such an easy question to speak with authority about is that 99.9% of the people we associate with share a common definition of good and bad.
-
Zazen - great explanation in terms of quantative methods for decision making.
The bad man must be killed (neutralized). We know that for sure. The real question is what price will we pay for that. Further, is any life cost worth it. Are 5 good guy lives (defenders not innocents) worth it?
Answering in an altruistic way I believe the neccesity of good to conquer over evil is paramont. For the good of all, the bad man must be neurtralized and that may require a price of considerable cost. Good can not exist without some inherint badness. Unfortunalty we can not destroy or create energy we can olny transfer it. The same applys here. In order for good to triumph over evil the good must be willing to sacrifice something of great value to keep the good. We can only transfer the good to bad or the bad to good. Either way it will cost something in terms of humanity.
Exactly, this is actually the central premise of the Christian Bible and almost every other dogmatic religious belief system.
-
for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/kung_fu.jpg)
Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...
-
for real? So you're like Caine. Travels the earth, kicks arse and enlightens folks?(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/kung_fu.jpg)
I must comment, here!
I did not give you the right to post my copyrighted pictures. I now must show you the wrong of your ways. grasshoppa
-
I think by 9.00am central time this thread will be moved to O/C. On the question it self.....It makes my head hurt. :O
-
I'm a good guy, the red guys are bad and the only innocents are the n00bs. If the're red their dead. It's justified.
-
I'm a good guy, the red guys are bad and the only innocents are the n00bs. If the're red their dead. It's justified.
Agreed
Red is Dead
-
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?
I believe the question itself is either improperly worded, or a trick question.
The men in the question have been already labeled 'good' and 'bad' men.
The question then asks who is worse, the 'good' man or the 'bad' one.
By definition, the good man is always better than the bad man.
Now, if the question was:
What is worse - The man who kills people or the man who unintentionally kills "innocent" people in a bid to defeat evil?
Now you have a philosophical question :)
-
Looks to me like a continuation of the previous thread, the point in question remaining the same, just dressed with different words.
If everything in the world would be on a phylosophical level, we would all be sitting in budhist temples wondering why the sky is blue.
I personally don't like wasting my time with such activities.
Let me twist the question around. If a man came into your house in the middle of the night and killed your family, would you not kill him because in theory, you are also evil by doing so?
I think AAolds and Zazen would make good defence attornies.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...
:huh
-
Well, you can't enlighten people in that sense. For me to enlighten you implies I am directly affecting a fundamental change in your level of conscious awareness. No person can do that, only the individual can affect such a change in himself. In a very real way everyone is already enlightened in this way, they are just too preoccupied with the visceral world of the senses and the symbolic thought artifacts it creates to realize it. So, in a sense, obtaining enlightenment is more about getting rid of self-made bonds of distraction than obtaining anything that you may think was previously outside yourself. No one else could possibly do that for you...
:rolleyes:
-
sniffs bait, turns and swims away.
-
...Zazen would make good defence attornies.
:rolleyes:
I'm much too stupid to be an attorney unfortunately :frown:...
-
I think by 9.00am central time this thread will be moved to O/C. On the question it self.....It makes my head hurt. :O
that's a good thing. it should. but what would your answer be?
-
I'm a good guy, the red guys are bad and the only innocents are the n00bs. If the're red their dead. It's justified.
but ya see, whether or not your'e the good guy in this case is all dependant on the point of view. the other(red) guys see you as the bad guy. to red guys that see you kill another red guy it may not be justified :D
-
I believe the question itself is either improperly worded, or a trick question.
The men in the question have been already labeled 'good' and 'bad' men.
The question then asks who is worse, the 'good' man or the 'bad' one.
By definition, the good man is always better than the bad man.
Now, if the question was:
What is worse - The man who kills people or the man who unintentionally kills "innocent" people in a bid to defeat evil?
Now you have a philosophical question :)
it's the same thing. stop sliptting hairs and answer the question :D
-
I'm much too stupid to be an attorney unfortunately :frown:...
heh.......i have morals.
-
The premise is rediculous.
Actually to those that think this is a ridiculous question. Wether the original poster realized it or not, a very close variation of this question is asked on psychological profiling tests batteries for certain government intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and military intelligence. Don't ask me how I know this please... :noid
-
The concept of "good" and "bad" is merely a subjective view.
"Good","Evil","Right" and "Wrong" have nothing at all to do with life. They are merely words used to put forth a personal point of view.
-
The concept of "good" and "bad" is merely a subjective view.
"Good","Evil","Right" and "Wrong" have nothing at all to do with life. They are merely words used to put forth a personal point of view.
Actually that's not really true. There are Universal concepts of "right and wrong" and therefore an absolute morality. Absolute morality is the cornerstone of all dogmatic religions and philosophical belief systems.
Evil is merely the absence of good. Good is the deference of personal self-fulfilment for the altruistic benefit of others. So, in a real sense, evil is just the opposite, it is selfish personal fulfillment no matter what the cost to others.
Well, morality is largely developed individually through socialization. Therefore, it is largely reflective of societal values. Therefore, there is no absolute societal morality, as societies' value systems differ widely across the planet. That's where religion, or if you prefer, philosophical belief systems, come in. The function of religion is to place a "higher" moral template upon the societal value system. These combined with some form of legal system of judgement and enforcement combine to create the moral framework individuals are expected to operate within. Religious morality is the more influential moral force historically because it holds dominion over the absolutes of universal, "rights and wrongs" that know no societal bounds. It does this by establishing a cause and effect relationship between your actions in life toward others and your soul's ultimate fate upon death. Legal and societal morality are not absolute, they are generally based upon popular consensus, tyrannical imposition or some combination of the two.
-
The question itself would be meaningless, as the circumstances surrounding each man and the society he is a part of, already pretty much makes it clear that a certain course of action will be taken against a "bad man", despite possible loss of innocent lives, according to the graveness of the situation. Therefore, the attempt to distingush one death to another, is actually an attempt to justify the aftermath of a course of action that may have led to someone's death, and therefore, is immoral from the very start.
In other words, "questions" are only meaningful if an answer to that certain question may actually change the final outcome. However, in many cases (such as war, or perhaps policemen engaged in a gunfight against criminals) the outcome is already decided: there is no averting the fact that people will be orderd/forced/compelled to kill someone else, whether or not they have any personal moral conflicts inside them. The very situation surrounding them destroys the normal barriers of morality a society holds.
Thus, before one draws any answers upon facing that very question, one must first decide what they are willing to do about it, if the answer to that question is something their morality cannot accept.
For instance, you have been assigned to a death squad. You have been ordered to kill innocent people. You feel conflicted whether you should follow the order or not. Under these circumstances, asking oneself "is it right to kill these people or not" is meaningless. The only question that has any meaning is, "am I going to pull the trigger and kill these people or not". The odds are, you will probably pull the trigger anyway, and any question on whether it was right to kill or not, becomes nothing but a series of mental masturbations to somehow justify oneself and feel comfortable about it.
That, is what the question is about.
-
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.
But how do you know that the bad man is bad and the good man is good? Maybe the good man is the bad man but made it look as if the other guy was the bad man so you would go kill him while the presumed good man made some nice profits. Not talking about WWII here. Just saying, how do you know the good man is good? Is it because you may look like him, you are more familiar with him and his ways, or just based on the news?
-
Actually that's not really true. There are Universal concepts of "right and wrong" and therefore an absolute morality. Absolute morality is the cornerstone of all dogmatic religions and philosophical belief systems.
Evil is merely the absence of good. Good is the deference of personal self-fulfilment for the altruistic benefit of others. So, in a real sense, evil is just the opposite, it is selfish personal fulfillment no matter what the cost to others.
Wow, that is the most slavish notion of good possible. To me, evil is precisely the notion that good is the sacrifice of oneself for another. If it is to be moral, helping others should come from an overflow of strength and egoistic fulfillment.
Also, it is hardly clear that Universals like "right" and "wrong" make it follow that there's an absolute morality.
-
To me, evil is precisely the notion that good is the sacrifice of oneself for another. .
Jesus will be very sad to hear that he was in fact evil... :huh
-
Put a gun in my hand, point me in the right direction, tell me I can't eat till they're dead, I'll start shooting at the first thing that moves.
-
sniffs bait, turns and swims away.
Most Excellent :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
heh.......i have morals.
I have toejamakes. Let's make mushroom soup. :D
-
Word police at it again. the word was "shi-ta-ke", a type of mushroom. Let's see if this gets vulgarized.
-
Word police at it again. the word was "shi-ta-ke", a type of mushroom. Let's see if this gets vulgarized.
Haha too funny ... :)
-
But how do you know that the bad man is bad and the good man is good? Maybe the good man is the bad man but made it look as if the other guy was the bad man so you would go kill him while the presumed good man made some nice profits. Not talking about WWII here. Just saying, how do you know the good man is good? Is it because you may look like him, you are more familiar with him and his ways, or just based on the news?
Yes :aok depends on how you look at a situation who is who.
Maybe the good man is the bad man but made it look as if the other guy was the bad man so you would go kill him while the presumed good man made some nice profits.
You aren't bringing up the fact about Grampa Bush selling to the Germans in WWII are you :O
-
For myself on this question, and most others like it, I simplify the reasoning process by asking two questions.
What was the actual intention of the Good Man, as best as can be determined by 'me'?
Could his 'action' to fulfill his intention be considered appropriate under the circumstances (especially to him, given what he could reasonably have known at the time), or was it arbitrarily and/or negligently and/or irresponsibly determined and excecuted?
If is intention was correct, honorable and 'right' by the judging standards, but he irresponsibly did not look at all possible options or take proper precautions, or otherwise manage his actions then, given a disasterous outcome, he could be considered just as evil as the Bad Man. i.e. a loose cannon.
But if judged his intention was correct and proper (to stop the bad man) under the circumstances, and also judged that he made every reasonable (subjective yes, but something the judging party must decide) effort to find the 'best' solution before acting, and executed that action to the best of his ability, then he cannot be considered equal to the Bad Man at all.
And like everything else in the universe except gravity, this is not an absolute process. But it is the best one going for me. :rofl
-
And in case anyone was wondering, this is how I judge people to somehow injure me. Was it really their intention to do so and/or were they acting reasonably (in a way that I might act under the same circumstances).
People impact other people unintentionally everyday, without malice, but rightfully in pursuit of their own happiness or necessity. Unless they intend harm, or act very negligently/irresponsibly, I usually cannot condemn them as evil or bad. However, it doesn't mean that I don't, if needs must be met, defend or protect myself from them.
-
You aren't bringing up the fact about Grampa Bush selling to the Germans in WWII are you :O
Hehe, nop, just the fact that everyone is fighting the bad man. It is all a matter of perspective. Last I checked, no one went to war against the "good" man, so how does the good man going to fight the bad man knows that he is the good man? Could he possibly be wrong? It cant be that they are all good. That would be insane. Good man fighting good man? Now, could bad man fight bad man?
And why isn't the leader good man and bad man ever in front? Why do they always lead from far away? Wait a minute . . . . Something is not right here :O Could it be? Nahhhhh, the good man would never lie to get you to give your life. That would make him the bad man.
I am so confused :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
There's some very interesting and thought provoking replies here, but some are making this question far more complicated than it really is. You must assume the "good" and "bad" is the purely objective version, how a benevolent and omniscient Deity would consider them. Not many sane people would consider themselves bad and no mortal being is pure good. So, individual self-perception is really of no consequence for the purpose of this question. The presumption of extreme polar opposites allows for a more meaningful answer not confused with subjective judgements of motives and perspective.
-
Jesus will be very sad to hear that he was in fact evil... :huh
Bingo. I am not a Christian. :aok
-
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). :huh
-
Yes. i use to not but had enough bozos come flying through large fields with all the ack up kill me while landing, everyone is fair game now. dead stick, out of gas and landing I'll kill you.
-
To me, evil is precisely the notion that good is the sacrifice of oneself for another.
Yup it's all about whats good for you. :aok
-
There's some very interesting and thought provoking replies here, but some are making this question far more complicated than it really is. You must assume the "good" and "bad" is the purely objective version, how a benevolent and omniscient Deity would consider them. Not many sane people would consider themselves bad and no mortal being is pure good. So, individual self-perception is really of no consequence for the purpose of this question. The presumption of extreme polar opposites allows for a more meaningful answer not confused with subjective judgements of motives and perspective.
I confused am no more :lol
-
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). :huh
:aok exactly. Both sides fight for what they know is right or belongs to them. The winner gets to be the good guy.
-
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). :huh
Actually, most wars thoughout history were fought for two reasons, neither of which require a noble moral imperative.
Power and Self-Preservation.
-
I'll bite...Because I can't resist this sort of thing..It's a sickness.
This is actually a fundamental question in hostage situations (or hunting terrorists). The bad man is the unknown chaotic destructive principle. The good man is the controlable known force. The bad man is worse. The reasoning is the bad man's potential to kill is theoretically infinite. By killing the bad man, even if some others die in the process, you are reducing the potential for lost life to the theoretical minimum. If you fail to even attempt to kill the bad man for fear of killing others you actually guarantee maximum lives lost theoretically to infinity. So, any attempt to kill the bad man, in terms of pure logic, assuming it's ultimately successful, is worth almost any number of lives...
Obviously, humans are not ruled purely by logic, emotions hold sway. So, in reality, the logically correct sacrifice won't always be made as the price seems too high or casualties mount in the attempt to the point where they are deemed unsustainable and the good man fails to defeat the bad man. But, once the decision is made to sacrifice a finite amount of life to prevent the possibly infinite loss of life, it has to be ultimately successful no matter the cost in escalating fashion. If not ultimately successful, the good man has, in effect, become an unwitting instrument of the bad man by indirectly contributing to his continued potential threat of theoretically infinite life taking.
What he said :aok
-
hmm, what if the bad man wins.....
then the good man, may end up killing many more trying to catch the bad man....and in the end, when the history books are written, the bad man becomes the good man.
so it is possible for the good man to become the bad man, the worse man.....or was it that way from the beginning, only mislabled? :)
-
:aok exactly. Both sides fight for what they know is right or belongs to them. The winner gets to be the good guy.
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.
-
Kill them all. Then I will rule the world muahahah :rock
-
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.
-
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.
-
More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than under any other guise.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:aok
-
bad man worse, bad man guilty of murder, good man guilty of manslaughter.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!!!