Do you allow for NT scriptural and Christian Western legal philosophy here, or in your view, is that to be disqualified in favor of OT and secular imperial law?
And: I take it for a fact that, as you said, "The Japanese elites were unconcerned about casualties among the common people (as is common with elites around the world).
Is that a morally corrupt thing about elites? Or are you OK with that?
And if the Japanese elites' willingness to squander the the lives of a whole lot of people, including their own subjects, was morally reprehensible, then wouldn't the Soviets' approach have been morally superior to ours? After all, they would have hunted down and killed the Japanese elites and their families, whereas we tried to coerce the leaders by killing common Japanese people --- people whom the Japanese ruling class were actually willing to sacrifice, if their position could in some measure be secured?
| I do tend to pile up questions, but I'm just taking advantage of the fact that you think about them and answer them -- an unusual characteristic in FReeperdom--- :o) |
One more question, and then I'm off to do the dishes:
Is there such a thing as a right to life? Or can any number of innocent people be deliberately killed if one has, in his judgment, a good enough reason? IOW, does a good reason make the intentional killing of the innocent morally blameless?
Now, off I go.
I'm one of those people who thinks that the NT attitude was viable primarily in the context of the Roman Empire, in that it's all fine to talk about total pacifism and submitting to authority, when that did not present an existential threat. You can be a pacifist as long as you are surrounded by non-pacifists who are willing to kill (and die) to maintain the safety of the common people.
Once the Roman Peace went away, Christianity had to undergo some transformations, in that the feudal lords had to protect their people from various raiders, pirates, and bandits, and not be seen as sinners for so doing.
My moral philosophy on the subject of violence can be summed up as:
1) Do not be the one to initiate or threaten violence.2) If a threat appears, do what's necessary to eliminate the threat, using the minimum level of violence that will permanently terminate the threat.
3) While using excessive force may be immoral, using an inadequate level of force (ie, a level of force that does not dissuade future aggression) is stupid and puts your loved ones at risk.
I would be far more comfortable dropping a bunch of JDAMs on the homes of the people who run a country than in slaughtering a bunch of conscripts in uniform.
Define "innocent". Is the manager of a munitions factory more innocent than a soldier? Is a mother who marches in support of a war, and hands out white feathers to young men who do not want to serve, innocent? Are a group of muslims who send money to jihadist causes innocent?
Conversely, is a man guilty of a crime if he finds that the only way to protect his people is to incinerate an enemy city? That was the thing that prevented the Soviets from rolling over us, the certainty that we would incinerate their part of the world if they pushed.