President Obama: Do you really love America?

[Anomalocaris]

Killing civilians because you can justify it by saying you meant to do something else, even when doing something else has generally reliably killed civilians before, is different from doing something with reasonable expectation of not killing any civilians but then unlikely shit happened.

The former is a less honest version of killing civilians and admitting that's what one finds acceptable to do to further a cause.

[DeistPaladin]

Killing civilians because you can justify it by saying you meant to do something else, even when doing something else has generally reliably killed civilians before, is different from doing something with reasonable expectation of not killing any civilians but then unlikely shit happened.

The former is a less honest version of killing civilians and admitting that's what one finds acceptable to do to further a cause.

Are you suggesting that our drone strikes are attempts to deliberately kill civilians? That would be a war crime.

Again, I'm not saying war crimes don't exist. Neither am I saying negligent manslaughter doesn't have any moral culpability. I'm just saying that negligent manslaughter is not the same thing as serial killer.

By definition, terrorists are serial killers. This is not necessarily true for military strikes that have civilian casualties. Please note the word "necessarily".

[abaris]

Terrorists intend to murder civilians.

Killing innocent civilians by mistake is not necessarily the same thing.

Next?

Yeah, next. You're not getting it, that's obvious.

Murdering civilians is a means to an end. Which is provoking a violent reaction to get more people to join their cause. And the West gladly obliges to make these ends meet - for the last 14 years.

So debating if one action is less despicable than the other fails to adress the issue. According to Iraq body ocunt, there have been anywhere between 135.000 and 153.000 killed civilians. They all had relatives, who loved them. Do you think, they would engage in a debate with anyone, if these deaths were intentional or just a mistake? And that's just Iraq.

That's why this whole discussion from the comfy armchair is so inane that it hurts.

[DeistPaladin]

Yeah, next. You're not getting it, that's obvious.

No, you're not getting it. And that's surprising because it's a pretty basic distinction, so much so that it's the law.

Murdering civilians is a means to an end. Which is provoking a violent reaction to get more people to join their cause. And the West gladly obliges to make these ends meet - for the last 14 years.

So you want to discuss what foreign policy to deal with it is rational?

According to Iraq body ocunt, there have been anywhere between 135.000 and 153.000 killed civilians.

Which was a war crime that W Bush and his administration should be prosecuted for. If that's your point, I agree.

They all had relatives, who loved them. Do you think, they would engage in a debate with anyone, if these deaths were intentional or just a mistake?

Appeal to emotion that has no relevancy on a rational discussion on the morality of military action vs. terrorism.

That's why this whole discussion from the comfy armchair is so inane that it hurts.

Our exchange continues at your pleasure.

"Doctor, it hurts every time I do this."
"Well, don't do that anymore."

[abaris]

No, you're not getting it. And that's surprising because it's a pretty basic distinction, so much so that it's the law.

Yes, I get it, thank you very much. You're talking about a legal issue. But that's not in any way relevant for discussing international terrorism versus international military interventions.

And I wasn't appealing to emotions but to reason. Some posts ago I asked you what you would do if I accidentally - oops - shot your wife. That's the reason I'm talking about. Violence provokes hatred and that's the goal of terrorism. That's why comparing it to serial killers is missing the point by a long stretch. A serial killer commits his crimes because they give him satisfaction and a feeling of power. Terrorism is a strategy, despicable as it may be.

The point isn't if one act is more despicable than the other. The point is to analyse the underlying reasoning and to come up with some valid strategy to counter it. Even more so, since this whole conflict never did and never could follow the basic rules of war. There is no opposing army to take it out on a battlefield and there is no opposing government to negotiate terms. It's outside of everything in recent history.

Everything else is just, as I said before, jerking in front of a mirror.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Immorality is to attempt to not allow others to appeal the same standard to justify their actions as that to which we had appeals to justify ours.

I think the word you're looking for is hypocrisy.

---

Given the discussion we had the other day, and the information you were given then, from reputable sources, you have no business shopping the above over simplistic caricature around, because (assuming you read those sources), you should know better.

Sorry, I don't remember. Link?

Yeah, I gathered that. I'm my phone right now and linking is a PITA, but if you haven't searched it by the time I get home I'll dig it up for you. You could also go straight to the two sources I posted, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and read through their entries for "moral relativism", as those were my sources.

---

Killing innocent civilians by mistake is not necessarily the same thing.

Next?

The Eighth Air Force attacked cities with ostensibly military targets using an instrument (the manned bomber unloading from five miles up) that wasn't really capable of the precision bombing that was the doctrine in place. Though they could achieve some decent accuracy under perfect conditions, those conditions rarely obtained in Europe, and this was understood even before we joined the war. So while in some circumstances I agree with you that there should be some weight attached to intent, it's often true what Chuck is saying, that in essence the military target was a fig leaf for attacks that were regarded as successful based on loss rates, not target damage even though wanton destruction and deaths were known, and sometimes designed. Why do you think incendiaries were used?

Of course, that's not addressing the attacks on Hamburg, Dresden, Lubeck, and other cities launched expressly to ignite firestorms, or XX Bomber Command's ops over Japan.

US histories tend to whitewash our role in WWII air bombardment as they throw the RAF under the bus.

[Anomalocaris]

Killing civilians because you can justify it by saying you meant to do something else, even when doing something else has generally reliably killed civilians before, is different from doing something with reasonable expectation of not killing any civilians but then unlikely shit happened.

The former is a less honest version of killing civilians and admitting that's what one finds acceptable to do to further a cause.

Are you suggesting that our drone strikes are attempts to deliberately kill civilians? That would be a war crime.

Again, I'm not saying war crimes don't exist. Neither am I saying negligent manslaughter doesn't have any moral culpability. I'm just saying that negligent manslaughter is not the same thing as serial killer.

By definition, terrorists are serial killers. This is not necessarily true for military strikes that have civilian casualties. Please note the word "necessarily".

In the case of recent drone strikes, it does genuinely appear that there is little to be gained by killing truly innocent civilians. So the specific rational motivation for the war crime is not there, although given some attitudes that have been made menifest, one could not really fully discount spite; ideological, religious and racial animosity; or a consciously cavalier attitude leading to lack of attainable casualty avoidance, all of which would still be almost as criminal.

But in the cases where it does seem rationally plausible civilian terror would further our cause, as in Vietnam, and to various degrees at various times in WWII, I do not doubt we would loudly disclaim the possibility that purposely inflicting casualties would serve our cause precisely To create the screen of plausible deniability for the fact that we do purposely inflicting civilian casualties to further our cause.

The main difference between us and many "terrorists" is the fact that many terrorists are either too unsophisticated to effect the screen of plausible deniability, or too crude to appreciate the fact that a screen of plausible deniability does not subtract from the efficacy of the terror upon the intended target, but often serves the overall goal by generating sympathy amongst otherwise marginal constituents.

[DeistPaladin]

Yes, I get it, thank you very much. You're talking about a legal issue. But that's not in any way relevant for discussing international terrorism versus international military interventions.

Are you really this obtuse? I've only explained about 5 or 6 times now that my reference to the legality is to underscore what a no-brainer this is as a moral issue.

That's why comparing it to serial killers is missing the point by a long stretch. A serial killer commits his crimes because they give him satisfaction and a feeling of power. Terrorism is a strategy, despicable as it may be.

Serial killers commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Terrorists commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Please explain how my analogy isn't apt.

The point isn't if one act is more despicable than the other.

Well, that's the point I've been addressing for the last three pages or so. Have I not been clear about that?

The point is to analyse the underlying reasoning and to come up with some valid strategy to counter it.

So you want to talk about something else then, just like I've been suggesting for the last 3-4 exchanges.

Everything else is just, as I said before, jerking in front of a mirror.

Well, you've been enthusiastically exchanging posts with me so what's that say about you?

[Jacob(smooth)]

One thing this issue is not is obvious. In either direction. Be nice if all of us could respect the discussion and not resort to "y u so dum".

Serial killers commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Terrorists commit pre-meditated murder indiscriminately
Please explain how my analogy isn't apt. 

I would say because the terminology you used is pejorative. If one accepts that "killing civilians on purpose" is terrorism, and terrorism is is pre meditated murder then the argument is moot because the equivalency has already been made.

Returning to intent as the prime mover in morality, you earlier responded to the terrorist in a school example by saying what if he had a nuke. Let's say he did, and we did drop that bomb, killing 50 civilians, saving 2,000,000 civilians and in the process committing pre meditated murder of 50 innocents who would otherwise have lived.

Is that immoral?

I'm just trying to square away the whole intent thing because it seems like for US The ends justify the means. For them it does not.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given the discussion we had the other day, and the information you were given then, from reputable sources, you have no business shopping the above over simplistic caricature around, because (assuming you read those sources), you should know better.

Sorry, I don't remember. Link?

The post is here. You gave it a kudos, so I'm assuming you read and liked it, and the conversation thereafter was enjoyable and informative.

Hopefully you read more than the snips I provided, which by themselves will give you an idea of the broad array of views even among folks who accept that morality is relative.

---

At best, moral relativism is sloppy and lazy thinking. At worst, it's morally bankrupt, at its heart asserting that morality doesn't really exist and any assertions about right and wrong are merely opinions enforced by whoever has the might and numbers to enforce them.

That is not the basis for the moral judgments of moral relativists. I should know; I am one. I don't argue that morality does not exist, only that everyone has their own perspective on it, and that perspective is not necessarily "opinion", but rather, the reasonable outcome of values we each hold, values which may vary from person to person.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, once you've asserted "moral relativism", you've abandoned any right to be morally indignant about anything.

This is a silly line of reasoning. One of the key attributes of humanity is our attribute of making judgments; indeed, our very species name, Homo Sapiens ("Man, the Wise") reflects the primacy of judgment in our lives. Simply because some of us understand that not everyone shares our values, it doesn't follow that we lose the right to pronounce our own views, or discuss them, or that our views are automatically invalidated by dint of the fact that we acknowledge.

If you really believe in moral relativism, then pretty much anything goes. So at that point, you've have no cause to judge anyone's drone strikes. "They consider it good. You consider it bad. Who can say..."

This too is silly, because root values can and do form the basis for moral judgments. Asserting that we cannot express a coherent opinion simply because we disagree about the root source is simply a fiat claim bereft of support. I can clearly say that killing civilians in a conflict is an evil that should be avoided, because if I had no involvement in a conflict, I would not want to be attacked as a result of said conflict.

Are you alleging that all morals are absolute? You yourself have already demonstrated, quite ably, that the injunction against killing is pliable depending on circumstances. It is relative to the intent and situation of both the killer and the victim. If morals are absolute, all killing is murder.

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.