@Lionel-Hutz saidYeah, that’s sure inviting to discuss the topi.
You posers will debate about anything.
3... 2... 1... GO, GO, GO!
🙄
71d
@Lionel-Hutz saidSo your position is that it is morally justifiable to kill people to protect the innocent?
You posers will debate about anything.
3... 2... 1... GO, GO, GO!
I agree.
My question: Is it morally justifiable to kill more innocent bystanders than terrorsits in the course of the action? That might be a bi harder nut to crack.
71d
@Ponderable saidAgreed. Let's give it a try and not be a common shavixmir 😛
So your position is that it is morally justifiable to kill people to protect the innocent?
I agree.
My question: Is it morally justifiable to kill more innocent bystanders than terrorsits in the course of the action? That might be a bi harder nut to crack.
We have three moral agents: (a) national military, (b) stateless terrorists, (c) innocent from the national military's side, (d) innocent living in their own land which has illegally embedded stateless terrorists.
Can we start with those entities before we start making premises?
P.S. It's just an exercise in moral philosophical reasoning, shav, don't clutch your pearls.
71d
@Lionel-Hutz saidSo if we take a look to the four agents you mention:
Agreed. Let's give it a try and not be a common shavixmir 😛
We have three moral agents: (a) national military, (b) stateless terrorists, (c) innocent from the national military's side, (d) innocent living in their own land which has illegally embedded stateless terrorists.
Can we start with those entities before we start making premises?
P.S. It's just an exercise in moral philosophical reasoning, shav, don't clutch your pearls.
a) The "national military" is not an agent in my book. Let me substitute with "Military commander" (removing the problem of the chain of command that would be there for the more common "military person" (or GI)).
A military commander does have an objective here it could be stated as "Neutralize (I love how the military is talking in euphemisms) terrorists."
And that commander has a problem: The terrorists hide in between women and children. So objective demands that the attack is guided against the terrorsist in question. The underlying incentive is "protect the inncocents".
So if we see those women and children as innocents we do have the dilemma that we risk the life of innocents to protect (other) innocents.
If we are using utilitarism we would try to calsulate how many lifes we save against how many we take. The problem here is: We can't know beforehand, both numbers are principly unknown. To be able to act morally we have to assume that we kill few and rescue many.
We can complicate that problem even more by assuming that (at least) the children are not "just" innocent bysatnders, but the victims of the terrorsits tacics. Now we kill victims and make them victims again. In this case we need to eleveta the "rescue" part even more to put us into a situation of acting morally sound by attacking the terrorist in thier vicinity.
71d
@Ponderable
Ok, pretty sweet breakdown. We have the moral agents. What are our premises in your view?
70d
@Lionel-Hutz saidAnd we have
Agreed. Let's give it a try and not be a common shavixmir 😛
We have three moral agents: (a) national military, (b) stateless terrorists, (c) innocent from the national military's side, (d) innocent living in their own land which has illegally embedded stateless terrorists.
Can we start with those entities before we start making premises?
P.S. It's just an exercise in moral philosophical reasoning, shav, don't clutch your pearls.
b) the stateless terrorist.
I think very few people will call themselves terrorists. Most will justify their terrorism as a fight for some meritious cause. E.g. fighting for freedom.
So the stateless terrorsit will become the figher for the opressed, and the bystanders "should" be in favour and bring sacrifices for sure.
If the opponents who pose as oppressors here kill the Innocent, they act morally injustifiable of course.
70d
@Ponderable saidPremises most come from having all the facts. What to do with these?
And we have
b) the stateless terrorist.
I think very few people will call themselves terrorists. Most will justify their terrorism as a fight for some meritious cause. E.g. fighting for freedom.
So the stateless terrorsit will become the figher for the opressed, and the bystanders "should" be in favour and bring sacrifices for sure.
If the opponents who pose as oppressors here kill the Innocent, they act morally injustifiable of course.
(1) There is no indication that Lebanese support Hezbollah;
(2) Lebanon, as a state, has a proper army --which has not engaged;
(3) the fighters (let's call them that way) are a parallel force, not legally recognized by the state they're in; and
(4) in their charter, the primary goal of Hezbollah is not to defend the Lebanese.
These points should sustain or at least be taken into account in the elaboration of the premises.
70d
@Lionel-Hutz saidYour #1 is partly true. Right now Hezbollah is supported and trusted by about 55% of Lebanese. This only happened after 2020 when there was that big blast on the port. But before that the Lebanese people supported them.
Premises most come from having all the facts. What to do with these?
(1) There is no indication that Lebanese support Hezbollah;
(2) Lebanon, as a state, has a proper army --which has not engaged;
(3) the fighters (let's call them that way) are a parallel force, not legally recognized by the state they're in; and
(4) in their charter, the primary goal of Hezbollah i ...[text shortened]...
These points should sustain or at least be taken into account in the elaboration of the premises.
#2 is irrelevant
#3 is is also irrelevant, as they are in Lebanon.
#4 is what is of concern to Israel. The charter of Hexbollah is all about death to Israel and death to America, death to Christians if they do not accept Islam. Here are some excerpts from it:
OUR OBJECTIVES
Let us put it truthfully: the sons of Hezbollah know who are their major enemies in the Middle East - the Phalanges, Israel, France and the US. The sons of our umma are now in a state of growing confrontation with them, and will remain so until the realization of the following three objectives:
(a) to expel the Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land;
(b) to submit the Phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians;
(c) to permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government they desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which, alone, is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any further tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration into our country.
TO THE CHRISTIANS
If you, Christians, cannot tolerate that Muslims share with you certain domains of government, Allah has also made it intolerable for Muslims to participate in an unjust regime, unjust for you and for us, in a regime which is not predicated upon the prescriptions of religion and upon the basis of the Law (Sharia) as laid down by Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets…
We don't wish you evil. We call upon you to embrace Islam so that you can be happy in this world and the next. If you refuse to adhere to Islam, maintain your ties with the Muslims and don't take part in any activity against them. Free yourselves from the consequences of hateful confessionalism. Banish from your hearts all fanaticism and parochialism. Open your hearts to our Call (da'wa) which we address to you. Open yourselves up to Islam where you'll find salvation and happiness upon earth and in the hereafter. …
WORLD SCENE
We reject both the USSR and the US, both Capitalism and Communism, for both are incapable of laying the foundations for a just society. With special vehemence we reject UNIFIL as they were sent by world arrogance to occupy areas evacuated by Israel and serve for the latter as a buffer zone. They should be treated much like the Zionists. All should know that the goals of the Phalangists regime do not carry any weight with the Combatants of the Holy War, i.e., the Islamic resistance. This is the quagmire which awaits all foreign intervention.
The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hezbollah
70d
2 edits
@Rajk999 saidI disagree, unfortunately.
#2 is irrelevant
#3 is is also irrelevant, as they are in Lebanon.
#2 - The recognized, constitutional army of a nation, supporting the defense of that nation's sovereignty, and given its power by the duly elected representatives of the elected legislators, is not treating Israel as an enemy. This, I insist, has [b]real[/] factual weight.
#3 - This argument is invalid. The Mexican drug cartels are in Mexican territory too. They're not sustained by the democratically elected legislator of the country, their objective isn't the same as the objective of the Mexican State and its people, and Mexico would be better off without them
Bonus: It is highly probable that Israel would not have started the ground operation without Hezbollah's presence there, as the Lebanese army has launched 0 (zero) rockets towards Israeli territory.
70d
@Lionel-Hutz said#2 remains irrelevant. The question is why did the govt allow Hezbollah to operate for over 40 years in their country and attack another nation, if not because they support the attack on Israel. The fact the national army is not attacking is irrelevant.
I disagree, unfortunately.
#2 - The recognized, constitutional army of a nation, supporting the defense of that nation's sovereignty, and given its power by the duly elected representatives of the elected legislators, is not treating Israel as an enemy. This, I insist, has [b]real[/] factual weight.
#3 - This argument is invalid. The Mexican drug cartels are [i]in[/ ...[text shortened]... llah's presence there, as the Lebanese army has launched 0 (zero) rockets towards Israeli territory.
#3 If you seriously equate Hezbollah with Mexican drug cartels then you do not understand Islam.
As we speak the supreme leader of Iran calls for all muslim nations to prepare for war. Watch and see what happens. Maybe now more proof will come out about how Islam operates. In a nutshell there are the core religious [referred to as extremists], who control the sheep [moderates].
70d
2 edits
@Rajk999 said#2 - Have you heard the about the concept of "fear"? Have you lived in Lebanon? I have. Christians make 32% of the country but retain the economic and political power, which they are allowed to maintain by striking a very delicate balance with the Muslims. The fact that the national army is not attacking is symptomatic of the aforementioned delicate balance.
#2 remains irrelevant. The question is why did the govt allow Hezbollah to operate for over 40 years in their country and attack another nation, if not because they support the attack on Israel. The fact the national army is not attacking is irrelevant.
#3 If you seriously equate Hezbollah with Mexican drug cartels then you do not understand Islam.
As we speak the ...[text shortened]... utshell there are the core religious [referred to as extremists], who control the sheep [moderates].
#3 - I equate Mexican cartels because they are fueled by a similar religious fanaticism, i.e. La Santa Muerte. Again, sadly, I know it very well, firsthand. Also, as a ***, I understand Islam perfectly. Warning They are not fully equivalent. None is. But they are both equivalent to the extent that they are parallel, legally unsanctioned military powers. This is undisputable.
Bonus: A systematic theological study of the Islamic written corpus opens the eyes of anyone with a bit of education and common sense: There is no significant extremist/moderate divide in Islam. The divide is knowledgeable/ignorant.
* We are speaking in terms of higher probability, lower probability, and invalidity. Ethics is like that. There's no empirical truth as it is not a natural science, though it is as rigorous.