Aug 6th : Are nuclear weapons less moral...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I honestly can't.

Me either.

@secondson said
Thanks for the history lesson. 😏

Since then it seems no one else has had a justifiable reason to do it again. But just in case they stockpiled enough nuclear bombs to incinerate the earth ten times over.

It's insane.

😀 It was a copy and paste from the OP.


Insane indeed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
😀 It was a copy and paste from the OP.


Insane indeed.

So then, are you saying that the mass killing a hundred thousand to prevent the deaths of millions isn't justification?

@secondson said
So then, are you saying that the mass killing a hundred thousand to prevent the deaths of millions isn't justification?

Yes, I am saying that.

To extrapolate. I would not be justified in killing 2 people to save 10.

-Removed-

Not at all. See my reply to Secondson above.

Mass killing is 'never' justifiable.


(The 'nuclear' thing was just an example).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, I am saying that.

To extrapolate. I would not be justified in killing 2 people to save 10.

I think it a matter of perspective. I'd kill 10 to save 2, given the right circumstances.

I think you're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement. If an invading army was set to invade your homeland and kill a million of your fellow countrymen and you had the means to stop it and minimize the number of deaths of your own, wouldn't you use such a weapon?

There's really no moral high ground here, but there is justification under the right circumstances.

-Removed-

Again, it's a matter of justifiability. What difference does it make what kind of weapon is used?

War means killing more of them than they can kill of yours. It's like saying it's less moral to use a shotgun instead of a semi-automatic when facing a hostile force.

@secondson said
I think it a matter of perspective. I'd kill 10 to save 2, given the right circumstances.

I think you're allowing emotion to cloud your judgement. If an invading army was set to invade your homeland and kill a million of your fellow countrymen and you had the means to stop it and minimize the number of deaths of your own, wouldn't you use such a weapon?

There's really no moral high ground here, but there is justification under the right circumstances.

I think it is 'emotion' that keeps me moral.

Take for example, would it be justified to kill one person to save 10? On a purely mathematical level one might answer yes. But what if you had to physically kill that one person yourself?

I get what you are saying about defending fellow countrymen etc, but even then see no justification in killing other human beings in mass, say with a weapon of mass destruction. (Where, of course, innocents are always among the death count). Are these innocents less important because they are not our countrymen?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think it is 'emotion' that keeps me moral.

Take for example, would it be justified to kill one person to save 10? On a purely mathematical level one might answer yes. But what if you had to physically kill that one person yourself?

I get what you are saying about defending fellow countrymen etc, but even then see no justification in killing other human beings ...[text shortened]... ays among the death count). Are these innocents less important because they are not our countrymen?

Sad to say though we live in a world where such a thing exists, and we can sit here and discuss the matter till we're blue in the face, and its not going away anytime soon.

But since it is a fact that killing, whether by conventional or by weapons of mass destruction, is part of the nature of human existence, justification must be made for the act, so the argument for justification is the saving of the many.

Having said that, I have no doubt I would be emotionally repulsed if I had to kill just one.

I'm not sure, and don't quote me on this, but I believe I heard a statistic that claims that 1 in 6 people is a murderer.

@secondson said
Sad to say though we live in a world where such a thing exists, and we can sit here and discuss the matter till we're blue in the face, and its not going away anytime soon.

We can agree on that sir.


I argue less on a Sunday.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
We can agree on that sir.


I argue less on a Sunday.

I agree. Arguing is tedious work. I try not to work at least one day a week. Perhaps we can begin a trend. 🤔

@secondson said
Sad to say though we live in a world where such a thing exists, and we can sit here and discuss the matter till we're blue in the face, and its not going away anytime soon.

But since it is a fact that killing, whether by conventional or by weapons of mass destruction, is part of the nature of human existence, justification must be made for the act, so the argument for ju ...[text shortened]... 't quote me on this, but I believe I heard a statistic that claims that 1 in 6 people is a murderer.

Your statistic seems a little difficult to believe in the light of murder rates; the country with the highest rate of homicide is El Salvador with 52 murders per 100,000 population per year. So over a century that's 5,200 murders per 100,000 population - or 5%. For one in six people to be a murderer you'd need at least 3 people to conspire in each instance and no murderer to kill more than one person. This seems a little implausible. For the US the rate is 4.6 per 100,000 per year and for the UK 1.2. So for 1 in 6 people to be a murderer you'd need about 30 people conspiring in the US and about 100 per murder to be conspiring in the UK.

I think your statistic cannot possibly be true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

@secondson said
I'm not sure, and don't quote me on this, but I believe I heard a statistic that claims that 1 in 6 people is a murderer.

Surely your rhetoric would be more forceful if you claimed that 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 people is a murderer? Why claim it's only "1 in 6"?