Question of the Day

[ayoub]

Is collateral damage morally acceptable?

Comments

[atek128.livejournal.com]

I'd say in general no. But in war "shit happens", to minimize committing immoral acts we should be careful to avoid almost all war.

Acts like dresden, hiroshima, the tokyo firebombing, and the bombing of london are totally unacceptable.

atek3

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

So war is not a moral act?

[hiddenshallows.livejournal.com]

if it's emotional collateral damage, yes.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

How so?

[cmerun12.livejournal.com]

Yes

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Why?

[cmerun12.livejournal.com]

Because no matter what choice you make, there is ALWAYS collateral damage. Some is just easier to take/justify/handle, etc.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Now I'm understanding your meaning :)

[cmerun12.livejournal.com]

The question you initially asked required a Yes/No answer. I gave you that.

[kabandra.livejournal.com]

I don't quite understand the question.. could you rephrase?

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Is there a moral justification for damaging the surroundings or people when targeting a specific person or thing?

:P

[atek128.livejournal.com]

A war in self-defense, perhaps, a war not in self-defense, never.

atek3

[crescent-fresh.livejournal.com]

depends on the situation. if it's something that justifiably advances the greater good (logically, not just because bushy says so), then the needs of the many and such.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Good answer!

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

The greater good of a subset of society? Doesn't sound very moral to me...

[kalquessa.livejournal.com]

I don't know about morally acceptable, but it's practically unavoidable. You can never do only one thing, and all that. So I'm wondering if it's not just exempt from having to be morally acceptable or not.

[mighty-rontor.livejournal.com]

No, but ironically, war can be very morally acceptable, whether defensive or otherwise.

War is only horrible if you can not participate in it, including dying, watching from the side lines or looking back on yesterday's campaigns; the rest of the time, it's just a matter of trying to get through the day.

In the end, how one addresses the collateral damage one causes better illustrates one's morality under better circumstances.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Great way to avoid the question :P

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Good answer!

[kalquessa.livejournal.com]

Pbtz to you! I am always right, as you know, so if question avoidance is my answer, it must be the right answer. So ha.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

LMAO!

[crescent-fresh.livejournal.com]

no, the greater good of society as a whole. i just took the opportunity to slam bush when it presented itself.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Heheh

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. I say so because, in my mind, all morals must be based on survival first and foremost, be it self-orientated or stretch further to family, clan, community, nation, or the entire human race (how far one dares to go depends on each person's moral reach). Therefor collateral damage is not only acceptable, but is to be expected in the long run. Especially since, despite wishful thinking, violence does solve things, as has been proven time and time again throughout history, many times in my own life. If someone wants to contest this, go ahead and resurrect the ghost of Napolean, he can have it out with General MacArther. We'll get the city fathers of Carthrage to be judges and referees.
Political power is the highest manifestation of power in humanity, and the greatest expression of power is the taking of life. I am not saying this is good, I am saying this is. War is not simply killing, pure and simple. War is applying controlled violence in order to force your government's wishes upon an enemy. Some veiw this as terrible, but again historically, nations who have forgotten this or ignored it in favoure of singing "we ain't a'gonna learn no war no more" have been harried, enslaved, and destroyed by nations who apply the necessary violence. So, although war is controlled violence, and survival often necessitates violence (controlled or not), there will always be some collateral damage. The world is too small for there not to be.
If a man is caught under a rock and the tide is coming in, must he not regretfully sacrifice his leg to save his own life?
This flies in the face of the "unalienable rights" that heroes laid down so many years ago. After all, what right does a man have to life if he is drowning in the ocean? What right to life has a man if it's his life, or his children's? If two men are trapped in the mountains and cannibalism is the only way to survive, which one's rights are "unalienable"?

Also, Necessity is a higher god than Truth. Just thought I would toss that in and probably get more people annoyed with my opinions.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Morality is so subjective....

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Because value is a relative, not an absolute.