Slavery in the U.S. is commonly used as an example. “Of course,” a good modern citizen will say, “slavery was wrong even when it was legal.” The passing of the 13 amendment did not make slavery morally wrong; it was wrong already, and the legal structures finally caught up to the moral structures.
Edit: > Have you even thought about how that would work?
I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians. With a granting of rights, an influx of aid and reparations and an overall increase in their standard of living, it would make the existence of Hamas undesirable. Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle. Violence begets violence.
Conveying information devoid of moral positions I suppose could be considered amoral. Like saying “there are speed limits on most US roads” is amoral.
Here’s a definition because it seems like you may need one:
having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You could read into that, which it seems like you really want to do or you could just read it as I said it. Which is to convey a fact.
That said, I have since given some moral positions such as it’s more moral to consider civilian deaths than to purposefully target them. I never thought I’d be defending that position.
I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians…
You’re thinking too small. Imagine if all a Jihadist group like Hamas needed to do was roll up, shooting from the windows of ambulances and, being of high moral fiber, the Israelis did absolutely nothing about it. Why? Well, ambulances are protected. We mustn’t target them.
Doing that would guarantee that those of higher morals would be consistently beaten down and killed by those who don’t give a fuck (that’s Hamas in this situation).
Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle
This is such utter bullshit and the only thing you need to know to confirm it is to realize Jihadist groups exist in all sorts of places where Israel isn’t a factor in the slightest (i.e., EVERY other place seeing as they were driven out of Muslim countries a while back. Funny no one is talking about their right to return…). Believe these groups when they tell you they kill because their religion requires/allows it. Their religion tells them that dying for the cause is fine, even laudable. They’ll go to paradise. I suspect that’s why they’re also fine with using their own citizens as human shields - as long as they’re true believers, it’s no problem. They’ll also go to paradise.
That was purposed. To give context to amorality. Everything else you wrote seems to be a synthesis of conflation. Reactionary and specious. To wit: we should nuke the Gaza Strip to be sure every fundamentalist Muslim terrorist is incinerated, even though some civilians may die. That’s the only way to solve this situation. Am I right?
That’s your response after my detailing the difference between us and Hamas when it comes to killing civilians?
I don’t believe you’re this stupid or that your reading comprehension is that bad.
I think you just can’t actually justify your position of “never under any circumstances attack protected buildings” because you’re smart enough to know the practical outcome.
That said, it’s not really worth continuing with someone who won’t admit this or detail exactly what morally superior armies ought to do in those situations. Unless it’s to roll over and die because that’s the logical conclusion if you can’t explain further.
So you are amoral.
Edit: > Have you even thought about how that would work?
I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians. With a granting of rights, an influx of aid and reparations and an overall increase in their standard of living, it would make the existence of Hamas undesirable. Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle. Violence begets violence.
Looks like you linked to the wrong thing.
Conveying information devoid of moral positions I suppose could be considered amoral. Like saying “there are speed limits on most US roads” is amoral.
Here’s a definition because it seems like you may need one:
You could read into that, which it seems like you really want to do or you could just read it as I said it. Which is to convey a fact.
That said, I have since given some moral positions such as it’s more moral to consider civilian deaths than to purposefully target them. I never thought I’d be defending that position.
You’re thinking too small. Imagine if all a Jihadist group like Hamas needed to do was roll up, shooting from the windows of ambulances and, being of high moral fiber, the Israelis did absolutely nothing about it. Why? Well, ambulances are protected. We mustn’t target them.
Doing that would guarantee that those of higher morals would be consistently beaten down and killed by those who don’t give a fuck (that’s Hamas in this situation).
This is such utter bullshit and the only thing you need to know to confirm it is to realize Jihadist groups exist in all sorts of places where Israel isn’t a factor in the slightest (i.e., EVERY other place seeing as they were driven out of Muslim countries a while back. Funny no one is talking about their right to return…). Believe these groups when they tell you they kill because their religion requires/allows it. Their religion tells them that dying for the cause is fine, even laudable. They’ll go to paradise. I suspect that’s why they’re also fine with using their own citizens as human shields - as long as they’re true believers, it’s no problem. They’ll also go to paradise.
That was purposed. To give context to amorality. Everything else you wrote seems to be a synthesis of conflation. Reactionary and specious. To wit: we should nuke the Gaza Strip to be sure every fundamentalist Muslim terrorist is incinerated, even though some civilians may die. That’s the only way to solve this situation. Am I right?
That’s your response after my detailing the difference between us and Hamas when it comes to killing civilians?
I don’t believe you’re this stupid or that your reading comprehension is that bad.
I think you just can’t actually justify your position of “never under any circumstances attack protected buildings” because you’re smart enough to know the practical outcome.
That said, it’s not really worth continuing with someone who won’t admit this or detail exactly what morally superior armies ought to do in those situations. Unless it’s to roll over and die because that’s the logical conclusion if you can’t explain further.
There is no such thing. You can’t see the forest for the trees. I want a world where military action is the last resort and limited.
You’re necessarily arguing that the purposeful targeting and killing of civilians is no worse morally than the accidental killing of civilians.
Do I have that right?
I’m arguing that both are immoral.
Then it sounds like you’re arguing no person or country ought to defend themselves for fear of collateral damage.
Does that sound right?
No, every person or group has a human right to self defense.