Anyway, I think I got what I needed when you claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.
When asked directly you gave a non answer. Care to clarify?
What does materialism tell you about the likelihood of reoffending in the case of someone who kills civilians on purpose vs those who do so by accident?
Readers should ask themselves, is it morally wrong to accidentally step on someone’s toe? Conversely, is it morally wrong to purposefully step on someone’s toe?
The answer seems clear and I don’t have to link to Wikipedia and hand waive to get there.
The justice system is far from perfect but something it does correctly is differentiate purposeful killing from accidental.
Any death caused by military action is immoral. Full stop! There is no justification for war if the material conditions (housing, water, food, education, employment, healthcare, freedom of expression) are being met. When people are happy, they don’t war. People seem to think war is human nature and inevitable. It is not. Most just want to live comfortably. It’s when they can’t live comfortably that conflicts arise. Change the conditions, change the culture.
I understand that we don’t live in that world, but if we strive to, collateral damage cannot be part of that equation. An eye for an eye just results in everybody being blind. And in a world full of blind people, the one-eyed man is king.
America, and it’s capital driven allies, including Israel, aim to be the one-eyed man. I just want everyone to see that.
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.
Which runs the risk of collateral damage.
Anyway, I think I got what I needed when you claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.
I think you might be unreachable.
I never said that. And I am reachable, you just have to understand material philosophy to get there.
When asked directly you gave a non answer. Care to clarify?
What does materialism tell you about the likelihood of reoffending in the case of someone who kills civilians on purpose vs those who do so by accident?
Readers should ask themselves, is it morally wrong to accidentally step on someone’s toe? Conversely, is it morally wrong to purposefully step on someone’s toe?
The answer seems clear and I don’t have to link to Wikipedia and hand waive to get there.
The justice system is far from perfect but something it does correctly is differentiate purposeful killing from accidental.
Any death caused by military action is immoral. Full stop! There is no justification for war if the material conditions (housing, water, food, education, employment, healthcare, freedom of expression) are being met. When people are happy, they don’t war. People seem to think war is human nature and inevitable. It is not. Most just want to live comfortably. It’s when they can’t live comfortably that conflicts arise. Change the conditions, change the culture.
I understand that we don’t live in that world, but if we strive to, collateral damage cannot be part of that equation. An eye for an eye just results in everybody being blind. And in a world full of blind people, the one-eyed man is king.
America, and it’s capital driven allies, including Israel, aim to be the one-eyed man. I just want everyone to see that.