Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
That is not what I have said or wish to imply. I am saying that there are levels of acceptable moralization going on here, yet ultimately the goal is to kill a fellow human being. It is an incongruence that vexes me. You, I or Mike would prefer to use conventional methods such as bombs and guns. The previous Administration and it's advisors were able to stretch their moralizations to justify torture. But ultimately our goals are the same. Ergo we are the same.
There is no justification for war.
There is nothing ethical about war. To believe otherwise is folly. The goal of war is death and domination.
What is more degrading than killing a person and anyone else in the way remotely with an unmanned drone? Arguing ethics at this point is pathetic. Killing is killing, regardless the method. God gave the commandment: thou shalt not kill -- without exceptions. We are not permitted to kill period. However, we are permitted to exercise our agency and choose to kill. All men will answer for their actions.
God has permitted men to exercise agency and therefore wage war. That's not the same as permitting war. You cannot blame God for men's choices. Again, all men will answer for their actions.
A red herring.
|
Tooblue- we have been through these kinds of exercises before. I don't know if you are just trolling here or if you are being serious, but your argument totally falls apart where you argue that "because our goals are the same, we are the same." I really am shocked you would suggest that: (1) our goals are the same (the goal isn't killing a person Tooblue, for at least "our side," the goal is winning a war which, ideally, is a war based on righteous desires); or (2) even assuming our goals are the same, that the means to the end is totally irrelevant for you- the goal (i.e. end result) is all that matters, and as long as the end result matches, the people desiring that end result are the same.
I can't even begin to fathom the absurdity of those claims.
Imagine this: 2 people, both with the goal to make money. In your world, they are now the same person, even if one of them is Bernie Madoff and the other is a guy who works hard every day of his life for an honest wage. I would hope you could differentiate between the two.
Furthermore, where do you get your assumption that everyone tortured dies, or that the purpose of torturing them is to kill them? Didn't you just vote for a guy who was tortured (and who lived)?
The means are frequently as, if not more, relevant to a determination of righteousness as the ends. And I totally reject as false your premise that war is never righteous. If that were the case, the unrighteous could oppress at will, and the righteous could never fight back because that action would be de facto immoral.
I also reject your premise that killing is always wrong and that there are never any exceptions. Self-defense? War? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever killed anyone else has broken the commandment of "thou shalt not kill?" The scriptures chalk that up as a pretty serious crime. You may want to inform some of our prophets who have served in war, or the veterans in your ward, or the person who falls asleep at the wheel of a car and inadvertently swerves into another car, killing the driver.
Get real, Tooblue. You are living in an imaginary world.