This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Justification of the Atomic Bombs
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
War shouldn't happen. But it does. Attempting to justify your position simply with "that's not how rational people should work"... doesn't work in context.
War isn't rational.
You: People do bad things, therefore they are okay.
Me: Despite the fact that some people do bad things, that does not make them okay.
There is no 'should' no 'rational people' in that.
Post by
Skyfire
War shouldn't happen. But it does. Attempting to justify your position simply with "that's not how rational people should work"... doesn't work in context.
War isn't rational.
You: People do bad things, therefore they are okay.
Me: Despite the fact that some people do bad things, that does not make them okay.
There is no 'should' no 'rational people' in that.
You: Go away context.
Me: No, no, no. That's not how real life works.
Here, let me try this rather classic example: Is it wrong to steal to feed your family?
Your moral absolutism would say "yes, it is." But whose livelihood are you trying to protect? Both? Is there a case that you can argue which allows both the person who has no money and no food to get food and where the person with the food/money receives payment for the goods and services they provide?
Then take this case and imagine it where the person without money/food has no access
whatsoever
to said money/food?
None
. What then?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
: Is it wrong to steal to feed your family?
No it's not.
Your moral absolutism would say "yes, it is."
Oh, you're expert now, I guess...
Post by
Skyfire
: Is it wrong to steal to feed your family?
No it's not.
Bold logic! I approve!
Come again?
That said, do you not see the hypocrisy in your situation?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That said, do you not see the hypocrisy in your situation?
Despite the fact that some people do bad things, that does not make them okay. There is no hypocrisy in that.
Post by
Skyfire
There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.
Refusal is contrary to reason (rational thought), which is a necessary condition to the rest of your logic.
Let us draw a parallel back to the other discussion: Japan surrendering would be contrary to reason, and especially, consent cannot be presumed. The universal destination of goods doesn't enter into this particular instance.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Japan surrendering would be contrary to reason
No it's not. It's maybe contrary to your assumptions and presumptions.
And what does stealing have to do with the wholesale slaughter of innocents again?
Edit: And further it's 'if refusal is contrary to reason
and
the universal destination of goods.'
To set up a scenario, a rich landowner has several silos full of grain and the villagers around are starving after a storm destroyed all the crops and they have no way of acquiring food.
If his refusal is only contrary to one of those, then the villagers cannot rightfully take the grain. Say for instance that the grain was infected with a lethal bacteria and they haven't found a way to get rid of it yet. Then it would not be contrary to reason to refuse to distribute it. So the landowner is completely justified in refusing to distribute it, and if the villagers take it it is stealing.
Likewise, if the landowner has just as much grain as everyone else and will starve just like them, taking his grain would be against the latter, and thus still stealing.
Post by
117913
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.