Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Justin86' post='1572709' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:01 PM']What about countires building up thier nulcear arms because they see their enemies doing the same? Why would it be a wise move for them to risk losing their cities?[/quote] Suppose someone did drop a nuclear bomb on an American city. Does that make it moral to drop a nuclear bomb on that nation's city? The Church condemns "every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants" (CCC #2314). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galloglasses Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Era Might' post='1572711' date='Jun 16 2008, 11:04 AM']Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?[/quote] No, but because Iran and North Korea are more likely to shoot first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Era Might' post='1572711' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:04 AM']Why? If they kill the innocent indiscriminately, we have to be able to kill the innocent indiscriminately?[/quote] If our enemies have the power to take out our major cities the only way to deter that power would be the capabilty to do the same damage to them. It's not a pretty thing, but it is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Justin86' post='1572720' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:07 PM']If our enemies have the power to take out our major cities the only way to deter that power would be the capabilty to do the same damage to them. It's not a pretty thing, but it is the truth.[/quote] So to save ourselves, we are willing to kill the innocent indiscriminately? Suppose someone kidnapped an innocent family member of yours, and killed them. Does that make it moral to kidnap an innocent family member of the murderer, and kill them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galloglasses Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 No thats retaliation when there are other, more viable, more moral means of justice. In nuclear war there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Galloglasses' post='1572724' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:09 PM']No thats retaliation when there are other, more viable, more moral means of justice. In nuclear war there isn't.[/quote] Killing the innocent indiscriminately is immoral. It doesn't matter if others are doing it, that doesn't make it moral for us to do it. There are worse things than death. If we have to fight with immoral means, then we have to refuse. It is better for us to perish, than to sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The point of nuclear deterrents is to make war impossible, and during the cold war era it brought about a relative level of peace because both sides feared the power of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Era Might' post='1572722' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:08 AM']So to save ourselves, we are willing to kill the innocent indiscriminately? Suppose someone kidnapped an innocent family member of yours, and killed them. Does that make it moral to kidnap an innocent family member of the murderer, and kill them?[/quote] That's really not comparable to the situation since the family in question is already dead. We're talking about deterring someone from using annihilation from the beginning. You can't do that unless you are willing to offer equal force in return. Basically, if we did want you say, we'd all be ruled by the person most wanting to take the world for his own. Is that really what you want? Are you actually prepared to deal with those consequences? Not to mention the blood of millions (possibly billions) that would be on your hands because you did nothing to stop this from happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1572730' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:12 PM']The point of nuclear deterrents is to make war impossible, and during the cold war era it brought about a relative level of peace because both sides feared the power of the other.[/quote] The question is not whether nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but whether they are moral to use. If not, then a nation is threatening another nation with something immoral, which is a sin. [quote name='Justin86' post='1572732' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:14 PM']That's really not comparable to the situation since the family in question is already dead. We're talking about deterring someone from using annihilation from the beginning. You can't do that unless you are willing to offer equal force in return.[/quote] Even the threat of immoral action is immoral. For example, it would be immoral to even threaten to kill an innocent family member, even if you don't intend to do it. [quote]Basically, if we did want you say, we'd all be ruled by the person most wanting to take the world for his own. Is that really what you want? Are you actually prepared to deal with those consequences? Not to mention the blood of millions (possibly billions) that would be on your hands because you did nothing to stop this from happening?[/quote] The ends do not justify the means. If victory requires us to commit some immoral action, then we must be accept defeat/death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Era Might' post='1572742' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:24 AM']The ends do not justify the means. If victory requires us to commit some immoral action, then we must be accept defeat/death.[/quote] You seem way off here to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 [quote name='Justin86' post='1572753' date='Jun 16 2008, 12:40 PM']You seem way off here to me.[/quote] How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 This whole "its wrong to even threaten it" kind of thing. The ends don't justify the means includes mind games? Especially with so much at stake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 How can it be moral to threaten someone with something immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin86 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Why wouldn't it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galloglasses Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 A threat is a helluvalot more moral then allowing an action to take place through willing inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now