If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u
It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.
So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact. — Benkei
I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. — RogueAI
And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin: — Tzeentch
Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law. — Tzeentch
If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no. — Tzeentch
So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.
Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?
Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist. — RogueAI
But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity. — Benkei
Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable. — BitconnectCarlos
Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? — Sir2u
Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, [...] — Sir2u
Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification? — Sir2u
I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess. — Sir2u
Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"? — Benkei
IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that have agreed upon should be followed.
It is underpinned by, among other things, morality, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument. — Tzeentch
That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL. — Tzeentch
In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Taking of hostages;
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.
A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion. — Tzeentch
Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:
Ok then... — Tzeentch
The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. — Benkei
Just as well you didn't live in India or Africa during the heyday of the British Empire.The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. — BitconnectCarlos
Yessss!!!First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well. — Benkei
Projection like this is often a confession (e.g. Zionfascists or sympathizers in the 2020s). :shade:I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s. — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.