Even rarer when there's a villain we can point to who manoeuvred us in that situation (in which case we actually no longer have moral agency because this villain controls and constrains both choices). And even if it did exist, there's always the option not to choose. It's not up to me to condemn innocent people because of the crimes of others. — Benkei
Why does the mere existence of a villain remove moral agency? — Tzeentch
extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch
He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. — BitconnectCarlos
Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. — BitconnectCarlos
But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination. — BitconnectCarlos
It's moral to quit one's post and provoke a crisis in leadership on the eve of a Nazi invasion? How is that not cowardice? — RogueAI
But be that as it may, the moral thing to do would be to cut one's losses and make the right decision anyway. Better late than never. Let the people who want to play that game figure it out among themselves. — Tzeentch
While the powerful villain "forcing" one to act is a common concept, I think we should remain critical about whether there is actually any forcing going on.
Winston for example is perfectly free to leave office. He's not forced to do anything.
There's a perfectly moral option available to him: extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch
If one doesn't have the spine to make hard moral choices, one should not get into politics. Wouldn't you agree? — RogueAI
That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough. — RogueAI
All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u
What would have happened if all of the people in line for his job with exactly the same circumstance bowed out saying "I don't want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to be responsible for losing the war"? — Sir2u
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars. — Sir2u
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, [...] — 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
:ok: — Tzeentch
But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself. — Tzeentch
That would - or should - also apply to war? If you behave in such a way as to make enemies, or force other people into untenable positions, sooner or later you will have to defend yourself by killing your erstwhile victims. — Vera Mont
↪Tzeentch, so, homicide to defend your loved ones is :up: then? — jorndoe
The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants. — ssu
To any sane person homicide is :sad:.
But as a last resort, it might be rightfully be labeled a tragedy. — Tzeentch
Though, I don't believe in modern war as a form of "collective self-defense". The nature of war is simply too diffuse for that. — Tzeentch
My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it. — BitconnectCarlos
in reverse order. What's left of the country being thus defended will not be known until afterward. Like the Coventry decision on a much larger scale.responsibility is to my people and my country
:100: :fire:This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type).
[ ... ]
Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No. — ssu
Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? — BitconnectCarlos
Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll: — 180 Proof
All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u
Morality isn't about Britain. — Tzeentch
Who knows what would have happened?
Perhaps the world would have become a better place with so many people wisening up and taking the high road. — Tzeentch
Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics. — Tzeentch
Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI
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
Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". — ssu
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.