[It seems extremely incongruous that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could ever be justified or excused by ‘defensive force’ — self-defence, defence of others and defence of property. Nonetheless, art 31(1)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codifies defensive force as a ground for excluding criminal responsibility — https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1681146/Tonkin.pdf
The targeted murder of thousands of civilians was justified? — Lionino
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
Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified. — RogueAI
The answer is no.
First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.
So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.
Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.
For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.
An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands. — Tzeentch
Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life? — Tzeentch
OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion. — RogueAI
Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps? — RogueAI
First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual. — Tzeentch
So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.
Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.
For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.
An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands. — Tzeentch
Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life? — Tzeentch
If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion. — Tzeentch
As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me. — Tzeentch
For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm. — Sir2u
Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.
Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes. — Sir2u
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.