One of the problems is thinking that just because someone is elected to office that he or she is a "higher authority." THEY work for us -- NOT the other way around. And if they don't get that, they should be defeated at the election polls. That is why I think it is time that we elect a whole lot more Republicans to local, state and federal positions. I look forward to sending a Republican to represent us in the U.S. House of Representatives - the only way I'd vote for a Democrat for the House is if Mike McNulty came out of retirement to run again.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Exploring: Philosophy > Ethics & Morality > War & Morality --> --> • War & Morality • What is War? • Moralitiy of War • Just War Theory • Pacifism and War • Defending War • Defending Peace • Ethics and Morality
• Philosophy • Introduction to Philosophy • Biographies of Philosophers • Schools of Philosophy • Branches of Philosophy
• Site Resources • Main Site Index
• What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews
• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!
• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!
One of the most common antiwar arguments is the fact that wars result in the deaths of innocent people. This objection accepts that a state may have a vested interest in pursuing attackers and even killing them, but points out that the justice involved with such actions is quickly offset when innocent lives are put at risk or even lost. This deontological position argues that genuine justice requires that we preserve the lives of the innocent: terror is not a moral response to terror and killing innocent people is not a moral response to the deaths of innocent people.
This can be a powerful argument because it cuts right to the heart of even the most justified wars. For example, if a nation is the victim of an unprovoked attack and thousands of citizens and/or military personnel who have done nothing wrong are killed, there is an immediate desire to retaliate and punish those responsible. Surely if any war is justified, then such a war of self-defense and retaliation should be.
However, if the responding nation also kills innocent people as part of its quest for justice, isn't it committing an injustice of similar scope as that which caused it to engage in warfare in the first place? Why was it wrong for the attacking government to kill innocents as part of its goals, but not wrong for the responding nation? Aren't both cases examples of serious (even if not quite equivalent) injustice?
A further pragmatic point is that if the killing of innocents is part of even a justified response to an attack, this will cause resentment and hatred which will, over time, simply fuel a continual circle of violence and counter-violence. Thus, even if there are no deontological reasons to refrain from a retaliation which kills innocent people, there may be very sound pragmatic reasons to hesitate and/or seek other solutions.
Upon closer inspection we can find that this argument suffers from a number of weaknesses. The primary problem comes in distinguishing between the "innocent" and those who are justified targets of warfare. Traditionally this distinction is the same as the one between the military and civilians or combatants and noncombatants, but that isn't always justified. Who is a more justified target: a conscript on the front lines who would rather be home tending a garden, or a political functionary back home who is happily in charge of conscripting gardeners?
Who is a more justified target: a general who disagrees with the war but feels that he must "do his duty" and follow the orders of his political superiors, or a propagandist who would never actually join the military herself but who actively supports the war and is in fact personally responsible for whipping the populace into a war-frenzy? Neither the military/civilian nor the combatant/noncombatant distinction appears entirely justified here.
There are also further complications when we consider the situation of democracies. In a democracy the people are sovereign, and as such can be held accountable for the actions of their government. Even those who vehemently disagree with the government participate in the democratic process and as a consequence implicitly accept the fact that the results may be disagreeable. If all participants share some responsibility for the results, can it really be said that anyone of voting age in a democratic state can be excluded as a legitimate target in a war?
About Poll Which arguments do you think justify eliminating war? Killing Innocent People is Wrong Life is Sacred Just War Standards Can't Be Met Wars Cannot Achieve Goals War is Too Great a Risk War Shouldn't be a Government Power Wars of Aggression are Wrong War Violates International Law War is Contrary to National Self-Interest None / None of the Above
Current Results
Finally, if the argument that "killing innocent civilians is wrong" is allowed to serve as a reason to reject warfare completely, we are led to adopt the principle that there is a genuine moral difference between acts of commission and acts of omission. To understand why, it must be kept in mind that this position rejects the possibility of any war in which innocent civilians must die being just or moral.
It is easy to imagine that a dictator is repressing a religious minority, even to the point of possible extermination, but economic and political sanctions have failed to cause any change in his policies. If the people are to be saved, only military action will suffice - but that, unfortunately, will result in the death of civilians, including some of those of the minority we are hoping to rescue.
If wars are immoral when they cause the deaths of innocent people, then such a war of liberation must also immoral. Does that mean that our only moral course of action is not to act at all, even though by not acting we allow innocent people to be exterminated anyway? Isn't such inaction at least as immoral as action?
The argument that we should not act in order to avoid killing innocents suggests that such an act of omission isn't as immoral as the act of commission (war). That is a deontological position because it privileges a moral rule (do not kill innocents) over the possible consequences (saving even more innocents); as such, it is something which might be argued by a deontological pacifist, but not a pragmatic pacifist.
Perhaps that is the most reasonable and most moral position available to us, but that isn't obviously true and there are good reasons to think that such a war, even if it has some unjust consequences, is ultimately the most just and moral course of action. It seems to be an error of this argument to assume that the deaths of innocent people always means that war is wrong, but it may nevertheless be a valid objection which a particular war must overcome in order to be justified.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
A new high of 74 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling Washington’s budget crisis, up significantly in the past two weeks and far exceeding disapproval of both President Obama and congressional Democrats on the issue.
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that criticism of the GOP’s handling of the budget dispute has grown by 11 percentage points since just before the partial government shutdown began, from 63 to 70 and now 74 percent – clearly leaving the party with the lion’s share of blame. Indeed 54 percent now “strongly” disapprove.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
IT'S FINALLY GOING TO GET BETTER....like child birth.....the far right will be shattered and the left will look like they are too far......THE PENDULUM THE PENDULUM THE PENDULUM......
and the counter balance is...................
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The history of the Democratic Party of the United States is an account of the Democratic Party, the oldest political party in the United States and the oldest grass-roots party in the world.[1][2] It dominated American politics during the Second Party System, from 1832 to the mid-1850s, with such leaders as presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, and Senator Stephen Douglas, who usually bested the opposition Whig Party by narrow margins, as both parties worked hard to build grass-roots organizations and maximize the turnout of voters. Both parties used patronage extensively to finance their operations, which included emerging big city machines as well as national networks of newspapers. The party was a proponent for farmers across the country, urban workers, and new immigrants. It advocated westward expansion, Manifest Destiny, greater equality among all white men, and opposition to a national bank.
they sound like isaac and ismail
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"I am pro-choice; they are not. I am pro-gay rights as well as marriage equality; they are not. I have been outspoken about these issues over and over again. Do not lump me with the national Republicans. It's unbecoming."
-- Republican New York City mayoral candidate Joe Lhota, at his debate last night with Bill de Blasio.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"I am pro-choice; they are not. I am pro-gay rights as well as marriage equality; they are not. I have been outspoken about these issues over and over again. Do not lump me with the national Republicans. It's unbecoming."
-- Republican New York City mayoral candidate Joe Lhota, at his debate last night with Bill de Blasio.
A NYC mayoral candidate, a very accurate description of an establishment Republican.
A NYC mayoral candidate, a very accurate description of an establishment Republican.
An "establishment republican" would fit the Republican Party Plank. He's progressive, the GOP is regressive. He's pro gay rights, pro marriage rights, pro choice... The Establishment Republicans today are not.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
An "establishment republican" would fit the Republican Party Plank. He's progressive, the GOP is regressive. He's pro gay rights, pro marriage rights, pro choice... The Establishment Republicans today are not.
What exactly does "progressive" mean? Dick Cheany is pro gay rights and gay marriage. Both believe that the government sanctifies marriage by giving state benefits to them. That's a warped way to look at social equality is only after the people that govern you say it's ok. But, I understand how the state worshipper can buy into that.
"Does anyone else miss Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison? We're not sure how much difference one person could make in the toxic, chaotic, hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, but if we could choose just one it would be Hutchison, whose years of service in the Senate were marked by two things sorely lacking in her successor, Ted Cruz."
"When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November's general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation -- that he follow Hutchison's example in his conduct as a senator. Obviously, he has not done so. Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution."
If the GOP had elected representatives like Hutchison instead of TeaBaggers, this country would be prospering instead of floundering. GOP Obstruction is all that today's GOP can claim as a success.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
a progressive prides themselves on setting up values that they think should exist....whether they be limits as to how 'wealthy' you can be or how poor, poor is....they like to 'move forward' and justify their righteous values they place on the system.....they are no different than anyone else....I don't disagree with all their reasoning, however, I do disagree with their religious type rightness they place on folks...either calling them victims/bullies/rich/poor etc.....they tend to keep the status quo too.......only they think they are righteous like a nun with a ruler, no different than those crazy teabaggers....
DON'T TREAD ON ME....keep your hands to yourself
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
