Okay, I've stayed out of this one and the other prominent topic of the past week or so.
Joseph, I must agree with what you are saying, but this implies that everyone, everywhere wants peace. There are those tyrants that, for whatever reasons want to dominate. They may want to dominate other countries, or other businesses; I'll leave that for another topic.
The reason we have so many different countries in the world is because someone at some point in time didn't like the way things were going. Instead of using diplomacy, they rallied their supporters to either take control of the situation or break away and form their own alliance.
The challenge is to agree to disagree when necessary, but if someone, or some force, wants to trample underfoot the our ability to work things out and impose their own will, beliefs, government, or other agendas on the masses, that's when I must stand up and say 'NO' and do what I can to protect diplomacy. Diplomacy only works when opposing sides work together; you can't force anyone, or government, to the peace process.
When that breaks down, as I believe it has in IRAQ and N. Korea, then that's when my actions will show my will. Hopefully those actions will not harm the innocent, who out of fear or other reasons can't bring about change from within without help from the outside.
Sometimes, Standing Up For Peace requires 'Carrying a BIG Stick'.
****************************** Joseph's Post is Below ************************************
This thread has produced many really good arguments. Unfortunately, none of
them address the original question of the Morality of War. They all address
the specifics circumstances of a particular war not war in general. We are
giving reasons why a particular war is just or unjust, right or wrong or
beneficial or counterproductive. Some wars may appear to be easier to
justify than other wars. Some wars may appear to be the right thing to do.
Some wars may benefit me personally while others would do me personal harm.
When speaking of morality none of that matters.
I am saying war is immoral, period no qualifiers no exceptions.
Justifications and reasons are pragmatic, at best. What is true today may
not be true tomorrow; what is true for me may not be true for you. Morality
by definition is not pragmatic. (I grant that to many pragmatists and would
be encroachers on the freedoms of others hide behind the facade of morality
but that is another topic.)
Kant's categorical imperative of morality says: Act only according to that
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
Would you will that war becomes a universal law? Would you will that Peace
becomes a universal law? Your action shows your will. Will dictates the
outcome.
It like the old bumper sticker: What if they held a war and nobody showed
up?
Standing for Peace is in and of itself setting the will in motion. This is
why I keeping saying Work for Peace or Pray for Peace. Let Peace be the
maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a universal law.
Work for Peace
The opinions expressed herein, whether mildly held opinions or hardcore
opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt
PS: Due to my lack of humility and because I like that last line so much I
will be using it as my closing from now on.
Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
universal law.
The opinions expressed herein, whether mildly held opinions or hardcore
opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
