The Loony Left on war

[Mycroft]

Hmm. There seem to be those who either cannot understand or refuse to accept that some things are bad in themselves, despite sometimes being necessary to survival...

How about Kevorkian style mercy killing? Is providing a lethal dose of morphine to a person who's in agony and who is expected to die soon anyway a bad thing?

 

[TragicMonkey]

How about Kevorkian style mercy killing? Is providing a lethal dose of morphine to a person who's in agony and who is expected to die soon anyway a bad thing?

Yes, it's bad. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I think an easy test to assess whether something is bad, albeit necessary, is to hypothesize other options. In that scenario, you could

a. assist suicide
b. do nothing

A appears to be the best choice. It's bad, but not AS bad as B. However, if

c. cure them

was a choice, then clearly A would be wrong. Why? Because it's bad in itself, whereas c is not.

C not being available does not change the moral valuation of A. A is the correct choice, but it's still bad.

Life is harsh. Sometimes you only get to pick between bad choices.

 

[Metullus]

Yes, it's bad. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I think an easy test to assess whether something is bad, albeit necessary, is to hypothesize other options. In that scenario, you could

a. assist suicide
b. do nothing

A appears to be the best choice. It's bad, but not AS bad as B. However, if

c. cure them

was a choice, then clearly A would be wrong. Why? Because it's bad in itself, whereas c is not.

C not being available does not change the moral valuation of A. A is the correct choice, but it's still bad.

Life is harsh. Sometimes you only get to pick between bad choices.

What if implementing "c." involves significant and prolonged suffering on the part of the patient? Cannot one then argue that c is also "bad", even worse than a or b, perhaps?

The more I think about it it seems that our definition of good v bad has more to do with the immediate consquences of our actions than on the longer term consequences... I'm not sure that I am comfortable with that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What if implementing "c." involves significant and prolonged suffering on the part of the patient? Cannot one then argue that c is also "bad", even worse than a or b, perhaps?

The more I think about it it seems that our definition of good v bad has more to do with the immediate consquences of our actions than on the longer term consequences... I'm not sure that I am comfortable with that.

No. A painful cure is still better than the alternative. The choice, of course, is the patient's.

 

[Metullus]

No. A painful cure is still better than the alternative. The choice, of course, is the patient's.

Better, yes. But "good"? I think it is "good", but it's "goodness" is because of the ultimate goal of providing for the health of the patient - its implementation will not make the patient particularly happy. If the patient is a child she may not even understand the value of the treatment or why she must suffer it. To her it may well be the worst of the three options. So treatment might not be inherently "good".

I have no idea where it is I am going with this. I'll think on it a while...

 

[TragicMonkey]

Better, yes. But "good"?

Life is good.

Which, incidentally, is why killing is bad-- when you do it, you deny someone else that good.



Um, I think we've kinda derailed this thread. But it's not like it was going anywhere anyway.

 

[Metullus]

Life is good.

Which, incidentally, is why killing is bad-- when you do it, you deny someone else that good.



Um, I think we've kinda derailed this thread. But it's not like it was going anywhere anyway.

Yeah. Life is good. Is all life equally so?



And no way we have derailed this thread. That's fowlsound's job.

 

[Darat]

Okay. So is this analogous?

I am at this moment subjecting my mother to physical therapy (she recently had a hip replaced.) The PT causes her considerable pain and suffering, frequently bringing her to tears. I submit that if I apply your concept of what makes something "good" or "bad" what I am doing to my mother is "bad" (it causes her to suffer.)

Is this what you mean? Or am I not grokking you?

Not quite because we have to look at what action are you actually taking. Perhaps if your PT involved you say punching your mother that is closer to what I was saying.

Then in my world we would agree that punching people is a bad act, but in this particular circumstances the result is good.

 

[Kerberos]

Isn't all this basically a pointless argument about semantics? I fail to see the real-world implications of the distinction between a war being the best solution or simply the least bad one.

 

[Darat]

Isn't all this basically a pointless argument about semantics? I fail to see the real-world implications of the distinction between a war being the best solution or simply the least bad one.

I think there could be some - even if only it may help us understand each other better.

See I didn't think we would have anyone here saying that killing is not inherently bad, yet we have had one person say that. I like TM find that hard to comprehend, although like TM I agree there are times when killing is not only necessary but may result in good.

Although as you say it may actually have no consequences in the real world.

 

[Metullus]

Not quite because we have to look at what action are you actually taking. Perhaps if your PT involved you say punching your mother that is closer to what I was saying.

Then in my world we would agree that punching people is a bad act, but in this particular circumstances the result is good.

I suspect that if you were to ask mom she would say that I might as well be punching her.

 

[Mycroft]

I think there could be some - even if only it may help us understand each other better.

See I didn't think we would have anyone here saying that killing is not inherently bad, yet we have had one person say that. I like TM find that hard to comprehend, although like TM I agree there are times when killing is not only necessary but may result in good.

Although as you say it may actually have no consequences in the real world.

I can understand both points of view. One group is more concentrated on the moment, and the other group is looking only at the long-term view.

 

[hammegk]

I can understand both points of view. One group is more concentrated on the moment, and the other group is looking only at the long-term view.

In the long-term we are all dead. Many of us prefer a more useful time-frame, and winners (other survivors included, perhaps) write the histories. The dead seldom pose a worry other than as short-term health risks.

 

[davefoc]

This is in danger of devolving into a semantic debate, where you're talking past each other by using the same word but meaning different things by it. So let me propose a few ideas for uses of various terms to help avoid that. We can use the term "negative" for results that causes suffering to people, and the term "positive" for results that releive suffering or create enjoyment for people.

Now let's introduce the terms "good" for those actions which maximize positives and minimize negatives in comparison to other possible actions one could have taken. Similarly, a "bad" action is one which maximizes the negative results and minimizes the positive results. What's important to note here is that it is possible to have a good action which produces negatives, provided the alternatives produced more negatives, and it is possible to have a bad action that produces positives if the alternatives produced more positives.

Under the terms I'm using, war can indeed be good, as you have said. But I think the point Darat is trying to get at is that it still produces negatives. And I'd agree on that point as well. My guess is that you're mostly talking past each other.

Nicely said, Zig. I realize in a later post Darat quibbled a bit, but the disagreement seemed based much more on each side attempting to promote their own particular favored semantics than on any substantive disagreement. I was just going to lurk, but when somebody so nicely summarized my own view, I thought I'd chime in and thank him.

 

[Darat]

Nicely said, Zig. I realize in a later post Darat quibbled a bit, but the disagreement seemed based much more on each side attempting to promote their own particular favored semantics than on any substantive disagreement. I was just going to lurk, but when somebody so nicely summarized my own view, I thought I'd chime in and thank him.

I think it is a little bit more then semantics.

Look at the attitude to killing.

One side thinks killing is bad act, the other side doesn't think it is a bad act, that seems quite a difference in how we view the world.

 

[Tony]

He doesn't even think WW2 should have been fought. Despite being completely off his rocker in that way, he is otherwise a really cool guy to hang out with.

Do you agree with Hitler's expansionist and genocidal policies? Do you think they were absolutely necessary? If your answer to both of those questions is "No", I don't see how you could say that WW2 should have been fought. It shouldn't have. It was fought because some right-wing wacko wanted to conquer and subjugate his neighbors and ultimately, the world.

 

[Freakshow]

Do you agree with Hitler's expansionist and genocidal policies? Do you think they were absolutely necessary? If your answer to both of those questions is "No", I don't see how you could say that WW2 should have been fought. It shouldn't have. It was fought because some right-wing wacko wanted to conquer and subjugate his neighbors and ultimately, the world.

It should have been fought, by the allies, against Hitler. What alternative would you suggest? Just stand idly by and watch Hitler take over the world?

 

[Tony]

It should have been fought, by the allies, against Hitler.

That goes without saying.

But you clearly said that WW2 should have been fought. I don't see how you can say without supporting the war, the person who started it, and the policies for which it was started. Perhaps you only mean that Hitler should have been fought against? I agree. But that is different from saying WW2 should have been fought.

 

[Freakshow]

That goes without saying.

But you clearly said that WW2 should have been fought. I don't see how you can say without supporting the war, the person who started it, and the policies for which it was started. Perhaps you only mean that Hitler should have been fought against? I agree. But that is different from saying WW2 should have been fought.

The person I was referring to in my post thinks that the allies should have just let Hitler take over the world, because that is better that using violence to defend yourself. No, I am not kidding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you only mean that Hitler should have been fought against? I agree. But that is different from saying WW2 should have been fought.

That, Tony, is a semantic debate about what "should have been fought" means. You know this. You know that nobody here is advocating Hitler having started WWII. I'm confused as to why you're trying to treat this as a debate about substance, when the only real claim you have here is that you want to adopt a particular meaning for the phrase "should have been fought" other than the one that some others have been using. Which is fine, it's OK to want to use your own definition (provided you're not mangling the phrase beyond recognition, as happened when someone tried to argue that "freedom fighter" meant someone fighting against freedom). But that's all it is at this point.