Do You Believe In War?

[lewisnotmiller]

We seem to be in basic agreement so just a few points to address

I can jump in with something ridiculously controversial if you like?

Yes, freeing slaves from their oppression would be one of the things I'd consider worth dying for. But again, not worth killing for (that distinction keeps popping up). Likewise hiding Jews from Germans even if the Germans were merely imprisoning them in camps without killing them.

Yeah. I think we're clear with our different views on that one. One slight question, to which I think I can assume the answer...
You are okay to die in protection of something, but not kill. In either case a single human life is lost. Why is one acceptable but the other not? I am assuming it's because you assume some sort of ownership of your own life. I only ask because some small percentage of theists might not see their life as their own in this manner.

I would ask how much a factor was the near worship of Hitler in the Wehrmacht's decision to support a war.

Good question. Contentious though. I wouldn't call Wehrmacht support of Hitler 'near worship'. But I do think in general terms he was supported strongly pre-war/early war. The German Army was both proud and broken after WW1. Treaty of Versailles restrictions forced it's reduction in size, which played a definite role in re-organising the Army to more of a merit-based service than one of nobility.

This small group, restricted, limited, and licking their wounds, were given teeth by Hitler. Conscription was re-introduced, after a fashion. Deals were struck with overseas countries to enable training exercises. Restrictions on aircraft were worked around.

Their support of Hitler was largely pragmatic because of this, in my view. They saw him as making Germany strong. I don't think this represented worship of him though, in general terms.

Well in the scenario I mentioned no one is being harmed. One simply voluntarily offers more to the one who is taking. The point, I think, if I am understanding Jesus right, is to attempt to force a moral dilemma on the taker.

Understood.

But yeah, it is the defense of others where the real moral dilemma arises for me. Realistically if anyone tired to harm someone dear to me like my wife I'd go beserk and morals would be the last thing on my mind. But in more sober moments it's a question I've pondered. I've decided inaction would definitely be wrong. But how far should I take a response? It's too long to go into here but I once posed a thought experiment for those who thought it right to kill someone who molested their child. Basically at the end I devised a scenario where the brother of the girl who was raped, tortured and killed, sets out to rape, torture, and kills the attacker. And you as the parent witness this. Do you kill your son?

I'm not convinced it's right to kill someone who molests my child. Whether I'd do it is another matter, but I think morally it's not right. But would I kill to prevent my child being molested? Yes.

Rape is indefensible. Torture as a form of punishment is indefensible as well, and probably all torture is indefensible.
All just my subjective opinion, I acknowledge. I like hypotheticals, though. They make me re-examine my beliefs.

 

[nazz]

I'm not convinced it's right to kill someone who molests my child. Whether I'd do it is another matter, but I think morally it's not right. But would I kill to prevent my child being molested? Yes.

Rape is indefensible. Torture as a form of punishment is indefensible as well, and probably all torture is indefensible.
All just my subjective opinion, I acknowledge. I like hypotheticals, though. They make me re-examine my beliefs.

But you didn't answer my question (perhaps you thought it was rhetorical?) Coming upon your son raping and torturing and about to kill the man who raped and tortured and murdered your daughter would you kill your son? Would you have killed the man had you come upon him doing that to your daughter?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But you didn't answer my question (perhaps you thought it was rhetorical?) Coming upon your son raping and torturing and about to kill the man who raped and tortured and murdered your daughter would you kill your son? Would you have killed the man had you come upon him doing that to your daughter?

It is impossible for your son to rape another man. He would be too upset about his sister's rape and could not focus on rape himself.

So your hypothetical is irrelevant.

(Parody... impossible for a nuke to kill only 100K Berliners... so no need to decide whether I'd nuke Berlin in 1935 to save 6 million lives.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It is impossible for your son to rape another man. He would be too upset about his sister's rape and could not focus on rape himself.
So your hypothetical is irrelevant.

What if he disliked his sister, so that he was only "meh" about her rape,
but was motivated to defend his family honor by abusing & killing the perp?

I am the king of stupid questions!

 

[Alceste]

It is impossible for your son to rape another man. He would be too upset about his sister's rape and could not focus on rape himself.

So your hypothetical is irrelevant.

(Parody... impossible for a nuke to kill only 100K Berliners... so no need to decide whether I'd nuke Berlin in 1935 to save 6 million lives.)

Unlike yours, nazz's question is not a false dichotomy. It's an open moral question about what you would or would not do in a particular situation, and why. Nazz is not pretending to be omniscient and claiming that if you don't take THIS course of action, then THAT outcome is certain. Because that would be idiotic.

I know you're not interested in having a reasonable conversation, but perhaps if I keep writing, something valuable will go in. You never know!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What if he disliked his sister, so that he was only "meh" about her rape, but was motivated to defend his family honor by abusing & killing the perp?

It is impossible! It is impossible! Stop trying to make me answer hard questions about moral behavior!!!!

I am the king of stupid questions!

Only a consort king apparently. All the real stupid-question power seems to lie, well... elsewhere.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Unlike yours, nazz's question is not a false dichotomy.

If you'd like to retract the message in which you claim that I posted words which I did not actually post, I'll be glad to try once again to engage you in good faith.

It'd be a fun thing to dig into your 9/11 Conspiracy Theory together.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyone who believes that Japan would have surrendered in 1945 based only on our blockade might want to read today's news. A WWII Japanese soldier just died. He had stayed in the Phillipine jungles for 29 years after the Japanese surrender, since his superior officer had instructed him to stay there and spy on American troops.

Japanese soldiers -- along with Japanese civilians -- were indoctrinated to never even consider defeat or refusing orders from above.

I remember when this guy surrendered in 1974. I remember marvelling at the fierce mentality which must have caused such a phenomenon.

 

[metis]

Well:

Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered. By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms. Both approaches were based on Japan's experience in the Russo–Japanese War, forty years earlier, which consisted of a series of costly but largely indecisive battles, followed by the decisive naval Battle of Tsushima...

On June 22, the emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain. -- Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well:

Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered. By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms. Both approaches were based on Japan's experience in the Russo–Japanese War, forty years earlier, which consisted of a series of costly but largely indecisive battles, followed by the decisive naval Battle of Tsushima...

On June 22, the emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain. -- Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't have time to respond right now. Interesting point, but I'd suggest the Japanese were definitely of the opinion that a negotiated settlement was their target, not unconditional surrender, and that planning for a "fortress Japan" was the best way to achieve this. Are you familiar with Operation Ketsugō?

l'll post more when I can.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Don't have time to respond right now. Interesting point, but I'd suggest the Japanese were definitely of the opinion that a negotiated settlement was their target, not unconditional surrender, and that planning for a "fortress Japan" was the best way to achieve this. Are you familiar with Operation Ketsugō?

What do you think of the Wiki writer's claim that "The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain."

That sounds a bit out-to-lunch to me. The Soviet Union had every reason in the world to prolong the war until they could attack Japan themselves, and the Japanese surely knew that.

Have you ever heard of the Japanese looking to the Soviets as mediators?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What do you think of the Wiki writer's claim that "The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain."

That sounds a bit out-to-lunch to me. The Soviet Union had every reason in the world to prolong the war until they could attack Japan themselves, and the Japanese surely knew that.

Have you ever heard of the Japanese looking to the Soviets as mediators?

Yeah...they definitely did. What I've never quite got straight in my head is how honest it was. I think it's at least possible that the Japanese hoped using the Soviets as intermediaries would scare the US/UK into a negotiated settlement. Kinda remind the negotiators that they couldn't really just wait Japan out.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah...they definitely did. What I've never quite got straight in my head is how honest it was. I think it's at least possible that the Japanese hoped using the Soviets as intermediaries would scare the US/UK into a negotiated settlement. Kinda remind the negotiators that they couldn't really just wait Japan out.

I can't imagine it. Hire the Soviets to settle the war between Japan and the Allies? People come up with weird ideas all the time, but I can't believe that anyone ever thought seriously about that actually happening.

Though I'd guess the Soviets were probably salivating over the possibility.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But you didn't answer my question (perhaps you thought it was rhetorical?) Coming upon your son raping and torturing and about to kill the man who raped and tortured and murdered your daughter would you kill your son? Would you have killed the man had you come upon him doing that to your daughter?

I kinda thought it was rhetorical, since I read it as if you were presenting a brief example of a hypothetical you'd presented elsewhere, rather than the hypothetical itself (if that makes sense...?).

There are two different questions there, to my mind.
One is what would I do. The second is what would I think morally should be done. I'm honest enough to realise that whilst often the same, these are probably not ALWAYS the same.

So, my best guess is I would prevent my son raping and torturing the man, since it's odious, prevent him from killing the man, and do the job myself.

As for what is morally right, raping is NEVER morally justifiable, and torture is basically never justifiable, although I might be able to imagine a hypothetical where it was (the ticking bomb scenario). Even then I'm not convinced.
Killing as revenge is not morally justifiable, although it's understandable. Killing to prevent further harm is, in cases, morally justifiable.

Always hard to answer more specifically with a generic hypothetical, but I'm more than happy to take questions or provide clarification on my position.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well:

Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion and consolidation, an eventual conflict with the United States, and finally a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered. By 1945, Japan's leaders were in agreement that the war was going badly, but they disagreed over the best means to negotiate its end. There were two camps: the so-called "peace" camp favored a diplomatic initiative to persuade Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, to mediate a settlement between the Allies and Japan; and the hardliners who favored fighting one last "decisive" battle that would inflict so many casualties on the Allies that they would be willing to offer more lenient terms. Both approaches were based on Japan's experience in the Russo–Japanese War, forty years earlier, which consisted of a series of costly but largely indecisive battles, followed by the decisive naval Battle of Tsushima...

On June 22, the emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain. -- Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so to expand a little on my previous response...

Japan believed, from before the war even begun, that the end result of the war would be a negotiated settlement. There are a lot of reasons for this, but if I just stick to the basics for now, they figured that by taking a large amount of land, and inflicting heavy military defeat on the enemies, they would be able to negotiate a settlement where they could keep major tracts of land identified pre-war, whilst handing back others, thus setting them up effectively moving forwards.

Interesting sidenote, the effect of the WW1 peace accords on German willingness to go to war is often examined. The effect of the peace accords on Japan should also be understood. Whilst an ally in WW1, Japan was unhappy with the clauses impacting on them in the treaties. They felt like they won the war and lost the peace, as a very simplistic comment.

Anywhoos...
Towards the end of the war, the Japanese position was clearly a tough one. German military resistance was waning, and additional resources were being allocated to the Pacific. The neutrality pact with the Soviets was ending, and there seemed little chance of renewing it. Japanese resources were limited to pursue any sort of offensive action.

BUT...the Japanese understood that their chances of gaining a negotiated settlement with palatable terms rested on their ability to offer meaningful resistance to the Allies, and basically present negotiated settlement in terms of a simple cost/benefit equation. Was it really worth invading Japan to secure unconditional surrender? How many men would the Allies risk in order to get it? Wasn't it better to negotiate terms?

In the end, the Japanese position helped convince the Allies to go with Plan C (ie. neither invade, nor accept negotiated terms). Post-war strategic considerations also played a major role in this, in my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can't imagine it. Hire the Soviets to settle the war between Japan and the Allies? People come up with weird ideas all the time, but I can't believe that anyone ever thought seriously about that actually happening.

Though I'd guess the Soviets were probably salivating over the possibility.

Think of it as circa-WW2 realpolitik.
The Japanese and Soviets actually had a neutrality pact that was expiring, which led them to the negotiating table with the Soviets in any case. Chance of that pact being renewed, or honoured if it was, was precisely zero. Still, the Japanese knew a combined Allied landing on Japanese shores meant their end, whereas trading mainland Asian land they couldn't defend anyway might be enough to help keep mainland Japan in Japanese hands via a negotiated settlement brokered by the Soviets.

It's a strange idea, but it happened. I think the Soviets themselves knew they weren't getting a piece of Japan unless there was a full Allied invasion, and I'm pretty sure they had little appetite for that. But the chance to secure strategic goals on the Asian mainland, whilst also play a role in negotiations over the Japanese mainland would have had some level of interest to the Soviets. Again, think of it from a pure cost/benefit point of view.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As for what is morally right, raping is NEVER morally justifiable, and torture is basically never justifiable, although I might be able to imagine a hypothetical where it was (the ticking bomb scenario). Even then I'm not convinced.

Sure rape could be the moral thing to do. It's just a matter of creating the right scenario.

Nuclear bombs set in 5 major cities by a hardcore religious nut. You need the locations in one hour or 30 million Americans will die horrible deaths. Another 20 million will have kids with birth defects.

The bomber is immune to torture, immune to every known arm-twisting. Let's say he's got that disease where he can't feel pain.

But you discover that he's a proud man who believes that his God is protecting him and his family from any kind of sin or corruption.

He also believes that if his daughter were raped, that would be a sin, a corruption of his family honor. So he knows that the God who had him plant the nukes would never allow his daughter to be raped.

You calculate an 85% chance that If she were raped in front of him, he would lose his belief in his holy-warrior status, crumble, and give you the locations.

Rape or don't rape?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Think of it as circa-WW2 realpolitik.
The Japanese and Soviets actually had a neutrality pact that was expiring, which led them to the negotiating table with the Soviets in any case. Chance of that pact being renewed, or honoured if it was, was precisely zero. Still, the Japanese knew a combined Allied landing on Japanese shores meant their end, whereas trading mainland Asian land they couldn't defend anyway might be enough to help keep mainland Japan in Japanese hands via a negotiated settlement brokered by the Soviets.

It's a strange idea, but it happened. I think the Soviets themselves knew they weren't getting a piece of Japan unless there was a full Allied invasion, and I'm pretty sure they had little appetite for that. But the chance to secure strategic goals on the Asian mainland, whilst also play a role in negotiations over the Japanese mainland would have had some level of interest to the Soviets. Again, think of it from a pure cost/benefit point of view.

Ah, that makes good sense. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure rape could be the moral thing to do. It's just a matter of creating the right scenario.

Nuclear bombs set in 5 major cities by a hardcore religious nut. You need the locations in one hour or 30 million Americans will die horrible deaths. Another 20 million will have kids with birth defects.

The bomber is immune to torture, immune to every known arm-twisting. Let's say he's got that disease where he can't feel pain.

But you discover that he's a proud man who believes that his God is protecting him and his family from any kind of sin or corruption.

He also believes that if his daughter were raped, that would be a sin, a corruption of his family honor. So he knows that the God who had him plant the nukes would never allow his daughter to be raped.

You calculate an 85% chance that If she were raped in front of him, he would lose his belief in his holy-warrior status, crumble, and give you the locations.

Rape or don't rape?

There's a species of invading aliens who are impervious to gunfire, biological warfare, and underpants wedgies. However, if you rape a member of a family the entire family spontaneously combusts. Rape or don't rape?

Hypotheticals are one thing, but if they don't have some grounding in previously experienced reality, they kinda become a stretch. For now, I'm sticking by my assumption that there is never a justification for rape, since I am unaware of any situation ever which provided such justification, nor of a realistic hypothetical which seriously makes me question it. Suffice to say I don't build my morals on such hard and fast rules in any case.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ah, that makes good sense. Thanks for the explanation.

No probs.
It's an interesting situation when compared to the fact that I think the Japanese would much rather surrender to the Western Allies than the Soviets. Politics, huh?