Do You Believe In War?

[AmbiguousGuy]

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?

Rape, obviously. I don't even see the issue. How about you? 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.

Sure they're a stretch from one's normal experience. That's why they're so scary and why they should be addressed. I'm pretty disappointed that you won't attempt it.

In my experience, hard moral choices are, well... hard. We put some words in our heads like "Thou shalt not rape." or "Thou shalt not nuke.' and we worship those words. So much so that they trap us. They make us so uncomfortable if confronted with a situation where nuking or raping are obviously the correct moral choices. We can freeze up, unable to do anything at all.

In my view, we should try to overcome that discomfort. Since there is no God or since God cannot tell us what is im/moral, therefore we humans have an obligation to fight for the best moral choices.

It's why I sometimes push people with my uncomfortable moral hypotheticals.

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...

But I just gave you such a situation. And you've ducked it.

Are you claiming that the situation I proposed is physically impossible?

 

[nazz]

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.

I think I understand your take on things. It's a bit different from the reactions of the people I originally posed the question to. They just thought it morally right to kill such a person (the original attacker) whereas you would do it for the practical reason of preventing such a crime from happening again. My point to them was it was more an emotional reaction than a well thought out ethical one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Rape, obviously. I don't even see the issue. How about you? Rape or don't rape?

Lol...rape. But youre not actually trying to test my moral boundaries so much as test my aversion to certain words and using a pretty contrived hypothetical to do it. Somwwhere along the line I indicated that I see all moraks as subjective. So its always possible to contrive a situation where one action is preferred, no matter how disgusting, evil or abhorent.

Sure they're a stretch from one's normal experience. That's why they're so scary and why they should be addressed. I'm pretty disappointed that you won't attempt it.

Not merely different from ones normal experience. Different from anyones experience ever. My 'reluctance' is more around vanishing into a rabbithole of ever less likely hypotheticals designed only to expose some hard moral boundary I dont have. All things are subjective. That being my opinion, what is it youre hoping to learn?

In my experience, hard moral choices are, well... hard. We put some words in our heads like "Thou shalt not rape." or "Thou shalt not nuke.' and we worship those words. So much so that they trap us. They make us so uncomfortable if confronted with a situation where nuking or raping are obviously the correct moral choices. We can freeze up, unable to do anything at all.

In my view, we should try to overcome that discomfort. Since there is no God or since God cannot tell us what is im/moral, therefore we humans have an obligation to fight for the best moral choices.

It's why I sometimes push people with my uncomfortable moral hypotheticals.

Its worth considering other views. AIl morals are subjective in my opinion. Do I then need to spell out each
abhorrent act I would undertake in an unlikely (to the extreme) set of circumstances? why? You well understand the concept of subjective morality. So what is the point?

But I just gave you such a situation. And you've ducked it.

Are you claiming that the situation I proposed is physically impossible?

Meh...ducked it was not my intent. I figured you were doing the word association thing (ie. testing whether my moral boundaries change based on keywords) and I frid it uninteresting at best. The point is to judge the impact of the action, and the impact of non-action when making a decision. These need to be examined not just for the immediate, but for the long term. In a contrived situation where rape benefits the innocent majority over the 'evil' victim, then okay, I'll rape. But its a contrived situation based around testing my natural reluctance to saying I'd rape, and has no bearing on reality beyond that.

I'm a weak atheist, so I'm used to living without reference to things I believe are improbable to the point of negligence even if I can't prove them so.

Your hypothesis would fit in the same bucket, to my mind.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Lol...rape. But youre not actually trying to test my moral boundaries so much as test my aversion to certain words and using a pretty contrived hypothetical to do it.

I'm impressed. Few people seem to realize that it's all about distasteful words. And about sloganeering.

No rape! No nukes! No torture! No pedophelia!

Or, to return to the OP... No war! No killing! No violence!

Somwwhere along the line I indicated that I see all moraks as subjective.

Yes, but then you asserted that 'rape is never moral.' In my experience and understanding, that isn't the claim of a moral relativist.

So its always possible to contrive a situation where one action is preferred, no matter how disgusting, evil or abhorent.

I agree. It's why you'll probably never hear me say that X is always wrong. Were I Moses, I would have sledgehammered the tablets before walking down the mountain.

Not merely different from ones normal experience. Different from anyones experience ever.

Sure. I doubt that in the history of life on earth anyone has ever found himself at a railroad switch, forced to decide whether to send the train toward 1) Ghandi or 2) three convicted rapists. Still, probably millions of people have been forced to say what they would do in that situation.

Those whose slogan is 'No Killing' are forced to see that things aren't so simple as just words.

My 'reluctance' is more around vanishing into a rabbithole of ever less likely hypotheticals designed only to expose some hard moral boundary I dont have.

Are you sure you don't have it? In my experience, if there is no such boundary, then there isn't the least reluctance to answer a hypothetical. For me it's easier to answer "(no)Nuke" or "(no)Rape" than to explain why the question is impossible/irrelevant/etc.

All things are subjective. That being my opinion, what is it youre hoping to learn?

Whether you really believe it, I think. But more than that. I was wondering about something else which I'd rather not open up again in detail. It had to do with my curiosity about your apparent enabling of a hypothetical avoider.

Its worth considering other views. AIl morals are subjective in my opinion. Do I then need to spell out each abhorrent act I would undertake in an unlikely (to the extreme) set of circumstances? why? You well understand the concept of subjective morality. So what is the point?

Let me ask you a question in return: What is the point in avoiding a direct answer to a hypothetical? If we seem to go out of our way to avoid answering a hypothetical, could that be evidence that the hypothetical makes us uncomfortable somehow?

Meh...ducked it was not my intent. I figured you were doing the word association thing (ie. testing whether my moral boundaries change based on keywords) and I frid it uninteresting at best.

Sometimes I find it more productive to avoid chasing my dialogue partner's possible motivation. Instead, I usually just give simple answers to his direct questions. It seems like the polite way to converse, it keeps the dialogue on track, and it's just easier for me.

The point is to judge the impact of the action, and the impact of non-action when making a decision.

Right. I agree. It's why I think sloganeering is the wrong way to pursue morality.

In a contrived situation where rape benefits the innocent majority over the 'evil' victim, then okay, I'll rape. But its a contrived situation based around testing my natural reluctance to saying I'd rape, and has no bearing on reality beyond that.

Well, but human moral thought is a part of reality. A big part. And grappling with a moral hypothetical can, I hope, change human moral thought. A person who has been forced to write an essay about whether he would nuke Hitler in 1935 -- that person is more likely to make a good moral choice when faced with difficult situations in real life.

So, yeah, hypotheticals are about excercising our brains and testing our assumptions. It's why I'm always suspicious when I encounter someone who is trying to duck them.

I'm a weak atheist, so I'm used to living without reference to things I believe are improbable to the point of negligence even if I can't prove them so. Your hypothesis would fit in the same bucket, to my mind.

OK. As I say, I doubt anyone has ever been forced to switch a train from one track to another. Still, thinkers throughout history have used hypotheticals in important ways.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm impressed. Few people seem to realize that it's all about distasteful words. And about sloganeering.

No rape! No nukes! No torture! No pedophelia!

Or, to return to the OP... No war! No killing! No violence!

Well...I'm dead-set against all those things, obviously.

Yes, but then you asserted that 'rape is never moral.' In my experience and understanding, that isn't the claim of a moral relativist.

In technical terms, moral relativity means all bets are off. Something normally immoral can become the more moral of two choices in a given set of circumstances.
I find it impossible to think of a realistic set of circumstances where I would find rape the moral of two choices.
I am yet to hear of a situation where raping someone was a morally justified choice.

I am quite comfortable to combine my philosophy of moral relativism with a pragmatic view of the world around me. I don't walk around with formed ideas about what I must never do, and must always do, but instead try to define and develop a framework of how I would make a morally sound decision in any given situation.

So, think of it as your experience changing. Or doubt the sincerity of my subjective moral position. Your call. I really don't mind.

Sure. I doubt that in the history of life on earth anyone has ever found himself at a railroad switch, forced to decide whether to send the train toward 1) Ghandi or 2) three convicted rapists. Still, probably millions of people have been forced to say what they would do in that situation.

Those whose slogan is 'No Killing' are forced to see that things aren't so simple as just words.

Hypotheticals are shorthand. People have found themselves in a position where someone would die from their actions or inactions, and they needed to make a judgement call. I am yet to hear of such a situation in terms of rape.

My 'no justification for rape' slogan (from your point of view) is also shorthand for no justification for rape in any historical or realistic situation I've ever been presented.

Are you sure you don't have it? In my experience, if there is no such boundary, then there isn't the least reluctance to answer a hypothetical. For me it's easier to answer "(no)Nuke" or "(no)Rape" than to explain why the question is impossible/irrelevant/etc.

Meh...there are a couple of different ways of explaining my reluctance to answer (from your viewpoint). I suspect both played a role, but it's tricky to work out in what ratio.

1) I was using a smartphone to respond for the last several days. I'm on a laptop now. Considerably faster, and easier to get basic spelling and grammar into a legible format. I tend to avoid more long-winded topics, especially when I think they are starting to drift off topic.

2) Discussion of rape should be done with some sensitivity, something which I'm kinda aware I'm no longer doing.
It's certain that rape victims frequent these threads. Whilst I am find discussing my views on such matters, I prefer to limit these discussions to when rape is, in fact, the topic at hand. So hypotheticals which take the discussion increasingly off topic, use extremely unlikely premises involving rape, and end up with me being tested to see if I'm averse to saying 'In a given set of circumstances I would rape' remain distasteful to me, moral relativist or not.

Whether you really believe it, I think. But more than that. I was wondering about something else which I'd rather not open up again in detail. It had to do with my curiosity about your apparent enabling of a hypothetical avoider.

You still don't know if I really believe it. It's an internet forum. You have only my word for it.
As for the other, I'm unsure as to your meaning, but feel free to PM me if there is anything you want to discuss privately. No dramas if not, but obviously I can't respond without some idea what you mean.

Let me ask you a question in return: What is the point in avoiding a direct answer to a hypothetical? If we seem to go out of our way to avoid answering a hypothetical, could that be evidence that the hypothetical makes us uncomfortable somehow?

Meh...hopefully I've answered that above. But yeah, rape makes me uncomfortable. Why shouldn't it? I wouldn't do that armchair psych thing across the oceans though...as far as I am aware, my life hasn't been directly affected by rape or sexual crimes.

Sometimes I find it more productive to avoid chasing my dialogue partner's possible motivation. Instead, I usually just give simple answers to his direct questions. It seems like the polite way to converse, it keeps the dialogue on track, and it's just easier for me.

It's easier. But the world is about motivations, in my opinion, and by better understanding those, we can see what the actual question is about, and cut to the chase, so to speak.

Well, but human moral thought is a part of reality. A big part. And grappling with a moral hypothetical can, I hope, change human moral thought. A person who has been forced to write an essay about whether he would nuke Hitler in 1935 -- that person is more likely to make a good moral choice when faced with difficult situations in real life.

That's an interesting take on things. Hypotheticals have their place, but they can be simplistic when compared to realistic situations. They lack nuances, and subtlety, and can isolate determinants in a way reality never does. The world is more complex BY FAR. I find hypotheticals informative, but only to a point.

So, yeah, hypotheticals are about excercising our brains and testing our assumptions. It's why I'm always suspicious when I encounter someone who is trying to duck them.

You're more than welcome to be suspicious of whatever you like. I'll continue to provide honest answers to whatever is thrown up. I honestly don't like hypothetical situations which test my willingness to say I'd rape.
:shrugs:

Your extrapolation that this makes my claims of subjective morality dubious are incorrect, but it's not like I can, or need, to prove that.

OK. As I say, I doubt anyone has ever been forced to switch a train from one track to another. Still, thinkers throughout history have used hypotheticals in important ways.

Are all hypotheticals created equal? Has this one furthered the topic at hand?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well...I'm dead-set against all those things, obviously.

Oh, not me. Just last week I killed, for example. It was a cute little bunny rabbit, but I was hungry. I also have no problem with an 18-year-old girl having sex with a 17-year-old boy, so long as it's consensual, so I can't be dead set against pedophilia.

Call me a libertarian if you must.

In technical terms, moral relativity means all bets are off. Something normally immoral can become the more moral of two choices in a given set of circumstances.
I find it impossible to think of a realistic set of circumstances where I would find rape the moral of two choices.

Sure. If I give you a scenario, you'll say it's unrealistic. That's what people do. They claim it's impossible for a 1935 nuke to kill only 100,000 Berliners and so my hypothetical is unrealistic and so they don't have to answer it.

I am yet to hear of a situation where raping someone was a morally justified choice.

The other day I wrote a parable for another member of the forum. He said it was an illegitimate parable because the events in it had never really happened to me in real life. Such a response made no sense to me.

In my view the response that, "That situation never really happened," is first an unknowable claim and, second, nonsensical. The situation certainly could happen.

I am quite comfortable to combine my philosophy of moral relativism with a pragmatic view of the world around me. I don't walk around with formed ideas about what I must never do, and must always do, but instead try to define and develop a framework of how I would make a morally sound decision in any given situation.

If you go to university to study ethics/morality, you will be constantly confronted by moral hypotheticals. Apparently the academics believe that such work is the best way to build up one's moral thinking.

Hypotheticals are shorthand. People have found themselves in a position where someone would die from their actions or inactions, and they needed to make a judgement call. I am yet to hear of such a situation in terms of rape.

Yet you just heard one from me. I could have made an easier one for you, but I saw no need. Hypotheticals are not required to be believable, and any student who refuses the train-switch question, based on the unlikelihood of such a thing occurring in real life... well, he will not pass his ethics class.

Imagine Polynesians sailing to a new island. If they don't procreate, their tribe will die. Whatever you need to imagine, imagine that.

My 'no justification for rape' slogan (from your point of view) is also shorthand for no justification for rape in any historical or realistic situation I've ever been presented.

Rape is a word, and so it is impossible for you never to have seen justification for rape. If you see justification, you'll just believe that it's not really rape, yes?

Two drunk teenagers are fooling around in a car and begin to have consensual sex. The music is blaring. Mid-way through, the girl changes her mind and begins to shout, "No! No!" But the boy can't hear her. The girl reaches to turn off the music, but her arm is pinned under her own body. The boy might have heard a No and might not. He's unsure, but his hormones are going, and he doesn't stop. Has he committed rape?

Rape is just a word. Really. That's why the lawbooks are so thick and why we still need a judge to decide whether the facts of a particular case constitute a violation of the statute against a particular legal definition of 'rape.'

'Thou Shalt Not Rape' is for magical stone tablets, not for real life, I think.

2) Discussion of rape should be done with some sensitivity, something which I'm kinda aware I'm no longer doing. It's certain that rape victims frequent these threads.

Interesting. But you're willing to discuss 'murder' and 'war.' Is there a reason that you're especially sensitive about 'rape'?

Here in the US you never used to hear a victim claim she'd been raped. At most, she might speak of being 'assaulted' and give the camera an uncomfortable look. But that's changing. I've heard several women on TV talk about their rape. I think they are bold people, showing that words don't intimidate them. I'm happy when people stop fearing words.

So hypotheticals which take the discussion increasingly off topic, use extremely unlikely premises involving rape, and end up with me being tested to see if I'm averse to saying 'In a given set of circumstances I would rape' remain distasteful to me, moral relativist or not.

OK. But you're the one who claimed there's never any moral justification for rape. In my view, when you do that you are putting yourself in a position to be challenged on the issue of rape. It's a debate forum.

You still don't know if I really believe it. It's an internet forum. You have only my word for it.

I don't know if the Pope believes in Jesus. All we have is the evidence before us.

Meh...hopefully I've answered that above. But yeah, rape makes me uncomfortable. Why shouldn't it?

I don't know. Why should it?

Anyway, if it does, it does.

It's easier. But the world is about motivations, in my opinion, and by better understanding those, we can see what the actual question is about, and cut to the chase, so to speak.

It's easier for you to guess at my motivation and therefore try to control my line of questioning than to simply answer my questions in good faith?

That doesn't make any sense to me and frankly seems a bit arrogant. And I have a personal problem with it because it's always messing up my debates. Usually my debate partner recognizes my motivation of pushing Satan's agenda, thereby understanding what I'm 'really' asking with my questions, and then 'cutting to the chase' by proving that I am wrong to be supporting Satan. What a waste of my time.

Not saying you are a particular offender, but I have noticed that you don't seem to focus on my line of thought and often neglect to answer some direct questions. Now I see that maybe you neglected to answer on purpose, assuming that you knew my motivation for asking?

Assuming the other guy's motivation is a debate-killer. Most always. It's also immoral. You can look it up in the Bible, I think.

That's an interesting take on things. Hypotheticals have their place, but they can be simplistic when compared to realistic situations.

Not mine. I'm always ready to answer questions about the details and particulars of the situations I create.

They lack nuances, and subtlety, and can isolate determinants in a way reality never does. The world is more complex BY FAR.

I don't find it to be so. You're standing at a train switch. The train is rushing toward your child who is playing on the tracks. You can switch the train to a side track where 5 convicts are working, but they will be killed. Switch or don't switch?

Nothing any more lacking in nuance or subtlety than a real-world situation. If you think so, ask me clarifying questions about the event.

Yet very few people feel comfortable answering such a question. Not in my experience. They have to be chased around and forced to answer -- usually as they curse the asker and his question.

You're more than welcome to be suspicious of whatever you like.

Oh, I'm suspicious even of me. If you ever see me avoiding a tough hypothetical, please point it out to me. Try to shame me into just giving a simple and direct answer.

I'll continue to provide honest answers to whatever is thrown up. I honestly don't like hypothetical situations which test my willingness to say I'd rape.:shrugs:

Take yourself out of it then. It's a CIA officer commanding one of his men to do it.

Your extrapolation that this makes my claims of subjective morality dubious are incorrect, but it's not like I can, or need, to prove that.

There's no such thing as proving stuff. There's only convincing some particular person of something.

Plus, why do you think that you know your motivation for avoiding hypotheticals better than I know your motivation for doing it? Haven't you said that figuring the other guy's motivation is fair play?

Are all hypotheticals created equal? Has this one furthered the topic at hand?

I believe more in individual worldviews and personalities than in topics. This hypothetical has given me some new insights into you, I think.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not sure if this thread is dead or not, but in the interests of not taking it further off topic, I'll start a new thread to respond instead.

Nearly forgot to post the link. Name is a bit naff, but it'll serve the purpose, I suppose.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/158804-hypotheticals-avoidance.html

 

[metis]

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.

Thanks for your explanation. Just to mention again that a thorough blockade of Japan was already in effect, so by not invading and not dropping the bombs, the decision to go for peace or not would have fallen on the Japanese leadership, and if that leadership was willing to sacrifice its own people, then we had the ability to cut the strength from underneath them by pretty much isolating Tokyo and continuing to downgrade their ability to strike anyone. Yes, it would likely have prolonged the war at least a bit, but at least we would not have been the ones that led to the death of so many innocent civilians.

The terrible irony is that according to Truman's memoirs, which I read for myself, his decision to use the bombs was actually more based on seeing how these weapons would work on a populous target, and just a reminder that part of the indication of that was that Hiroshima really was not a military or industrial area. Nagasaki was, but not Hiroshima.

 

[horizon_mj1]

My entire point in making this post is, haven't we evolved past primitive behaviors? Aside from a natural moral concept encoded in humans, but also a basis of logic and tangibility. We have Justice codes both Nationally and Internationally consisting of Courts in which make decisions based on what evidence is presentable. Why is it that any intelligent person would have to result in a primitive action such as war or battle unless there were no existing evidence of Truth to back the persons point in which they are trying to make. There are ways to barter conflicting interests without having to result in the death or harm of a human being. We are the Supreme Biological Apex Predator in which has yet to reach even a Class 1 Society, and to me with all of the Knowledge we have is perplexing as well as frustrating. Maybe I seek and ask for too much, but reach for the Stars I guess.

 

[rusra02]

Why or why not? Personally IMO we are a much too evolved species to not understand there are alternatives to extinction. What's your take?

I believe only the true God has the wisdom and authority to authorize righteous warfare. (Revelation 19:11) Men's wars have only brought suffering and destruction to millions, often for the selfish interests of those who profit from the suffering of others.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe only the true God has the wisdom and authority to authorize righteous warfare. (Revelation 19:11) Men's wars have only brought suffering and destruction to millions, often for the selfish interests of those who profit from the suffering of others.

How do we know whether God has authorized a war?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Rather or not you believe in God or not makes no difference in what my point is. As an intelligent species, we should know better ways than destruction to resolve our differences. Morality is not the issue here tangibility of evidence to back a persons claim is.

 

[rusra02]

How do we know whether God has authorized a war?

He tells us of wars he has authorized in ancient times in the Holy Scriptures. Those same Scriptures discuss only one future war he authorizes called the "war of the great day of God the Almighty." (Revelation 16:14) this war will be fought by God, not men. Jesus Christ has not authorized his followers to fight bloody wars. (Matthew 26:52, 2 Corinthians 10:3,4)

 

[horizon_mj1]

He tells us of wars he has authorized in ancient times in the Holy Scriptures. Those same Scriptures discuss only one future war he authorizes called the "war of the great day of God the Almighty." (Revelation 16:14) this war will be fought by God, not men. Jesus Christ has not authorized his followers to fight bloody wars. (Matthew 26:52, 2 Corinthians 10:3,4)

If you believe in God and the things you wrote of and quoted, what makes you think War is the same to God as it is to us? To allow God to be omnipotent, you can put no limit on any concept or possibility of outcome in any given situation or even the full concept of what is meant for the event taking place. To do so would be to say you know God and think as God thinks, would this not be a sin and if not a sin at least an impossibility?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why or why not? Personally IMO we are a much too evolved species to not understand there are alternatives to extinction. What's your take?

War is inevitable and essential for the evolutionary development of the human beings who are ignorant of God. But to be fair, those ignorant of the underlying unity of existence are not willingly ignorant, they are just ignorant as a result of lacking of life experience. People are not equal when it comes to cosmic evolutionary development, a fact that the less evolved refuse to accept due to ego...the idea they live among superior beings is a humiliating concept. Of course, some understanding of the workings of reincarnation and karma are essential to the understanding as to why the vast difference in human development among the human race. And the irony is that arrogance is a sign of less evolutionary progress than that of the truly humble..for these latter have realized the source of their fellow man is none other than their own source..and unconditional love results.

But here is the rub, this advanced evolutionary development is not a result of intellectual understanding, it comes from hard won understanding of suffering the karmic results of reaping all that one sows...life after life...until the day dawns when one actually understands that material existence can never be utopia/heaven/nirvana...ever. Only then will one be prepared to make the move out of the physical body..permanently. In the mean time, the wars, trials and tribulations of this world are essential for the ongoing evolutionary development of all incarnated beings, those involved need the karmic experiences to evolve.

Fwiw, those who think they don't need anymore war, trials, and tribulations in their life...then simply start the religious practice that leads to leaving of the body. To those who think and dream of making the world a better place...that's plain and simply immature ego..and can be actually considered evil in the context of the bigger picture of Cosmos. This is because the Cosmos plan is universally absolute and all that which opposes it will get ground over, eaten, all that is conducive to supporting it will receive guidance wrt reintegration.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My entire point in making this post is, haven't we evolved past primitive behaviors? Aside from a natural moral concept encoded in humans, but also a basis of logic and tangibility. We have Justice codes both Nationally and Internationally consisting of Courts in which make decisions based on what evidence is presentable. Why is it that any intelligent person would have to result in a primitive action such as war or battle unless there were no existing evidence of Truth to back the persons point in which they are trying to make. There are ways to barter conflicting interests without having to result in the death or harm of a human being. We are the Supreme Biological Apex Predator in which has yet to reach even a Class 1 Society, and to me with all of the Knowledge we have is perplexing as well as frustrating. Maybe I seek and ask for too much, but reach for the Stars I guess.

No, we are not that evolved. We're quite a new species, evolutionarily speaking. We are still primates with all the genetic baggage of such. As I've said elsewhere on this forum, it will take genetic modification of the human species in order to remove our drive for war and turn us into a more peaceful species. I suspect that this will happen eventually because humans will be genetically modifying themselves in the future, for better or worse. It is inevitable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks for your explanation.

No probs. A few things I kinda brushed over, but I think I mentioned the basic premises.

Just to mention again that a thorough blockade of Japan was already in effect, so by not invading and not dropping the bombs, the decision to go for peace or not would have fallen on the Japanese leadership, and if that leadership was willing to sacrifice its own people, then we had the ability to cut the strength from underneath them by pretty much isolating Tokyo and continuing to downgrade their ability to strike anyone. Yes, it would likely have prolonged the war at least a bit, but at least we would not have been the ones that led to the death of so many innocent civilians.

Interesting point. I agree with regards to the blockade. If a direct military action kills 100000 (the bomb, for this example) and an indirect action kills 200000 (the blockade, for sake of argument), is not dropping the bomb morally defensible on the grounds that 'it wasn't US that killed civillians, but the Japanese governments unwillingness to stop the blockade...by surrendering...'

I don't really agree with that, to be honest.

The terrible irony is that according to Truman's memoirs, which I read for myself, his decision to use the bombs was actually more based on seeing how these weapons would work on a populous target, and just a reminder that part of the indication of that was that Hiroshima really was not a military or industrial area. Nagasaki was, but not Hiroshima.

Yeah. My allusions to post war considerations are all part of this.
We have the bomb. And not just one. And this is what it does.

 

[rusra02]

If you believe in God and the things you wrote of and quoted, what makes you think War is the same to God as it is to us? To allow God to be omnipotent, you can put no limit on any concept or possibility of outcome in any given situation or even the full concept of what is meant for the event taking place. To do so would be to say you know God and think as God thinks, would this not be a sin and if not a sin at least an impossibility?

I believe God wants us to know him, and even more, to enjoy intimate friendship with him. The Bible invites us to " Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you." (James 4:8) John 17:3 says "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." From these and many similar expressions in Holy Scripture, we come to know God, not as a distant and terrifying bully, but as a tender-hearted and loving Father.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Fwiw, those who think they don't need anymore war, trials, and tribulations in their life...then simply start the religious practice that leads to leaving of the body. To those who think and dream of making the world a better place...that's plain and simply immature ego..and can be actually considered evil in the context of the bigger picture of Cosmos. This is because the Cosmos plan is universally absolute and all that which opposes it will get ground over, eaten, all that is conducive to supporting it will receive guidance wrt reintegration.

I guess this can be viewed as every action has an equal an opposite reaction. I guess to me war is nothing more than food or fuel to the ego

 

[horizon_mj1]

No, we are not that evolved. We're quite a new species, evolutionarily speaking. We are still primates with all the genetic baggage of such. As I've said elsewhere on this forum, it will take genetic modification of the human species in order to remove our drive for war and turn us into a more peaceful species. I suspect that this will happen eventually because humans will be genetically modifying themselves in the future, for better or worse. It is inevitable.

I apologize for not catching that the first time, and agree, but am yet still perplexed as to why this evolution is taking so long. It just seems so Neolithic to me. As far as for better or worse, that always depends on what side of the fence you stand, does it not?