moral question

[Autodidact]

Was bombing Dresden and Tokyo right or wrong? Lot's of babies died thanks to our dropping bombs on cities... but would it have been better to ignore Germany and Japan in WWII and let other babies die by our inaction?

This issue is a trap, as pointed out by Sam Harris in "The End o Faith"... there is no moral answer to the question.

wa:do

That's an interesting point. However, while it may be argued, at least in that case killing babies was not the goal of the bombing. In the OT, Hebrews at one point killed everyone but the baby boys, and God sent them back specifically to kill the babies. So that seems to me completely indefensible.

 

[Autodidact]

Is this question about abortion, I think it is not wrong. But of course people should learn birth control methods.

No, this thread is specifically NOT about abortion. It's about whether, when a soldier takes his sword and runs it through a little baby, that action is moral or immoral. I realize you may not see a moral dilemma there, but followers of Abrahamic religions do, because at times God has commanded his soldiers to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, it is wrong, where is your point?

So does it stay wrong even when God orders you to do it? Or if God's prophet tells you that God told you to kill the baby, does that make it right?

 

[Falvlun]

Was bombing Dresden and Tokyo right or wrong? Lot's of babies died thanks to our dropping bombs on cities... but would it have been better to ignore Germany and Japan in WWII and let other babies die by our inaction?

This issue is a trap, as pointed out by Sam Harris in "The End o Faith"... there is no moral answer to the question.

wa:do

What do you mean "there is no moral answer to the question"??? It's wrong to kill babies. End of story. Whether we do it or not has no impact upon the matter. It's wrong when we do it too.

 

[TheQueenCat]

No, this thread is not about abortion.
Though many people would much rather it be and a few have even tried really hard to divert this thread to be about abortion.

THIS thread is about god killing babies and god ordering his followers to kill babies.

oh ok, sorry. I misunderstood.

 

[TheQueenCat]

No, this thread is specifically NOT about abortion. It's about whether, when a soldier takes his sword and runs it through a little baby, that action is moral or immoral. I realize you may not see a moral dilemma there, but followers of Abrahamic religions do, because at times God has commanded his soldiers to do so.

Absolutely this is bad condition. and of course immoral..

 

[Nooj]

That's an interesting point. However, while it may be argued, at least in that case killing babies was not the goal of the bombing. In the OT, Hebrews at one point killed everyone but the baby boys, and God sent them back specifically to kill the babies. So that seems to me completely indefensible.

So killing babies isn't wrong if they are collateral damage.

 

[waitasec]

So killing babies isn't wrong if they are collateral damage.

sure, killing babies is wrong. it's when god tells you to do it, it's not consistent with god being a benevolent god... this is an ad hominem

 

[Nooj]

sure, killing babies is wrong. it's when god tells you to do it, it's not consistent with god being a benevolent god... this is an ad hominem

I don't understand. Could you please rephrase this post?

 

[waitasec]

I don't understand. Could you please rephrase this post?

sure.
i'll repost something for you

but when you are looking towards god to be the source of morality it is a contradiction, i believe that is the point autodidact is making.

people are people and we have the potential to be either good or evil.
no doubt we have killed babies, but doing it in the name of god, who is the supposed source of good, doesn't make much sense.

even though killing babies as collateral damage is wrong, people do not claim themselves to be the source of good. but if it's done in the name of god, it's contradictory to the attributes of god being the source of good.

the collateral damage is just changing the focus on us rather then on god.

 

[Nooj]

sure.
i'll repost something for you


even though killing babies as collateral damage is wrong, people do not claim themselves to be the source of good. but if it's done in the name of god, it's contradictory to the attributes of god being the source of good.

the collateral damage is just changing the focus on us rather then on god.

Okay. Thank you.

In my post I was only commenting on Autodidact seemingly excusing the killing of babies if they weren't the targets. Not about God or any of that. The OP asks whether the killing of babies is right or wrong, I wonder if Autodidact would say that the answer is neither, but that it depends on the circumstances.

 

[cor bergen]

If Jesus was a socialist as his preachings in the Bibel state,why is that socialism wrong today ? What Stalin tryed to bring about was statism not sociialism. Hugo Chavas in South America is a practiceing christian socialist trying to bring about improvements to the poor peoples life and he is condamned by many people that claim they are "born-again-chrictians"

 

[waitasec]

Okay. Thank you.

In my post I was only commenting on Autodidact seemingly excusing the killing of babies if they weren't the targets. Not about God or any of that. The OP asks whether the killing of babies is right or wrong, I wonder if Autodidact would say that the answer is neither, but that it depends on the circumstances.

when you say circumstances do you mean collateral damage?

 

[Nooj]

when you say circumstances do you mean collateral damage?

Yeah.

 

[waitasec]

If Jesus was a socialist as his preachings in the Bibel state,why is that socialism wrong today ? What Stalin tryed to bring about was statism not sociialism. Hugo Chavas in South America is a practiceing christian socialist trying to bring about improvements to the poor peoples life and he is condamned by many people that claim they are "born-again-chrictians"

even though this has nothing to to with this thread...
i know what you mean.
hugo chavas is demonized because he is a vocal critic of capitalism...
ever heard of dead peasant insurance?
look it up...

 

[McBell]

the collateral damage is just changing the focus on us rather then on god.

I agree.
Collateral damage, by definition, is actually off topic.
The thread is about god killing babies directly and god ordering others to kill babies.
The whole collateral damage tangent was, like you said, to get focus away from god killing babies.

The question in the OP was:

Not "Do you think G-d told them it was ok to kill babies?" "Not if the leader of your nation told you to kill babies, would you?"(Which, I think, is a much better question)

The death of infants at any time in history, or even in the present, has a very well known term. It is called "collateral damage" and is considered perfectly acceptable by those we chose to follow.

You have a rather interesting definition of collateral damage.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
collateral damage
n : (euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted
on civilians in the course of military operations
​

Now it is clear to see that the events Autodidact are referring are not in any way "inadvertent" when the babies are specifically targeted.

 

[Nooj]

I agree.
Collateral damage, by definition, is actually off topic.
The thread is about god killing babies directly and god ordering others to kill babies.
The whole collateral damage tangent was, like you said, to get focus away from god killing babies.

I thought the thread was about whether it was right or wrong to kill babies.

But I can draw it back to the OP. Some people might say that there are circumstances in which killing babies is right, for example killing one baby to save the life of a thousand other people. If so, maybe the killing of babies described in the Bible is right because of extenuating circumstances.

 

[Falvlun]

Okay. Thank you.

In my post I was only commenting on Autodidact seemingly excusing the killing of babies if they weren't the targets. Not about God or any of that. The OP asks whether the killing of babies is right or wrong, I wonder if Autodidact would say that the answer is neither, but that it depends on the circumstances.

Do you not think that intent matters?

If I stuck out my leg to trip you, is that not more reprehensible than if my leg was accidentally the cause of you tripping?

The death of babies (like tripping someone) should be avoided, and (in the case of babies) a particularly horrible thing to do in any case. However, it is much more reprehensible to specifically command and target the killing of babies-- to go out of your way to kill babies-- than it is to accidentally kill a baby when doing something else.

I wouldn't have thought that this was such a difficult concept.

 

[Nooj]

However, it is much more reprehensible to specifically command and target the killing of babies-- to go out of your way to kill babies-- than it is to accidentally kill a baby when doing something else.

First of all, why? Why is it much more reprehensible to do the one and not the other?

You asked me if I think intent matters. Well if I had the intent to target and kill babies because those babies would then go straight to heaven, isn't that much more good than accidentally killing a baby (or several thousand babies) by carpet bombing a city?

 

[Falvlun]

First of all, why? Why is it much more reprehensible to do the one and not the other?

Because, in general, intention matters.

You asked me if I think intent matters. Well if I had the intent to target and kill babies because those babies would then go straight to heaven, isn't that much more good than accidentally killing a baby (or several thousand babies) by carpet bombing a city?

I would think that sort of intention would fall under a mental illness or brainwashing, and thus, would not be a good yardstick to measure by.