U
- Status
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
No,it’s an answer you just don’t like it. Sorry.
U
underacloud
Guest
It’s not an answer to my question. I guess I’ll have to be as clear as I can so you can’t keep evading.
Please confirm that it is your position that the allies should not have fought the nazis.
J
JamesATyler
Guest
I believe that the end does not justify the means. It is shown to us by the Lord when Satan tempts him in the wilderness by saying he will give to Him all the Kingdoms of the world if he but does an act of worship to Satan. That is one evil act for total control of the world. (Let’s assume the devil is bound by his word). Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ There is the answer. It is not the “end” that justifies, it is God who justifies.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I think you said it very well indeed! I’m not suggesting that I have never done something that I shouldn’t have, thinking that it would turn out better in the end. Usually, when I tried such thinking though. it hasn’t turned out well at all. I suspect that God in his righteousness doesn’t give us temptations that there is no absolutely right answer for. There’s always one right answer and only one. The only question is whether we will search until we find it.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Nope. Is your position that it was a just war?
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
After reading my response I thought I should clarify my “nope”. I’m not making a assertion one way or another, you are. I’m not taking a position, affirmative or negative.
U
underacloud
Guest
Roscoe,
I was trying to understand your position. I was trying to undertand your involvement in this thread. You seem to be arguing from a pacifist position, but you also back away from any firm position at all, such as with regard to this question of the allies in WWII, or just wars in general. In the end, as you say, you have no position. As such, further discussion will be fruitless so it’s time for me to call an end to my involvement here.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Because I rather argue the concept rather than my opinions of WWII. What I think I’ve laid out is one reason Just War fails as a concept because it relies on a value call namely
You can only speculate that this is the case. It gives no rubric for determining the cost/benefit analysis to measure said evils and disorders.
It is military vs civilian deaths? In WWII many countries were involved. Canada suffered only military casualties and 0 civilian deaths. Poland roughly 5.5 civilian and 250k military. France 217k military to 350 civilian. UK 383k military to 67k. The Soviet Union had 22 to 30 million Total Deaths, 22 - 30 MILLION (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
What about the strategic bombing on both sides. The Blitz, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
The 2nd World War produced more casualties than any other human conflict in History. Sounds like a grave disorder but we have no way of judging if it was worth it because again we can only speculate on an alternative outcome.
The pacifism angle comes from the Gospels. We do have Jesus with a few verses that sound militaristic, (sell your cloak buy a sword) but when it came down to actually using one he told Peter to stop it, and healed the injured servant. He gives a new commandment to love each other. He has the power to do miracles yet chooses not to fight. Of all the ways He could have saved Humanity, He chose to give His own life rather than fight. I don’t see Jesus bombing anyone.
U
underacloud
Guest
You can argue the concepts, but in the end they lead to real life decisions and conclusions, so specific examples are relevant. If you reject just war theory, you obviously conclude that the Allies should not have fought in WWII (since all wars are unjust). It’s quite an easy position to arrive at, yet you defer.
I will argue this point no longer. Anyone still reading and/or interested (I suspect very few) can decide for themselves whether your philosophy has any merit; and specifically whether the Allies should have backed off and let the Nazis invade and rule as far as they wished, exterminating millions of Jews, Slavs, Russians, and anyone else they didn’t like along the way. More broadly, people can consider the issue of just wars for themselves, as WWII is but one example. Enough has now been said.
As for this, Jesus already addressed it:
Matthew 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54"How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”…
and…
John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
Jesus came to conquer sin and death. His was not a military battle or a temporal kingdom. If He had chosen such a route, He would not have saved humanity at all. As He said: “it must happen this way”. Given the chance here, Jesus did not condemn violence or set out a pacifist position, but merely explained why violence was not relevant to His mission.
Roscoe, I’m sure you can agree that we are going around in circles. We have both said enough on these issues and I hope we can agree to leave it there. I for one intend to post no more replies here. If you seek a more comprehensive debate about the merits of just war theory, I suggest a spearate thread is needed, and I’m sure you will find plenty of robust debate.
Best wishes…
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
If you mean from a utilitarian standpoint, Facite, I would suggest this: what if we just lied to you to get you to shut up about the issue? I’m sure you’d want the truth whether it satisfied you or not. Yet if the ends justified the means, then lying would be perfectly acceptable in many cases.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Roscoe, are you trying to reconcile pacifism with consequentialism? You have said repeatedly that the end justifies the means, yet in response to the question I asked you (the one about being a doctor and killing one person to save five) you said ‘no’. I can’t really tell, but I think you meant “no, I would not harvest the one persons organs”. How do you reconcile this (as well as your pacifist stance towards WW2) with consequentialism?
johnathan hili:
johnathan hili:
The evil ends of facite not knowing the truth far exceeds the good ends of him not bothering us.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’m not drawing any conclusions about WWII, just asking questions. The Church didn’t pick a side in WWII either. They fence sat through and after the war.
If you are arguing that how ever awful the war was it was better than the alternative. I’m asking how do you know?
If you are claiming certainty then you are claiming that the ends ( a better outcome) justified the most deaths in any human war. (the means to that end)
On a separate track I’m asking as Christians (followers of Christ) how do we derive Just War Theory? Augustine and Aquinas are the theologians that are pointed to. I was trying to see from where in Jesus’ teaching they derived their theories. There seems to be a gap.
People point to then the Old Testament conquests, they seem to fail by killing all innocent as well as military with impunity. So that fails in keeping with the Just War Theory.
To tie both together I looked back at Jesus. Jesus lived in a time where his homeland was occupied by an oppressive empire. He could have been a military leader but chose a different path. The one example of violence by His followers was denounced by Him and the consequences negated.
As a consequence of His ministry, His Death and the deaths of martyrs the oppressive empire was slowly converted and became the HOLY Roman Empire rather than the simply the Roman Empire. It wasn’t a military victory it was a pacifistic victory. They were willing to face death without resistance. Their faith in God and His plan outweighed their desire to cling to life and fight militarily.
So the only assertions that I’m making are:
Just War theory even though it claims otherwise is an example of the End Justifying the Means. You are allowing a smaller amount of evil to prevent a larger amount.
I see that a speculative and only justifiable after the fact, if ever. Using it as predeterminate factor seems nonsensical.
I don’t see how you go from Jesus’ teaching and example to Just War Theory.
My personal opinion or choice of action is irrelevant. I am not a good Christian.
U
underacloud
Guest
Already covered in discussion of the principle of double effect. Go and study up on that one, and then start a new thread if you want to learn about just war theory.
And having said I intend to post no more, and then posted again, I’ll repeat what I said above:
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
Double effect was discussed earlier in the thread, I am actually the one that brought to the discussion.
I am familiar with the concept. I think it can also be classified as the ends justifying the means. The secondary effect being the lesser of the two things achieved. I don’t think you can compartmentalize the two effects. It is used in medicine as well. The side effects are one consideration when choosing to take a drug. The effects are known and it ultimately up to the patient if the prize is worth the crackerjacks. But the two cannot be separated. So you are choosing a lesser evil to achieve a greater good.
D
davidv
Guest
So you claim. However this requires that you create a strawman of the actual teaching.Double effect was discussed earlier in the thread, I am actually the one that brought to the discussion.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
No, we talked about intention and desired effect, etc. You can review the thread.
My position is you can’t separate the effects because the stem from the same event. Even if you don’t intend the secondary event it still happens regardless of your intentions. It is choosing to do a small evil (not intended) to achieve a good. (intended) - you are still justifying the means by the intended end. The two are inseparable.
S
SentinelofTruth
Guest
Roscoe Turner:
Excellent point. Where do you draw a line between means and ends? Why do you draw it there?
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I’m not sure exactly what you are asking.
The end is the goal to be achieved. The means is how it is achieved.
D
davidv
Guest
Principle of double effects does not separate the effects. In examines the intrinsic moral status of the action and the intend end. Only if these are moral can a greater good of the effects justify the action. If you choose an evil action (the moral object, not the effect), no matter how small , then the principle of double effect does not apply.
- Status