Not true in other subjects, such as math for example. Regardless of where you start out and regardless of how you approach the problem, you will always come up with the same correct answer, such as for example, that the base angles of an isosceles triangle (in Euclidean geometry) are equal. What you are describing indicates a subject where the solution to the moral problem is relative and subjective.
This is probably the first time in my life anybody has ever called me a liberal.
This is a bit of silly-putty logic, isn’t it, designed to promote moral relativism?
True, but it is all too easy to “philosophize” that stealing isn’t really stealing (if done by the poor, ie liberation theology), or that murder isn’t really murder (abortion, euthanasia, or just “he needed killing”).
Charlie:This is probably the first time in my life anybody has ever called me a liberal.
Apparently you never read the source I cited. You are not giving me the source of your scholarship, but I’ll give it you mine again.
ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
Read to the bottom and get the best authorities possible on why the bombs were not necessary.
The outrageous figures suggested earlier, that millions of lives could have been saved by dropping the bombs, is easily refuted.
This will be my last word on the subject as it seems you are not interested in the best
authorities and only in justifying war crimes committed that even a moral authority as keen as Pope Pius XII recognized as such at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I don’t think Pius XII was a flaming blame-America-first liberal either.
And by the way, Einstein and Oppenheimer ultimately agreed.
So who is the authority for the absurd figure of “millions” of lives saved?
Truman’s flunkies in the White House who had to scramble for justification?
Sorry to see you are gone. For others, this source by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong may be much more to their liking. It focuses on the views of several Popes and the Vatican Council concerning the use of nuclear weapons on large cities.
If Japan had invented the first atomic bomb, it would have been morally permissible to drop it over any major American city making airplanes or tanks as long as they dropped leaflets warning the citizens to flee the city?
No, because the Germans and the Japanese were committing atrocities and therefore their waging war was unjust. The war was just for the Americans, but unjust for the Germans and Japanese. In a just war, military targets are fair game.
In math we choose the axioms. All reasonable people used to think Euclid’s axioms were true for all spaces, but the world proved them wrong.
The guy in Manhattan steals her oil and calls it capitalism, and with the proceeds he buys drones to bomb men she calls freedom fighters, and when one kills her kids he calls it collateral damage rather than murder.
What reasonable people have ever disagreed that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
Some views not my own are not silly-putty logic, but the notion that I killed logic surely is.
The executioner of Marie Antoinette.
I doubt he was any more reasonable a man than Henry VIII, who liked beheading his wives.
Do you doubt that various Presidents of the USA, such as Truman, Clinton, Bush jr., Obama were reasonable?
Some of the time reasonable, some of the time not so reasonable.
Perhaps it is easier now to see the answer to your question posed in post #91.
Explain?
There are reasonable politicians who have done things do others, that they would not want done to them, such as (fill in the blank).Explain?