shoot Hittler

  • Thread starter Thread starter athenasius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IrishSFV said:
Let me ask you something:

Would it be morally acceptable to shoot Roosevelt (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc) and Churchill (Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, etc) ?
Click to expand...
Let me ask a painful question: if you were Truman, would you throw the atomic bom and kill 200 000 japanese, or invade Japan and kill 3 000 000 people, japanese soldiers and civilians and american soldiers? I think this was the moist poignant debate ever had in the war.

Desden, Hamburg and Cologne were an horror. War is an horror ? Would you mind to show at that time technology, other option where less people would die?
 
IrishSFV said:
Let me ask you something:

Would it be morally acceptable to shoot Roosevelt (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc) and Churchill (Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, etc) ?
Click to expand...
Rossevelt/Truman and Churchill were leading their countries in in principle legitimate self-defense. Some of their decisions might have been morally wrong based on the knowledge when they were done.

So the vast difference between them and Hitler is, that Hitler was an acting criminal, while they acted in self-defensebut might have overstepped the limits.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Actually being affiliated with the Axis powers alone would be a moral offense wouldn’t you think?
Click to expand...
That would depend on your state of mind at the time. But is does bring up a contemporary question. The last soldier in US forces which I am aware of who refused to return to battle was charged with cowardice, which is a capital crime in the military. What do you do when you have volunteered to fight, and then your country gets into an unjust war? I don’t think a conscientious objection defense would fly for a non-draftee, that is a volunteer, unless you could show that your spiritual beliefs had changed. The convening body would view any such conversion with suspicion. It would be a heavy burden of proof.
 
Mudgely said:
That would depend on your state of mind at the time. But is does bring up a contemporary question. The last soldier in US forces which I am aware of who refused to return to battle was charged with cowardice, which is a capital crime in the military. What do you do when you have volunteered to fight, and then your country gets into an unjust war? I don’t think a conscientious objection defense would fly for a non-draftee, that is a volunteer, unless you could show that your spiritual beliefs had changed. The convening body would view any such conversion with suspicion. It would be a heavy burden of proof.
Click to expand...
Surely this is all irrelevant when the governing body that commands you to serve has proven itself to be well… evil. I mean who are we kidding here? Sometimes the old, classic perspective of one group being the good guys and the other being the bad guys can describe a certain situation perfectly than trying to ‘make them equal’.

In case you missed it, I did describe Hitler as the closest thing the world had to a super villain. What good is serving your country when someone like that was running it?
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Surely this is all irrelevant when the governing body that commands you to serve has proven itself to be well… evil. I mean who are we kidding here? Sometimes the old, classic perspective of one group being the good guys and the other being the bad guys can describe a certain situation perfectly than trying to ‘make them equal’.

In case you missed it, I did describe Hitler as the closest thing the world had to a super villain. What good is serving your country when someone like that was running it?
Click to expand...
There were people who believed in him. For a mortal sin to occur, you must have knowledge that it is wrong. Throughout history, people have believed in causes that were immoral, but when they were immersed in the culture of the day, they believed themselves to be moral. We see that going on today with a number of issues.

I recommend “The Sunflower” by Wiesenthal which explores the topic first hand. I Jew from a concentration camp is asked by a dying German officer for forgiveness. The book explores the topic of forgiveness, and moral obligation.
 
Mudgely said:
There were people who believed in him.
Click to expand...
They were serving Germany. I met a guy in America that fought as a fighter pilot for Germany during WWII. The nurses couldnt understand a word he said with his accent and fluffed him off as having alzheimers. I spoke with him and understood him very well. He talked about serving Germany, flying over europe and various places. He was fighting for his country. His demeanor was joyful, with no regrets. He believed and stood up for his country. He talked almost non stop for about 20 minutes before i said I needed to go tend to my work before I got chewed out, perhaps relieved that somebody understood him and was glad to talk with him. Each is just a human and needs Gods Love as much as the next.
There are many factors and news/propaganda that is intended to provoke emotion. Russia was buying oil from Germany and Germany found out that it was running low on oil. that is one way that propaganda envoked Germans to say “enough is enough”. Hitler had a personal doctor that tended to his medical situations and would give him methanphetamines. No wonder he was so hyper. There are many factors that went into play and we each need to let God do His job and be the Judge of each such situation and human.
We should each be cautious of the human we vote to presidency. If they each appear to be desiring the position for the wrong reason’s, than don’t vote. May God bless.
 
Mudgely said:
There were people who believed in him. For a mortal sin to occur, you must have knowledge that it is wrong. Throughout history, people have believed in causes that were immoral, but when they were immersed in the culture of the day, they believed themselves to be moral. We see that going on today with a number of issues.
Click to expand...
Ah but morality, at least Catholic Morality is not bound by culture. It is far more objective than that. We are not moral relativists, I’m sure you know that by now. Therefore, an objectively evil government such as the Third Reich should hardly be something worth a soldier’s pledge. There is no doubt that there were people fighting for the wrong side.
Mudgely said:
I recommend “The Sunflower” by Wiesenthal which explores the topic first hand. I Jew from a concentration camp is asked by a dying German officer for forgiveness. The book explores the topic of forgiveness, and moral obligation.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid when you throw in forgiveness this is a different subject than what we’re discussing. Besides, I doubt all those who have read a psychological profile of Adolf Hitler would automatically assume he’s the type to ask for that.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
Let me ask a painful question: if you were Truman, would you throw the atomic bom and kill 200 000 japanese, or invade Japan and kill 3 000 000 people, japanese soldiers and civilians and american soldiers? I think this was the moist poignant debate ever had in the war.

Desden, Hamburg and Cologne were an horror. War is an horror ? Would you mind to show at that time technology, other option where less people would die?
Click to expand...
So now we are weighing whether killing 200,000+ innocent civilians in a single act is moral? Isn’t the answer kind of obvious?
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Ah but morality, at least Catholic Morality is not bound by culture. It is far more objective than that. We are not moral relativists, I’m sure you know that by now. Therefore, an objectively evil government such as the Third Reich should hardly be something worth a soldier’s pledge. There is no doubt that there were people fighting for the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Catholic dogma is subject to human interpretation. Always has been. Just look at the papal proclamations and actions over the centuries. I am sure that they felt that the moral good was being served, even when in hindsight it was not. I believe that every President tries to do the right thing on matters such as war. I can see how a soldier would think he was doing the right thing fighting for his country. There were many in Germany who did not understand what Hitler was doing. Have you seen the video of the townspeople which Allied forces made to take a walk through a concentration camp. They were laughing and jovial going through the gates, and crying coming out after understanding what was going on.
I’m afraid when you throw in forgiveness this is a different subject than what we’re discussing. Besides, I doubt all those who have read a psychological profile of Adolf Hitler would automatically assume he’s the type to ask for that.
Click to expand...
I brought that up to illustrate the case of a soldier who did something morally reprehensible, and then came to regret it. I don’t know how any person could commit the atrocity which he ordered, unless he were in a psychological state which did not allow him to discern it properly. Later he came to understand the evil off his action, and to seek forgiveness.

People who go to war do all sorts of things in the moment, under fire, or following orders, in states of fatigues and stress, which they sometimes come to regret later. It is a common experience to go to war, and the come out of it no longer believing in the cause. What I am saying, is that an objective morality is easy to give lip service to, and it is a standard to aspire to. But in realistic terms, it is an impossibility at times, unless you take into account the perceptions of the actor. It is not always possible to know in the moment, what will appear to have been the highest good when viewed retrospectively at a later time.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Actually being affiliated with the Axis powers alone would be a moral offense wouldn’t you think?
Click to expand...
And the Allies and their Uncle Joe were better how…?

Axis soldiers were people just like us, only under different uniforms. It seems like modern culture wants to villify and dehumanize the average German (especially) of that era.

Franco and Salazar were ‘affiliated’ with the Axis powers. Had I lived back then, you’d bet your life I’d be on their side and not on the anti-Christ anarcho-syndicalist side.
 
IrishSFV said:
Interesting, but, why would it not be moral for a non-Axis soldier? It wasn’t their Allied uniforms that makes their actions immoral.
Click to expand...
I have seen the claim here that it is OK for a cop to kill a person, because the intent is not to kill, but it is to “stop” the criminal. If you pose the question another way, and ask a Japanese person if it would be OK to “stop” Truman from using the atom bomb, I could see how a morally compelling argument could be made.
 
Mudgely said:
I have seen the claim here that it is OK for a cop to kill a person, because the intent is not to kill, but it is to “stop” the criminal. If you pose the question another way, and ask a Japanese person if it would be OK to “stop” Truman from using the atom bomb, I could see how a morally compelling argument could be made.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand. What I mean is, why would it have to be a Japanese person? Would it be moral for a Japanese to do it, but immoral for, say, a Hungarian? Or American?
 
IrishSFV said:
Yeah, I understand. What I mean is, why would it have to be a Japanese person? Would it be moral for a Japanese to do it, but immoral for, say, a Hungarian? Or American?
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true assassin. I mean, that is the question, right? When is it permissible to kill another person. In our society, it is only permissible by those invested with certain powers, and responsibilities (police and military, etc.), or in self defense. I am not comfortable with the potential anarchy which could result from simply stating that anyone can kill another person, if sufficiently justified in that person’s mind. It the old question of, “When is killing permissible?” Is it permissible to try to stop a murder? Yes. Is it permissible to kill the potential murderer? Legally, only in self defense. Morally, I don’t think I could fault a parent trying to stop a mortal danger to a child.
 
IrishSFV said:
So now we are weighing whether killing 200,000+ innocent civilians in a single act is moral? Isn’t the answer kind of obvious?
Click to expand...
For you, it is.
For Truman, who had to decide between 200 000 and 3 million and HE HAD TO CHOOSE, ie, he could not say, it is immoral+it is imooral, so I do not do anything, for Him things were not easy …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top