What's the difference?

Remove all ads!

We were having a discussion on the chatroom, just like to get more views.
Ok: terrorists attack on america, christian vigilanties on witch hunts 400 years ago. america bombing hiroshima. etc. all done for the "greater good". so whats the difference?
(mods, if u feel its too sensitive a subject feel free to close this post)

 

I sense an injustice feeling? Japan was bombed to stop making warfare. Terrorist attack to start warfare.

SUB-Note: its easy to see your hidden point. Good Vs. Evil. Is the winning side always the good side? It all comes down to personality, education and upraising doesnt it? One example from my personality: In my opinion US is good and Holy war(jihad)(crusade) is bad. But go to the middle east and someone will say the opposite about Jihad. This Debate is as I said in the previous one of good Vs. Evil, Obsolete. Leads us nowhere.

Be my guest and make it complicated.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 12, 2001).]

 

To me any murder is the same as other murders. One single murder is the same to me as murder of thousands of people.

I'm against death sentence.
I can't justify murder of murdering a murderer.

Those murderers I'd lock up in sewer that is used for collecting toilet issues. For life.

I'm for life at all costs.
Those murderers also have family. Murderers possibly don't have feelings for their family, but their family have feelings. And who are you to judge if those families deserved to suffer?

Murder of feelings I take as murder of a person.

Thank you for listening. I won't change. Never.

 

BTA, there is no humane death.

Easier? I never said it is easier. It is harder.
And by the way, we're just placing a murderer with his friends.

 

I think Nobleman said enough. I don't say the attack on Hiroshima was good, but it at least was the solution to a war that kills and when it continued would kill much more people.

 

Any avoidable death is wrong. There is no greater good when it comes to murder, however, there is a such thing as justice. I believe that although wrong, the death penalty may stop more deaths than it causes. Why? The fear factor. Punishment can be used both after the fact and so that others do not follow in the same path.

All life is precious, but I believe that examples must be set so that the rest of the population can recognize and appreciate that.

 

I agree with Extremist. I also don't believe there is any such thing as a completely evil person, hence why I don't support capital punishment.

Corporal punishment, on the other hand, I think we could use more of. Why do we either put them in jail and treat them decently (mainly letting the other prisoners give them the crap) or else kill them? Shouldn't there be some in betweens? Whatever happened to flogging?

 

I was in the chat with Arkados when he came up with this "greater good" idea. There is no "greater good" and no one acts for "the greater good"

"The greater good" was a stupid harper/druid philosophy written into BG2 which some people obviously played too much of. They were implying that they were taking actions to better all of humanity or whatever.

None of the examples given above are any good. The WTC attacks had nothing to do with anyone but the perpetrators, I guarantee they weren't doing it out of the good of their hearts, at best you can say they did it for God. The Salem Witch Trials were done strictly out of fear, they thought witches were trying to steal their souls, so they killed them, very simple. The bombing of Hiroshima is probably the closest thing to this "greater good" rubbish, but that wasn't why they did it, they wanted to send a clear signal to Japan to end the war.

Nobody does anything for the benefit of the rest of humanity, they do things for themselves.

 

Extremist, BTA is just pointing out that you dont want the family of the murder to suffer too much. Right? I'll make the same wager as BTA that the family may "suffer" equally if their Mother/father/son/daughter Should spend his life locked up in a sewer that is used for collecting toilet articles. (still not a bad idea. I agree that Death sentences is not the solution. )

ArtE; When you say "Noone", are you talking about individuals or nations? Those with roughly rhe same Personality, Education and Upraisng fight for a greater good of their own. That Could very well be nations. pondering on this, say if earth was invaded by Aliens, the world would stand together for a greater good. Of course there isn't an almighty greater good in warfare, since someone will suffer. But couldn't there be an almighty "greater good" anyway?

In a peacefull religion (if such exsist) there might be greater good achievements without suffering. If it turns out there is a god, then it WILL be an almighty "greater Good" to convince people.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 13, 2001).]

 

America: Japan is causing many deaths. We will bomb them. It is a tough decision and it may not work. But we are left with no choice and although we are killing innocent civilians, we are protecting the people we fight to protect.
Bin Laden(hypotechticly): America is causing many deaths. We will bomb them. It is a tough decision (hypotechticly)and it may not work. But we are left with no choice and although we are killing innocent civilians, we are protecting the people we fight to protect.
I repeat again: What is the difference?
America did whatever was in its power to stop the killing. and a great job they did. i applaud that. but that was because it worked. imagine if japan became outraged and fought even harder?
Same thing now. The group, whatever group that caused this tragidy, did whatever was in its power to stop the killing. the killing of what they felt was important. the palestenians. but they are not as powerful. so they do the best they can.
America had the backing of many countries. Palestenians are alone.
I am coming from a point of neutrality, saying that it is all the same. violence never solves anything.
I want you to imagine this. Let us say that America goes into war with Afganistan. And the rest of the world backs Afganistan, and provides it with funding. We dont fight for them, but we provide them with whatever they need. And Afganistan is winning. They are in American soil killing American people. How would you Americans feel? What if say...China is the main funding for the Afganistan force? And the rest of the world supports China's decision. And by some desperate means, you may be able to stop China's funding and win the war against Afganistan. Would you do it? No. Not all of you would. But some rebel force would. Some rebel force will fight for America and the American way of life.
This is where i am coming from. I am saying its always the same. History repeats itself over and over. What is the difference?

 

What is good and what is evil?
Who are we to say?
In the end, everyone is living for him/herself and the lines between the two factions become swiftly blurred. In the Middle East, the terrorists are probably hailed as heroes for having struck against the 'evil' Americans. In America, the cry for vengeance against the 'evil' terrorists and their puppet masters have been sounded.

Personally, I choose to remain morally neutral in this argument. However I am sickened to the core by this incident due to reasons I do not know myself.

 

I think the clear point is that any notion of "Greater good" as such is merely a matter of perspective. Different perspective, different values, different ideology....

Religion is unfortunately at the heart of most of the strife, because some (not by any means all) use religion as a justification for power struggles. Lends murder a kind of legitimacy.

Just look at Norhtern Ireland. It is a power struggle, polarised in two factions of Christianity. And we are supposed to be civilised in the UK?

 

Arkados, there is a BLATANT difference between dropping two nuclear bombs and suiciding four jet airplanes.

Do you know what that difference is??? The fact that the two bombs ended a war, and the four jets will most likely start one. The US is not a proclaimed terrorist organization. The Arabs who did this to the US are. That's the difference.

 

Excuse me...

Did anyone actually declared war on someone?
No?

Then there is no war.

 

If the attack was in any way sponsored by rulers of any country, I think they just did exactly that.........

 

So exactly who is to blame.
The terrorists for carrying it out or the backers for paying for it.
All fingers point to Bin Laden who is the probable backer and if so is he to blame.
If not him then the terrorist who commited the crime are responsible but they are dead.
So does that mean the group who commited the crime are responsible but they could just disban and who is responsible then.

To put things in perspective the american people have almost single handidly backed the IRA and other organisations in thier terror campains in the past so who is to blame for thier actions.

If we inforce the usual outcome of terrorist groups someone larger like the americans usually comes in says there is peace, make consessions on both sides and releases the terrorist prisoners. Noone bigger than the US so they'll probably just fire missiles somewhere until it seems to be quite then it'll all happen again in a few years.

Someone come up with an answer to world peace would you !!!!

 

Excactly Sapiryl. But I said that in other words and it didnt convince Arkados the least. He wants us to say that US is Evil and terrorists are Good. But I have a western personality. Holy war is evil. Terrorism against democracy is evil. And Japan supported evil. why can't you just accept that arkados? you are discussing the obvious.


EDITED HERE:

What do you think this is? A computergame?

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 13, 2001).]

 

War doesnt determine whos right, just whos left.

 

I am saying that we are all the SAME. We are all HUMANS. And Sapiryl, if the japanese didnt stop? if the war didnt end? would what american had done been justified? INNOCENT CIVILIANS. NUKED. INNOCENT. who gives u the right to decide who gets murdered to further what purpose.