Do the ends justify the means?

I think I'd feel bad about it even if the murderer was the only person I killed.

 

Sort of the same question has been gone over and over again regarding dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Is killing several thousands of Japanese, mostly civilians, worth saving the lives of maybe several hundred thousand American soldiers who would have invaded the Japanese main islands?

What makes the the situation in Iraq so bad is that the U.S. didn't have to fight this war. Iraq was a pre-emptive war. Iraq did not attack the U.S. Iraq is nothing more then an oil grab and the first step in the U.S. policy to control the worlds dwindling natural resources. The U.S. is no better then the enemy being fought at this point.

 

I think something that has to be accepted is that in war, there will be civilian casualties - something many people have problems with. When fighting a guerilla war, civilian casualties are even more difficult to avoid. I feel this is different than the example of a criminal using a child as a human shield, though that's my personal feelings and something that is definately debatable. Of course, I'm lucky enough to say that sitting in one of the safest countries in the world.

However, were they valid in this case? I don't know, I haven't read much about the bombings that killed Al Zarqawi. I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. Did we know the woman and child were there in this case?

 

You would have to say no then. If yes, then a terrorist could use that same logic to say, I'll blow up an entire city with a nuclear weapon and kill hundreds of thousands just to kill the president of the U.S. In the terrorists eyes I'm sure Bush is seen as the enemy and all the U.S. civilians as collateral damage.

 

As far as your original question, no. No way could I shoot at someone hiding behind a child. That moral judgement is not difficult at all to make.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

During war, yes. Americans split on this because we feel no effects of a mobilized nation. Everything's too quiet and peaceful. Even the propaganda is subtle. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and I don't doubt there will be thousands more. Is it worth it? All I can do is hope so.

P.S. There aren't any subsequent reports of a child dying in the AZ bombing....

 

Just ask yourself a simple question, if the alleged perpetrators are hiding with the people including you and your relatives, would you like to be shot or bombed so that the bad guys may be terminated in quick and easy fashion?

To make my rhetorical question in line with the thread, if the child is yours, would you shoot?

 

even if it meant hundreds of others would die (including more children) as a result of letting the murderer escape? sure this sounds a little but machiavellian, but i do think the ends justify the means. if we did not bomb the house in which zarqawi was killed, more and more blood will be stained on his hands. one could argue that another could easily replace him, but how long could al-qaeda operatives keep this up if we stay on the attack?

 

I think this is a skewed way to pose your question. Even if I felt it was worth it in the end to kill him, that doesn't mean I wouldn't 'feel bad about the means and the end is glorious no matter that if the means were ugly.'

 

It would depend on the murderer. If I was certain the murder would kill more than 1 other person in their life, I would feel morally obligated to.

I wouldn't feel good about it but I would still do it.

 

Rereading this, how would the murderer even die in this scenario? Are you saying shoot the child and then shoot the murderer?

 

I hate collatoral damage, but in cases like this, it is a tragedy of war.

DD

 

Why not just apprehend the criminal?

 

I think they are sending a message, and apprehending the criminal is hard if he has people looking out for him.

DD

 

How about shooting the people who actually voted for the third option.