Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
That depends on the statement itself, which you seem to be content to bypass.
|
I've read back through our posts and I'm not sure what you think I bypassed. Do you mean this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
This would assume that a soldier's work is criminal, which it is not. Distasteful does not equal criminal, nor does it equate to evil.
|
If so, I bypassed it because it is itself a bypass; it's an attempt to drag my point into semantics. Simply replace the word "crimes" in my statement with "acts" okay? Then we can move on from semantics. As far as I'm concerned, it makes the same point either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
If one says 2+2=4, and then says that said expression is correct, they would be correct. If one wishes to challenge the statement, then it is up to them to provide why the statement is wrong rather than your absurd assertion that (in equivocation) "simply stating 2+2=4 doesn't make it true".
What makes that statement true is that 2+2=4.
Such is my statement that not all killing is evil.
|
You're drawing parallels between "2+2=4" and "not all killing is evil"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
If I can find ANY case in which it is not (made easier by the fact that evil itself is subjective), than my statement is true.
|
Yes, agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
This is not difficult, and that fact that you are attempting to muddle it displays your inability to actually contest the statement itself.One should definitely have thicker skin if one attempts a discussion on a controversial topic.
|
Hmm, again you're making things personal. Given your tendency to do this, I'm not sure I'm the one without a "thick enough skin" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
It is indeed a case of doing good, if (by your own definition) it is the INTENT and not the result that matters.
Take the sniper case, for instance.
Intent: Save a million lives.
Action: Kill the sniper.
Result: (Immediate) A million lives saves. (Long Term) Undeterminable.
Considering that any and all actions can have long term, evil, unforseeable consequences, it makes little logical sense to include them in any discussion on good and evil. This it part of Chaos Theory, also occassionally known as the Butterfly Effect. Try reversing your own arguments, and you'll see that you've confused the issue so incredibly deeply that only the result you are looking for makes sense to you.This is more disingenous rhetoric, and is why your question and arguments should not be taken seriously, as the only ones you care to entertain are the ones which support your prerendered conclusion.
|
Again personal, although this time at least you're going somewhere beyond mere insults so allow me to respond to that bit first. It's interesting (to me) that you think I have a prerendered conclusion. I assure you, I don't. Furthermore, the thing I find most concerning about
your posts is that
you do. You are
certain about these things! Which I find remarkable!
Anyway, to get back on track, and since you say I am confusing the issue please allow me to respond to what you said and hopefully clarifying my point without using metaphors or substitutes or whatever:
Firstly, I'm not
certain that killing is
ever a good thing, and your assertion that killing to save lives is "good" is not an argument, it's just a statement that you blindly accept as true. Yes, the intent matters, but you have not shown that the intent to save a million lives is justification for taking one. By your own admission you see it as an equivalent to "2+2=4", something that is simply true "by definition". I do not.
Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it. Either way he does not make the decision. Furthermore, I would assert that
if a soldier is absolved of the blame of an immoral murder by the fact that he is under orders then by the same token he is stripped of the credit for any "moral killings" that he also performs under orders.
The two "thought experiments" I put forward were meant to illustrate these two points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
That is, by the why, the most sure sign of a weak mind.
|
More personal attacks? Easy, tiger.