Support Politirant Through Amazon
Visit our sister site at the Political Forums

Author Topic: Moral Equivalence  (Read 4420 times)

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Moral Equivalence
« on: November 20, 2011, 09:26:31 PM »
Every so often I see some nitwit draw a moral equivalence between Auschwitz, for example, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. The moron who inspired this will remain nameless but he's a logical positivist who didn't get the memo that logical positivism was utterly discredited as an epistemological theory before I was born. Anyway, what do you think and why?
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2011, 09:56:06 PM »
What do I think of comparing the two events or what do I think of logical positivism.

As for the former, I don't see any way to reason a moral equivalence. They were both horrible events to be sure but the circumstances were so different. Granted as an American it is difficult to look at either objectively.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2011, 10:04:24 PM »
What do I think of comparing the two events or what do I think of logical positivism.

As for the former, I don't see any way to reason a moral equivalence. They were both horrible events to be sure but the circumstances were so different. Granted as an American it is difficult to look at either objectively.

The former.

Nor do I. I'm curious to see if anyone does.

I think the temporal distance is one factor in making this sort of thing seem reasonable to some people.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 10:08:30 PM by Mister D »
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2011, 10:15:15 PM »
True, the time probably has been a factor. It would be terrible to have to be the one to make the decision to drop the bomb, but if I was in that position I believe I would have made the same decision.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2011, 10:23:51 PM »
Both events were humans doing unthinkable things to other humans.

But then, the Nazis took their unthinkable actions before a world war while the allies took their action after a 6 year World War. 

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2011, 10:27:33 PM »
However, you could argue that one of those heinous acts was undertaken in an effort to save more lives. To me that ends any moral argument right there.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2011, 11:43:14 AM »
However, you could argue that one of those heinous acts was undertaken in an effort to save more lives. To me that ends any moral argument right there.

Agreed. I don't buy the argument that Japan was about to surrender. The bombs were dropped to save lives in the long run and American lives in particular.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Peter1469

  • V.I.P.
  • Full Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 5
  • -Received: 22
  • Posts: 183
  • Karma: 30
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2011, 01:11:37 PM »
The Japs had no ability to project military force.  We didn't need to invade their home Islands- unless we were going to take it for ourselves.  And we never attempted that. 

We used the Bomb because the first nation to do so would be the world power.  And we wanted to be that. 

Offline Mister D

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 109
  • -Received: 164
  • Posts: 6114
  • Karma: 359
  • Egalitarianism is simply absurd
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2011, 01:22:01 PM »
The Japs had no ability to project military force.  We didn't need to invade their home Islands- unless we were going to take it for ourselves.  And we never attempted that. 

We used the Bomb because the first nation to do so would be the world power.  And we wanted to be that.

Japan could project very little in the way of military force even before Iwo Jima and Okinawa but the war dragged on because Japan would not surrender. Besides, the Japanese home islands, which were under blockade and whose cities were being systematically leveled, would not have been spared regardless. All told, the death toll could conceivably have been even higher had the US sat on its hands hoping the "peace party" would win out. Disease, starvation, and conventional bombing would all have continued to take their toll both in Japan and in her garrisons.
"Pushing people forward simply because of their colour, irrespective of merit, would be most unfortunate and would of course lead to disaster. It would mean that Rhodesia would then develop into a kind of banana republic where the country would in no time be bankrupt."


~Ian Smith

Offline Conley

  • V.I.P.
  • Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
  • *
  • Thank Yous
  • -Given: 288
  • -Received: 190
  • Posts: 7726
  • Karma: 398
  • Are You Not Entertained?!?
Re: Moral Equivalence
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2011, 01:28:34 PM »
And after all that had happened could the U.S. afford to keep slogging it out and waiting for a Japanese surrender while sitting on the technology that could end it? Do we not make every effort to avoid war and then once committed, make every effort to win it? How would we judge American leaders if they sacrificed more of our men in the hopes that the Japanese would eventually see the writing on the wall?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. -Eisenhower

 


Support Politirant Through Amazon