• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone who claims to have a set of morals, read this.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< The only case here for the use of a nuclear weapon would be if a WMD was used against America... Then the world would give us a free card to use nuclear weapons against a number of targets... >>



Exactly, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor does not count as a WMD being used against America on American soil.

The equivalent action in today's terms would be us nuking Afghanistan because of the hijackings of 9/11. Those hijackings were not WMD, so the world has not given us free reign to use WMD against our enemy.
 


<<

<< The only case here for the use of a nuclear weapon would be if a WMD was used against America... Then the world would give us a free card to use nuclear weapons against a number of targets... >>



Exactly, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor does not count as a WMD being used against America on American soil.
 >>



No, and the nukes were not used in response to that... They were used to end the war, to snap Japan into reality...

Even after the first one was used, Japan STILL didn't surrender. We used another one and they STILL didn't surrender. Their Army wanted to keep fighting, the idea that the loss of major cities would not really hamper their defense (and it wouldn't have), but the Emperor stepped in and said no, the time for fighting was over...

That was the first and last time the Emperor ever made a political decision in Japan... ever...

Your comments show that you didn't study history, and that you know not what you talk about. Do some more research before commenting on this, because history, the facts, and what is morally right are all NOT on your side...

Killing 200,000 people to save 2,000,000 lives is a terrible and horible thing to do, but it is morally justified...

Jason
 
I'm dumb, you're smart. Thank you for convincing me that targeting civilians is justifiable, as long as the people doing the killing justify it. I hope this policy of targeting civilians can be used in all future wars because it is so effective and great.
 


<< I'm dumb, you're smart. Thank you for convincing me that targeting civilians is justifiable, as long as the people doing the killing justify it. I hope this policy of targeting civilians can be used in all future wars because it is so effective and great. >>



Scarcasm is not the way to make a point...

Allowing millions of civilians to die because you're not willing to kill thosuands is not a good idea either...

How would history have judged Truman had he NOT used the atomic weapons, invaded, and had 10 million more deaths?

Are you saying you would have prefered that solution?

Jason
 
and your sarcasm in place of an intelligent rebuttal that addresses the previous posts drives your point home so well.
 


<< and your sarcasm in place of an intelligent rebuttal that addresses the previous posts drives your point home so well. >>



What rebuttal? He made ZERO points in his reply that I could see.

All he said was that targeting civilans is always wrong... That is not true... So what else is there to say. He is wrong, there are times when it is the right thing to do, even if terrible...

Jason
 
I said in place of, ie he is lacking a rebuttal. He made no valid points. When the means justify the ends, I can't blame those who make the choice after they have fought and lost so much.
 


<< and your sarcasm in place of an intelligent rebuttal that addresses the previous posts drives your point home so well. >>



Jehh, i could be wrong, but I don't think that was aimed at you.😉
 
That being said, the theft of service of TV is NOT the same thing, that is pureselfishness, doesn't benifit anyone but the person doing the stealing, and hurts the rest of us in the long run...

I'm not disaggreeing here (really), just being another devil's advocate. But how many people are really hurt by this? Obviously it benefits this person ganking the programming. BUT...if that person wouldn't be a paying subscriber anyway, then it's not like they're "losing" money by it since a signal is an unlimited resource. In fact, they're probably gaining just a little bit from the sale of the equipment. Now, of course, it's when the average "joe" starts to learn how to do this that poses the problem. So, yeah, there seems to be argument on both sides of the line....just posing the thought.
 


<<

<< and your sarcasm in place of an intelligent rebuttal that addresses the previous posts drives your point home so well. >>



Jehh, i could be wrong, but I don't think that was aimed at you.😉 >>



Oh, sorry... 🙂

Jason
 


<< I said in place of, ie he is lacking a rebuttal. He made no valid points. When the means justify the ends, I can't blame those who make the choice after they have fought and lost so much. >>



Oh, was that not meant for me? 🙂

Sorry about that... 🙂

Jason
 


<< That being said, the theft of service of TV is NOT the same thing, that is pureselfishness, doesn't benifit anyone but the person doing the stealing, and hurts the rest of us in the long run...

I'm not disaggreeing here (really), just being another devil's advocate. But how many people are really hurt by this? Obviously it benefits this person ganking the programming. BUT...if that person wouldn't be a paying subscriber anyway, then it's not like they're "losing" money by it since a signal is an unlimited resource. In fact, they're probably gaining just a little bit from the sale of the equipment. Now, of course, it's when the average "joe" starts to learn how to do this that poses the problem. So, yeah, there seems to be argument on both sides of the line....just posing the thought. >>



Think about this... What if they lose money on the sale of each box, expecting to make it back up with the monthly payments?

It isn't the money, it really isn't...

It has to do with right and wrong... Taking something that isn't yours, for the sole point of self-benifit, is wrong...

Nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate, but it should be pointed that that it is CALLED 🙂 the "devil's" advocate for a reason, that wasn't by accident... 🙂
 
Hmm, I don't wanna get into the morality of dropping nukes on Japan, since that has already been done and hopefully has taught us not to use nukes again. Instead, and kind of keeping on topic, I would suggest that the terrorists may have used the same justification for the Sep 11 attack as the US used for nuking Japan. That being, if the civilian population is hit hard, it may end or reduce the amount of deaths of our comrades. Of course the 2 situations are vastly different, but the justifications could very well be the same. As someone once said, history is written by the victor. So, for now, nuking Japan was good, Sep 11 was bad.
 


<< Hmm, I don't wanna get into the morality of dropping nukes on Japan, since that has already been done and hopefully has taught us not to use nukes again. Instead, and kind of keeping on topic, I would suggest that the terrorists may have used the same justification for the Sep 11 attack as the US used for nuking Japan. That being, if the civilian population is hit hard, it may end or reduce the amount of deaths of our comrades. Of course the 2 situations are vastly different, but the justifications could very well be the same. As someone once said, history is written by the victor. So, for now, nuking Japan was good, Sep 11 was bad. >>



Even most of Japan understands that the use of nuclear weapons was needed... They understand that many more Japaniese would have died without them...

Of course those directly affected tend to disagree, but then so would I if my mom or dad were killed by a nuke... or even a bomb for that matter...

How about this point... What if we knew for sure that some biological terror was released over one of our own cities... something that was not controlable and would kill everyone on Earth if not stopped... (work with me here, this is just a moral question, not really realistic)

Would it be morally right to nuke our own city to destroy the virus to protect humanity? I use our own city as an example because this isn't about an enemy or a friend, it is about right and wrong. At what point is killing innocent people morally right? If you say never, than under the above example, you would prefer all of humanity be lost, which of course somewhat defeats the point... Which is why extreame exmaples don't work...

Ok, how about this... scale it back to just 25% of the world population. If nuking our own city killing say 10 million people would prevent 2 Billion people from dieing, would that be morally ok?

Jason
 
About WW2, Japan only surrendered because they feared the US had thousands of Nukes which wasn't the case. Also, conventional carpet bombing over Japan killed alot more people than the two A-bomb combined. The bombing of German cities was also as bad.
 
heres another thought. a nuclear bomb was thought of much differently in 1945 through the early and mid 1950s. it wasn't something quantitatively different back then. it was just an even higher yield bomb than ever before. and it was treated as such at the time. there was no policy back then of using an atomic bomb only to counter other WMD. it was US policy through the eisenhower administration that massive retaliation would be the response to soviet invasion of western europe. massive retaliation meaning using nuclear weapons in europe.

also, do you know that strategic bombing happened all throughout WWII? what of the factories and schools and everything else destroyed by allied and axis bombing of industrial centers? how about the fire bombing of tokyo in july of 1945? it killed more people than the atomic bombings combined. tokyo wasn't an atomic target for two reasons 1) someone had to be in charge to surrender 2) there wasn't all that much of tokyo left anyway.

you seem to be saying that its alright to kill people using conventional weapons but not by using nuclear weapons.
 
The Thing about Nukes is that they dont just kill people, they destroy land. They make the land uninhabitibal for humans. The land will no longer support human life. You may say that we have the "stragetic nuke" that leaves hardly any radition. But its the fact that it does. A normal bomb will just blow up the buildings and punch a hole in the ground. The Other thing about a nuke and why they are the WORST thing to be ever created by man is the moral damage that they do. They take thousands of lives at once and blow the hell out of all the surrounding area. Its horrible...
 


<<

<< Hmm, I don't wanna get into the morality of dropping nukes on Japan, since that has already been done and hopefully has taught us not to use nukes again. Instead, and kind of keeping on topic, I would suggest that the terrorists may have used the same justification for the Sep 11 attack as the US used for nuking Japan. That being, if the civilian population is hit hard, it may end or reduce the amount of deaths of our comrades. Of course the 2 situations are vastly different, but the justifications could very well be the same. As someone once said, history is written by the victor. So, for now, nuking Japan was good, Sep 11 was bad. >>



Even most of Japan understands that the use of nuclear weapons was needed... They understand that many more Japaniese would have died without them...

Of course those directly affected tend to disagree, but then so would I if my mom or dad were killed by a nuke... or even a bomb for that matter...

How about this point... What if we knew for sure that some biological terror was released over one of our own cities... something that was not controlable and would kill everyone on Earth if not stopped... (work with me here, this is just a moral question, not really realistic)

Would it be morally right to nuke our own city to destroy the virus to protect humanity? I use our own city as an example because this isn't about an enemy or a friend, it is about right and wrong. At what point is killing innocent people morally right? If you say never, than under the above example, you would prefer all of humanity be lost, which of course somewhat defeats the point... Which is why extreame exmaples don't work...

Ok, how about this... scale it back to just 25% of the world population. If nuking our own city killing say 10 million people would prevent 2 Billion people from dieing, would that be morally ok?

Jason >>







I think they would do it, its the same as shoting down your own plane except its on a much bigger scale. But I'll tell you why it will NEVER happen. One, chances are those millions of people killed would have millions more friends and relatives not killed and those people would probably go after the president and kill him also if they could. Lets say he won't be alive for long afterwards. Second, the idea of containment on a large a scale as a large city is not possible, the fact is with todays mobility, one city infected equal all cities infected.
 


<< The Thing about Nukes is that they dont just kill people, they destroy land. They make the land uninhabitibal for humans. The land will no longer support human life. You may say that we have the "stragetic nuke" that leaves hardly any radition. But its the fact that it does. A normal bomb will just blow up the buildings and punch a hole in the ground. The Other thing about a nuke and why they are the WORST thing to be ever created by man is the moral damage that they do. They take thousands of lives at once and blow the hell out of all the surrounding area. Its horrible... >>



Narf!

So, umm, how are 6 Million people living in the two spots that we dropped nukes on 55 years ago?

Hmm, perhaps because the damage is not that bad? 🙂

Nukes are over rated anyway, we bought our own propaganda from the cold war. Perhaps that is a good thing, having a heathly respect for those things is good, but to a point...

They will not "end life as we know it and bring hell to Earth" unless thousands of them are setoff all at once...

Jason
 


<< I think they would do it, its the same as shoting down your own plane except its on a much bigger scale. But I'll tell you why it will NEVER happen. One, chances are those millions of people killed would have millions more friends and relatives not killed and those people would probably go after the president and kill him also if they could. Lets say he won't be alive for long afterwards. Second, the idea of containment on a large a scale as a large city is not possible, the fact is with todays mobility, one city infected equal all cities infected. >>



Sigh... You miss the point...

Would you be willing to kill 10 million innocent people to save a billion innocent people?

This is what happened in 1945...

Jason
 
there are 2 distint threads here. one about the ethics of economy, and another about a war scenario delimma.

The bomb decision at the time, and still today, was a dilemma. There were 2 courses of action, one that COULD lead to millions of deaths, the other WOULD lead to 100k's of deaths. The decision was bad either way, and determined by the information available at the time. You can talk about it all you want, but there is no moral or ethical issue, unless you consider the ethical question of war itself. BUT that doesn't really get you anywhere b/c war was immentent.

The origiinal post, made a comparison b/t stealing satillite television and stealing telecommunication signals. On the face of it, this appears to be a pretty good analogy. BUT it isn't. The reason why, is that a person can have a set of rules for economic ehtics and another set of rules for international relations ethics. For example, a person might subscribe to the following rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Given this guiding principle, a person could in fact justify stealing foriegn secrets while at the same time denouncing the stealing of entertainment broadcasts, or vice versa. Behavior in both scenarios doesn't have to be congruent to be morally consistent because the 'moral' action depends on the context and the costs/benefits of action.

In fact the only common denominator in the scenarios described is that they are all different and unique scenarios. Even the Flag example doesn't hold up. Namely, a person can believe in freedom of expression and still be pissed off at opposing points of views. The 'punching' example is in fact a form of persuasive arguement, meant to demonstrate a point, not squealch another person's viewpoint.

 
You should all read Han Feizi. 🙂

That guy is amazing. His arguments are so cheap and low, but many of them are so realistic. They seem like common sense, but arranged in a scholarly manner.
 


<< You should all read Han Feizi. 🙂

That guy is amazing. His arguments are so cheap and low, but many of them are so realistic. They seem like common sense, but arranged in a scholarly manner. >>



Anything can be made to sound reasonable.

The concept of stealing IP, when nothing physically is missing, is "reasonable". The problem is that it is also wrong...

Think about this... To the terrorists point of view, killing 7,000 people is "reasonable"... Be real, real careful before you talk about stuff like that.

There is right, then there is wrong...

As Bush said this week, "We're right, they're wrong, and we're gonna win"

Jason
 
BTW, I recommend "Grave of the Fireflies" if anyone's interested on seeing the Japanese perspective to the American firebombings on their cities. This isn't an anti-US movie, but rather an anti-war movie that brilliantly illustrates the suffering of the Japanese civilians during WWII.

There are a ton of pro/con arguments about the atomic bombings of Japan, but I still find it hard to stomach the fact that the US suffered very few civilian casualties, while Japan's civilians suffered greatly both during the war (conventional and atomic bombings) and afterward (radiation sickness/death).

I'm a pacifist by nature, so I find it hard to justify any intentional acts of violence, especially those on such a large and obvious scale (ie knowing that a single bomb would kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians instantaneously).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top