mpbrockman wrote:York99 wrote:mpbrockman wrote:
Please reconcile.
I'm not sure where the inconsistency is... in fact, I'm not sure where the comparison or contrastison (trademark pending) between the two statements is.
Please elaborate.
Phrase one indicates a high degree of discomfort with killing ("there can NEVER be enough info") under any circumstance.
Phrase two indicates that two recent killings have made you "glad" despite the fact that you have admitted you (understandably) find foreign policy an abstruse subject.
It is the "NEVER" which makes the two statements read as "contrastisonary" (trademark still pending?), or at the very least - ethically inconsistent. Does "NEVER" admit of exceptions?
OK, I see what you're saying now. I mean that even if someone tortured and killed my mother in front of me, there would be that inkling of a notion that killing that person would still be immoral. That less than 1% inkling is defeated by my rage and justification for punishment and vengeance.
I think we all make decisions and form opinions that we're not 100% certain about. That's life and human nature.
In the given specific example, I'm glad we killed those guys, but I'm not
100% sure that it was the right thing to do. There are questions that I don't know [Is killing inherently immoral? Was our intel on these guys accurate? Was it worth it considering the collateral damage? Did we just make martyrs out of these guys?] I don't know enough of the story to be totally sure that it was right, but at some point I have to believe that our experts and leaders considered enough of the available evidence to conclude that it was the best course of action at the time.
Morally ambiguous? Is anyone not?