News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sliverstorm on Monday April 05, 2010 @01:27PM (#1242431)
idk, I've always felt killing someone in self-defense is moral. Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. minor nitpick with your overall salient point.

I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.

Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by oconnore on Monday April 05, 2010 @01:36PM (#1242469)
True, I wasn't all that clear about self defense. I think self-defense is really the one instance where you would be willing to wage total war (whether as a country, or as a person). In that case, the country (or person) would do whatever it takes to survive. Good point.
Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sliverstorm on Monday April 05, 2010 @01:41PM (#1242490)
Not the only one. It's a little hard for many of us in the modern world to imagine being that dedicated for something other than self-defense, but conquest also has history of summoning total war. However, self-defense is definitely the most reliable for bringing public opinion to bear. Probably a lot easier to find a war dissenter in Germany in 1944 than in Britain.

(This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)

Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sid0 on Monday April 05, 2010 @04:00PM (#1242901)
> Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral.

Typically "good" in this context is equated with "moral", so I'm a little confused with your statement. Could you please elaborate?

Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sliverstorm on Monday April 05, 2010 @05:48PM (#1243191)
I consider good to be positive while moral is closer to justified- not necessarily positive, yet always fair.
Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sid0 on Monday April 05, 2010 @05:55PM (#1243210)
Positive in what sense? Positive in the sense of greatest good of the greatest number? That sounds awfully like utilitarianism, where the definition of moral and your definition of good would roughly coincide.

It seems like you're unable to decide between utilitarianism and some notion of "fair"ness (reason perhaps?) as your central moral philosophy. Note that utilitarians generally define fair as "greatest good of the greatest number".

Re:Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 0... by sliverstorm on Monday April 05, 2010 @09:57PM (#1243629)
I was thinking mostly of good in the sense of, it'd be great if nobody had to die- that would be the best outcome, the good outcome- but often that can't happen, so you're left with the not bad, just less good outcome.

You're right though, my views are often very utilitarian. Although, while 'fair' on the large scale applies to 'greatest good for greatest number', I would very rarely condemn someone for acting out of self-preservation, even if it was not 'fair' on the large scale. Generally speaking I hold our own right to defend ourselves, and those we love, above 'fair'. Generally speaking.