Just War?

[liamconnor]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

[Mithrae]

Evil is causing unnecessary suffering, and especially from a more New Testament perspective also the attitudes which lead to that (and, perhaps, failing to prevent it when reasonable). Good is promoting or maximising wellbeing.

There are two problems with that. First, necessity and reasonableness are utilitarian arguments and subject to purpose. Second, under that definition much of the natural world can be seen as evil. This would make evil more a matter of projection than description.

I agree that it's not always a clear or objective measure as to what ends are reasonable or necessary. But surely you're not saying that there's nothing wrong with causing or whimsically allowing pointless suffering? That would be evil, wouldn't it? And while we might quibble over things like whether it is 'evil' to plant a field with two kinds of seed, the above covers pretty much anything I would consider evil and probably 80 or 90% of what the bible considers evil also. If God has caused there to be much suffering in nature, then a theologian must suppose that one way or another that suffering is somehow necessary, or else it would indeed be an evil world that He made.

Hence we have Hillel's "that which you hate, do not do to your fellow" and Jesus' second greatest command to "love your neighbour as you love yourself." In both cases, it is the general principle which is important, rather than regulatory particulars: Coveting my neighbour's oxen is not wrong because some king or some book or some deity is said to have declared it wrong, but simply because it is an attitude which leads to social friction, harm and suffering.

That is the socialist spin on what they said. Hillel was responding to was a request that he summarize HaTorah while standing on one foot. He was not speaking to justification. The complete quote is, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" Also, Yeshua stated that was the second greatest commandment, prior to that He said, “The most important one, is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ " Reducing social friction, harm and suffering are social goods in a philosophical sense. However, they are not absolute goods. There are times when social friction, harm and suffering are necessary for a greater good. Of course, as I stated above necessity and the greater good are subjective.

It seems to me that prohibitions against stealing, covetousness, adultery and so on were not (in the view Jesus, and seemingly Hillel) distinct or independent regulations in themselves but, as you note, explanations or particulars of how to follow that greater command to 'love your neighbour.' By extension, it might be inferred that the even greater command of love towards God is explained and carried out primarily through our treatment of others. In Matthew 25 Jesus said that inasmuch as we helped or ignored others, we did it to him. All the ritual trappings of dietary restrictions, ceremonial washing and temple service don't benefit God in the slightest; in fact through some of the prophets in the Tanakh he said that he doesn't desire sacrifice, but mercy towards others and even that such outward piety is offensive to him if the 'lesser' commands regarding treatment of others are ignored.

I gather that many folk who observe the Torah insist that even the seemingly trivial or burdensome ceremonial regulations are fulfilling and uplifting in their own way, and fair enough: If so, then that is entirely consistent with my view that 'good' is simply promoting or maximizing wellbeing. Neither the first commandment to love God nor the rest of the explanation in the Torah are counterexamples to what I have said. By contrast, if ceremonial devotion were demonstrably harmful to body, spirit and society year by year and generation by generation, could you really argue that such demands would be 'good' merely because they were handed down by a jealous being professing to be a god? Perhaps you would, I don't know, but I certainly would not. If any particular regulations are good, it is because they line up with the promotion of wellbeing and reduction of unnecessary suffering, not because of their alleged source.

Similarly it is incorrect to say that because animals are 'lesser' beings we can make up whatever arbitrary and cruel standards we please; the story of Balaam's ass is another counter-example to this, and I'm sure there's other rules in there if I were to look for them. As a general rule, using and eating animals is acceptable if and only if they are treated well (ie, I would say as a minimal rule of thumb, better off than they'd be in the wild). The particulars may be different, but the ethical principle from which those particulars are derived is the same - not arbitrarily decided just because we are 'greater.'

That is not my argument. My arguemnt is that they are different. We impose upon ourselves rules for the human treatment of other creatures, because we are , well . . . , human. We project our value system onto the animals. However, those animals are not bound by those standards, unless we force them to be. By the same token, we do not live according to the law of the jungle unless we are forced to. Even then we seek to mold our environment to make it easier to live by our value system. Different life forms, different standards.

Inasmuch as there are different standards, different particulars in application, it would seem that there is more latitude for the 'lesser' beings rather than the greater. We (perhaps) don't judge sea otters which rape baby seals to death as being morally culpable, because we assume they don't know any better. We don't judge our toddlers for 'stealing' things or our children for making insensitive remarks. By implication, if this analogy from humans down to animals holds true we should expect that a good God would follow even higher standards than us; if killing people is a human failing that our laws and morals seek to minimize, it cannot at the same time be a divine prerogative for God to enjoy on a whim (least of all when supposedly telling humans to do his dirty work for him!).

You're arguing that there are different rules for different beings, but you haven't explained why or how you think those rules are determined - besides insisting that it's not just a might makes right, 'God said so' philosophy. By contrast, despite some differences in particular application, the general principles of reducing or minimizing unnecessary harm and promoting or maximizing wellbeing seem to apply to every scenario and situation I can think of, even including the overwhelming majority of biblical contents (though there are some abhorrent things in there).

So I see no basis for imagining that genocide against the Canaanites is justifiable just because God said so.*

It might be justifiable (at least by the terms of the Israelite narrative portraying their enemy as baby-killing demons) as the lesser evil, the best long-term solution minimizing suffering for the Canaanites and maximizing wellbeing for the homeless Israelites - which seems to be what Liam was hinting towards in the OP. That's a debate I could probably take either side on. But the 'God said so / we're like bacteria to him' position seems exceptionally weak.



* In fact on a similar note, I'm curious about your views on the Abraham and Isaac story I hinted towards in my reply to Rikuo. I know you've elsewhere suggested that it conveys (perhaps allegorically) that animal sacrifice is not a lesser form of devotion than human sacrifice: But if it were read literally, would you agree that Abraham failed the test, that he should have protested even more vehemently than Ezekiel did when he was merely told to cook with his own faeces?

[imhereforyou]

God can make everything from nothing so the comparison here seems less than appropriate.

Sounds good, of course many unsupportable claims sound so. All you need to do is provide irrefutable evidence that your claim is true. Not pretzel logic, facts.

I'll eagerly await your presentation of this irrefutable evidence. Not pretzel logic, facts.

I hold no such evidence (nor does anyone).
Neither do I claim to believe the assertion, only that's (God can make everything from nothing...) what's claimed.

As far as pretzels go, they're OK enough, but not something I'd look for in a good snack typically. Though, there are times.....

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

What comparison is appropriate in judging a life form that can make everything from nothing?

Indeed. So all the bantering back-n-forth about God is pointless in the overall grand scheme of things. God's not understandable or, as some would say, likeable or respectable.

We are much more like bacteria than we are like a life for that can make everything from nothing.

A poor view of humanity, but not totally shocking - it's many times taught in Christianity that humanity is (insert worthless phrase here) in order to build up God - a god that creates and kills with no apparent rule (other than his own). Some people revel in this. I'm not one of them.

Why is the human experience the proper standard?

Maybe because it's all humans have to use? God didn't give us much else in which to compare himself. But that's probably the point.

If I could claim myself to a colony of ants that I'm all powerful and all knowing and can smite them for not obeying me, and I tell them they're nothing without me, then they believe it and my glory is sealed - as far as they're concerned. Oh sure there will be a few ants that see through my illogical claims, but the other ants will laugh at them, condemn them, tell them they're stupid, can't read my writing properly or the 'any devil' is clouding their minds and all manner of excuses. As long as my dedicated any leaders keep telling their ant-sheep they'll be stepped on if they get out of line (and keep funneling them their ant-money) everything will be OK log after I've moved on to higher life forms (like birds).

[DPMartin]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

the US was a war with a people that slaughtered and tormented and flat out murdered innocent people wherever their armies went. meaning Japanese army. so where's you moral point?

as far as God killing off any souls, He made them all and He has the Power to do as He pleases with impunity. so if you don't like the tornado that killed your family what are you going to do about it? nothing, because you have no say no power. so the reality is, either you get with the program or be left behind in the day of the Lord.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

What comparison is appropriate in judging a life form that can make everything from nothing?

Indeed. So all the bantering back-n-forth about God is pointless in the overall grand scheme of things. God's not understandable or, as some would say, likeable or respectable.

Just because something is beyond ones understanding in total, does not mean that nothing can be understood about it. Also, what none likes or respects is a matter of personal choice, based on one's particular preferences.

We are much more like bacteria than we are like a life for that can make everything from nothing.

A poor view of humanity, but not totally shocking - it's many times taught in Christianity that humanity is (insert worthless phrase here) in order to build up God - a god that creates and kills with no apparent rule (other than his own). Some people revel in this. I'm not one of them.

How is it a poor view of humanity? One can list many similarities between a bacterium and a human. In fact, the theory of evolution presents one as a more complicated form of the other. Is that a poor view of humanity? Now, some view deities as just more complicated forms of humans. I am not one of them.

Why is the human experience the proper standard?

Maybe because it's all humans have to use? God didn't give us much else in which to compare himself. But that's probably the point.

If I could claim myself to a colony of ants that I'm all powerful and all knowing and can smite them for not obeying me, and I tell them they're nothing without me, then they believe it and my glory is sealed - as far as they're concerned. Oh sure there will be a few ants that see through my illogical claims, but the other ants will laugh at them, condemn them, tell them they're stupid, can't read my writing properly or the 'any devil' is clouding their minds and all manner of excuses. As long as my dedicated any leaders keep telling their ant-sheep they'll be stepped on if they get out of line (and keep funneling them their ant-money) everything will be OK log after I've moved on to higher life forms (like birds).

If a creator deity were to man, as man is to ants, that might be a useful analysis. However, it is not clear that is the case. Your analysis presumes that you are not what you initially claim to be and that those claims are illogical. However, if you were what you initially claimed to be and, as is the state with ants, they did not have he capability to understand and/or appreciate the logic behind your actions, would that change the scenario?

[Clownboat]

Can a leader (e.g. President of the United States) order the death of innocents (i.e., non-combatants) in order to achieve a higher good, or avoid a greater evil, without moral culpability? Was, for instance, president Truman justified in ordering the bombing of Hiroshima?

Likewise, can a good deity (like YHWH) order the death of innocents (like the Canaanites) with immunity if it is ordered with to avert a great evil or achieve a greater good?

the US was a war with a people that slaughtered and tormented and flat out murdered innocent people wherever their armies went. meaning Japanese army. so where's you moral point?

as far as God killing off any souls, He made them all and He has the Power to do as He pleases with impunity. so if you don't like the tornado that killed your family what are you going to do about it? nothing, because you have no say no power. so the reality is, either you get with the program or be left behind in the day of the Lord.

This forum is for debate.
I would suggest you leave the 'scare tactics' to the terrorists.

A god, if real, could be evangelized in a much better way anyways IMO.
What you claim is a reality above, in reality is just you imagining things about one of thousands of god concepts. If you feel I'm wrong, then please provide evidence to back up this claimed 'reality' you speak of.

re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/Submit
noun
1.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

[bluethread]

I agree that it's not always a clear or objective measure as to what ends are reasonable or necessary. But surely you're not saying that there's nothing wrong with causing or whimsically allowing pointless suffering? That would be evil, wouldn't it? And while we might quibble over things like whether it is 'evil' to plant a field with two kinds of seed, the above covers pretty much anything I would consider evil and probably 80 or 90% of what the bible considers evil also. If God has caused there to be much suffering in nature, then a theologian must suppose that one way or another that suffering is somehow necessary, or else it would indeed be an evil world that He made.

That presumes a utilitarian viewpoint, which begs the question of necessary for what and for whom. The only way that suffering could be pointless is if it is incidental to performing another task. The principle of conservation of energy and Newton's first law of motion, infer that actions do not occur for no reason. That reason is to be found in the mover and may not be apparent to any other. Now, whether or not that is considered "evil", is in the eyes of the beholder, if suffering is the basis of "evil". The Scriptural term that is translated as "evil"(ra') is not defined on that basis. The fact that there are some similarities between what one sees as suffering and ra' is circumstantial and does not require one to adopt that view of "evil".

It seems to me that prohibitions against stealing, covetousness, adultery and so on were not (in the view Jesus, and seemingly Hillel) distinct or independent regulations in themselves but, as you note, explanations or particulars of how to follow that greater command to 'love your neighbour.' By extension, it might be inferred that the even greater command of love towards God is explained and carried out primarily through our treatment of others. In Matthew 25 Jesus said that inasmuch as we helped or ignored others, we did it to him. All the ritual trappings of dietary restrictions, ceremonial washing and temple service don't benefit God in the slightest; in fact through some of the prophets in the Tanakh he said that he doesn't desire sacrifice, but mercy towards others and even that such outward piety is offensive to him if the 'lesser' commands regarding treatment of others are ignored.

I gather that many folk who observe the Torah insist that even the seemingly trivial or burdensome ceremonial regulations are fulfilling and uplifting in their own way, and fair enough: If so, then that is entirely consistent with my view that 'good' is simply promoting or maximizing wellbeing. Neither the first commandment to love God nor the rest of the explanation in the Torah are counterexamples to what I have said. By contrast, if ceremonial devotion were demonstrably harmful to body, spirit and society year by year and generation by generation, could you really argue that such demands would be 'good' merely because they were handed down by a jealous being professing to be a god? Perhaps you would, I don't know, but I certainly would not. If any particular regulations are good, it is because they line up with the promotion of wellbeing and reduction of unnecessary suffering, not because of their alleged source.

That is a reductionist approach, i.e. the whole is subject to the sum of the parts. The individual commandments are not the ultimate good, even in the aggregate, even though they might be considered goods in the context of the ultimate good. So, the first commandment is not to be viewed in the context of the second, but the second is to be viewed in the context of the first. If loving one's neighbor as oneself leads one to believe that one should not love Adonai, that is not correct. In the same way all of the commandments, including those you consider superfluous, are to be viewed in the context of the first two. Yeshua's point is that the second commandment was being ignored in the keeping those other commandments.

Inasmuch as there are different standards, different particulars in application, it would seem that there is more latitude for the 'lesser' beings rather than the greater. We (perhaps) don't judge sea otters which rape baby seals to death as being morally culpable, because we assume they don't know any better. We don't judge our toddlers for 'stealing' things or our children for making insensitive remarks. By implication, if this analogy from humans down to animals holds true we should expect that a good God would follow even higher standards than us; if killing people is a human failing that our laws and morals seek to minimize, it cannot at the same time be a divine prerogative for God to enjoy on a whim (least of all when supposedly telling humans to do his dirty work for him!).

No, we are not giving greater latitude, because they are 'lesser' beings. It is a matter of practicality. We do judge sea otters which rape baby seals to death, but what are we going to do about that? Also, if you do not judge your toddlers for stealing things and making in sensitive remarks, you are not being a good parent, IMO. Age appropriate disciple is what is called for, but if we to not hold toddlers responsible for their actions, it only makes it more difficult later. Regarding the killing argument. Though animals kill one another in the wild, we generally do not permit that in captivity. However, in some cases we do. We buy feeder fish for our aquariums and train domestic dogs to fight off wild dogs.

You're arguing that there are different rules for different beings, but you haven't explained why or how you think those rules are determined - besides insisting that it's not just a might makes right, 'God said so' philosophy. By contrast, despite some differences in particular application, the general principles of reducing or minimizing unnecessary harm and promoting or maximizing wellbeing seem to apply to every scenario and situation I can think of, even including the overwhelming majority of biblical contents (though there are some abhorrent things in there).

Again, those might be general goods, but they are not absolute goods. Though we seek to understand animal societies and treat them as they would like to be treated, when push comes to shovel, we set the rules. The wild dogs might not like it and even many of the domestic dogs don't like it either, but if those wild dogs settle on a man's property, they might find themselves being attacked by domestic dogs at that man's direction.

So I see no basis for imagining that genocide against the Canaanites is justifiable just because God said so.*

It might be justifiable (at least by the terms of the Israelite narrative portraying their enemy as baby-killing demons) as the lesser evil, the best long-term solution minimizing suffering for the Canaanites and maximizing wellbeing for the homeless Israelites - which seems to be what Liam was hinting towards in the OP. That's a debate I could probably take either side on. But the 'God said so / we're like bacteria to him' position seems exceptionally weak.

Well, that is fine, but several reasons have been given. However, regardless of whatever reason is given, the omnipotence card is played. If a deity is indeed omnipotent, then the deity said so is perfectly justifiable. However, if one is going to do a cost benefit/analysis we need to realize that minimizing suffering for the Canaanites is a projected humanist ideal.

* In fact on a similar note, I'm curious about your views on the Abraham and Isaac story I hinted towards in my reply to Rikuo. I know you've elsewhere suggested that it conveys (perhaps allegorically) that animal sacrifice is not a lesser form of devotion than human sacrifice: But if it were read literally, would you agree that Abraham failed the test, that he should have protested even more vehemently than Ezekiel did when he was merely told to cook with his own faeces?

I'm not sure I made that point. I think I made the point that Avraham lived in a time when human sacrifice was not unthinkable. In that context, anything less than human sacrifice could be seen as showing lesser devotion. The incident makes the point clear that one is to have as much, if not more, devotion to Adonai as others have toward thier deities. That point being made, we recognize animal sacrifice as a symbolic ritual that serves as a stand in for human sacrifice.