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]

For example emotional claims that genocide against the Canaanites was "evil" would clearly be begging the question in light of this thread topic.

You are asking me to support the fact that genocide is evil? Let's start with this question: "Are you human?"

Okay... you're throwing out some kind of insult. But so far
> you have not provided irrefutable evidence that Yahweh is "the biggest bully ever devised by human minds"
> you have not provided irrefutable evidence that Yahweh is a "non-existent being"
> you have not even provided irrefutable evidence that Yahweh is "evil."

According to the bible the Canaanites were a culture which sacrificed their infants - likely close to a hundred thousand babies per year, a death by fire which was presumably one of the more painful ways to go - to deities such as Baal and Molech. Your assertion seems to be that it was evil to get rid of that society, and that in so doing Yahweh was a more contemptible entity than those other deities. Trying to cast aspersions on others' humanity rather than calmly and rationally supporting your contentions merely makes it look as though you have nothing better to offer - indeed that you yourself lack a certain measure of moral fibre and goodwill towards others.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by Mithrae]

Well I can understand his confusion:
Humans understand genocide is evil.
The Bible elucidates God's not only genocides, but Terracide.

I think he reads the Bible with an objective eye, and can't help but be mortified, and doesn't know where to begin with your proof. I mean simply the sending of Jesus, why not before the flood? Why not scrap Adam and Eve and start over (humanely?).

So many options were the god not evil.

Here is some irrefutable proof - though why I submit it, I don't know, because you will just say "that doesn't prove anything," as if saying it makes it so:

If God is capable of doing what is claimed in the Bible, he must be omnipotent. In order to be able to do anything, he must have unlimited amount of power, potential energy with which to do work.

So anyone this side of the 20th century knows that energy has mass, and so can be detected via mass. God having unlimited energy must therefore have mass.

So we can find the Sun, which necessarily has much less power than God. We can find the Moon by its mass...

But no God...

This is just one example. If you tell me anything about God, you should be able to look for him with that 'about'... but we find nothing.

What convinces you unicorns don't exist? apply those same rules.

What the Bible doesn't tell you about the Canaan is that they were the same people as the Hebrew, displaced by Pompey, not the Jews.

Those people killing all those babies were just Jews with a guilty enough conscience to re-write history.

Please examine the Seleucid Empire.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by Mithrae]

According to the bible the Canaanites were a culture which sacrificed their infants - likely close to a hundred thousand babies per year, a death by fire which was presumably one of the more painful ways to go - to deities such as Baal and Molech. Your assertion seems to be that it was evil to get rid of that society, and that in so doing Yahweh was a more contemptible entity than those other deities.

My own take on this is as follows.
The Bible paints a picture of the Canaanites being evil. What are they doing that is so evil, you might ask? Why...they're sacrificing babies! Not only that, but they're sacrificing them to Baal and Molech, who are false gods.
J'accuse!
The Canaanites deserve to die, to be wiped out.

Except...once I started thinking about it, this doesn't make sense.
Why are the Canaanites doing this baby sacrifice? Because they believe their God(s) commanded them to do so.
Okay...that sounds just like what happened with Abraham. Only difference being that God stopped Abraham at the last second and provided a ram instead.
So...apparently God didn't do that with the Canaanites. There is no mention of God himself making himself known to the Canaanites and telling them to stop doing the baby sacrifice, or preventing it from starting in the first place. (There is mention of Hebrews spending years trying to convince the Canaanites, but this isn't the same as God doing so).

Wiping out an entire people is something that I (and I hope yourself) would consider only as a last resort once all other options had been exhausted.
Reread the last few words.
Once all other options had been exhausted.
The narrative does NOT have any mention of God telling the Canaanites to knock it off.
So it seems fair to assume that God didn't do so.
So this means the Canaanites are doing something evil that they think is good, and that God let them continue to do so when he has every opportunity to tell them
Why does he do this...seems obvious to me.
So that the writers of the narrative can say that God has every justification to wipe them out.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

God can because he is the Creator and all life belings to him,thus by definition the Creator has the right to give or take any life he so wishes.

No human can unless conferred that right by the Creator. I do not believe any human has the presently has been given such a right so no present human king, ruler President or government has the right to claim they war for God.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Is the God of the bible anti-war?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 074#839074

[bluethread]

We can't totally control bacteria; we can't make it from nothing.
God can make everything from nothing so the comparison here seems less than appropriate.

Less than apples and peaches? That is the point. What comparison is appropriate in judging a life form that can make everything from nothing? We are much more like bacteria than we are like a life for that can make everything from nothing. Why is the human experience the proper standard?

[bluethread]

How do bacteria hold us accountable? Do we simply apply the "do what I say not what I do" to bacteria?

Your reasoning seems to be fallacious since we are not bacteria. Unless all you are advocating is a 'might makes right' philosophy? That the question has nothing to do with the nature of the subjects, only the relative power of the perpetrators?

We are not deities either. I am not making the "might makes right" argument. I am making the different life form, different standard argument. Bacteria do not regulate our behavior and we kill bacteria and have bacteria attack each other without even batting an eye.

The Tanakh seems to forbid wanton destruction even of unfeeling trees during wartime, allowing the use only of so many as are required for the construction of seige equipment (Deut. 20:19-20). One of the most fundamental of all biblical commandments - the Noachide law forbidding consumption of meat with the blood/life still in it - is perhaps best understood as a prohibition against preserving meat by removing and eating only one leg at a time from a living animal. The notion that we, being 'greater' than the other creatures of the earth, needn't concern ourselves with their ethical treatment seems to be fundamentally unbiblical; even the land itself is said to deserve its 'rest' every seventh year!

Admittedly, the more the life form is like us the more we grant that life form consideration. However, it is we who grant those considerations, not those other life forms. In the case you are presenting, it is the "greater" life form that is doing the dictating. Why is it proper for that life form to dictate that behavior and not other behaviors?

Bacteria may not experience any suffering, and domestic animals well treated and humanely killed may live as well or better than their wild counterparts - at least before our era of excessive meat consumption and unsustainably large scale farming practices - while human beings are capable of recognizing more subtle injustices. Not that genocide is particularly subtle! There seems to be no very obvious reason why a given treatment of humans would be abhorrent if done by their fellow man but somehow holy if done by a superior alien race or by a deity, let alone when done by their fellow man claiming to have been commissioned by a deity.

There is also no obvious reason why a given treatment of a dog, cat, or fish is abhorrent when done by fellow dog, cat, or fish and acceptable if done by a human. However, we grant ourselves the right to treat dogs, cats and fish differently than we treat ourselves and even dictate how dogs, cats and fish should treat each other.

Comparing yourself to a bacterium seems to miss the point entirely as to what 'good' and 'evil' actually are unless, as I say, it's just a might makes right philosophy that you're promoting.

That is because you do see 'good' and 'evil' as things that somehow transend differences in life form. However, I do not believe that is the case. Let's test this. Please, provide and example of 'good' and 'evil' and we will see if the principle holds for all life forms.

[Mithrae]

Why are the Canaanites doing this baby sacrifice? Because they believe their God(s) commanded them to do so.
Okay...that sounds just like what happened with Abraham. Only difference being that God stopped Abraham at the last second and provided a ram instead.
So...apparently God didn't do that with the Canaanites. There is no mention of God himself making himself known to the Canaanites and telling them to stop doing the baby sacrifice, or preventing it from starting in the first place. (There is mention of Hebrews spending years trying to convince the Canaanites, but this isn't the same as God doing so).

Wiping out an entire people is something that I (and I hope yourself) would consider only as a last resort once all other options had been exhausted.
Reread the last few words.
Once all other options had been exhausted.
The narrative does NOT have any mention of God telling the Canaanites to knock it off.
So it seems fair to assume that God didn't do so.
So this means the Canaanites are doing something evil that they think is good, and that God let them continue to do so when he has every opportunity to tell them
Why does he do this...seems obvious to me.
So that the writers of the narrative can say that God has every justification to wipe them out.

"Don't kill" is literally the most basic and universal moral precept of all. And while most folk believe that there are nuances and exceptions, "don't kill your own innocent children" is not really one of them. Are you honestly trying to argue that this is something that ought to be backed up by some kind of divine proof before being militantly opposed?

It's even utterly contrary to our own evolutionary nature; whereas, for what it's worth, creating the conditions to best accommodate their descendants' success was entirely in accord with evolutionary principle for the Israelites, even aside from the Canaanite moral question.

As you note, Yahweh did allegedly provide prophets and examples to the Canaanites such as Melchizedek and Abraham (who, a good case might be made in light of passages like Ezekiel 4:14, failed the test regarding Isaac even though the message against human sacrifice came through regardless). But not only that, according to Genesis 15:13-16 the reason why Abraham's descendants remained without a land of their own and subject to exploitation by the Egyptians was because it would have been unjust to depose the Canaanites at that stage. 'God' was allegedly so patient and just that he waited four generations (or four centuries, depending on whether we go with the J or E source) hoping that they would mend their ways.


On a side note, defending this story is the last thing I thought I'd find myself doing. I just thought that there was a rather stark and disturbing contrast between TCG's peremptory dismissal of 'Yahweh' in one post and then in the immediately following post an insistence that claims be backed up with irrefutable evidence and no pretzel logic. So far, he has utterly failed to live up to his own standards

[Mithrae]

Comparing yourself to a bacterium seems to miss the point entirely as to what 'good' and 'evil' actually are unless, as I say, it's just a might makes right philosophy that you're promoting.

That is because you do see 'good' and 'evil' as things that somehow transend differences in life form. However, I do not believe that is the case. Let's test this. Please, provide and example of 'good' and 'evil' and we will see if the principle holds for all life forms.

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.

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.

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.'


Might get back to the rest when I have time!

[bluethread]

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.

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.

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.

[dianaiad]

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?

My answer to this is no. Truman was not justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima.

And what should the USA have done instead? What would have been the outcome if the USA had not dropped those bombs? (remember, there were two).

The Japanese were NOT an 'evil' people, but they had...and still have, to a great extent...a culture that we admire greatly when they are on our side. Their sense of honor, their determination, their willingness to "do what it takes' is praiseworthy.

Unless those characteristics are found in the enemy. Remember, the USA didn't start that particular conflict. We did not bomb THEIR military base, taking out most of their naval forces without notifying them that we were about to wage war.

We interned Japanese American citizens, and that was shameful. However, we didn't KILL them, or torture them, or do any of the things that they did to their prisoners.

They were prepared to defend their homeland right down to the last man, woman and child. They would never have surrendered, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers and sailors would have died, and at least as many Japanese would have died. Perhaps the Japanese death toll would have been in the millions.

My father would probably have been one of those.

The death toll for Hiroshima and Nagasaki ran to about 200,000. Estimates for the probable death toll for continued action run to about three or four times that, and those deaths WOULD have included the Japanese citizens who would have fought defending their homes. Those citizens, in other words, would NOT have been 'non-combatants.'

So, given that the Japanese started it (the USA would not have entered the war at all had Japan NOT bombed Pearl Harbor) and would not have ended it, and given that those bombs saved a life that is precious to ME (my father's) I believe that the decision to drop them was 'the lesser of two evils."

Agreed: the lesser of two evils is still evil, but when the enemy gives you no choice but to decide between those two evils, it's better to go with the choice that a: saves the most lives (and the bombs DID that, whether you like that or not) and b: allows the side that didn't start the war to WIN the war.

(shrug) call me blood thirsty. Call me pragmatic and downright Machiavellian. I'm glad my father is alive and that we won the war.

.............and that the Japanese are now our friends. I REALLY don't want to fight them again.

As to whether it is 'moral' for God to kill people 'for the greater good,' I believe that someone else has answered that far better than I could; you weren't there. You don't have all the information involved in making that decision.