Is there a moral hypocrisy when it comes to violence?

steddyeddy

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

Mesrine65

wp_rathead

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

but they are not okay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

steddyeddy

wp_rathead wrote: »

but they are not okay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

Earthhorse

There is moral hypocrisy when it comes to everything.

catallus

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

Massacring nearly a million people might be considered wrong, but only if one adheres to archaic notions of right and wrong.

If the horrific legacy of the past century has thought us anything it is that weakness is more abominable than evil.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

From 'The Battle of Algiers':

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?
Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

wp_rathead

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

From an ethical and environmental view yes, it is considered wrong - but militarily I believe alot of people consider it to have been acceptable.. which I think was your point of the thread ha

This America's current policy on Nuclear engagement:

According to the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are deemed to be in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation responsibilities. It also states that the United States would only consider using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. Based on these criteria, the United States would consider using nuclear weapons against states that possess nuclear weapons—Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—as well as states that are in noncompliance with their nonproliferation objectives, namely, North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

The Sun King

Nukes are fine? Really?

In the greatest hits of messed up things people have done to each other, dropping the bomb is near the top.

Just behind Justin Biebers music career.

Timberrrrrrrr

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

Yup

Setting off a car bomb in a market and kill 20 innocent civilians is evil, drop a bomb from 3 miles up and killing 50 innocent civilians is collateral damage.

One eyed Jack

What's that quote about killing one person is murder, killing a million is war, or something like that?

Of course there's moral hypocrisy in everything, standard "do as I say, not as I do" is the default setting for most people.


EDIT: Here we go -


"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god."

Jean Rostand, Thoughts of a Biologist (1939)
(1894 - 1977)

The Sun King

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's that quote about killing one person is murder, killing a million is war, or something like that?

Of course there's moral hypocrisy in everything, standard "do as I say, not as I do" is the default setting for most people.

The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.

Right?

KomradeBishop

People are near-universally susceptible to being fooled into adopting simplistic/wrong moral views - the more complicated/technical a topic is, the more people will gravitate towards simplistic/wrong morals.

It's for reasons like this, that I don't really view people of 'adult' age, as being all that much more intelligent/mature than teenagers or even younger - because so so many people (even otherwise very intelligent people), believe so so many stupid/ignorant things, and get stuck believing such things - hell, there are some things a child could understand as being morally wrong, that a lot of adults would miss or would try and make up excuses to justify.

Peoples morals are more heavily affected by media, political/economic discourse, their personal/work lives, and general cognitive bias, than most people realize or care to even think about (because people generally don't have to think/care about such things, to get on with their lives); it's one of those things where once you see enough evidence of it, and see just how deeply it penetrates all of society, there's no way to unlearn it, and it permanently affects your perception.

catallus

Interesting article on the benefits of wars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html

Thinkers have long grappled with the relationships among peace, war and strength. Thomas Hobbes wrote his case for strong government, “Leviathan,” as the English Civil War raged around him in the 1640s. German sociologist Norbert Elias’s two-volume treatise, “The Civilizing Process,” published on the eve of World War II, argued that Europe had become a more peaceful place in the five centuries leading to his own day. The difference is that now we have the evidence to prove their case.....

War may well be the worst way imaginable to create larger, more peaceful societies, but the depressing fact is that it is pretty much the only way . If only the Roman Empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls and Greeks, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans, if these and countless conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force. But this did not happen. People almost never give up their freedoms — including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish one another — unless forced to do so; and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.

Earthhorse

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

Some people argue that dropping the bomb on Japan brought about their surrender instead of prolonging the war which would have cost more lives. Not sure if there's a consensus on it but given that ever since no nuclear bombs have been dropped I think it's fair to say no one regards nuclear war as ethically sound.

endacl

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

Rape is bad, but it's ok to wish multiple violent rape-with-implements on convicted rapists?

ISIS beheadings are abhorrent, but it's OK to wish the Middle East be bombed back to the Stone Age (which, culturally, wouldn't be far)?

People are never consistent. Why would you expect them to be?!?

catallus

Earthhorse wrote: »

Some people argue that dropping the bomb on Japan brought about their surrender instead of prolonging the war which would have cost more lives. Not sure if there's a consensus on it but given that ever since no nuclear bombs have been dropped I think it's fair to say no one regards nuclear war as ethically sound.

I'm sure that the current consensus is that the Japanese were going to continue fighting even after the bombs were dropped. The reason they surrendered to the Americans was because surrendering to Stalin was the only other option.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

This predated the treaty. I also doubt that that decision was made with a meaningful knowledge of the consequences.

zeffabelli

endacl wrote: »

Rape is bad, but it's ok to wish multiple violent rape-with-implements on convicted rapists?

ISIS beheadings are abhorrent, but it's OK to wish the Middle East be bombed back to the Stone Age (which, culturally, wouldn't be far)?

People are never consistent. Why would you expect them to be?!?

With ISIS the violence is intimate....and it's theatre....

The ICK factor plays a huge part in how people moralise.

Winston Payne

Hypocrisy is way too expedient to ever do away with.

Einhard

For me, the difference is intent. Killing innocents is always abominable. However, I think there's a pretty obvious distinction between someone dropping a bomb on a military target and killing civilians in the process, and detonating a bomb in a marketplace with the express intent of killing civilians.

the evasion_kid

I walk the down the street and shoot someone = I'm a murderer

A government hands me a gun,trains me how to use it and sends me to kill people = I'm a hero

NachoBusiness

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

Yes and no.

SEPT 23 1989

steddyeddy wrote: »

So it was widely considered wrong to drop nukes on Japan?

no

they deserved everything they got

Timberrrrrrrr

Einhard wrote: »

For me, the difference is intent. Killing innocents is always abominable. However, I think there's a pretty obvious distinction between someone dropping a bomb on a military target and killing civilians in the process, and detonating a bomb in a marketplace with the express intent of killing civilians.

But what about when it's not a military target?

http://europe.newsweek.com/wedding-became-funeral-us-still-silent-one-year-deadly-yemen-drone-strike-291403

A year on from a U.S. drone strike in Yemen that hit a wedding convoy, killing 12, the United States government have refused to formally recognise the attack, or publicly acknowledge that unarmed civilians died as a result of the strike.

I would love to know many innocent people should die in these so called "precision strikes?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur. Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.

Here's visualisation of drone strikes in Pakistan

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/


It includes the strike on a school that killed 80 innocent people including 69 children

http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/

It is one of the worst incidents of the entire drones campaign, yet one of the least reported. A CIA strike on a madrassa or religious school in 2006 killed up to 69 children, among 80 civilians.

darkpagandeath

Now WMD's can be pressure cookers.

Samaris

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

There is, yes. When you get down to it, war is never "nice". And we create "rules" so we can live with ourselves, I suspect.

Nukes are most definitely not OK. As others have brought up, dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has gone down in our global consciousness (well, the Western consciousness) as the most troubling act of WWII, and probably the most morally dubious in recent history.

Destruction of civilians, especially children, is universally condemned, bar by outliers. That's partly why we hate and fear terrorism so much. It directly targets civilians, including children.

Humans -do- seem to have an innate sense of..well, fair play, for what of a better phrase. Certain things just go beyond what we consider acceptable, although those considerations change with every generation.

Sorry for the rather stream-of-thought post!

FISMA.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think there is. In war biological or chemical weapons are banned yet nukes are OK apparently. Suicide bombers are not OK yet stealth bombers are? Is this an example of cognitive dissonance i.e holding two opposing views simultaneously?

Is morality relative or absolute?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath

On a side note Nukes are not ok, They had to be used to show how terrible a prospect it was to use them. Same with Chemical weapons. Someone may be able to correct me but biological have never been used ?

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

On a side note Nukes are not ok, They had to be used to show how terrible a prospect it was to use them. Same with Chemical weapons. Someone may be able to correct me but biological have never been used ?

Oh, biological weaponry have been used. Just they have tended to be imprecise. It goes all the way to medieval times, and probably earlier. There was a charming practice of catapulting corpses over walls to spread disease in besieged cities. There is also the old mistranslation of "thou shalt not suffer a well-poisoner to live" as well. The most common method of poisoning a well was to toss a corpse (animal or otherwise) down it.

Humans have always been rather inventive when it came to being dicks.

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, biological weaponry have been used. Just they have tended to be imprecise. It goes all the way to medieval times, and probably earlier. There was a charming practice of catapulting corpses over walls to spread disease in besieged cities. There is also the old mistranslation of "thou shalt not suffer a well-poisoner to live" as well. The most common method of poisoning a well was to toss a corpse (animal or otherwise) down it.

Humans have always been rather inventive when it came to being dicks.

I'm talking in this era not poisoning a well or chucking dead animals over castle walls. You know like weaponized versions of anthrax or smallpox.

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm talking in this era not poisoning a well or chucking dead animals over castle walls. You know like weaponized versions of anthrax or smallpox.

Fortunately, no-one's -yet- weaponised smallpox. But anthrax has been used. Aum Shinrikyo used sarin nerve gas in a Tokyo underground station in 1995 They were also cultivating anthrax and released it in 1993, pumping it into the air over Tokyo. Fortunately, the strain they had carefully cultivated was non-lethal, despite their best efforts. They were lunatics, but they tried it.

WWI - the Germans attempted it on the Russians, but failed. They also attempted it against America, to try destroy crops. Fortunately, biological weapons have ever proved a bit unreliable.

In WWII, the UK weaponised anthrax and botulism, but never deployed them. The Allies did the same thing when the US entered the war, but again, didn't use them. The Japanese weaponised typhoid, infecting a major Chinese river to try decimate the population, along with dropping, of all things, bombs filled with fleas infected with bubonic plague on Chinese cities. Estimates go up to 400,000 Chinese deaths from Japanese testing of these biological weapons. There were apparently plans to try the same on the US, but the Japanese surrender ended that.

Various counties, including the US and the UK continued to develop biological weapons during the post war and Cold War period, but it would seem that none of them were ever deployed in war. The UK renounced Chemical and Biological weapon use in 1956 and ceased study into it.

In 2001, various members of the US Congress were sent viable anthrax in letter bombs. Five died.

I'm not a madman that keeps all this in her head, mind! This is a very short version of the Wiki page on biological warfare. Fortunately, most peoples seem to agree that this sort of thing is just plain evil. There are always those that will take any methods though. And someday, smallpox or something like it will be weaponised and used.