> JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >Please explain, then, how any war can be "just,"
> >since
> >it is inevitable that innocents will be killed,
> >maimed and left bereft by.....
> I could say the same thing about automobiles.....
> does that mean that
> driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is
> inevitable that driving
> automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and
> left bereft?
Cars are not designed to kill or maim humans. Guns,
bombs, and other ordnance - the means of war - are.
To put it in other terms, aspirin saves many lives WRT
heart disease, yet kills a few who are
overly-sensitive to it. But cyanide tablets have one
purpose: to kill. To give aspirin tablets to a person
is not evil (unless you know that they've already had
a bad reaction to it) -- to give cyanide tablets _is_.
> I use the same logic with a "just war" - intent
> matters.
But disregard of unavoidable collateral damage does
not? I fail to see how any war can be called just --
although it can be the lesser of two evils. The only
purpose I can surmise for calling a war "just" is to
convince young people that they are doing the right
thing in killing the 'enemy,' and excused for whatever
collateral non-coms happen to be in the way.
Once I read that dividing sides into "them and us" is
blunter, but more honest. I have no problem with
saying that I will kill an intruder in my home, as it
is extremely likely that er's intent to me is harm; I
also know that I will have nightmares about _taking
the life of another human being_ even so. My action
would not be "just" before the Divine in my personal
belief system - but it would be necessary and the
lesser of evil outcomes -- at least as far as I, my
friends, and family would be concerned.
Deborah Harrell
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
