On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote
> >>
> >>> Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I
> >>> believe
> >>> that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an
> >>> appropriate
> >>> consideration in recommending for or against a war.
> >>
> >> You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser
> >> evil is
> >> sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me
> >> that
> >> even when talking about a just war, most every theologian
> >> acknowledges
> >> that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of
> >> evil
> >> -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible.
> >
> > I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if
> > war
> > was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine
> > justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a
> > doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of
> > not-intrinsically-evil
> > human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it
> > needs a
> > special-case doctrine.
>
> There is a Just Lunch doctrine.
> At least where I work there is.
> Just lunch......no nooner......just lunch.
>
>
> xponent
> No Beer Either Maru
> rob
You don't telecommute, then.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
