----- Original Message ----- From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war
> > > 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. > Most of the world doesn't. xponent Dinner Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
