[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
To the first, of course, is Pirsig's oft-quoted assessment of capital
punishment. "When a society is not itself threatened, as in the
execution of individual criminals, the issue becomes more complex... if
an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a
criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no
moral justification for killing him."

[Platt]
This passage is strictly context dependent in that it specifically 
refers to suitable punishment for a convicted criminal. It has nothing 
to do with a society threatened by war, nor does it say anything about 
the immediacy of a threat.

[Arlo]
Hm. And can you supply the appropriate reference from Pirsig that would indicate
that society has a moral right to kill when it is not threatened?

[Platt]
Not a contradiction when you take into account the context both 
statements. The first applies to a nation, the second to an individual, 
i.e., different levels.

[Arlo]
Can you supply the appropriate refernece that indicates that the MOQ justifies
killing Person A to protect itself from Person B?

[Platt]
Frankly, I'm amazed that you don't consider the war against Japan a war 
of Intellect (Freedom) vs. society (Tyranny). Pirsig's moral rationale 
for the Civil War applies to the Revolutionary War, World War II and 
all the subsequent wars we've engaged in, a point I've made 
consistently.

[Arlo]
Yes, I know. Every thing the U.S. of A. does is conveniently MOQ justified for
you. But here I was even talking about the morality of the war with Japan, but
the morality of detonating two atomic devices on two cities populated with
hundreds of thousands of innocents.

[Platt]
Would you that by me again? Is it difficult to determine that an attack 
employing terror, violence and death is biological? Shouldn't we use 
the MOQ to help determine the morality of real world events? And if it 
supports U.S. actions, should we toss it out or rewrite it?

[Arlo]
I think the MOQ supports some of America's military actions, and does not
support others. How can it be that, operating under an SOM mindset, with no
understanding of the MOQ, since its inception, every war the US has engaged in
has been "moral"? Coincidence? Divince Providence? Or State-Apologist?

In other words, if we use the MOQ to determine the morality of real world
events, I don't take example from someone incapable of criticizing anything his
country has done, and insists on recasting all its actions as "against
biological threats". Sometimes it has been. Sometimes not. And even when
morally justified to defend itself, this is not blanket permission to engage in
any type of behavior. 

As for the quotes you dismiss as context dependent, I offered them only as
evidence that history is a circle. That smug moral egotism that sent millions
to meaningless deaths in WWI is right back on us. Case in point.

Anyway, I'll be waiting for those Pirsig references. I'm especially eager to see
his words that justify killing Person A to (let's extend it to real world
situations) prevent the POTENTIAL that Person B might do us harm.

Arlo