[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Platt Holden]

> [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?

Society has the moral right to wage war to defend itself. Often entire 
populations, both civilian and military are involved in the war effort. 
The option is to surrender without a fight.
 
> [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?

As said, waging war often involves the whole society. See Pirsig on the 
morality of the Civil War.

> [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.

The Japanese population was engaged in war as were the Allied 
populations. The bombs shortened the war, saving thousands of lives on 
both sides.
 
> [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?

The MOQ didn't invent morality. 

> 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.

There is considerable moral difference between threats to society that 
can destroy the rights of all citizens compared to threats to society 
from individual criminals that affect relatively few. Pirsig recognizes 
this moral difference in his comparison of the morality the Civil War 
vs. capital punishment. As for your question,  who are persons A and B 
and what's the situation? 

Platt