[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo previously]
> 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]
> 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.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Can you give me an appropriate reference from Pirsig indicating that
> society has a moral right to kill when it is not threatened? That is
> what we are discussing, not its "right to defend itself". Can you give
> me any Pirsig reference that indicates that the threat must only be
> "perceived" and not "real"?

Since experience or perception is what's real in the MOQ, I don't 
understand the question.

> [Arlo previously]
> Can you supply the appropriate refernece that indicates that the MOQ
> justifies killing Person A to protect itself from Person B?
> 
> [Platt]
> As said, waging war often involves the whole society. See Pirsig on the
> morality of the Civil War.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Context dependent. Can you give me a refernece where Pirsig says that
> killing Person A to prevent a potential threat from Person B is morally
> justified?

Give me a for instance.

> [Platt]
> The Japanese population was engaged in war as were the Allied 
> populations. The bombs shortened the war, saving thousands of lives on
> both sides.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Killing civilians to protect the lives of military combatants is
> "moral"? Your logic here opens up all kinds of cans of worms. At best,
> this is using a hypothetical to justify an actual. At worst it suggests
> that as soon as a country is "engaged in war", its civilian population
> become legitimate targets.
> 

As Pirsig said, in war "everyone knew innocents would be murdered." It  
is the nature of war that civilians become targets. The "home front" 
supplies the combatants on the front lines. You idea of war seems to be 
cream puffs at 20 paces. 
 
> [Platt]
> The MOQ didn't invent morality.
> 
> [Arlo]
> But you claim the hippies were unable to see, or understand, the social
> or intellectual levels. How was the US government able to do so?

No. I claimed the hippies could see the social and intellectual levels 
very well -- the establishment and the intellectuals -- and rejected 
both. The didn't understand the low quality of the biological level 
that they descended to other than it "felt good."

> [Arlo previously]
> 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.

Again, give me for instance. If someone says he wants to kill me I 
don't call that a "potential."

> [Platt]
> 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?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Still waiting for those appropriate references. Add references for this
> last intepretation, please.

You gave the references yourself in relating Pirsig's justification of 
the Civil War and his assessment of capital punishment. 

Platt