Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
Then thats just a simple disagreement on a subjective topic, which is why I think Bond and I both maintain that this should be a states rights issue.
|
I can agree to that.
Quote:
I'm not sure how my statements were hipocritical when I made efforts to explain that pre-emtive self-defense is a morally dubious activity. And to use your own terminology, was the US's involvement in the European theater in WW2 immoral? We certainly were not on our home turf by any means. We were across the Atlantic, and Germany never ever attacked the US!
Of course it was moral because to do nothing ran the risk of an openly agressive Nazi Germany ruling Europe and Asia and in the position to threaten the US and the rest of the free world, exterminating who they pleaed along the way. This is why preemption is so muddled... you'll never know the moral consequence of the alternative because it was never given the option of existing.
|
I still think its hipocritical from a moral standpoint to universaly say that the death penalty is wrong to do in all cases, and then support and pre-emtive war effort. Because in one case you're saying killing
a single person for their crimes is wrong, and in the other case you're saying killing
thousands of people for crimes they haven't commited yet, but simply "threaten" to commit is ok. And EVEN IF the country in question commited international crimes, its still hipocritical to say you'd kill them but not kill a single person who is found guilty here.