I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by this statement, John, but I am sure I disagree with it, in any case. :)
In both cases you listed above, innocents are being deliberately picked out to be killed. So I see no quality difference between the two. Both are immoral actions for the exact same reason and to the same extent.
BTW, when we, or the Israelis, kill innocents in fighting a war, it is done is spite of our desire to kill only participants, the innocents are not the the direct target.
Bill,
I think this conversation is a rather old one on the thread. We do disagree. And it's a fairly complicated disagreement.
I will type one response, however. If you take the position that the direct targeting of innocents is an "immoral action", then you have no choice but to condemn the US bombing of Dresden and Nagasaki/Hiroshima as "immoral."
Nadine and I have been through that conversation several times and a couple of times we debated the morality of Sherman's march through the South.
We, too, agreed to disagree.
But one clarification. I have not argued that Palestinian suicide bombing is moral. I have argued that if one wishes to pass judgment on it as immoral he/she is required to consider its contextual source--occupation, settlements, gross inequities fostered and maintained by occupation.
As for Al-Qaida terrorism, I don't see the same arguments. |
