Heh, heh, heh….the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few so long as one is not of the few. Tell me, do you think American should’ve retreated from all its territories in the Pacific, including from the Philippines to Hawaii, Alaska, Wake Midway, and Guam and gone to a Fortress America defense? Do you think it would’ve worked? Do you think that Hitler didn’t intend to attack America had we let Britain fall?Īlso, how have I used force against you? Is it in implying you over exaggerated what I said about making HARD decisions? trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire (again to try to convince Japan to halt its aggression in China and SE Asia) Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil (to help with our oil & materials embargo for Japanese aggression) fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (to protect US territories & prevent having to fight near US mainland waters)
Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient (same as in D)į. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore (to serve purpose A as Japan was a naval power)Į. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek (to help the Chinese resist Japanese aggression)ĭ. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies (also the same as in A)Ĭ. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore (to protect US bases and concerns)ī. The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia. Jack, so do you believe that the 8 actions listed below were unjustified and the US should’ve let Japan continue it’s aggression in Indochina and SE Asia? The parts in parentheses my views as to why they were to be done) HOWEVER, what right do we have to assume Japan was going to surrender absent a massive invasion of its Homeland?īy the way, as a retired Air Force combat recon officer I admit I’m biased. I’d go further and say that not to kill the thieves and as a result more innocent deaths occur you’re partly responsible for their murders.īut what if it were 5 thieves and only 2 hostages besides you? I believe the same applies. The pacifist says no, but I say absolutely yes. Due to your proper training you see the opportunity to stop the thieves by killing them with little risk to your fellow hostages.ĭo you have the right to assume the 20 hostages lives are “worth more” than those of the 2 thieves? The thieves claim unless they get what they want they’re going to kill some of the 20 hostages, and menacingly they indicate they’re not satisfied with what they’ve gotten. Let’s say there’s a security guard whom they immediately kill to prove their intentions. Let’s say you’re at a store or bank and two armed robbers come in. ” Let’s take a more realistic example that could happen to us here at home.
You say “it is morally wrong to attempt to try to compare the “worth” of life versus life. What if robbing 10,000 families of their life savings could have prevented the bombing? Would that have been worth it? The conclusion ultimately rests of whether or not it is morally wrong for the powerful to deprive someone of their rights against their will. If, somehow, murdering a single child would have prevented the Heroshima bombing, would it have been worth it to prevent all that death (assuming Japan would have surrendered anyway)? I assert that it is morally wrong to attempt to try to compare the “worth” of life versus life. Perhaps laws could be enacted to restrict the taking of life (or whatever rights might be considered sacrosanct), but there’s not a logical reason why the powerful wouldn’t eventually try to remove those barriers if there is nothing morally wrong with depriving an individual of his rights. If it is possible for someone else to determine which “needs” of the many are more important than the needs of an individual and they believe they have the power to deprive the individual of his needs in order to benefit the many (which most people in power around the world behave as if they believed), then there’s nothing to prevent the powerful from depriving the individual of even his life, should the benefit to the many (a very subjective quantity) be sufficiently large. Let’s proceed from the proposition that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (not precisely what Spock meant, but that’s irrelevant-it was only an attention grabber).
0 kommentar(er)
