Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

[PoliticalChic]

Is that what God taught?

4. Lest I be accused of shortchanging the Judeo-Christian faith vis-à-vis this discussion, and suggesting that said faith was useless against macro evil such as 'slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism,' or micro evil such as murder, rape, robbery, let me point out that the Bible, the wisdom of Western Civilization, makes clear how to stand up to evil….

and it's instructions are hardly different from the route 'reason' takes:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14

Leviticus 24:17 and 21

Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31

Deuteronomy 19:11-13



I've seen some of the more ignorant claim that the Ten Commandments forbids warfare itself, and killing that ensues.

Of course, it doesn't.

It forbids 'murder:' the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Definition of MURDER



So…..if any sort of death is imagined to be 'evil,' then the question in the title is answered: some sort of 'evil' is necessary to combat evil.

 

[hobelim]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

I think its time to try and find a better way where no one has to die. politics and religion are already the evil that fights evil.

Why let this two headed beast fuck up the planet for everyone?

Why not fight evil with good, lies with truth and have a Nicaea style gathering where all religions and political views are openly debated,one by one, to discover their merits or flaws.No sophisticated weaponry necessary.

For instance nations could take turns promoting whatever position, political or religious, and argue their case.


If the truth comes out that Mohammed was a mentally ill pervert and not a messenger of a holy God then islam should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If the truth comes out that Jesus was not God and is not edible then institutions that perpetuate such evil should be shut down.

If it comes out that Mao was an evil genocidal bastard then he should not be promoted as being some sort of hero,

etc. etc.

Maybe the answer is in building upon what isn't evil in all religions and political ideologies creating something new.

Not fighting what is evil..thats just more of the same old shit that only leads to destruction.


If much of what was received from the past from our respective forefathers was evil, we owe it to our respective children to rid the world of it.

"Why not fight evil with good,...."

And the 'good response' to slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism would be......

....what?

Civil war, invasion of Europe, and dropping the bomb?



I'm talking about current events which could easily trigger worldwide destruction. I am not judging the events of the past.

I'm saying its high time we judged the beliefs, religious and political, that were and are still at the root of such things, and rid the world of that evil.

When nations are no longer enemies divided along political and religious lines there will be no more war.


There has never before been a time on earth when so much potential good and potential evil was at stake, never a time when all nations on earth could communicate instantly, were more or less equally educated, and capable of mutual destruction.

Who gives a shit what the truth is if the truth will lead to freedom from the slavery of perpetuating evil?

 

[alang1216]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

The OP:
1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.


So, you agree with the OP?

I have no problem with the use of the A bombs against Japan. I just quibbled with your calling it an evil. Anything that stops or lessens an evil is a good.

 

[hobelim]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

The OP:
1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.


So, you agree with the OP?

I have no problem with the use of the A bombs against Japan. I just quibbled with your calling it an evil. Anything that stops or lessens an evil is a good.

That could have been the rationale for attacking pearl harbor or the rationale behind the final solution.

 

[alang1216]

That could have been the rationale for attacking pearl harbor or the rationale behind the final solution.

People will rationalize anything but the 'evil; of having Jews in your country is, to me, a lesser evil than genocide. Violence is usually a greater evil than non-violence. I'm not even sure what 'evil' the Japanese can claim they were fighting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

I think its time to try and find a better way where no one has to die. politics and religion are already the evil that fights evil.

Why let this two headed beast fuck up the planet for everyone?

Why not fight evil with good, lies with truth and have a Nicaea style gathering where all religions and political views are openly debated,one by one, to discover their merits or flaws.No sophisticated weaponry necessary.

For instance nations could take turns promoting whatever position, political or religious, and argue their case.


If the truth comes out that Mohammed was a mentally ill pervert and not a messenger of a holy God then islam should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If the truth comes out that Jesus was not God and is not edible then institutions that perpetuate such evil should be shut down.

If it comes out that Mao was an evil genocidal bastard then he should not be promoted as being some sort of hero,

etc. etc.

Maybe the answer is in building upon what isn't evil in all religions and political ideologies creating something new.

Not fighting what is evil..thats just more of the same old shit that only leads to destruction.


If much of what was received from the past from our respective forefathers was evil, we owe it to our respective children to rid the world of it.

"Why not fight evil with good,...."

And the 'good response' to slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism would be......

....what?

Civil war, invasion of Europe, and dropping the bomb?



I'm talking about current events which could easily trigger worldwide destruction. I am not judging the events of the past.

I'm saying its high time we judged the beliefs, religious and political, that were and are still at the root of such things, and rid the world of that evil.

When nations are no longer enemies divided along political and religious lines there will be no more war.


There has never before been a time on earth when so much potential good and potential evil was at stake, never a time when all nations on earth could communicate instantly, were more or less equally educated, and capable of mutual destruction.

Who gives a shit what the truth is if the truth will lead to freedom from the slavery of perpetuating evil?

"When nations are no longer enemies divided along political and religious lines there will be no more war."

OMG!!!!

'Can't we all just get along?'

I thought Rodney King was dead.




"Who gives a s**t what the truth is if the truth will lead to freedom from the slavery of perpetuating evil?"

Is it possible that you don't understand how vapid that statement is????

You have an advanced degree in 'Sesame Street'?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The only other reasonable options, an invasion or blockade may have resulted in many more Japanese casualties so the A bomb was the lesser of two 'evils'. Is the lesser of two evils still an evil? I'd say it wasn't.

The OP:
1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.


So, you agree with the OP?

I have no problem with the use of the A bombs against Japan. I just quibbled with your calling it an evil. Anything that stops or lessens an evil is a good.

"Anything that stops or lessens an evil is a good."

A working definition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That could have been the rationale for attacking pearl harbor or the rationale behind the final solution.

People will rationalize anything but the 'evil; of having Jews in your country is, to me, a lesser evil than genocide. Violence is usually a greater evil than non-violence. I'm not even sure what 'evil' the Japanese can claim they were fighting.

"People will rationalize anything...."



5. We might wish to excuse a necessary 'evil' response to evil as an example of justice…..but, the concept is far too open to rationalizations.
If 'justice' is illusory on this plane, in society, what better reason for religion, or belief, or faith in an afterlife.

What sort of society would be possible if evil, crimes, were not forbidden and punished….or simply met with a wagging of the finger?



Reason alone is far from efficacious, as

a. there is no force behind 'reason'

and

b. the human mind can always find justification for whatever actions the individual may want to perform




6. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men. “Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.


But…..if there is a God who will punish evil in a way that man cannot……well, then there is meaning to the Bible's proscriptions.

 

[alang1216]

5. We might wish to excuse a necessary 'evil' response to evil as an example of justice…..but, the concept is far too open to rationalizations.
If 'justice' is illusory on this plane, in society, what better reason for religion, or belief, or faith in an afterlife.

If wishes were horses...

Every society has a concept of 'justice' and mechanisms for dispensing it. It is always imperfect but what isn't. Perfect justice is illusory but we in the US dispense a reasonable facsimile on a daily basis.

 

[hobelim]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

I think its time to try and find a better way where no one has to die. politics and religion are already the evil that fights evil.

Why let this two headed beast fuck up the planet for everyone?

Why not fight evil with good, lies with truth and have a Nicaea style gathering where all religions and political views are openly debated,one by one, to discover their merits or flaws.No sophisticated weaponry necessary.

For instance nations could take turns promoting whatever position, political or religious, and argue their case.


If the truth comes out that Mohammed was a mentally ill pervert and not a messenger of a holy God then islam should be wiped from the face of the earth.

If the truth comes out that Jesus was not God and is not edible then institutions that perpetuate such evil should be shut down.

If it comes out that Mao was an evil genocidal bastard then he should not be promoted as being some sort of hero,

etc. etc.

Maybe the answer is in building upon what isn't evil in all religions and political ideologies creating something new.

Not fighting what is evil..thats just more of the same old shit that only leads to destruction.


If much of what was received from the past from our respective forefathers was evil, we owe it to our respective children to rid the world of it.

"Why not fight evil with good,...."

And the 'good response' to slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism would be......

....what?

Civil war, invasion of Europe, and dropping the bomb?



I'm talking about current events which could easily trigger worldwide destruction. I am not judging the events of the past.

I'm saying its high time we judged the beliefs, religious and political, that were and are still at the root of such things, and rid the world of that evil.

When nations are no longer enemies divided along political and religious lines there will be no more war.


There has never before been a time on earth when so much potential good and potential evil was at stake, never a time when all nations on earth could communicate instantly, were more or less equally educated, and capable of mutual destruction.

Who gives a shit what the truth is if the truth will lead to freedom from the slavery of perpetuating evil?

"When nations are no longer enemies divided along political and religious lines there will be no more war."

OMG!!!!

'Can't we all just get along?'

I thought Rodney King was dead.

lol....

whats the hurry?

You think you will defeat evil through war? What if it is revealed that your beliefs are evil?

buh bye......

Should you not be given the chance to make amends?


WTF. Bombs away!

 

[RWNJ]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is just plain stupid. Win as quickly as you can, by any means available.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is just plain stupid. Win as quickly as you can, by any means available.

And this has what to do with 'evil'??

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Should evil be used to fight evil?

There are places in the Bible wherein nations are commanded to kill…..but how about individuals?

Perhaps individuals are not commanded to kill….but it is revealed that some, even some major individuals, do kill.

The Ten Commandments bans murder….yet

11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. 12 Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand."
Exodus 2:11-12



And,….

24 He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian. 25 Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not.
Acts 7:24-25

Seems that the message is that evil may be used to combat evil.



But….evil does not go unrecognized: Moses was rejected from entering the Promised Land:
But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the LORD said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter.
Deuteronomy 3:26

Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance:
Deuteronomy 4:21




Sooo…..while the Judeo-Christian faith is based on free will, it doesn't suggest that there are no penalties for ones actions.
Seems to depend on what one is willing to risk to fight evil....

...and, after gratitude, courage is the least of human characteristics.

 

[RWNJ]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is just plain stupid. Win as quickly as you can, by any means available.

And this has what to do with 'evil'??

Dropping the bombs wan't evil. It was necessary. And it actually saved countless lives, on both sides.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is just plain stupid. Win as quickly as you can, by any means available.

And this has what to do with 'evil'??

Dropping the bombs wan't evil. It was necessary. And it actually saved countless lives, on both sides.

I believe I covered that in the OP...
"I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context."


And this has what to do with 'evil'??
Is warfare evil?

Is it a necessary evil, useful in the fight against evil?

 

[RWNJ]

1. What could be an example of 'evil'?
Atomic Bombs on two of Japan's cities has often been cited as 'evil'…and who can question that conclusion….
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, and their effects are still being felt today."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings | ICAN


I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context.

But….judging by the results, with many innocents horrible killed, it fits any definition of 'evil.'

Perhaps, then, evil has a role to play in combating evil.




2. It would be a mistake to try to cover up the results of the atomic bombings behind 'justice,' as the concept 'justice' is even more subjective than 'evil.'


"…justice is not an absolute term, but a malleable idea, protean, flexible, changeable. Justice is at best a very distant ideal toward which different tribes aspire, moving by various, circuitous, and culturally determined routes."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation," p. 196-197


And, before one gets too attached to the concept, recall the famous statement by J. Edgar Hoover: Justice is incidental to law and order.
We see that in the Mueller Investigation.


This axiom is even closer to the truth:
The only places one finds justice is the cemetery or the dictionary.



But 'evil,' well, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, we know it when we see it.
Sooo once recognized....and assuming honorable folks agree that evil is to be combated…..how to go about that?



3. The stated aim of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the creation of secularism, was to replace religion and morality with science and reason. If we judge by the millions who have died as a result of that new direction for society, it should be judged a huge mistake.
Use evil to fight evil?
…..it does seem to be way to respond to evil, e.g., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
History seems to prove this axiom:

"Violence never solved anything. Except slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism."
Thom Shea


Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is just plain stupid. Win as quickly as you can, by any means available.

And this has what to do with 'evil'??

Dropping the bombs wan't evil. It was necessary. And it actually saved countless lives, on both sides.

I believe I covered that in the OP...
"I know all of the justifications, and, I believe it was the correct action given the times, the situation, and the context."


And this has what to do with 'evil'??
Is warfare evil?

I it a necessary evil, useful in the fight against evil?

War is necessary if we want to remain free. It's not evil. It just is. It's part of the human condition, and always will be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is violence synonymous with 'evil'?
Or....only some sorts of violence?


8. As pointed out earlier, the Bible commands against murder, not against killing.
Of course we have often heard misguided individuals claim that all warfare, all violence, including killing is evil.

Putting murderers to death is actually a biblical requirement.
And is warfare, forbidden?????
Not in the Bible.

a. When is the evil of war required?

In order to preserve freedom, violence is required.
"In Numbers 32, God gets very upset, in fact He expresses anger, at two tribes in Israel, because they wouldn't go to war. Moses says to these two tribes, "What are you going to do? Just sit here while the rest of your brothers go to war? Aren't you going to participate?"



Violence is required in order to defend innocent people.
Proverbs 21:15 "When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers…. Peace at any price is not peace. Peace at any price is appeasement."
When is it Right To Fight? Part One




Remember 'Better Red Than Dead'?
Not in the Judeo-Christian faith.
And Western Civilization is based on this faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Sooo…..is warfare evil?
Well….if it is, then evil is sometimes required to fight evil.

And is violence justified or required?
You betcha'!



And this view can be found in Jesus' ministry, too!

a. Jesus "never told a Roman soldier to leave the army. If Jesus had been a total pacifist, He would have said every time He saw a soldier, "Leave your army! Come follow Me." But not once did He ever say it was morally wrong for them to be in the service.


b. Twice in the New Testament, He cleansed the temple by force. It says He made a whip and He went in and He cleansed the temple. He didn't politely ask them, "Would you guys, pretty please get out of here?" He forced them out. They were in the wrong place. So He forced them out." When is it Right To Fight? Part One




10. When read correctly, the Bible instructs us to fight evil.

"But now," he said, "take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! Luke 22:36


And you will hear of wars and threats of wars, but don't panic. Yes, these things must take place, but the end won't follow immediately. Matthew 24:6




QED….if violence, warfare, killing is considered 'evil,' well….sometimes it is necessary in the battle against evil.

 

[Circe]

Fight evil with evil?
Seems to fit with using 'reason'....


Agree?

No. I have never found evil a good descriptor or metaphor.
All the personal and war fighting is just instinctive. We're hardwired to do that, so are ants (and all other higher primates).

We fight each other for dominance and resources, and this has intraspecies evolutionary consequences: the fittest survive and take over North America.

Works for me. We probably haven't been doing enough of it lately, but I am betting that will soon change.

 

[Circe]

That was a Natural Law argument, by the way, if you are into philosophy.