Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"All the personal and war fighting is just instinctive."

What would have been the appropriate response to Peal Harbor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"We're hardwired to do that, so are ants (and all other higher primates)."

And yet every iteration that claims it's origins in the Enlightenment claim otherwise.

And, you say???

 

[ScienceRocks]

Only if you believe that some truly sick fucker is watching us all. Otherwise, logic dictates that humans should run our own laws and be fair to one another.

 

[Circe]

[

And yet every iteration that claims it's origins in the Enlightenment claim otherwise.

And, you say???

What do you mean by iteration?

 

[Circe]

"All the personal and war fighting is just instinctive."

What would have been the appropriate response to Peal Harbor?

We made the appropriate response to .......let's say Pearl Harbor. They attacked us and we attacked back till we won, then took over Japan and much of the rest of Asia. As long as we're winning, works for me.

It's no use doing the war thing if we lose. That's what's the problem with all the brush fire wars going on now. We lose --- pretty stupid. Win or get out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only if you believe that some truly sick fucker is watching us all. Otherwise, logic dictates that humans should run our own laws and be fair to one another.

Thank you, Rodney King.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"All the personal and war fighting is just instinctive."

What would have been the appropriate response to Peal Harbor?

We made the appropriate response to .......let's say Pearl Harbor. They attacked us and we attacked back till we won, then took over Japan and much of the rest of Asia. As long as we're winning, works for me.

It's no use doing the war thing if we lose. That's what's the problem with all the brush fire wars going on now. We lose --- pretty stupid. Win or get out.

Have you considered that
'hardwired'
or
'reasoned'
or
'biblical'


...all provide the same answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

And yet every iteration that claims it's origins in the Enlightenment claim otherwise.

And, you say???

What do you mean by iteration?

"All the personal and war fighting is just instinctive."

All of these claim reason is behind their machinations.

Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism

 

[boedicca]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

 

[boedicca]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

It's more evil to expose one's fellow citizens to annihilation by not engaging in a vigorous effort to defeat the enemy.

 

[RWNJ]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

 

[RWNJ]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

What would have been evil would have been allowing the war to go on instead of ending it when we could. Dropping those bombs was not evil, IMHO. Innocents on both sides die in war. The number is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

What would have been evil would have been allowing the war to go on instead of ending it when we could. Dropping those bombs was not evil, IMHO. Innocents on both sides die in war. The number is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning.

So, you'd rather avoid the question?

OK.

 

[RWNJ]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

What would have been evil would have been allowing the war to go on instead of ending it when we could. Dropping those bombs was not evil, IMHO. Innocents on both sides die in war. The number is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning.

So, you'd rather avoid the question?

OK.

Uhh...What question?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

the obvious answer is evil can not be used against itself.

 

[Markle]

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?

Old news, fake news.

The two bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, very possibly millions of military and civilian lives.

It was the civil and humane thing to do.

 

[Markle]

The purpose of winning a war is to do so in a way in which the enemy gives up. The job of the military is to kill the enemy; that is the nature of war. As tragic as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, the bombings saved far more lives than they took.

Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.



And....Merry Christmas.

Who says they were innocent? They supported their emperor in his war effort. They worked in factories to produce fighter planes and bombs. They enlisted in the military for the glory of Japan. Those who did not join the war effort were in favor of it. In fact, if it had ever come to an invasion of Japan, it's citizens were willing to become cannon fodder to try to stop us...for their emperor. Those "innocents" could have stopped the war in it's tracks simply by doing nothing. So there were no innocents.

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument.
Arguendo - Wikipedia
Arguendo - Wikipedia




Lets try again....
Arguendo....it involved the mass extermination of huge numbers of innocents.

Let's consider that as an 'evil.'

All respondents seem to agree that evil is necessary to counter evil.

If the collateral damage caused by war is to be considered 'evil,' is there agreement that evil is necessary to counter evil?

What would have been evil would have been allowing the war to go on instead of ending it when we could. Dropping those bombs was not evil, IMHO. Innocents on both sides die in war. The number is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is winning.

So, you'd rather avoid the question?

OK.

 

[Circe]

Have you considered that
'hardwired'
or
'reasoned'
or
'biblical'


...all provide the same answer.

No, of course not. That would be silly.