"Imagine terrorist group A attacking country B, where A is trying to maximize civilian casualties on both sides and B is trying to minimize them. What sort of moral judgment would have trouble distinguishing between the two?"
Well, I took that to mean that any moral judgement would be unable to distinguish between the two because a dead person is just as dead no matter whether you tried not to kill them or not. Dead is dead. I assumed the author was suggesting both sides are wrong and the title of the article "Israel's Moral High Ground" was meant to be sarcastic (? is that the right word?).
The commenters took it the other way - that the author really does believe Israel has the moral high ground because they're trying to limit civilian fatalities and casualties.
I still say dead is dead. There's no moral justification for choosing deadly force to get what you want. Geez, what if everybody did that? Ridiculous.
This war won't end until one side or the other decides to stop using violence to force the other side to do what they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment