Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

[SPC]

Stalin didn't fight on the Allies side because he believed in human rights by any stretch of the imagination. He was more concerned with saving his own hide. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil, but Stalin's positions didn't reflect those of the Allies as a whole.

I suppose that's why the Allies sent 2 million people to Stalin to be slaughtered and let him take half of Europe?

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

Right, hence "relative."  Morality progresses by matters of degrees, not by universal decree.  A perfect morality could not even be conceived by modern humans, and is probably hundreds of years off into the future.

I wasn't asking for perfection. A simple refusal to bomb civilians, violate civil liberties at home, use conscription, or provide aid to bloodthirsty regimes would be sufficient.

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

Right, hence "relative."  Morality progresses by matters of degrees, not by universal decree.  A perfect morality could not even be conceived by modern humans, and is probably hundreds of years off into the future.

I wasn't asking for perfection. A simple refusal to bomb civilians, violate civil liberties at home, use conscription, or provide aid to bloodthirsty regimes would be sufficient.

Sufficient enough for us to be annihilated, indeed.

What part of that would ensure our annihilation? Not sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps?! Not killing innocent Germans and Japanese? Not enslaving million of Americans, 400,000 of whom came back in a box?! Not sending 2 million Russian refugees to be slaughtered?

The deeds of Adolf Hitler's Germany may have been some of the most disgusting crimes against humanity ever in the history of mankind, but those weren't American Jews, those weren't American gays, those weren't American Catholics, those weren't American gypsies, those weren't American people being rounded up wholesale and being thrown into concentration camps, therefore we had no moral or ethical obligation to get ourselves involved in the War in Europe.

In practice that means that you think that the lives of non-Americans are worthless. Which, by the way, makes your opinions worthless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you have a very twisted sense of morality and probably need mental help.

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Is it the right thing to do to build a fence in front of a bus full of people about to roll off a cliff even if there is a risk that the workers will be run over? If there are more people in the bus, then I'd say yes.

It wasn't just a "risk", 400,000 people actually went home in body bags!

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Yes.

So you believe that the "ends justify the means", just as Machiavelli did?

[SPC]

So you believe that the "ends justify the means", just as Machiavelli did?

Please read Machiavelli before you randomly insert him into arguments as a negative association. You'll find that you probably agree with him on at least a few points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SPC]

So you believe that the "ends justify the means", just as Machiavelli did?

Please read Machiavelli before you randomly insert him into arguments as a negative association. You'll find that you probably agree with him on at least a few points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally cannot fault that logic...except I said read Machiavelli, not read wikipedia on other people's responses to Machiavelli - somehow I don't think he wrote that entry (The Prince isn't his only book by the way). It is good to know that I can judge a thinker's work by who reads them though so thank you for the tip (also, you should probably have kept the little 'Citation Needed' bit for the Stalin one, it's a bit dishonest to cite an unsubstantiated source and not make clear that it is unsubstantiated).

Aside from these various dictators, you might also be interested to know that Machiavelli's works exerted a fair influence on the American founding fathers and that the second amendment, in particular, has its origins in Machiavellian thought (via James Harrington and other English republicans).

Do you deny that Machiavelli believed that the ends justified the means?

[SPC]

Do you deny that Machiavelli believed that the ends justified the means?

Do I deny? Have I been dragged before the Committee of Public Safety again? Well, to answer your question Monsieur Incorruptible, I would say that Machiavelli's beliefs are far more complicated than you give them credit for and thus he did not believe in quite such an unsophisticated notion as that which you ascribe to him. By way of illustration, I would point you to this note (number 62) to Peter Bondarella's edition of The Prince which may go some way towards explaining. The 'ends' Machiavelli speaks of generally relate to the preservation of the freedom of one's country. He also explicitly does not use the word 'justify' which, as Bondarella mentions in that note, would imply that the ends render the means to be just. The verb he uses is scusare which translates into English as 'to excuse' or 'to forgive', something entirely different from 'to justify'.

Still, the fact that he believes that the ends excuse the means is just as immoral.

[SPC]

Still, the fact that he believes that the ends excuse the means is just as immoral.

You're entitled to your opinion on that, although I think you would find many circumstances in which you believed the ends excused the means. For instance, if I were to attempt to infringe on your liberty - however you want to define it - in some manner, perhaps threatening you with a weapon, and you responded by killing me or wounding me severely then I think you would probably argue that the ends (the preservation of your liberty) excused your means (doing me harm).

Of course, all this is irrelevant to actual topic of discussion.

That is a different situation, because you are posing a tangible threat to my liberty. In the bus example, the person that I could push in front of the bus posed no threat to the lives of the people in the bus, so the self-defense argument cannot be applied to him. And, to make this relevant, it is immoral to steal from Americans, enslave some of them, place others in concentration camps, and take the lives of both German & Japanese civilians by bombing them and endanger the lives of Eastern Europeans and Southeast Asians by assisting in the formation of their totalitarian governments.

[SPC]

Still, the fact that he believes that the ends excuse the means is just as immoral.

Actually, as eloquent as JFK's remarks are, there is a much simpler way to obliterate your squabble.  That is, there is simply no evidence that The Prince is a declaration of Machiavelli's normative political principles. 

This has nothing to do with the immorality of the ends excusing/justifying the means.

[SPC]

Still, the fact that he believes that the ends excuse the means is just as immoral.

Actually, as eloquent as JFK's remarks are, there is a much simpler way to obliterate your squabble.  That is, there is simply no evidence that The Prince is a declaration of Machiavelli's normative political principles. 

This has nothing to do with the immorality of the ends excusing/justifying the means.

Are you a f**king moron?  I don't think that's what we were discussing.

The point I was originally making was that the ends shouldn't excuse/justify the means. It was sidetracked into a discussion over whether Machiavelli thought that.

[SPC]

Aside from these various dictators, you might also be interested to know that Machiavelli's works exerted a fair influence on the American founding fathers and that the second amendment, in particular, has its origins in Machiavellian thought (via James Harrington and other English republicans).

Funny, I bought a copy of The Prince from a used bookstore, and it said this in the introduction by Christian Gauss:

You must be logged in to read this quote.