Ethical question

[The_Yeti]

In remembrance of my loyal servant robot in fallout three, War does not determine who was right, only who was left.

 

[Dott]

Of course.
Apathy is my middle name, and you pissed on the wrong guy's shoes, mate.
If I just so happen to get my hands on a weapon of mass destruction/obliteration/extermination/similar fancy words, then you're pretty much FUCKED.

 

[taciturnCandid]

And what would you say if the person who had the super weapon was Gaddafi?

 

[norwegian-guy]

Yep, there are not ethics in war just the side that wins.

By that logic the Nazis didn't do anything wrong since their crimes where actions done in war times.

As for my self. No.
There are actions wich cannot be exused, during wartimes or otherwise.
When people say the terrorists have already won it's because the west have been using highly unethical warefforts wich conflicts with the principles the politicians say we must protect. (I do NOT want to start a quote-discussion here. I just needed to say that.)

If the Nazi had won, then what they did would not be called evil because they would be the only ones left.

But that's not an argument for an aethical standpoint(no etics), that's an argument for relativsm (ethics show difference between culture). And again, yje nazis was convicted and punished purely on ethical standpoints (human rights are ethical standpoints made law) since there where no international law that they where breaking when the war broke out.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Leading a war with ethics is a good way to get dead. Guaranteed your enemy wouldn't feel the same way.

Pretty much this. This is war, not philosophy class.

 

[Quellist]

I would use the weapon if the enemy were utterly determined to destroy my own people and there was no hope for compromise or peace; if the war could only end with one culture being utterly destroyed then might as well get it over with as bloodlessly as possible.

However if its more of a typical war, fought for land, money, resources etc then no freaking way.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

This sounds suspicously inspired by Doctor Who.

So I'll say I would use it, but I would give them a chance to surrender first. You always have to give them a chance.

 

[Pyro Paul]

um... what ethics are brought into question?

this weapon could simply change the course of an argument which drastically changes the way a nation and society developes so that the war was never a precursor.

consider-
we go back in time and convince the King of England at the time that the British Colonies of the Americas are more then just territories, but rather an expansion of Britian herself. the American Revolution never occurs simply because it never needed to occur...

 

[Therumancer]

You have been leading a country at war for a decade when suddenly a weapon becomes available to you. You now have the ability to remove your enemies culture from history, destroying them entirely and guaranteeing the war will never happen. There have already been millions killed in your war. Do you use this weapon to end everything and anything that was your enemy?

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

This is an instantaneous destruction of everything and everyone from the opposing nation by means that are beyond your[footnote]as you are merely a politician.[/footnote] understanding.

Also assume the weapon is paradox proof.

Of course you use it. I understand why to some there might be an ethical issue, but in the end you have a responsibility to win the war. Truthfully that would mean doing anything up to and including using super bombs, space lasers, or whatever else. In this paticular case you have the abillity to win the war without much in the way of a loss of life at all.

There is a definate differance between race and culture, the UN has tried to extent the idea of genocide to encompass a culture, but that's not the case. I personally don't see any paticular reason to preserve a school of thought or way of life that wants me dead or subverted. By the arguements about wiping out cultures being "genocide" we never would have wiped out the Nazis because it would have been wrong to stop them even if they themselves were genocidal.

In this case the people and ethnicity would survive, they just wouldn't develop that culture, and presumably form into something more capable of co-existance. It's more of a miracle than a weapon. Using something like that you could create a global unity with very little blood, and while you wouldn't create a utopia or end all conflict, you'd probably end war and national/global scale conflict.

I understand the pros and cons (and yes there are some very scary cons) but it's a case where I think the benefits outweigh the costs too much for it to not be used. I can understand why many might not feel that way, but it generally comes down to the greater good.

Of course like so many similar questions, my answers ultimatly make me general equivilent to a sci-fi bad guy. Typically in most fiction the "heroes" are out to stop people who think like me, simply because of the ambigious logic that "there has to be another way", even if they don't have one.

One of the things that made "The Watchmen" so powerful was that point, what happened was bad, but Ozymandias *DID* save the world, and had he not acted we all probably would have been wiped out in World War III. It sucked, but at the same time, the whole situation sucked to the point where there wasn't going to be any kind of a "happily ever after" ending.

 

[Leg End]

No, because I have seen such a weapon's effects firsthand and quite frankly, it should not happen again. >.>

Especially when I can just charge in and assassinate the enemy leader myself. <.<

And if they plan to use it, Well, let's just say it will... "backfire". >.>

Without harming any innocents of course.

 

[Caligulove]

No. The entirety of members in a culture are not all to blame for the outbreak of war. Overkill to neuter the whole culture. Not to mention that society, our species, even cries out for diversity both in culture to better ourselves plus in the sense of genetic variation. Without it, humanity as a whole suffers, I believe. Suffers more than it does through a war.

Can't change what has happened. Culture, variation and evolution happens through how we adapt to the major crises and events throughout or lifetime.

 

[TeveshSzat]

Spoiler: snipping all of this

Funny the number of people that proclaim erasing something from existence entirely is better than genocide.

It's not. It's just more comfortable, because if it never existed, nobody will remember. But it still amounts to the same thing in the end.
With the added horror that nobody will even remember what was lost.

Just think about it; Eradicating something so thoroughly, that even the memory of it's existence is gone?
How is that in any way, shape or form better than genocide? (destroying an entire group of people as thoroughly as you are able to.)

It seems more like genocide taken to it's logical extreme.

It's better in the sense that it never happened in the first place.
It's an odd way to look at it, I know, but that's the logic behind it.
The problem with genocide is the aftereffects, the repercussions, the worldwide retaliation.

Call us twisted and sick if you want, but who would grieve for something that never was?
(Note: I know you didn't say sick and twisted, but that's the general vibe I get for choosing that answer.)

No-one. True. But I guess I have a more abstract sense of this as opposed to the practical implications.

But, the abstract extension to this that informs what I make as my conclusion is perfectly valid when you consider what the motivation to commit genocide generally is.

From a neutral observer's perspective, erasing something from existence is better than genocide because this observer will know genocide happened, but will be completely unaware of that which has been removed from existence altogether.

But, from the perspective of anyone attempting genocide, the whole point of it is, for whatever reason, you feel the world, (or maybe just your group of people, or even just you personally), would be better off if this other group no longer existed.

And what could be better than ensuring nobody even remembers the group you are attempting to get rid of?
Is that not the most absolute success you could aim for?
Is that not precisely what anyone committing genocide would hope for as their ideal case?

So how then, can it be better than the lesser options that anyone actually committing genocide has to settle for?

Because with genocide it still happened, and even if they were successful at it, it would take more than just the genocide to cause that much of an erasure. There will still be remnants of what happened. And just because one power wanted that genocide and erasure to happen, doesn't mean that everyone did, thus making it neigh impossible to completely remove someone/thing in that manner. Heck, look at the internet. Good luck trying to remove all the pieces of information that a power wouldn't want to be in public domain.

And I still think that it is a lesser evil because the 'evil' wouldn't have happened. You can talk about a neutral observer watching this, but unless they happen to have something to shield themselves from the quite literal rape that happened to the timeline, it's a moot point. (And while I can concede that a technology being able to remove something from the timeline might eventually exist, I can't even fathom how you'd be able to guard yourself against it.)


Oh, and not trying to start a tangential conversation here, but for the record I still can't believe that the US nuked Japan even when Japan was trying to surrender. What happened was unjustified as far as I am concerned, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a weapon like this would be used for the same reasons as why the US nuked Japan. To see just how powerful this technology is and then go "OH SHIT! Alright... Um... Ya, let's globally ban the use of these... >.>"" "

 

[Kingsman]

I think I'd do what the U.S. did- give one final warning of "prompt and utter destruction" and then unleash it.

If this war has really gone on for a decade with no signs of end and the enemy is truly going to COST us another couple million of our troops rather than work to repair the damage, then there's really nothing else that can be done.

In the face of imminent destruction, however, if they TRULY want to continue their beliefs, they'd realize that keeping them covert and submissive would be an undeniable alternative from being wiped from the time-stream. If the push beyond that, well, then, they quite simply are beyond reason.

 

[Whateveralot]

Ethics says no. The most ethical choice would be to stop warring in the first place.

Logical thinking says yes. When being at war with them for decades (which is pretty much all my life), means that I will have an unimaginable hatred for their people. Therefor, whiping them from the face of the earth would feel like eating meat; you know it has lived, but you see no other option.

 

[cthulhumythos]

You have been leading a country at war for a decade when suddenly a weapon becomes available to you. You now have the ability to remove your enemies culture from history, destroying them entirely and guaranteeing the war will never happen. There have already been millions killed in your war. Do you use this weapon to end everything and anything that was your enemy?

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

This is an instantaneous destruction of everything and everyone from the opposing nation by means that are beyond your understanding.

Also assume the weapon is paradox proof.

question.

will it screw up relations with allies and the environment?
if not hell yes.

 

[The .50 Caliber Cow]

You have been leading a country at war for a decade when suddenly a weapon becomes available to you. You now have the ability to remove your enemies culture from history, destroying them entirely and guaranteeing the war will never happen. There have already been millions killed in your war. Do you use this weapon to end everything and anything that was your enemy?

Wait are we talking about something that will wipe out there past with time travel bombs or something or is this just complete genocide and burning of cities/culture with super lazers from space?

This is an instantaneous destruction of everything and everyone from the opposing nation by means that are beyond your understanding.

Also assume the weapon is paradox proof.

question.

will it screw up relations with allies and the environment?
if not hell yes.

No way of knowing for sure. All you know is that it is paradox proof and will eliminate the enemy. Your generals haven't told you more.

 

[ricopico]

Lets put it this way....whoever wins gets to write history the way they want future generations to see it.

 

[TeveshSzat]

Oh, here's something to ponder:
If this weapon would erase the enemy from the timeline, would that mean that all of the soldiers that fought and died during the war wouldn't have died in the first place?

 

[Slowpool]

No. I believe in the idea that Good and Evil are more than just ideas, and that there are some powers that mortal man is not meant to have.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Hm.... I think I saw this thread before a while ago.

Anyway, I would say yes. Fuck people, its called total war. Wipe those bitches out, then show the rest of teh world you are not to be fucked with. You'll never go to war again as soon as you show you're ready and willing and blast a culture straight off the face of the earth. The only way it could possibly be more intimidating is if its something thats exceedingly painful and horrifying. Like if if makes them murder their family, then each other, then it turns their bodies inside out in a painful way, then splits their bodies in half, then blows up the pieces.

Tell me you're going to screw with a nation with that kinda weapon. I dare you.