tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6248263610326098845..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: It was not moral for the U.S. to drop the atomic bombLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34646675055576944322014-10-22T09:33:13.208-07:002014-10-22T09:33:13.208-07:00Connie-
Thanks for relaying that. It's reassu...Connie-<br /><br />Thanks for relaying that. It's reassuring to know there is a diversity of opinion on the subject. I agree that information and its management is a critical domain of warfare, and this includes managing the information (and its quality) your enemy has access to. This makes information a weapon itself, and in that it is morally neutral like all weapons*. So the problem, as far as I can see, is in the way the weapon is used, which I suppose brings us back to the original question. But, as you imply, values do shift in war. Life, normally a very high value regardless of nationality, becomes a partisan value - I kill you because you're trying to kill us, and preserving justice is better served by maintaining my comrades' lives and those of my countrymen than it is by losing them. I suppose truth could suffer a similar shift.<br /><br /><br />*Recall that the condemnation of WMD is not because they are massively destructive but because they are difficult if not impossible to use discriminately. (Biological agents are probably an exception in that their use as weapons is evil in se. But even a nuclear bomb could conceivably be used against a military only target, or even as a weapon that doesn't directly kill anyone - a detonation in space would only hurt satellites, many of which are important military targets but only one of which are manned. Chemical weapons tend to be nasty but hypothetically a painless agent could be allowed since their effects do tend to be relatively local. There isn't anything wrong with killing a lot of soldiers at once as long as you are reasonably trying to only kill soldiers and you don't intend to inflict gratuitous pain on them.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289556462743393140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-199521796505520562014-10-15T22:44:39.988-07:002014-10-15T22:44:39.988-07:00Um, is anyone in there? It's not my "high...Um, is anyone in there? It's not my "high-minded" choice, dear one. It's the teaching of the universal Church. <br /><br />And back to Morality 101: We may not choose to do the "lesser of two evils", because God does not give us permission to choose to do evil, period. <br /><br />Never comment here again. You have been a pain in the patootie for months. God bless!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83503727718660796032014-10-15T22:42:48.145-07:002014-10-15T22:42:48.145-07:00You are one of the rudest people I've ever enc...You are one of the rudest people I've ever encountered. You must be fun at parties. Do not comment here again. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53909077068403070392014-10-15T18:51:05.847-07:002014-10-15T18:51:05.847-07:00*once*onceDellentiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10411975428854800986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-900448656840385842014-10-15T18:49:52.706-07:002014-10-15T18:49:52.706-07:00This is myopic and moronic and suits the overall c...This is myopic and moronic and suits the overall condescending behavior of the author who can't even imagine the difficult choices people are faced with in daily life. At all time she places herself on the comfortable high ground fascinated with her own self granted superiority, not one compassionate or understanding thought gets past her own self preoccupation, after all one she counts herself and God, there's no one left to consider.Dellentiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10411975428854800986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37012077447861001102014-10-15T18:33:21.172-07:002014-10-15T18:33:21.172-07:00This is about the lesser of two evils, not about w...This is about the lesser of two evils, not about wrong or right, it is already wrong. The Japanese were ready to fight to the last child if necessary, heck some wanted to fight after the bomb was dropped. If the bubble wants to talk about no wiggle room, kindly apply that to your own morals instead of making yourself out to be Mrs high minded and know it all, all the time. You were lucky grandpa risked his backside for your own self fascination and delusional importance that you now enjoy, your lucky you can sit comfortable in you living room and reminisce about how high minded your choices are. Some people back then couldn't afford your luxury that you enjoy because of the risk of having their own neck on the copping block.Dellentiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10411975428854800986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36796180032398630972014-10-11T14:28:46.215-07:002014-10-11T14:28:46.215-07:00Sorry it took me so long to get back here on the l...Sorry it took me so long to get back here on the lying issue. We were talking about this from Jarrod:<br /><br />"Real world: in the run up to the Battle of Midway the US knew an attack was coming but not where. The Japanese cipher system was compromised but the actual location decoded only as AF, a code word with no meaning to outsiders. Acting on their suspicions, the Navy put out a false message that Midway was low on water. A Japanese message intercepted later relayed the intelligence that AF was low on water, giving the game away."<br /><br />Now, was this lying, and thus wrong? I discussed this with my lying expert... er, expert on lying Dh. His gut reaction was that it was not lying. It was deception, but deception is not an intrinsic evil. Whether or not deception is a sin depends on the context. Dan's take was that in the context of war, deception is a weapon of war. The Japanese in this situation did not understand the immediate context of the conversation between the Americans, but the Americans who were talking to each other did. They had no intention to deceive each other by their words, so they were not lying.<br /><br />Dan used the example of our boys playing in the back yard. If one says he's a pirate in the context of playing, he is not lying, even if others who overhear him don't understand the context and really believe he is a pirate.<br /><br />However, Dan did say that other experts might have a different opinion.<br /><br />I asked him again about Lila Rose and he said, "I could write a paper on that, if I had the time." But he doesn't have the time and he did not want to give a partial answer that might be misinterpreted. Too bad for us!<br /><br />I have not read the article Deltaflute linked to on lying (I'll try to get to it), but lying is an intrinsically evil act. That means it's always wrong. If my theological or philosophical opinion contradicts the teaching of both Augustine and Aquinas, it's a good bet I am the one who is wrong.Connie Rossinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16167873116105163091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64032146192703001112014-10-10T10:17:06.154-07:002014-10-10T10:17:06.154-07:00Hi Monica! My initial reaction to your question is...Hi Monica! My initial reaction to your question is that it's not immoral to quarantine and protect borders for dangerous and deadly infectious diseases. It would be a matter of prudential judgement by each government, I am guessing. Anyone else have thoughts on that?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-2487156949890091712014-10-07T03:30:08.581-07:002014-10-07T03:30:08.581-07:00OK, so we've been discussing the ebola epidemi...OK, so we've been discussing the ebola epidemic. As a Catholic, then, should I support keeping borders open despite the grave nature of the disease. There are precautions that can be taken but the instant you become contagious can appear anytime - when one is out or on a plane or whatever. Plus the unknowns even by medical community/government bodies. As the president said there is little margin for error on this.<br /><br />So do we keep letting people in for treatment knowing one patient takes huge resources from one hospital because not doing so would be cooperating with evil? This discussion has been ongoing in our household.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03781202088311439117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-69120666467965696292014-10-05T13:27:38.489-07:002014-10-05T13:27:38.489-07:00Deltaflute- It might be helpful to remember how Fa...Deltaflute- It might be helpful to remember how Facebook started. It was a social site for college students. At the start you were required to have a college email and you were required to give your real name. It was a push-back against a number of sites that allowed users to retain anonymity usually with bad consequences. Those sites often sank into cat-fights and cyber-bullying long before the term "cyber-bullying" existed. So Facebook's requirement for a real name.....had a purpose. It solved a lot of issues and it part of what made Facebook the giant it is today. Is it still relevant now that Facebook is open beyond college students? The owners and their legal team seem to think so. <br /><br />You are deciding on your own that the information isn't relevant and continuing to use their platform. Why not ask a small business to deal with you via phone or email because you do not wish to use Facebook? Is it harder? Of course, but it is also more honest.<br /><br />I just don't understand it. How can you say you are in the right by failing to live up to the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up?<br /><br />I agree this is a small thing but the justification bothers me because you see a form of it all the time.Kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05155500364598716746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65879126481043640452014-10-04T23:09:44.577-07:002014-10-04T23:09:44.577-07:00Deltaflute, that's an excellent article, thank...Deltaflute, that's an excellent article, thank you! I think the last paragraph is particularly relevent:<br /><br />"Happily, the Church’s imprecision on this question does not seem to have led to a great heresy or to widespread and dangerous confusion. Perhaps the reason is simple: For most of us, the moral challenge is to find the courage to tell the truth instead of "spinning" it for petty purposes. Our most common problem is not deciding grave questions of life and death but purifying our own questionable intentions. So while lying is a fascinating subject, we are wise to remember the kinds of cases which make it so are very different from the ones we ourselves typically face. If we ask whether Augustine and Aquinas were right in condemning all falsehoods, we may well choose to answer in the negative. But if we ask whether they were right in condemning our own weak and typical lies, only one answer is possible. On these lies, every saint agrees."<br /><br />To me, the lying that takes place with the Facebook situation is not so much the pseudonyms and fake dates (although those are falsehoods, too), but it's in stating that you agree to the terms and conditions of Facebook. If you don't agree to them, you should not say that you do. Because by checking that box, you are sort of making an oath, or giving your word. And it's lying if you say yes but mean no. <br /><br />You could always get cloth diapers elsewhere, or have a friend show you the school's Facebook page, etc. So, being a part of Facebook is not necessary. I know plenty of folks who do not have an account at all, and they get along just fine. Those are my two cents, for what they are worth!<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-42816853492505377512014-10-04T22:58:40.129-07:002014-10-04T22:58:40.129-07:00Archie, thanks! It was just fun to see some new na...Archie, thanks! It was just fun to see some new names (and mostly male) when I posted this article. I knew the Bomb would elicit some new reactions, but it was neat to hear from new people in addition to the regulars (whom I adore and couldn't do without!). <br /><br />Connie, thanks and enjoy your time off!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78452832501543373522014-10-04T20:34:49.403-07:002014-10-04T20:34:49.403-07:00Leila, about acting as lying, I thought of the the...Leila, about acting as lying, I thought of the theology of the body too, but I think it's very doubtful the Catechism is talking about that, because that can only be called a lie in an analogous sense. But interestingly enough, I think the conversation with Deltaflute might be showing us what the Catechism means.<br /><br />As Kat has pointed out, sometimes simply signing your name or checking a box can become fraud if you don't really mean to follow through with what you agreed to. Some government forms even state that if you sign them and know the information in them is wrong, you could be guilty of perjury. So my guess is the Catechism mean these types of acts, acts which take the place of giving your word of honor. <br /><br />BTW, I'll be out of town until Tuesday evening and I don't do internet on the road--a needed break from the computer after months of writing, editing, and marketing my book. So I will try to get back to you guys about this on Wednesday. I can't wait to see what I miss here in the meantime.Connie Rossinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16167873116105163091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34863934189167398952014-10-04T18:40:15.151-07:002014-10-04T18:40:15.151-07:00Kat- A number of small businesses (in my case it w...Kat- A number of small businesses (in my case it was cloth diapers) only correspond with you via Facebook. In order to ask them to create something for you, they ask you to look at their albums or private message you through facebook. Schools also send out up-to-date information about closings on Facebook. My son's school uses twitter for example. Yes, there are perks in larger businesses.<br /><br />I never asserted that it was honesty if you mean by that I was fully disclosing information. What I said was I wasn't disclosing information on my person since I feel an obligation to protect my secrets. You aren't obligated to give out your SSN, for example, to your doctors even if you are contracted with them. They still ask. You can simply tell them you won't disclose.<br /><br />In the case of Etsy, I'm allowed a username so it makes things easier. It gets more complicated with Facebook since it's a sharing site. I have no intention of sharing information to the public. I'm also not given the option of a username nor am I given the option of checking an age box. Facebooks specifies that you must give them your real name and your actual age neither I think are within the scope of Facebook even if one uses it for public discourse. Google and Yahoo allow for usernames/handles/pseudonyms and do not require you to disclose an actual age especially to the public. They also don't disclose information to third parties the way Facebook is notorious for.<br /><br />Here's an article explaining what lying is and if it's ever right: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right<br /><br />Hope it helps explain a little of what I've been discussing.Deltaflutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489950329698009256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82243670268443275712014-10-04T18:32:27.646-07:002014-10-04T18:32:27.646-07:00Leila,
I think that the first time I commented wa...Leila,<br /><br />I think that the first time I commented was a few days ago on a post where you had a C.S. Lewis quote.<br /><br />I'm not sure how I first stumbled into the Bubble... I vaguely remember it having something to do with a post you had involving Steve Gershom - I probably followed a link from some aggregator site. I'm pretty sure that I've been around, on-and-off, for a couple of years... Lurking... ;)Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553178497058749129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77269606451328142412014-10-04T17:54:35.722-07:002014-10-04T17:54:35.722-07:00What type of business requires you to go through F...What type of business requires you to go through Facebook? I've been using Facebook almost since it began and I've never ran across a business that required me to use Facebook in order to do business with them. I realize a lot of business's give perks if you "like" them but that's not necessary to conduct business with them. <br /><br />But yes, Facebook is conducting business with you even if all it does is act as a platform between you and another individual or company. That's the whole point of Facebook, that is Facebook's business. So you are still bound by the terms and conditions. <br /><br />I don't care that you aren't following the T&C, what bugs me is you are trying to assert that as honesty. It isn't. Kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05155500364598716746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35590531953056692082014-10-04T17:46:43.194-07:002014-10-04T17:46:43.194-07:00Archie, got it! Thanks for explaining!
Is this yo...Archie, got it! Thanks for explaining!<br /><br />Is this your first time commenting on the Bubble? How did you find it, if you don't mind my asking?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-57150763507623281612014-10-04T17:31:55.670-07:002014-10-04T17:31:55.670-07:00Hi Leila,
I'm glad you appreciate us! =)
Fr...Hi Leila,<br /><br />I'm glad you appreciate us! =)<br /><br />From the viewing them as 2 intrinsic evils, I understand the analogy. That makes sense.<br /><br />It jarred me a bit because, in my mind, I was considering the immediate aim of dropping the bomb as "destroying military resources" but the immediate aim of abortion as "destroying an innocent, unborn child". On that view, we're not looking at 2 intrinsic evils (on the surface). That's why, on first glance, the analogy didn't seem on-target to me.Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553178497058749129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-47777973755759051012014-10-04T17:18:24.484-07:002014-10-04T17:18:24.484-07:00Sorry, proportionality and intent. It doesn't ...Sorry, proportionality <i>and</i> intent. It doesn't matter about the intent or the proportions of either direct abortion or direct targeting of civilians and cities. Both are off the table from the get-go. But I get that you were coming at this from the position that it could be a case of double effect in the case of the Bomb. <br /><br />And I would argue that some folks of good will actually okay with legal abortion. It's hard to imagine, but it's true. My husband was one -- he's totally pro-life now, thank God. My grandmother was another. Nicest woman you'd ever meet. So loving and kind. She was pro-choice, as far as I know, and only because in her reasoning [according to my mom] she didn't want those little babies born into a bad situation. Obviously her reasoning was DEAD wrong, but her heart was not black. She was a person of good will who was wrong on this issue, perhaps due to malformed conscience?<br /><br />Anyway, I am loving this discussion. Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62173382756988395702014-10-04T17:13:05.305-07:002014-10-04T17:13:05.305-07:00Archie, thanks for the thoughtful reply! (Where ha...Archie, thanks for the thoughtful reply! (Where have all you men been all these years? We can use more of your insights in our blog discussions.)<br /><br />I guess I have to ask about why you think the abortion analogy does not apply? I am unclear on what you mean. Proportionality can only be discussed if we are talking about an act that is moral to begin with (with unintended bad effects). In both abortion and in dropping the Bomb, the act itself is intrinsically immoral. That's my argument at least, and that's how it's analogous. Hope that makes sense. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-5161629506691388482014-10-04T17:02:43.791-07:002014-10-04T17:02:43.791-07:00I guess that wound up not so much being aimed at y...I guess that wound up not so much being aimed at you in particular, Archie. Sorry about that.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289556462743393140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74743498590509511682014-10-04T16:52:43.259-07:002014-10-04T16:52:43.259-07:00There may well be historical problems. I was just...There may well be historical problems. I was just trying to lay out the case as Fr. Miscamble presented them in the Prager University talk - taking them at face value and reasoning from there.<br /><br />Your point about drawing the conflict out is well taken. We can be more certain about the quick death toll than the toll of a more drawn out campaign. That uncertainty was one reason why I considered the proportionality test so arguable.<br />Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553178497058749129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-66403255886072676512014-10-04T16:45:54.889-07:002014-10-04T16:45:54.889-07:00Hi Leila,
1) I was trying to take Fr. Miscamble u...Hi Leila,<br /><br />1) I was trying to take Fr. Miscamble understanding of the historical facts at face value. If the Bombs were not actually doing that then that does effect things.<br /><br />2) Good point.<br /><br />3) I think the abortion analogy is out off because the end and the means are obviously out of proportion to honest people of good will. But the point about collateral damage is well taken.<br /><br />4) Yes, if the previous points on the ends, means, and intent don't go through then proportionality wouldn't apply. I was assuming that they went through.<br /><br />In no place was I assuming that the choice was between the lesser of 2 evils (not consciously, anyways) and I agree with you there. I was assuming the morality of a more conventional campaign and thinking about if the atomic drop was clearly morally wrong by comparing them with the help of double effect.<br /><br />Fair enough. I listened to Fr. Miscamble's talk and was trying to reason from his line or argumentation in light of double effect. But I think you're right, even if the level of collateral damge over a prolonged campaign exceeded the civilian casualties of the drop, it is obviously collateral in a way that the damage caused by the atomic bomb is not. <br /><br />The the moral quality of the "side-effects" of an atomic drop can be seen as different from collateral damage of more narrowly focused bombs. <br />I don't believe that Fr. Miscamble dealt with that in his talk. I may need to view it again. :)<br /><br />Good stuff. Thanks for the detailed reply!Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553178497058749129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78153085825991285372014-10-04T16:13:17.719-07:002014-10-04T16:13:17.719-07:00With Leila, I'm also interested in your furthe...With Leila, I'm also interested in your further contributions, Connie - especially with a movie coming out with the a title ("The Good Lie") that seems to speak directly to this question!<br /><br />Archie-<br />As far as your other objections go, there are other historical problems. The US decided to pursue unconditional surrender (that is, we would not accept an end to the war that required promising Japan any favorable terms), but there's good reason to believe a negotiated end to the war could have been possible long before. The Japanese industrial base was shattered and their supply lines were completely severed; there was no way they could project power effectively and both sides knew it. An offer of some small concessions early, like clemency for the Japanese brass or a guarantee of continuity for Imperial rule (the latter of which wound up happening in the end anyway), if it ended the war, would have saved not only those expected to die through invasion, blockade, or conventional bombing (the other three strategies being considered) but those who actually died in the nuclear strikes as well!<br /><br />So at some point we have to call the desired ends themselves into question. There is a point where the policy objective (the "why we're fighting") changes from a just redress of wrongs to gratuitous humiliation, subjugation, or annihilation of the enemy. After that point no means are just; pursuing the ends at all is unjust.<br /><br />There is also a problem with who the bombs were applied against. Notionally the object of the strikes was to cow Japanese leadership into a quick surrender. But the strikes were places almost as far from Japan's political center as possible! Imagine if I had some just end I wanted from you. Surely we can agree that it would be unjust for me to kill one of your children every week until you complied! No, even if my grievance justifies the use of deadly force I can only justly apply it against you. If you need to use a nuke (which I do not concede), why not nuke Tokyo and deal with whomever takes over the government?<br /><br />Preferring a quick use of overwhelming force to a drawn out blockade poses some other problems. First, it kills the innocent people immediately. If we choose a blockade, we may still be responsible for the deaths that result, but the passage of time gives the enemy lots of chances to make the decision to end the war. Time has a way of building up stress under pressure; it is difficult to persist in a decision with difficult consequences if you always have a way out. Second, a starvation campaign need not have been the only goal of a blockade. Oil was the single most important wartime commodity; without it planes wouldn't fly and warships wouldn't sail, rendering an island nation completely impotent. It would have been feasible to continue sinking tankers while easing up on freighters, even if those freighters carried munitions alongside food. Third, with a blockade you get more effective double effect coverage; one can say "I need to weaken their forces by cutting off war materiel; unfortunately that also prevents them from having enough food to feed everyone."<br /><br />But in the end the blockade option, however executed, gives the enemy a bigger share of the moral agency. He has the choice as to which resources he wants to try and run the blockade with. The people have the ability to say "Hey, we're getting hungrier by the day, and we really want this to end already," and if that sentiment gets strong enough that might even decide it. <br /><br />I can't wrap this up other than to apologize for the wall of text, so there it is.Jarrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289556462743393140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-18068828314383831712014-10-04T16:07:38.963-07:002014-10-04T16:07:38.963-07:00Leila- The problem is that a lot of other business...Leila- The problem is that a lot of other businesses and associations only conduct their business through facebook. It isn't simply a business transaction between myself and the seller of a product. Facebook isn't really conducting business with me. It's a means to conduct business with another party. Other groups like Etsy allow you to use a user name whereas Facebook doesn't. If local grocery stores or schools or small business owners conducted themselves apart from needing a Facebook page, then I would agree with you. Unfortunately to completely conduct business affairs with them, you are required to have a Facebook account of some sort. Otherwise I would agree and stop using Facebook. Deltaflutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489950329698009256noreply@blogger.com