Cross Effects - Sign Up, Discussion Page

[Lycodrake]

I'd say it's sociopathic loyalty, really.

[Brahmastra]

Not much better, mind you.

[Cherry Lover]

Doing it for yourself is sociopathic, doing it for someone else is being extremely protective of that person (and also arguably sociopathic, but less clearly so).

[Brahmastra]

Uh no, killing an entire city for someone else is not "arguably sociopathic", it's something I'd give the death penalty for.

[Cherry Lover]

Right, so, then, the guy who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima should be executed? Since he killed an entire city of innocent people to at best protect other people....

[Brahmastra]

Someone being ordered to drop a weapon on something to kill a shit load of people, but arguably save more in the long run and someone saying they'd deliberately slaughter an entire city's population for the sake of a single person are completely different things Mike. The first is an order, and it arguably had a net gain in lives (since the invasion of mainland Japan would've had hundreds of thousands, if not millions of casualties), the second is psychopathy.

[Cherry Lover]

Sorry, but the number of people you save doesn't change the basic principle. If it's OK to kill innocent people at all, then you cannot just call anyone who does so a "psychopath" just because they killed more than they saved. Particularly since I suspect that the number of people killed in WW2 was not the minimum possible number (we could have got fewer total deaths by attacking civilians less heavily and being kinder with enemy soldiers, even if we would have lost more of our own troops that way).

And, even if they guy who dropped the bomb can be argued to be immune on the basis of his orders (which I think is bullshit anyway), the guy who ordered it certainly cannot be. They also deliberately slaughtered the entire population of a city (the fact that they did not personally perform the killing is irrelevant, especially if you're arguing that the person who did does not share any blame), and they did it to save people they cared about more, just like Rider.

I'm not saying what Rider does is necessarily right, but protecting some people over others and killing some people to protect others does not make you a psychopath, no matter what the ratio.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Sorry, but the number of people you save doesn't change the basic principle. If it's OK to kill innocent people at all, then you cannot just call anyone who does so a "psychopath" just because they killed more than they saved. Particularly since I suspect that the number of people killed in WW2 was not the minimum possible number (we could have got fewer total deaths by attacking civilians less heavily and being kinder with enemy soldiers, even if we would have lost more of our own troops that way).

And, even if they guy who dropped the bomb can be argued to be immune on the basis of his orders (which I think is bullshit anyway), the guy who ordered it certainly cannot be. They also deliberately slaughtered the entire population of a city (the fact that they did not personally perform the killing is irrelevant, especially if you're arguing that the person who did does not share any blame), and they did it to save people they cared about more, just like Rider.

I'm not saying what Rider does is necessarily right, but protecting some people over others and killing some people to protect others does not make you a psychopath, no matter what the ratio.

...I don't think you get just how fucking bloody an invasion of Japan would have been. At all. Like, even a little.

Stalingrad would have been a fucking cakewalk. They're still handing out purple hearts minted in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. The US estimated in excess of 4 or 5 million dead.

[Brahmastra]

Net gain of lives is specifically what matters in that situation. How many people were saved by the surrender that came after the bombs were dropped? Millions. How many people are *maybe* saved by Rider murdering all of Fuyuki for Sakura's sake? 1 if you're lucky.

In such high numbers, humans are a statistic. If you think otherwise you're a blatant moralfag.

[Cherry Lover]

...I don't think you get just how fucking bloody an invasion of Japan would have been. At all. Like, even a little.

You're missing my point. Just because you hold to a strictly utilitarian view of the world, it doesn't mean anyone who does not is a psychopath.

Stalingrad would have been a fucking cakewalk. They're still handing out purple hearts minted in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. The US estimated in excess of 4 or 5 million dead.

Assuming they couldn't get Japan to surrender beforehand, which is much less clear than you seem to make out. Not to mention the second bomb, which was even less necessary than the first.

Further, I wasn't referring solely to that particular instance. I was referring to the war as a whole. At no point did the number of foreign soldiers or civilians killed factor into the calculation of what to do (aside from in attempts to increase the number). They would happily have obliterated the entirety of Japan to save millions of Americans.

Net gain of lives is specifically what matters in that situation. How many people were saved by the surrender that came after the bombs were dropped? Millions. How many people are *maybe* saved by Rider murdering all of Fuyuki for Sakura's sake? 1 if you're lucky.

Nope, sorry, but not everyone is utilitarian (and nor, frankly, was the US in that situation, the deaths of the Japanese were considered irrelevant, all that they were bothered about was winning the war with the lowest possible number of US casualties). The deciding factor about the morality of an action is not simply whether it saves more than it kills.

In such high numbers, humans are a statistic. If you think otherwise you're a blatant moralfag.

Perhaps, but in Rider's case we are not talking about such high numbers, so that logic does not apply any more.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

In such high numbers, humans are a statistic. If you think otherwise you're a blatant moralfag.

More like 'fucking moron' than moral fag. It's horrible either way morally, but exchanging 2 cities for a horrifically high body count (and one that would have been payed really only by Americans because the brits were being little bitches about the pacific theater) is a far far more stomachable thing than Rider slaughtering an entire town for a single person.

EDIT: I'm not strictly utalitarian, but in the case of the atomic bombs, it was justified. No question about it. And why it was done was because the Japanese WOULDN'T have surrendered. I don't think you get this Mike. Even after both bombs were dropped, the military still didn't want to give up, and actually tried to coup the Emperor who wanted to throw in the towel.

[Cherry Lover]

In such high numbers, humans are a statistic. If you think otherwise you're a blatant moralfag.

More like 'fucking moron' than moral fag. It's horrible either way morally, but exchanging 2 cities for a horrifically high body count (and one that would have been payed really only by Americans because the brits were being little bitches about the pacific theater) is a far far more stomachable thing than Rider slaughtering an entire town for a single person.

Yes, it is (although I think the US deliberately avoided pushing too hard for a surrender so it could scare the Soviets), but that is a matter of scale rather than fundamental principle.

Yes, killing an entire city to save one person is something I would consider to be wrong, whereas the converse is less obviously so, but doing so does not make you a psychopath. It just means you value the lives of those you care for more highly than others. Which everyone does to some extent, Rider just takes it to an extreme.

EDIT: I'm not strictly utalitarian, but in the case of the atomic bombs, it was justified. No question about it. And why it was done was because the Japanese WOULDN'T have surrendered. I don't think you get this Mike. Even after both bombs were dropped, the military still didn't want to give up, and actually tried to coup the Emperor who wanted to throw in the towel.

I've read plenty of things that strongly imply otherwise. The Japanese were negotiating a surrender some time before the bombs were dropped, and the biggest sticking point was the US insistence on unconditional surrender without any guarantees about the Emperor, which ended up not happening anyway.

The first atomic bomb can be argued, perhaps, but the second really was not needed. Further, the US could easily have used a demonstration (or even a smaller city) rather than seeking out a large city to bomb. They clearly intended to maximise the damage.

And, sure, some of the military didn't want to give up even after the atomic bombs, but they were evidentially not that strong, since they failed.

[Brahmastra]

Mike, the Japanese would've literally never surrendered without the bomb drops.

[Cherry Lover]

Mike, the Japanese would've literally never surrendered without the bomb drops.

Again, that is what the US likes to say (and, most likely, teaches kids in school), for obvious reasons, but I've read plenty of things that strongly imply otherwise. I can't prove it, but I sure as hell don't think you can prove your viewpoint either, because we don't truly know what was going through everyone's minds.

And, regardless, my point still stands. The US genuinely did not care one bit about how many Japanese they killed (if anything, they saw it as a positive). At no point have any of you even attempted to argue with that assertion. Even if the atomic bombs were genuinely justified from a utilitarian viewpoint, the intention behind it was not utilitarian, it was simply to win the war with the fewest US casualties.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

I've read plenty of things that strongly imply otherwise. The Japanese were negotiating a surrender some time before the bombs were dropped, and the biggest sticking point was the US insistence on unconditional surrender without any guarantees about the Emperor, which ended up not happening anyway.

The first atomic bomb can be argued, perhaps, but the second really was not needed. Further, the US could easily have used a demonstration (or even a smaller city) rather than seeking out a large city to bomb. They clearly intended to maximise the damage.

And, sure, some of the military didn't want to give up even after the atomic bombs, but they were evidentially not that strong, since they failed.

Thing is, Unconditional surrender was the only thing the allies would have accepted due to the fact that Japan did the surprise attack on pearl harbor, and at this point the US was not going to fucking give Japan anything in a peace deal - especially after they had already dismantled the entirety of Japan's pacific empire, something I'm pretty sure the Japanese wanted to keep.

And all in all they DID choose military targets. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were major manufacturing centers for war materiel.