Do your decisions involve the accounting for the possible good coming out of an immoral act. For example there are those that justify the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
Do you believe that the ‘the right action’ is the action which produces the best possible consequences"?
Answer by frogdawg at 8:58 PM on Nov. 18, 2012
Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:10 PM on Nov. 17, 2012
Answer by HHx5 at 9:30 AM on Nov. 17, 2012
Answer by dullscissors at 6:53 AM on Nov. 17, 2012
If you are asking should there be consequence to people's actions I have to say yes.... That is how we learn. If someone attacks us either on individual level or on a larger scale, in order to get them to stop there needs to be consequences or they will just continue. Some of us learn very quickly from very little consequences not to do certain things. Others have to suffer a great deal before they learn from their consequences. Do we just allow people to continue to bomb us and not do a dang thing about it. Allow our families to die before our eyes because we feel it is wrong to retaliate? How many of our people would have had to die for those of you to feel it would have been justified?
Answer by Anonymous at 4:37 PM on Nov. 16, 2012
So if those are terrorist attacks what was Perl Harbor then?
Answer by Anonymous at 4:21 PM on Nov. 16, 2012
I think the bombing was wrong. I do however try to understand it from the perspective of the people living through the events at the time. It's easy for me to sit back and say it was wrong, I'm not living through WWII, my son isn't being drafted, my family members haven't died, I don't have the images of a destroyed Europe affecting my judgement. It was wrong, but it's easy to say it now. I can understand how fear could make it seem necessary at the time, I wouldn't have wanted to be dragged into a war with Japan either. It really would have felt like the end of the world.
Answer by RyansMom001 at 3:31 PM on Nov. 16, 2012
Posts with Most Replies