My last post addressed the question, “Is national aggression an unjustifiable, but necessary thing?”
The pacifist answers this question in the negative and might provide two arguments to explain this answer. First, the end does not justify the means. While the supposed end of aggression is the defense of the weak, the means (violent destruction) are not justified by such a defense. Second, theistic justification for aggression adds evidence to the atheistic assertion that morals originate solely from a drive to survive. While the 'aggressive theist' points to God, his morals point to
2 comments:
I like your second argument. The difficulty is that you need to find people who value morals more than life. This is not very American.
I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the bomb-that-obliterated-whole-cities-and-innocent-people that gave that right to me.
The funny thing about that second argument for pacifism is that in the context of the larger argument it is incoherent. The larger argument goes like this:
National aggression is infeasible due to nuclear proliferation. It is infeasible only because the earth is unlikely to survive national aggression of a nuclear nature. So the heart of the larger argument is that national aggression decreases survivability (and pacifism increases survivability).
My argument in this last post runs like this: pacifism does not provide survival and therefore points away from Darwinian evolutionary morals.
Do you see the incoherence here?
Post a Comment