The Hamas Argument

[Kilgore Trout]

If someone were shooting through your window at your family, would you fire back if they had their kid in their lap? And if you fired back, would that necessarily mean you didn't care at all about their kid?

The real world often presents people with situations that do not reduce to a clear right or wrong. I can understand how that confuses many of us, for it is human nature to want things to boil down to right or wrong, yes or no, black or white. But perhaps the moral truth lies not with "morally right", nor with "morally wrong", but merely with the best that can be done under the circumstances.

In before argument attempting to explain how Hamas is doing the "best that can be done under the circumstances," by shooting rockets at Israel while herding its own civilians to military targets.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are you seriously suggesting that a dead woman is equal to a dead man? I mean, I'm all for women's right to vote and such, but let's be realistic! Sir, you've gone too far!

I see your point. I suppose women are more useful alive, so that they can cook, clean, and sew, and what-not.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems like an age old dispute that may not have an ending in sight.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone were shooting through your window at your family, would you fire back if they had their kid in their lap? And if you fired back, would that necessarily mean you didn't care at all about their kid?

I touched on this before. It would entirely depend on my level of risk. If I could safely scoop up my family, head to the basement, and wait it out, then yes: if I fired back, it would mean I didn't care about the shooter's kid... or at least if I did shoot back, it would be for reasons other than stopping him from killing my family.

 

[Sunstone]

In before argument attempting to explain how Hamas is doing the "best that can be done under the circumstances," by shooting rockets at Israel while herding its own civilians to military targets.

Which argument conveniently overlooks that Hamas is not actually being forced to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers. Nor is it being forced to fire rockets from near it's own shelters, schools and hospitals. But I'd pay no attention to those details myself. My morality is too noble to be dragged through the dirt of reality.

 

[Mycroft]

If someone were shooting through your window at your family, would you fire back if they had their kid in their lap? And if you fired back, would that necessarily mean you didn't care at all about their kid?

Invalid argument. I would never return fire at a gunman using a child as a shield. Even if he was firing at me. Why? I have a moral responsibility to protect innocent life whether or not that's convenient for me.

If I did fire back and kill the child in the pursuit of killing the gunman, then that would mean I cared more about my own life than the life of a child. And I would be a child-murderer.

 

[Sunstone]

I see your point. I suppose women are more useful alive, so that they can cook, clean, and sew, and what-not.

I agree. It's those little, pleasant things that women do that make them so delightful to have around, despite their inferior intellect, general feebleness, and appalling lack of character. Remember: Men are oaks, women are vines, and must necessarily cling to their men in order to stand upright.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Invalid argument. I would never return fire at a gunman using a child as a shield. Even if he was firing at me. Why? I have a moral responsibility to protect innocent life whether or not that's convenient for me.

If I did fire back and kill the child in the pursuit of killing the gunman, then that would mean I cared more about my own life than the life of a child. And I would be a child-murderer.

And if you do nothing and the shooter kills your own child, that means you care more about his child than your own.

Some of us believe that the highest morality is first taking care of protecting those who count on you - those you have the most responsibility for.

I have no problem with other people sacrificing their own child out of a strange sense of morality. However, I would shoot 100 other people's kids to save my own child.

 

[Mycroft]

And if you do nothing and the shooter kills your own child, that means you care more about his child than your own.



Some of us believe that the highest morality is first taking care of protecting those who count on you - those you have the most responsibility for.

I have no problem with other people sacrificing their own child out of a strange sense of morality. However, I would shoot 100 other people's kids to save my own child.

I find your view of a dog-eat-dog world to be pretty naive.

 

[Sunstone]

Invalid argument. I would never return fire at a gunman using a child as a shield. Even if he was firing at me. Why? I have a moral responsibility to protect innocent life whether or not that's convenient for me.

If I did fire back and kill the child in the pursuit of killing the gunman, then that would mean I cared more about my own life than the life of a child. And I would be a child-murderer.

I envy the moral simplicity with which you manage to view the world. I haven't myself possessed such an unambiguous outlook since I was in my thirties.

 

[Sunstone]

And if you do nothing and the shooter kills your own child, that means you care more about his child than your own.

Some of us believe that the highest morality is first taking care of protecting those who count on you - those you have the most responsibility for.

I have no problem with other people sacrificing their own child out of a strange sense of morality. However, I would shoot 100 other people's kids to save my own child.

I think you would have a moral obligation to.

 

[Sunstone]

I find your view of a dog-eat-dog world to be pretty naive.

Yes, because in the real world, it never ever comes down to a case of you versus them.

I may be an liberal, but I'm not an idiot: There are times when you must pick sides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which argument conveniently overlooks that Hamas is not actually being forced to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers. Nor is it being forced to fire rockets from near it's own shelters, schools and hospitals. But I'd pay no attention to those details myself. My morality is too noble to be dragged through the dirt of reality.

Hamas is behaving despicably by placing their weapons in civilian areas. The fact remains, though: those weapons ARE in civilian areas. This is something that has to be considered when deciding to attack those weapon installations. It's not okay for the Israeli government to ignore this.

The fact that Hamas is responsible for creating the situation doesn't mean that the IDF can disregard the situation's implications.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, because in the real world, it never ever comes down to a case of you versus them.

I wouldn't know. I live in a civilised world and not the 1300's.

 

[xkatz]

It's ironic that some people are able to easily answer complex issues of morality when they live in places where such problems are highly unlikely to happen to them.

 

[Sunstone]

I touched on this before. It would entirely depend on my level of risk. If I could safely scoop up my family, head to the basement, and wait it out, then yes: if I fired back, it would mean I didn't care about the shooter's kid... or at least if I did shoot back, it would be for reasons other than stopping him from killing my family.

I grant that scooping up your family and retreating to a safe place is most likely the most moral course of action. But I think it would be an escapist fantasy to suppose that it is always an available option.

In the case of Israel, not actively defending itself means gambling on its Iron Dome system to work with complete infallibility. It also means doing nothing to reduce the number of rockets brought into Gaza, and hence, the number of future attacks. At some point, even a nearly infallible defense will be broached. And what happens when that results in a rocket landing on a hospital or school? How can you guarantee that will never happen?

 

[Mycroft]

It's ironic that some people are able to easily answer complex issues of morality when they live in places where such problems are highly unlikely to happen to them.

Like I said to Sunstone. If Hamas were doing what Israel is doing now, you'd have be outraged. And don't even try to insult my intelligence by denying it.

 

[Mycroft]

I grant that scooping up your family and retreating to a safe place is most likely the most moral course of action. But I think it would be an escapist fantasy to suppose that it is always an available option.

In the case of Israel, not actively defending itself means gambling on its Iron Dome system to work with complete infallibility. It also means doing nothing to reduce the number of rockets brought into Gaza, and hence, the number of future attacks. At some point, even a nearly infallible defense will be broached. And what happens when that results in a rocket landing on a hospital or school? How can you guarantee that will never happen?

If you think Israel cares that much about palestinian civilians, why doesn't it simply invade Palestine as a peacekeeping force and take out Hamas with ground forces minimising civilian casualties?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find your view of a dog-eat-dog world to be pretty naive.

What's naive is people's simplistic, high-minded ideas about morality which are a result of them having the luxury of not having to make tough choices which aren't black and white.

I also find it disturbing that you'd let your own child die before someone else's. In fact, I find it morally repugnant.

 

[xkatz]

Like I said to Sunstone. If Hamas were doing what Israel is doing now, you'd have be outraged. And don't even try to insult my intelligence by denying it.

Hamas has the intent of religiously motivated genocide, so I am outraged at them regardless of how many Israelis are or aren't killed.