----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Objective Evil
> >As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent was > >inherently evil and should not have existed? > > My personal opinion - No. When we launch those weapons, what is the intent? It is to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people...most of whom are innocent. The deterrent, by definition, holds hundreds of millions of people hostage to the acts of a few. It hopes to influence those few to make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States. If this is all right, and using condoms to stop the spread of AIDs can be considered wrong, then it is all about playing games with boxes. When one wants to do something-- one calls the good part of the equation the intent. When you think others shouldn't, it is separated from the intent and called the ends. Since the intent justifies the action and the ends doesn't, then all is good. I realize that you didn't come up with this logic chopping...so I'm not faulting you. For example, I have reluctantly concluded that with the nuclear deterrent, the end justified the means. We are together in dissenting from the teachings of the American bishops here. :-) I'm just trying to promote honest, consistent labeling...not to point you out as wrong and me right on morality. I'm arguing that we all do this. How about this, look at it as if it were a speech by a Democrat; I'm sure would be able to find the inconsistencies then. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
