On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote
Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe
that a "just war" exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate
consideration in recommending for or against a war.
You don't believe that "just war" doctrine argues that a lesser evil is
sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that
even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges
that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil
-- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible.
I fail to see why there would need to be a "just war" doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no "just lunch" doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine.
Dave
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
