Quote:
Originally Posted by MattLarson
No, but you so appear to support Watson's threat to ram the ships, which could very easily result in loss of life. Perhaps several lives.
|
Doubtful, but certainly possible. But the risk to the human species from the continued hyper exploitation of the oceans is also real.
Quote:
|
Does, for example, the ship's cook on a whaler deserve to die just because he's aboard a whaling ship?
|
Nobody on the ship deserves to die. Do the whales deserve to die and go extinct because a few people can make a buck or two off them?
Quote:
|
No, sorry, if one of them dies at the hands of Watson or his crew, it's premeditated murder.
|
At best it would be manslaughter (as opposed to whaleslaughter). There would be no evidence that Watson's intent was anything other than to uphold the ban.
Quote:
|
Ramming the vessel at sea is an attempt to kill them. Do you think they can just walk home if their ship sinks in arctic waters?
|
Do you think nothing like this has ever been done before? There would be rescue boats on sight, multiple greenpeace craft, and so on. Watson himself would attempt to rescue any men overboard, i have no doubt.
Quote:
Please, let's not try to shift the topic to Iraq because you find yourself defending an untenable position.
Matt
|
Who said anything about iraq? Only an idiot would think that is an example of justified human casualties...
Im very on topic. We are having an ethical discussion and it is more than appropriate to introduce like situations to clarify what we are talking about.
So, what is your position. Do you think there is ever a time when innocent human casualties are justified in order to prevent a greater tragedy?
Keep in mind that this analogy is not really fair, since the Japanese whalers are not the innocent bystanders so often killed by american bombs.
Andrew