Suppose there are thousands of people starving to death so a charity amasses boatloads of food to provide plenty of nourishment for them to survive and gain their good health back. So now the people begin making lots of babies and the charity will eventually not be able to sustain them all and the problem of starvation returns. Also since the people have little or no income violent crime probably becomes rampant.
Did the 'good' do more 'evil' than good?
Would it be an evil thing to just let them starve to death to and say 'problem solved'? Evil did good because it solved the problem.
What problem was solved by evil?. I'm serious Kg. I don't see it. The nourishing encouraged sex and more people came into existence. That was the evil? The charity being unable to sustain them. Is that the evil? A rise in rampant crime occurs because there isn't enough income. Is that the evil? If we predicate doing good on the potential negative outcomes we will never do anything. This is a good? Sorry but I just don't get it. And letting folks STARVE TO DEATH when you have food to give them? How does that solve anything? Doesn't it simply exacerbate? See my problem? Thanks though! :)
People might starve because there has become too many people to keep supplying food for.. What can ya do? It is a life and death dilemma.
Makes me think of the dilemma Churchill was in during WWII where he had to make the decision to sink 6 French warships and cause death of about 1000 sailors because he was certain the approaching German fleet would capture those ships and use them in battle against the allies.
Oh lordy lordy lordy! Do you think what he did was GOOD? How large was the approaching German Fleet? You know what just crossed my mind? SERGEANT YORK. Did you know he captured something like 132 germans? Yes he killed about 25 who were in a nest with guns but he killed to save lives. Now would you have ever bet that anyone could do that? Why did Churchill not have more faith in the French and so much faith in the Germans? I mean I didn't know anything about this so if my questions appear to be ignorant they are! Thank you for your reply m'dear! Carry on! :)
Apparently it was a huge German fleet and the French ships were tied up alongside and not prepared or able to do do battle and would have surrendered. They should have scuttled these ships.
Oh my. How sad is THAT? Sitting ducks. I wonder if we could replay that war what different decisions might have been made? Thank you for your reply Kg! :)
There were evil acts committed during wartime to do good.
Like sending raw inexperienced soldiers into battle just to tire the enemy and expend their ammunition. When they were all killed then the 'real' soldiers would come in and defeat the enemy.
War is hell and so is the misfortunes of life sometimes.
You ARE joking aren't you m'dear? I mean did we seriously do that or is it just a bit of dark humor coming out on your part? I've read your second paragraph several times and I'm having a hard time processing it. They were a "diversionary tactic" with little loss except in human lives? OMG(osh). Thank you for your reply Kg. Is any government honorable? :(
I have too m'dear and it just breaks my heart. That humans can do those things to their own kind boggles my mind. What is the war for usually? High moral ground? Protecting the poor the downtrodden the weak? Or wanting oil and riches and land and power to dominate? Any port in a storm. Any excuse will do. Thank you for your reply Kg. I just thought of a question. :)
Kittigate 