Morality question 2

[Wootah]

Is it ok to replace families with other families simply because their house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 19 by Tcg]

Tam mentioned Palestine, a place not in the West first, not me.

Yes, and I asked you three questions about your post. Which one of the questions does this address and why did you skip the other two?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by Tcg]

I think the wall is to do with the Mexican American war.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 21 by Tcg]

I think the wall is to do with the Mexican American war.

I'm guessing that is an answer to my third question. I'm still not sure why you used Lebanon as an example of a country in the West, but perhaps you can answer this question:

"And rather than land, you are concerned with the loss of religious dominance?"

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 23 by Tcg]

Lebanon was a reply to Tam who first mentioned a country not in the West. Ask more questions if you are still unsure on that. Also the West is more of a state of mind than a place. Australia is in Asia but is part of the West for example.

Is either concern valid? I've personally never experienced religious or cultural dominance. Have you?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 23 by Tcg]

Lebanon was a reply to Tam who first mentioned a country not in the West. Ask more questions if you are still unsure on that. Also the West is more of a state of mind than a place. Australia is in Asia but is part of the West for example.

I didn't address Tam's reference, I addressed yours.

So you think Lebanon is a part of the West because of a "state of mind"?

Is either concern valid? I've personally never experienced religious or cultural dominance. Have you?

What I may or may not have experienced is irrelevant. I am referring to the concern you expressed when you stated this:

Lebanon is another example you might consider where the Christian majority allowed muslims in and lost that majority.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 25 by Tcg]

Hi Tcg - I'm sorry but i find it difficult to understand you. I feel I am being clear but obviously not. I'll pause on this exchange. Thanks.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 25 by Tcg]

Hi Tcg - I'm sorry but i find it difficult to understand you. I feel I am being clear but obviously not. I'll pause on this exchange. Thanks.

I thought I've been very clear, especially the three question I asked in post #19. Of course, given that I composed them, it is easy for me to understand my intent. I'm sure it's my fault for trying to discuss concrete examples in a hypothetical query.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

If they are dead, what would they need a house for? It's not exactly "replacing" family when they are dead. It's just "placing."

[2ndRateMind]

Is it ok to replace families with other families simply because their house is empty due to so many deaths from fighting in a war defending freedom for all?

Possibly. In his 'Critique of the Gotha Program' (1875) Karl Marx recommended: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. If you think that is unfair, then I see it no more unfair than 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his bank balance', which is the neo-liberal alternative. It may just be that a civilised nation is one that has found a satisfactory compromise between these two extreme positions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

If they are dead, what would they need a house for? It's not exactly "replacing" family when they are dead. It's just "placing."

Well I would presume that if we gave the remnants of that family time they would repopulate. It sure seems a heavy price to pay to go fight in a war and then get replaced.