Profitting from war should be a capital crime.

I think those who profit from wars should be tried, and if found guilty, terminated.

This should be adopted as a world law, to serve as a deterrence.

Too bad it's just a thought experiment... 

Views: 226

Replies to This Discussion

"Knowingly implies some of them are innocent…"

No, still missing the point, …this thought experiment is not addressing a retroactively applied or limited jurisdiction law. Sorry, there's no mass killing explicit or implied here, just deterrence as a conscious choice.

I guess this is too philosophical for me.  I don't see the difference between killing everyone who benefits from war, and killing everyone in a war.  In the end, it's still killing a shitload of people.  Even as deterrence, death penalty never worked.  Mass murder is so....  christian.  Especially when it's in the name of peace.

Okay, honest question then. 

Is it wrong to execute those found guilty of war crimes/crimes against humanity?

Hypothetically… like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler (dammit, I Godwin'd the thread) type crimes against humanity.

I don't know.  I don't grieve them.  But it starts to feel like discussing how many angels on the head of a pin.  Killing everyone who profits from war can't be done, and would be no better than the war itself.  On the other hand, it's possible to address injustices done in our communities and states.  Difficult, and not fun, but incremental change can be made.

Gotta go to work.....

"On the other hand, it's possible to address injustices done in our communities and states."

In a way, this is what this thought experiment is supposed to address …our species and this planet as "our communities and states", re: "Justice for All".

Corporations are de facto "persons", this includes nation states and those chosen (or forced) to represent them, they're corporations as well, and by definition; persons.

I suppose one idea that emerges is scale; does "justice" mean the same thing at the macro as well as the micro level? Consider, if justice is a relative concept, a purely subjective creed and method, how is it different then, from "how many angels on the head of a pin"?   

One of the reasons for "thought experiments" is the inability for our minds to wrap around difficult concepts ("how many angels on the head of a pin"), …quantum mechanics and string theory for example. Ideas that originate from pure thought experiment, that produce real world byproducts both material and pure knowledge.

Justice/injustice (justice for All)is one human idea that could use some examination at both ends, the macro and microcosm of human existence, experience and progress.

The idea of this one is; If war is seen as a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, …in no uncertain terms. Would those who profit the least, participate in the conspiracy if the consequence wasn't worth the wages?

I'm not so sure they would. 

At the micro scale, let's look at the police who investigate, the attorneys who prosecute, …if they conspire to cover-up the investigation/prosecution of an innocent, …should they not be subject to justice (consequences) for profiting from their crime as well?

Found guilty by whom?

That list is awfully biased, any such list would have to include Bush, and Bush

"Found guilty by whom?"

Not "by whom" - by what.

What = evidence.

Evidence = "follow the money"

"That list is awfully biased, any such list would have to include Bush, and Bush"

Again, this isn't an idea for a real world (or hypothetical) retroactive "law", the list was not meant to serve as anything other than an example of "crimes against humanity",  in response to this post.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service