Depending on who I'm talking to maybe, but considering it's you I think you just like the thought of karma too much to look at political violence objectively. You just get too much satisfaction out of seeing your oppressors die to calm down and ask yourself if this is actually productive.

Do you think that anyone's lives have actually been improved by the fallout of 9/11? Whether or not radical Islamists' goals are being achieved isn't the question, it's if humanity as a whole is better off for the violence. Millions of refugees fleeing their homes and Iraq and Afghanistan becoming destabilized warzones doesn't exactly sound like progress. It sounds like same **** different day.

I mean i can if you want since you dont seem to understand that justification is not linked to morality. All i wanted to know is if you always link them or have some view of morality such that no immoral act can ever be a justifiable one.

First part, fair point. I think I got my history straight but then again of course I do.

Second part- I was trying to argue that radicalism has a rightful place in social movements.

Big picture is the world a better place? No. I don’t think I could make that case.

At the risk at getting bitched at for jumping in do you mean like Hiroshima & Nagasaki to shorten the war?

@OH - Im not sure i agree wih that example but yes here are tons of things like that.

Well, if you assume that not bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing 200,000 people or whatever it was would result in more deaths then it kind of is a numbers game at its core. Would that be preferable or would the moral abhorrence damage humanity to an extent that would make the bombings a net failure?

Not trying influence anyone, just musing.

So your view of morality changes to suit the needs of the individual? Cant stealing still be immoral in your example but simultaneously justified?

The ends.

Hypothetical: If the Nazis Were Right Would You Agree with Some Form of the Holocaust

Depends on the severity of the action. My seemingly frivolous Holocaust thread was about questioning whether or not you'd be willing to change your moral paradigm if it became clear that it was completely incompatible with reality. Not so much that you should potentially change what you think is moral, but that you should potentially be willing to go against your morality if the cost of sticking to your morality worsened the existence of humanity.

I don't see how murdering millions of people could ever be considered moral considering the effect on society and the direct-genocide-perpetrators of murdering millions of human beings, but if the end result would in the end outweigh the immediate horror then might it not be worth the sacrifice?

Youre justifying if your action is reasonable. Lets try this without a moral question.

Are you justified in believing in god or the flat earth? Now apply the same logic to decide if an action is justified.