The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”
Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
You need to decide whether you’re talking about philosophy or law, because you keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Another way you are not here in good faith.
They heavily overlap.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They’re in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
Children are civilians.
Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.
By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention “Palestinians” then they do not protect Palestinians.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”
Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.