So Jorge, it's the same to you if you kill a man who's wielding an axe trying to kill a 2year old girl... than the guy who kills because he enjoys it?
Sorry there Kant, there is no moral imperative.
Quote:
IMO, no war in which the US participated or initiated since WW II have met these conditions.
|
So you wouldn't consider the intervention in South Korea to be justified according to those laws?
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
Compare North vs. South Korea. There is a certain, lasting, and grave difference in quality of life for those living there
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
There were extensive peace talks and negotiations, North Korea opened the war Blitzkrieg style. It's hard to stop a tank with 13months of talking
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
We won.
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The evil was not eliminated, but it was at least contained. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives, but this is much less than innocents who have died from starvation/torture/executions on the Northern border alone. Imagine the carnage if they had taken the entire peninsula.
Seems worthy to me.