Experiment Is it more immoral to shoot somebody in the head from a close distance, or to lob artillery at them from farther afar?

[Atavistic Autist]

This is what much of the morality surrounding the Gaza-Israeli war comes down to.

It is said that Hamas committed "terrorism" by shooting Israeli civilians at close range, which is a very "personal" method of execution, whereas Israel killing loads of Palestinian civilians by dropping 1,000 tons of artillery on them from miles away is somehow excusable for its impersonal nature.

Using this logic, the Holocaust as it developed was alright and we should have no moral reservations about it, given that the Germans evolved from crudely shooting Jews in the head to impersonally gassing them

thoughts? @TheNEET

 

[SocialzERo]

By shooting them individually you are not treating them like a collective mass so IMO it’s morally superior to do so

 

[Atavistic Autist]

By shooting them individually you are not treating them like a collective mass so IMO it’s morally superior to do so

Of course, in the case of Hamas, there was a mix of both spree-shootings and individualized executions of Jews, although the idea that a personal execution grants more dignity to the victim is an interesting one.

In this vein, I have called the Soviet Katyn Massacre a quite civilized execution compared to the Ukrainian massacre of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during WWII.

The NKVD shot each Pole at Katyn individually in the head while blindfolded; whereas the Ukrops just did an orgasm of butchery against Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, depriving them of any dignity as they were massacred simultaneously.

 

[SocialzERo]

Of course, in the case of Hamas, there was a mix of both spree-shootings and individualized executions of Jews, although the idea that a personal execution grants more dignity to the victim is an interesting one.

In this vein, I have called the Soviet Katyn Massacre a quite civilized execution compared to the Ukrainian massacre of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during WWII.

The NKVD shot each Pole at Katyn individually in the head while blindfolded; whereas the Ukrops just did an orgasm of butchery against Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, depriving them of any dignity as they were massacred simultaneously.

What’s more important is that getting shot in the occipital region is not painful at all compared to having your abdomen cut open whilst still alive or having your eyeballs gouged out. The first one is a practical method of execution and the second one is unnecessarily sadistic.

 

[IncelsNeverCry]

No such thing as a clean war, only when modern politics get involved do we get this nonsense, look at historical campaigns and armies, they were like great termites chewing their way through every town and village they marched leaving nothing but rape, pillaging and destruction in their wake.

 

[TBIcel]

Sadly holocaust is a lie.

 

[Atavistic Autist]

Sadly holocaust is a lie.

tbh

 

[telamon]

I'm not sure, this is a value judgement.

 

[suicidecase]

They're both equivalent. But the latter almost always kills far more people, therefore it's worse.

But the west, as it does the latter and seldom the former, pretends the former is much worse. And because westerners live in a privileged society where violence is rare (of any kind), the former is considered a bigger threat-- and it is, because the west is almost never attacked by a country/military.

 

[kay']

There is no morals in both ways