What examples of dishonourable...

What examples of dishonourable, immoral or unethical conduct have "resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number?"

Neoliberalism

Nuking Japan

Nuking japan.

Followed in a far second by fire bombings

Nuking Japan.

Colonizing the Americas.

Pinochet's dictatorship and general latin america coups.

Leveling Germany.

Australia, USA and New Zealand's killing of indigenous peoples and appropriating their land and women.

>nuking the japs dishonourable

Honorable according to whom? The japs? Their sense of honor was barbaric beyond measure, their sense of honor was that of a bully.

>immoral
>unethical

Relative to what? It's a war and we sure as hell treated the japs better than they would've treated us if we were their prisoners.

I never understood this meme at all. It's like you forget what we were doing with firebombs for months on end in the summer of 1945.

>we

And no matter how you paint it, nuking civilians is dishonorable (>we don't spell it with a u), unethical, etc, you can definitely justify it (which is what the other anons were doing) but to suggest we wuz good bois who dindu nuffin is silly.

Reminder that Machiavelli did nothing wrong.

>And no matter how you paint it, nuking civilians is dishonorable

According to who?

I'd say that liberating the subject peoples of East Asia from unspeakable violence was an honorable act and that delaying that liberation would have been a cowardly, despicable thing to do.

Nuking an enemy who has been negotiating a surrender with an ally for two weeks is pretty sleazy m8.

>liberating the subject peoples of East Asia from unspeakable violence was an honorable act
>by utilizing unspeakable violence

>guys my unspeakable violence is honorable but those dirty japs' unspeakable violence is dishonorable
spooky

Would it have succeeded, the holocaust. But we ain't dealing with hypotheticals :/

>people are raping and murdering
>end the raping and murdering with violence
>this is immoral

middle intellectual tier thinking m9

The crucifixion of Christ, which saved the human race from damnation.

>Pinochet's dictatorship
Didn't that impede development and reduce the standard of living though?

It is immoral, because the act itself is immoral, which is why you took offense to it happening the first place.

I'm not saying it was wrong to end the war, I'm saying killing innocents is immoral.

>morality is based off killing the least amount of people
autistic utilitarian tier thinking m10

He failed to make the Duke of Milan listen.

>Pinochet's dictatorship

Gud1m8

So if we never nuked them and simply kept firebombing and shelling them it would've better?

Worse would be losing just 1 more American life to one of those yellow monkeys.

>Nuking an enemy who has been negotiating a surrender with an ally for two weeks is pretty sleazy m8.

This is saving face at it's finest. The military even attempted a coup so the emperor couldn't announce a surrender. They wanted to fight to the bitter end.

Because historically people very rarely understand diplomacy, all people however understand violence.

After we bombed those slant eyed yellow bastards back into the stone age we didn't enslave them like they did to every people they conquered.

So ya, that makes us better than them despite what your snarky sarcasm implies.

The most powerful country to ever exist in the history of mankind appears at the same "the long peace" appears? Coincidence right?

>net morality doesn't exist

Is a cop less moral or equally as immoral in using violence to arrest someone that was caught during a violent crime?

>I'm saying killing innocents is immoral.

No matter what your definition of innocent is, is there ever a situation where you can justify killing innocents?

>morality is based off killing the least amount of people

Obviously it depends on the kinds people you're killing off.

Reminder that liberals have no morality

But freedom and liberty itself is morality.

War against civilians are considered crimes against humanities by Geneva convention.

the venetian republic

>Worse would be losing just 1 more American life to one of those yellow monkeys.

For most people. But wealthy Latin Americans are the only ones whose opinions the Western media cares about.

Muh CIA

yeh, mainly as a result of cutting inflation. but long term he was still a net benefit

>dishonourable, immoral or unethical conduct

lmao

>resulted in the greatest good for the greatest number

Impossible to know as humans have no capacity to understand the long-term effect of their actions. Even the kings who ruled peacefully before Hitler are still partially responsible for setting in motion events that brought him about.

compared to what would have happened without him and the coup it was a benefit to their society. Just look at how the rest of SA turned out....

mad cause true

that is the opposite of spooked and makes sense from a self-interested American point of view and they were making the decision. Would be spooked if they decided not to do it because of muh honor.

>honor
>morals
>ethics
>good

>self-interested American point of view
>American
Most spooked poster of the month desu

It's 1AM here and I have the flu, so I don't have the energy to argue. So I'll just call you a retard and keep it succinct: if we're trying to objectify morals, the act must be the immoral thing, not the consequence. Otherwise shit like the holocaust could be justified, and that doesnt make a lick of sense if you're on the receiving end of such brutality

in other words, destruction is immoral. Again, it's war and "all's fair in love & war" and all that, but don't peddle it off as something that was righteous and moral, nerd

so how this relevant to nuking japan? Who's perspective are we arguing from here? both options are fine then.

...

The state

S P O O K Y

>>American
>Most spooked poster of the month desu

our victims are so sacred and our gang shouldn't profit from their extermination says stirner

>I'll just call you a retard
>Unironically gives a copout argument

Can some things be less immoral than others in that head of yours?

Because altruistic non-americans have done so much for the world.

>taking so much value from Japanese lives and putting them in American lives just coz
>not spooky

>>taking so much value from Japanese lives and putting them in American lives just coz
>>not spooky

hegemonic access to material resources at the expense of other portions of mankind is a spook because physical comfort is obviously a spook, while the construct of sociopathy supposed to induce shame in those who profit from the suffering of other sentients is totally not a spook

>Fucks the coutry
>call it economic miracle

You forgot the part where they ended inflation and set up the prosperity of the 90s

>Hated by the entire population
Dude got like 46% of the vote

>Pinochet's dictatorship and general latin america coups.

...

His policies actually made Chile one of the highest (if not the highest) HDI countries in Latin America, and he was defeated by a small margin in the referendum he himself called.

His merits go far beyond muh helicopter rides and the only people who really really hate him are relatives of his victims (understandably) or left-wing faggots who want Chile to follow Venezuela's path.

At the very least, his takeover was much better than letting Allende remain in power.

His economic legacy is barely better than Allende, and he wasn't actively being fucked with by Nixon. Chile today is one most unequal societies on earth. Most of Chile today was made rich by the democratically elected Christian democrats and socialists.

>Chile today is one most unequal societies on earth

It is unequal. Doesn't mean it is poor. Fuck equality if it gets in the way of fighting poverty.

>Nixon screwed with them
See>Chile today is one most unequal societies on earth

Inequality is actually a good thing for a developing country, I'll see if I can find the paper

That was not what the Prince was about you faggot. It was about the good of the Prince and his state.