Okay, I’ll admit I was trying to set up a blatan false dilemma.
I seem to see all this “baby killing is bad” stuff, particularly from dalovindj.
The problem is, if we assume that God doesn’t exist, morals become relative to one’s situation at hand. No one can apply their condemnation of baby slaughter to the ancient Israeli’s actions, due to the fact that they probably were working off of a different set of morals.
The way I see it, leaving God out of the picture, the only way I can find fault with the Israeli’s is if they wiped out a peaceful nation who kept to themselves so that the Israeli’s could get more land, money, etc. And, though, I find it apalling from my standpoint, I can’t condemn them due to having a different moral base than I and living in different times.
Now, according to the Bible, the Amelkites had oppressed the Israeli’s for a number of years. Put yourself in the position of the oppressed. Let’s say you found the means to break this oppression. Let’s say your oppressors were known for being uncompromising (or you tried to compromise with them and they refused). What do you do? Grin and bear your oppression even though it appears it will never end? Or do you use your newfound power to end your oppression? Either could be morally acceptable.
Now, let’s say you chose to end your oppression. Knowing how oppressive, mean, bloodthirsty, sadistic, etc. your conquerors were, you realize that nothing short of obliterating them is going to free you. So you kill all their fighters, destroy their rulers, and have nothing left but women and children.
What do you do? Bear the new burden of what will no doubt turn into some form of welfare state, since women and orphans had very little in the way of rights in the society you destroyed? Or maybe, seeing as how your society was more enlightened from the standpoint of rights extended to the widowed, poor, and orphaned, you are going to try to assimilate a people of a completely different culture and try to make them adopt your social mores? What if they resist? Or how about you leave them alone in peace, so that they will always have the memory of what you did to them ingrained and one day come back for revenge? All the while bear in mind that there are dozens of other civilizations out there that would love to conquer you in return, since you have access to some prime real estate. Rather interesting dilemma.
Even if you do manage to assimilate this new people, they no doubt will resent it, after all, you resented their control of you.
The easiest in the long run is just to kill all of them. One less potential oppressor to worry about, one way to send a sign to other civilizations that although you may be small, you’re not going to be easily pushed around, one way to not have to worry about how you are going to support the remnants of your oppressors that didn’t die in the war you waged for freedom.
Slaves have killed masters, children have killed abusive parents, adults have killed people who threaten their family. All these could be considered just from a moral standpoint.
Why isn’t the destruction by one people of another people who were oppressing them and could be argued had no desire to ever relent be completely wrong?
**
I wouldn’t. Barring a higher power dictating morals. Self-preservation is the utmost morally right action, IMHO. Maybe God was just a scapegoat or something they created to give themselves the appearance of being stronger. Its irrelevant. The self preservation case can be validly argued and there isn’t anything wrong with it from my standpoint.
