keyplus

[Lonnie]

I apologise to everyone for putting this thread here, but the remark i'm referring to, was made in this topic.
Anyone who likes to can come on with what you think if you like.

keyplus, you mentioned in my earlier thread, that the events in the Middle East wouldn't be happening, if it wasn't for the support of Jews living outside Israel, and I asked if Muslims outside Palestine were supporting Hamas.
And if so, what is the difference?.

[Octavius]

Most people would exhibit four types of principle, leaving room for personal judgement in certain situations which can be applied to Gaza (and possibly Iraq/Afghanistan):

Respect for autonomy: respecting the decision-making capacities of autonomous persons; enabling individuals to make reasoned informed choices. Do the general populous agree with the decision of Hamas to fire the rockets, and Israel to invade Gaza?

Beneficence: the act of charitable kindness, balancing of benefits against the risks What do they hope to achieve, and how can it be done peacefully? Are either side actually considering their civilian population and those on the other side?

Non maleficence: avoiding harm; or avoiding disproportionate harm Is any form of attack acceptable? Is it ok to fire a handful of rockets at civilians, but not ok to fire hundred of missiles back?

Justice: distributing benefits and risks fairly;some would see military action as justice, some would see it as an injustice.

People who stick unwaveringly by unfair principles and ignore the above are generally unscrupulous. Many might believe that accepting autonomy and justice may make non maleficence devoid, but the end result is beneficence, thus their principles are righteous.