DescentBB

SuperSheep wrote:Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

Save the world. Not only himself. The good of the many outweight the good fo the few.

Bet51987 wrote:You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

That isn't being fair. Would you refuse to bend your morals even if it meant watching everyone you know and love including your own children fall into despair, suffer and then die?

It is curious that in WW1 they found that green US troops, when faced with charging German soldiers, fully 75% of the american troops would not aim at the enemy when they fired their rifles. The idea of killing anyone mano e mano is very hard as it was against the very fibre of our upbringing. We can all sit here and make measured statements about what we would or would not do so, until the situation actually occurs, we have no clue what we would wind up doing.
On paper, killing a little girl to save millions of other little girls seems like a reasonable thing to do...until you actually look into her eyes and see yourself looking back. Lotsa luck.

The scenario that started this topic was almost plausible. Put in a whole troop of Nazi soldiers and it becomes more plausible. But I draw the line at even considering scenarios as whacked out as sacrificing a young girl for the salvation of the whole world. It's an implausible and disturbed line of thinking, and better not even to go there.

How about an adult male, then?

Same

shaktazuki wrote:Not a big fan of Christianity, then?

Ha. Shak, Thorne is one of the more outspoken Christians here.

As I take it, his point is not that "sacrifice for the sake of the whole world" scenarios don't exist. As Christians, of course we hold the crucifixion/resurrection in that sense.

I think Thorne's point is that these "zero-win scenarios" aren't always worth discussing, primarily because there are no good solutions, and just boil down to vague comparisons of bad vs. worse.

woodchip wrote:We can all sit here and make measured statements about what we would or would not do so, until the situation actually occurs, we have no clue what we would wind up doing.

Agreed.

Krom wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

That isn't being fair. Would you refuse to bend your morals even if it meant watching everyone you know and love including your own children fall into despair, suffer and then die?

It is fair. I just replaced the OP's Jewish person with a little girl and the gun with a torture room. So far, I've seen three groups of people respond. The Kirks who would die before torturing the little girl because their empathy will not permit it. The Spocks who would consider her life expendable to save the world, and the Mengele's because of their total disregard for human life.

Bee

Isn't the difference with the Jesus story that Jesus voluntarily sacrificed himself? Here we are talking about sacrificing people against their will for a greater good.

Foil wrote:I think Thorne's point is that these "zero-win scenarios" aren't always worth discussing, primarily because there are no good solutions, and just boil down to vague comparisons of bad vs. worse.

It's a thought experiment, and looking at the extremes, even hypothetically, can be revealing. When Einstein was thinking about what it would be like to ride on a wave of light, I'm sure someone would have dismissed it as a waste of time, since no one can ride on waves of light...

Krom wrote:Bombing a countryside is something done from a considerable distance and it allows people to maintain "mental distance" from the act of killing. While putting someone through torture on the other hand is a very up close and personal experience that can't be easily kept at a "mental distance".

woodchip wrote:On paper, killing a little girl to save millions of other little girls seems like a reasonable thing to do...until you actually look into her eyes and see yourself looking back. Lotsa luck.

It's still an open question as to whether maintaining mental distance provides for clear and unimpaired judgment or whether looking into the girl's eyes reveals something important about the ethical dilemma that mental distance fails to provide.

I doubt that there is a correct choice here. In this decision, we have two competing ethical convictions: don't violate people's rights and try to do the most good for the most people. It's not clear how the two compare or if they are even comparable. For example, does there exist some points system, perhaps written in the clouds or in God's mind, where killing someone against their will deducts X points but where saving N people gives us N*Y points, where we can just see if N*Y > X? I doubt it...

But... if I had to do something, with the benefit(?) of mental distance that I have now, I think that I would opt against the girl and opt for the rest of mankind.

You're usually so discriminating and precise, shaktazuki, I fully expected that reply from someone else, as an antagonism, or from a lack of understanding regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ, which bears no more than the weakest cosmetic similarity.

I would ask what right anyone has to the life of the little girl. I would also not be so quick to trust the judgment of any person who claims to know that that is the only solution. Think about it, what is that scenario based on, in reality? I would say that its basis in reality is weak, at best, and probably has more to do with movies and science-fiction. For that reason I don't think it's worth considering, though, considering it, I find myself coming to the conclusion that it would be wrong for the majority to kill the minority to save themselves. For the minority to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the majority is highly commendable...

It's not your life to give.

No Bet, being fair would be \"You would personally torture a little girl to save the world?\". I highly doubt anyone here under any circumstances would torture a little girl to save only themselves.

What if the one who would be tortured was YOU? What would you want?

Krom wrote:No Bet, being fair would be "You would personally torture a little girl to save the world?". I highly doubt anyone here under any circumstances would torture a little girl to save only themselves.

What if the one who would be tortured was YOU? What would you want?

Precisely,but the only problem is this is a hyper-hypothetical situation. It would not happen. Dilemma averted.

-there was no spoon-



And Sheep, God would not allow this to come about as He did once already and doesn't need to do it again. You would not be put in that position. While I know you don't believe in God, this is the appropriate response to your comment.

As for the original question. You either let the Nazi shoot both of you or try to cap the soldier as Will stated in the beginning. (but you stated you can't.) You could try. There is always choice. Sometimes it's not what we DO accomplish but what we try to do even if we fail.
This generation has lost the understanding of Honor and duty.

BTW Prime what makes you bring this up? You said it was real life? Could give a bit more detail?

That's my 2 bits.

btw (again) Merry Christmas everyone!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're usually so discriminating and precise, shaktazuki, I fully expected that reply from someone else, as an antagonism, or from a lack of understanding regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ, which bears no more than the weakest cosmetic similarity.

You said: "I draw the line at even considering scenarios as whacked out as sacrificing a young girl for the salvation of the whole world. It's an implausible and disturbed line of thinking, and better not even to go there." If you wish to take as your defense that there is a fundamental dissimilarity between the two situations - sacrificing a young girl to save the world, versus sacrificing one's only begotten son to save the world - a necessary component in both our religions, btw - feel free to illustrate how they are fundamentally dissimilar. It wasn't meant to antagonize.

If I meant to antagonize anyone, I'd be asking how God escapes the epithet "Mengele's assistant"...

... come to think of it...

... nah.

I would ask what right anyone has to the life of the little girl. ... I find myself coming to the conclusion that it would be wrong for the majority to kill the minority to save themselves. For the minority to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the majority is highly commendable...

It's not your life to give.

I'm going to suggest you have unreconciled conflicts... or, at least, nuances that need explicating. (see also v 51, 52)

Krom wrote:No Bet, being fair would be "You would personally torture a little girl to save the world?".

There is no difference between yourself and the world. It's just numbers.

I highly doubt anyone here under any circumstances would torture a little girl to save only themselves.

I wish that was true, but it's definately not.

What if the one who would be tortured was YOU? What would you want?

At nine, I would want him to stop and I would be screaming in agony as he kept at it. I would just want him to stop so I can go home.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

Nice try. Happy Holidays but you won't be getting a Christmas card.

shaktazuki wrote:.....

I'm going to suggest you have unreconciled conflicts... or, at least, nuances that need explicating. (see also v 51, 52)

Not sure what your intent is in this quote of passage. This is Sanhedrin plotting the death of Jesus.

Fundimentally? Easy, God offered Himself as a sacrifice. He allowed people to bring this plot to fruition.

The girl is regular human. The girl is taken against her will (we are to assume). Her life is being taken from her against her will. This girl is not able to bring forth the abolition of the guilt of sin for all mankind with her death. This girl will not raise herself from the dead after she's been shot.

I don't know what your religion is shakt, but you don't seem to have a thorough grasp of Christian theology.

It's not possible to boil all religions down the their lowest common denominator. Some people try, in fact several religions are founded on just that, but it shows a lack of understanding with critical specifics of each religion. If "you" like to believe in everything and do whatever "'cause it's all good", then you don't really need any religion to justify your actions.

SuperSheep wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

Nice try. Happy Holidays but you won't be getting a Christmas card.

No, No, I wasn't trying anything. I was just surprised at your answer since you never struck me as the type who could. If you prefer, I will change the word "yourself" to "the world". I just want to know.

I also don't believe in God and never will but I have no problem saying Merry Christmas since it simply marks the birth of Jesus Christ. If I knew your email address I would send you a Christmas card.

I also believe that the scenarios in this thread have played out many times during WW2. I can visualize a Nazi, SS trooper, or ....the cold indifferent Mengele type, making a father shoot his daughter without showing the slightest remorse.

Bee

Duper wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:.....

I'm going to suggest you have unreconciled conflicts... or, at least, nuances that need explicating. (see also v 51, 52)

Not sure what your intent is in this quote of passage. This is Sanhedrin plotting the death of Jesus.

Did you read v. 50 - 52? That was the Spirit of God speaking through Caiaphas, who was the High Priest at the time, which was why I mentioned verses 51 and 52. Here's a link to all three, so you can read them in context: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+11%3A50-52

The Spirit, through Caiaphas, has proclaimed as a general principle that one may be slain to save many.

Fundimentally? Easy, God offered Himself as a sacrifice. He allowed people to bring this plot to fruition.

So, we ask the fresh-faced little girl if she wouldn't mind dying to save everyone, and she, being the innocent thing she is, says yes. Start from there.

I don't know what your religion is shakt, but you don't seem to have a thorough grasp of Christian theology.

Given the multiplicity of Christian sects in the world, it is fair to say there is no "Christian" theology to gain a grasp of. There is, in fact, no universal doctrine among them. They disagree on the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, on the relationship of these three to each other, on the relationship of these three to us, and on every other point.

I am a Christian, though I am not an orthodox Christian.

shaktazuki wrote:The Spirit, through Caiaphas, has proclaimed as a general principle that one may be slain to save many.

But the death of Jesus was not just. Read what Paul had to say about it.

Acts 2:23 wrote:"Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ...

It was expedient, and it was God's purpose, and it was done by the will of Christ himself, but the sacrificing of Jesus was not a just act on the part of the ones who did it.

Matthew 26:24 wrote:"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."

Now how can it be a general principle that we are meant to take from this and yet it was wrong? Besides all of that, I'm not arguing that it's wrong for someone to die for the people, I'm arguing that it's wrong for someone to be killed/murdered for the people.

Bet51987 wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

SuperSheep wrote:Put young girl through torture to save world? I would.

You would personally torture a little girl to death to save yourself?

Bee

Nice try. Happy Holidays but you won't be getting a Christmas card.

No, No, I wasn't trying anything. I was just surprised at your answer since you never struck me as the type who could. If you prefer, I will change the word "yourself" to "the world". I just want to know.

I also don't believe in God and never will but I have no problem saying Merry Christmas since it simply marks the birth of Jesus Christ. If I knew your email address I would send you a Christmas card.

I also believe that the scenarios in this thread have played out many times during WW2. I can visualize a Nazi, SS trooper, or ....the cold indifferent Mengele type, making a father shoot his daughter without showing the slightest remorse.

Bee

I am not a monster and I didn't appreciate being portrayed as one but since you have since changed your rebuttal, allow me to elaborate on mine.

A choice between a life and the life of countless millions is not a hard choice to make in my mind. If it were an elderly person or dying person instead of a 8 year old girl, some would be able to justify it easier. But life itself has value and neither life would be more or less valued when compared 1-1.

However, an entire planet population of people for 1 person? I can't even fathom how that is even a question. Does it somehow debase us as a society to take one life to save all the rest? However the question was not even take a life to save the rest. It was torture a life to save the rest.

Given that, we have already tortured thousands, possibly millions of lives in the form of animal experimentation and we all benefit from it. We kill insects because they annoy us. We uproot forests and exterminate species in our quest for raw materials to fuel our lives. The exploitation of other humans and animals has been going on for thousands of years.

For those that have a God, we are all damned already. Our clothes, food, gas, and all those little things we simply can not live without all come at the price of someone or something else's life and yet we continue on oblivious to our path and always find it easy to blame others.

So, yes, an 8 year old girl for the entire world has a very easy answer for me. Although personally I don't think humanity has earned the gift of that life.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong for someone to die for the people, I'm arguing that it's wrong for someone to be killed/murdered for the people.

Then it falls to you to reconcile these verses with the ones I have cited.

... because how else does one die for others, except someone kills one?

Isn't it obvious that I already have? Who has the right to take life in order, presumably, to save lives? Who has the right to take life? If there's more to that verse than \"51 Now this he did not say on his own [authority;] but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.\", then I haven't seen it. If it is a precedent, then surely it is not a precedent for our use.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If it is a precedent, then surely it is not a precedent for our use.

Ah. Would you agree that it is God alone who can declare that one should slay another?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But I draw the line at even considering scenarios as whacked out as sacrificing a young girl for the salvation of the whole world. It's an implausible and disturbed line of thinking, and better not even to go there.

Valid point. So let's try some more realistic scenarios that cover the same ethical point.

Scenario A: The Doctor.
You are a German Doctor during WWII. You are working on a cure for cancer. You think you are on the track of a solution that could save thousands of lives every year. BUT, it needs some serious experimentation on live subjects. NOT the kind of experimentation you can do on normal cancer victims, and the experimentation will almost certainly be horrifically painful and eventually result in a very unpleasant death for the subjects. The Nazi's HAVE offered you all the Jewish prisoners you want as experimental subjects. The prisoners are likely to die anyway in camps, if you experiment on them, you could at least make their deaths worthwhile by using them to create a cure that could save countless lives.

Scenario B: The Terrorist's Daughter
You are part of a US Military squad that is searching for an Al Qaeda terrorist who has planted a nuke somewhere in Chicago. If you don't capture him and discover the location of the nuke in the next few hours, most of the city, and millions of citizens will be vaporized. On a tip you break into a house where the terrorist was hiding, unfortunately you've just missed him, he got away, and you have no idea where. BUT, his eight year old daughter was still at home. She knows where her father went, but she loves her daddy and she certainly isn't going to tell YOU where he is hiding. She would far die than do so. You have NO other leads. How far will you go to make the girl tell you where her daddy is? Just to make the scenario really interesting, lets just establish ahead of time that she is too tough of a kid to give in to intimidation or even a normal beating. You are going to have to start breaking bones or plugging her in to a car battery before you have any chance of making her betray her daddy.

Scenario C: The General's House
You are Hunting for an enemy General during the Vietnam war. You just got a call from one of the Servants that the General is visiting one of his houses. He won't be there long. There is no way to get ground troops to him, BUT, you can call in an air strike and have a very good chance of killing this enemy leader. He is one of their key men, and killing him would help save lives on your side, might even change the whole direction of the war. Of course, the air strike will ALSO kill everyone else in the house. The general's wife, his kids, his servants. Including the servant who is actually on your side and called in the tip (never realizing he was calling in his own death). Do you call in the strike despite the collateral damage?

Scenario D: Hiroshima
You are the president of the United States at the end of WWII. Japan is preparing for a prolonged battle on their homeland. An invasion will cost countless US AND Japanese lives. But you've got this new bomb. You've got two of them actually. Drop them on a city and you might very well convince the Japanese to surrender, which would save more lives than the bombs would kill. Hiroshima is the target that has been picked. Hiroshima is a key shipping center, and has large deposits of military supplies, so it's a "military" target, but you know the bomb will kill mostly your average citizen. Including, of course, children. Do you drop the bomb?

Each of these scenarios has, at it's heart, the same issue. When is it ok to take an unwilling innocent life in order to save others? And every one of them is plausible. Most of them have actually happened.

With A:The Doctor and B:The Terrorist's Daughter, I answer without hesitation NO, it is NOT ok to take an innocent life, or to torture an 8 year old kid, even if a large number of lives can be saved. If we become evil ourselves, what was it that we were trying to save? The principle that it is ok to do ANYTHING to a few in order to save the many is the very principle espoused by the Nazi's themselves. There is no end to where it can lead. (And yes, I'm with Sergant Thorne on John 11:50, the inspiration was referring specifically to a VOLUNTARY sacrifice)

BUT, when it gets to scenario C:The General's House, I start to hesitate. I lean towards no, too much collateral damage, but then I waver back towards yes, the General is an important target. Why the wavering? Ethically, this is killing MORE innocents for a smaller and more ephemeral gain than scenarios A or B.

And at Scenario D:Hiroshima, I lean towards Yes. That bomb saved lives. On both sides. Then I wobble back to no, there had to be some better way! But was there? And this is the most inconsistent position of all, because it involves killing the MOST innocent people. It's almost exactly the inverse of Scenario E:The Terrorist's Daughter.

Like I said, I'm conflicted on this dilemma. It needs more rationality and less emotion behind it.

SuperSheep wrote:I am not a monster and I didn't appreciate being portrayed as one....

I never meant it that way but have a nice holiday.

SuperSheep wrote: So, yes, an 8 year old girl for the entire world has a very easy answer for me. Although personally I don't think humanity has earned the gift of that life.

I thought more about this and believe me I gave it a lot of thought but my conclusion always came out the same. If anyone tortures an 8 year old girl to save either themselves or the entire world then they are truly monsters in my book.

Sorry,

Bee

Aggressor Prime wrote:......I am using this to represent something in modern day and in this situation, you cannot kill the threat.

So before this turns into an abortion thread or my savior is better than your savior thread give us the modern day scenario so we can complain and pontificate

Why is one life worth more than another? Why is a child's life worth more than that of a senior's? In fact, why does humanity put ANY value differences between human lives at all? Isn't all life priceless, no matter what? Shouldn't taking a life be the ultimate destruction of your soul, if we have one that is, no matter what the reason? Is one murder more justified than another? If you really believed all human life is sacred, would you still torture a child for the sake of humanity? I couldn't do it.

Will Robinson brought it up so, as an example, is the life of a fetus worth more than that of a murdered abortion doctor? People have killed using that as a rational.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or do the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. The Kobayashi Maru, the 'no win situation' from Star Trek. All of the previously posted scenarios fall into this format, that someone will always lose, no matter what the outcome. However, could you perhaps find a way to cheat, like Kirk did.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru

shaktazuki wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If it is a precedent, then surely it is not a precedent for our use.

Ah. Would you agree that it is God alone who can declare that one should slay another?

I really don't have a good answer for that. I think that maybe to state that God would have to make a direct declaration in any particular case would be to ignore the physical or spiritual authority structure that has God as its source, but maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. That not withstanding, I believe I would agree. I think that's Biblical.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If it is a precedent, then surely it is not a precedent for our use.

Ah. Would you agree that it is God alone who can declare that one should slay another?

I really don't have a good answer for that. I think that maybe to state that God would have to make a direct declaration in any particular case would be to ignore the physical or spiritual authority structure that has God as its source, but maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. That not withstanding, I believe I would agree. I think that's Biblical.

This is why this moral dilemma is moot for you and I. I would need a direct command to kill.

There is a story, extra-biblical, yet true nonetheless, about two prophets who were commanded to cry repentance to a wicked city. A minority believed them, and repented. The lawyers and the rulers of the city rejected them utterly. The rulers threw the prophets in prison upon a legal pretext cooked up by the lawyers, aided by perjured witnesses. The rulers threw out of the city all of the men who believed the Gospel, sending others to stone them, and then the rulers took the believers' wives and children, as well as their scriptures, and burned them before the eyes of the prophets. One of the two prophets said to the other that they should exercise the power of God which they had given them to save the martyrs from the flames. The other said - and this is the point of the story - that the Spirit of God was compelling him to desist from doing just that, for Jesus was receiving these martyrs in glory, and that the wicked were permitted to do such awful things so that the judgements which the Lord would bring about against them in his wrath would be fully justified, and that the blood of the innocent would cry mightily against these wicked on judgement day. Skipping to the end of the story, these rulers and lawyers were subsequently slain by the hand of God, and their city was completely and utterly destroyed in a single day by their nation's enemies.

shaktazuki wrote:I would need a direct command to kill

If you mean "kill innocents", then I can understand your position. If you mean "to kill anyone under any circumstances", I'm going to have to disagree.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 wrote:To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up

Not, of course, a definitive answer, because it doesn't say what the appropriate time to kill IS.

Esther 8:11-12 wrote:Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey

The Esther story certainly implies that self defense was an acceptable reason to kill. There was no direct command from God here.

Psalms 82:3-4 wrote:Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Isaiah 61:1-1 (also quoted by Christ) wrote:The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

As Christians, we have an DUTY to protect the weak. But none of these text specifically say we can use force in that purpose.

I find John The Baptists answer to the Roman Soldiers very telling. These soldiers were essential police, and they came to him, converted and convicted, and asked what they should do about their jobs:

Luke 3:14 NKJ wrote:Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

I'm using the New King James version here becuase I think it does a better job translating in this case. The KJV says "Do violence to no man". The word translated "violence" is the Greek "Diaseio" which means:
1. to shake thoroughly
2. to make to tremble
3. to terrify
4. to agitate
5. to extort from one by intimidation money or other property

In juxtaposition with "accuse falsely", the translation of "intimidate" seems far superior and more logical. RSV says "Rob no one by violence", NAS: "Do not take money from anyone by force, ASV: "Extort from no man by violence".

Now, if John had believed that using force was always wrong, he would have told these soldiers to quit their jobs. But he didn't. He told them not to MISUSE force, not to abuse their position of power, but to keep on doing their jobs, defending the weak by enforcing the laws of the land.

Paul obviously supports the concept that is ok to use force in order to enforce the laws of the land and defend the weak:

Romans 13:3-4 wrote:For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

1 Peter 2:13-15 wrote:Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

As flawed as the Roman government was, the basic purpose of it's police force was to enforce law and keep the peace, WITH FORCE. The New Testament clearly supports this purpose while criticizing the misuse of power and the abuse of force.

Defending the weak against evil people who would do them harm is a solid Biblical principle.

Too bad God didn't act sooner and save the innocents eh?