2007-07-30 23:21:02 · 9 answers · asked by Calchas 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I appreciate the person who said "define immoral" as even the term "suicide bomber" has a specific weight in today's media. The next answer obviously has recent events in mind, but are the events in Iraq or the tactics of Al Queda the only circumstance where there are "suicide bombers". What if you were in a concentration camp and death was imminent? What if you were a rape victim who was obviously going to be killed and you wanted to take out your rapist? There are too many variables in your suppposedly straight forward question.
2007-07-30 23:36:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not when we evolve/grow enough emotionally past petulant child with a bomb. Immoral is wrong for the situation, situations we should be long past. It will stop when everyone takes on the responsibility to stop it with themselves instead of passing it on to the next person and the bomber takes on the hate and injustices of the world. The pressure doesn't have to get that far and we now have the techniques to de-program even the insane without killing them. We are being de-programmed as we speak. It's not too much of a neo-inductive leap.
2007-07-30 23:59:42 · answer #2 · answered by hb12 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might be morally right for others if we give due respect to their own beliefs. However for me it is always immoral. Immoral in the sense that such action is not morally right because you are killing people by immoral means. This is an unjustifiable move to attain a certain objective.
2007-07-30 23:42:59 · answer #3 · answered by Third P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If person A kills 20 people with a gun then takes his own like and person B kills 20 people with a suicide bomb, the same damage was done.
People who suicide bomb are brainwashed from a very young age into believing it's an easy way to get into heaven. I feel bad for them, but it's still wrong.
2007-07-30 23:30:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you're a Christian, it would always be morally indefensible. If you're a realistic, one could justify a suicide bombing against someone like Hitler by this close associates who had access to him. If you're a Star Trek fan, you know Spock would find suicide bombing logical if it saved many other lives.
2007-07-30 23:28:10 · answer #5 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of it extremely is often a foul determination. Immoral? No. people who dedicate suicide are ninety 9% of the time depressed and not of their maximum suitable recommendations. greater useful they might desire to get help then..........on no account a morally permissable determination in my recommendations. we are so screwed up while it includes demise and residing. One floor of the wellbeing facility does late term abortions. yet another floor does in vitro fertilization. This week my ninety twelve months previous father in regulation is being euthanized at his request - drugs. A foster baby has had recommendations tumor surgical technique and has no recommendations interest. mom would not prefer to drag the plug. No common solutions anymore.
2016-11-10 19:20:41 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Define Immoral. Thats not exactly a universal term.
2007-07-30 23:28:32 · answer #7 · answered by natemail00 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a Coward act.No one will be benefitted.
Moral means everyone follow,so automatically it is immoral,I think no one likes a Coward.
2007-07-31 00:53:08 · answer #8 · answered by Giyas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is no time to go soft on crime.
We should collect the suicide bombers scattered remains and punish them severely.
2007-07-31 00:08:20 · answer #9 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋