We shall see. That’s a pretty strong statement. You have to show not just that a balance sheet defense can fail (trivially granted), but that it’s very fundamentally flawed.

Of course, no one uses a balance sheet exclusively for the defense of a principle. Would you assert it’s sufficiently flawed that it shouldn’t even be a component of a larger defense?

The moral balance sheet is hardly my own invention: We can justly ask whether the struggle against German and Japanese imperialism justified the intentional and deliberate killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree absolutely, although myy point was not that the balance sheet is useless, but that any defense (or offense) constructed around a balance sheet is very likely to fail. I will attempt to explain in the post which I originally planned to write, insh’allah.

The moral balance sheet is hardly my own invention: We can justly ask whether the struggle against German and Japanese imperialism justified the intentional and deliberate killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The moral balance sheet does not directly condone or condemn any action, but we must indeed look at the balance sheet in addition to other considerations to form an all-sided moral judgment.

Would, for example, I torture a child to prevent the deaths of millions? Probably not. Must I consider, however, the fact that someone did indeed prevent the deaths of millions if I wish to judge him for torturing a child: Yes, I must definitely consider that fact, even if the other facts of the case lead me to condemn him.