I watched the first link. I am familiar with Ta-Nehisi Coates. He has a certain POV, as does "Democracy Now" which generally also shares this POV. When it comes to similar subjects, I generally agree with John McWhorter who is critical of Coates (and Coates of McWhorter). Glenn Loury is also very nuanced too and provides interesting perspectives. Coleman Hughes is newer to me, but I've seen some of his previous stuff on specifically Palestine and Israel and I think has less of an agenda and provides thinkers with nuance on his show.

I think these professors/commentators/academics are much more BALANCED in their approach:

Europeans brought their prejudices with them when they emigrated to America. Not just anti-semitism ( there were many prominent anti-semites, such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburgh) but anti-catholicism, and conflict among catholic ethnicities. My grandmother remembered seeing signs posting ‘No jews, catholic or dogs’.
Major cities like New York, Chicago and Boston were divided up into fiefdoms bounded by major streets and centered around local parishes. You ventured beyond your group’s neighborhood at the risk of a beating. This faded by the 1960’s ( with the exception of prejudice against people of color) with the flight to suburbia and the integration of public and private institutions. — Joshs

True true. Good points. It all sucks, huh?

I was thinking more this:

On August 18, 1790, congregants of the Touro Synagogue of Newport, Rhode Island, warmly welcomed George Washington to both their place of worship and their city. Washington’s letter of response to the synagogue, delivered on the same day, has become famous for reinforcing the ideal of religious liberty in American life. Washington promised the synagogue more than mere religious tolerance, explaining that "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." The letter continued with the promise that "the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."1

Washington asserted that every religious community in the United States would enjoy freedom of worship without fear of interference by the government. Washington had already developed a strong reputation for upholding ideals of religious liberty before writing the Touro letter. As a result, his commitment to freedom of practice prompted other religious communities to seek his affirmation. In May 1790, for example, a Jewish congregation in Savannah, Georgia, wrote to Washington with strong praise: "Your unexampled liberality and extensive philanthropy have dispelled that cloud of bigotry and superstition which has long, as a veil, shaded religion . . . enfranchised us with all the priveleges and immunities of free citizens, and initiated us into the grand mass of legislative mechanism."2 — Mount Vernon

and also:

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy. — archives

But that is more official government, not daily life and general attitudes per se. But the positions have been nuanced and changing over the years I am sure.

Do you think that there is an anti-Jewish bias in Europe stemming from pre-Holocaust ideas of Jewry that is not present in newer Western nation like the US? There are certainly hate groups everywhere but I am wondering if geography influences these trends.

Certainly as "official" policy, Germany has to show "atonement" of some sort and so has bent over backwards to show their sordid history in the 30s and 40s. Other countries had various attitudes and memorials and outreaches about the atrocities. But this is official government gestures, I wonder if there are just ancient hatreds as you describe that get passed down and perpetuated when discussing Jews as a group (not necessarily individuals...and your example was a really good one can be a fan individually and not as a group). It's more of a "genteel" anti-semetism that I am speaking.

I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that such rhetoric can easily be turned around to justify the killing of Israeli civilians. — Tzeentch

But that has already happened, many times over, including very recently, and technically ongoing. I was/am characterizing what I see. It's not just your posts, but that one was an example of a characteristic trend in content and style I see and wonder about.

I also notice that for various positions on the defense of Israel, there is usually a large variation of opinions. Even if a percentage majority are for the actions, there is definitely regret that anyone dies "collateral damage" or otherwise. That is to say, there seems to be a wide array of views on that side ranging from "Cease fire now!" to, "The job must continue until finished, no matter the cost!". That can stem from a plethora of things including but not limited to:

1. The Western/Enlightenment tradition of reviewing all sides and being self-critical. One posits things like "rights" and "universal X" and then sees if one is living up to this posited notion.

2. It is arguably true that the Jewish tradition itself is based on self-criticism, and is often this that is used against that group because it makes them open for other-criticism. The whole bible from Moses to the Prophets were all about reproving and reprimanding the populous of Israel for straying from moral obligations or their leaders for doing so. Every national catastrophe in the Bible is spun into "divine punishment", but many times punishment on themselves. Collective self-flaggelation. This tradition carried over into the Englightenment when secular Jews criticize their own policies infinitum. Whether in this current conflict or in conflicts past, you can find a range of Jewish opinions, even if there is an obvious trend for a particular view. What you don't see, is the same thing in the Palestinian circumstance.

3. Self-criticism is less of a cultural feature on the Palestinian side perhaps, it is seen as weakness maybe and not strength. Whatever possible contingent/historic/cultural reasons, the Palestinian side will be much more solidly anti-Israel than Israel is anti-Palestinian. And this solidarity in the Palestinian side seems as if the non-diversity of views, the non-self-criticism, means that that cause must be the right cause. Both sides need a diversity of views, vociferously moderate ones. You can point to Abbas perhaps, and a few of his contingent. Perhaps there is hope there, or a younger even more moderate person if there is one. But I am talking about the media and cultural milieu in general has to self-criticize. One can say that in the middle of a war, this is not going to be obtained by the people who are in mortal danger. I'd probably agree there. However, until there is a vociferous outcry not only of Israel's "get Hamas no matter what the cost" response to Hamas, but of Hamas and their actions itself, then nothing changes. Perhaps starting with using one’s own population’s lives as a pawn by putting caches of weapons and military command centers as a strategy is one place to start.

I wonder how they'll react when other actors in the region get involved in this conflict and start operating on the same principles. — Tzeentch

No offense, but sound bites like these sound like AI generated “paid actors” that are meant to cause disruptions on various social media platforms. Kind of low key threats regarding Western actions and meant to rile up the Leftist protestors waiting for the red meat. Then various articles and videos are posted to surely show how the West is a belligerent force of “evil”, yet minimizes the evil on the other side or retreats to “they’re not as militarily powerful” yet then proceeds to vague threats of their capabilities when aligned, as if they aren’t provoking that action anyways, just innocent buttercups.

I just haven't heard this idea flushed out) despite the bulk of Jesus's disputes/criticisms being with the Pharisees. — BitconnectCarlos

That’s because you are taking the Gospels as gospel. Not a good move if you are approaching as critical historian. Depending on your interpretation, Jesus seems to have been quite conversant and possibly somewhat educated in a Hillel Pharisee milieu for much of his halachic interpretation of Torah law. When “condemning” Pharisees, it would be then as one from the inside and possibly contra the Shammaite Pharisees. My more speculative interpretation would be that he was a trained Hillelite Pharisee who later became an apocalyptic Jew as influenced by Essenic John the Baptist. I don’t buy the “merely a peasant” portrayal. He may have been of am ha-aretz tekton background, but clearly somewhere became relatively educated in Pharisee interpretations of Jewish law. His brother James headed this hybrid Pharisee/Essene sect, but the group’s fundamental nature changed amongst the group’s diaspora adherents with the forceful evangelizing of Paul and his interpretations of Jesus as the “Christ”. Other strains like the Johannite strain that conceived of Jesus as the pre-existing Logos combined Greek/Platonic elements as well. By this time, Jesus the itinerant Pharisee/Essenic Jew became something much different in these diaspora communities and those became the gentile/Pauline churches that became Christianity. The original Jamesian sect died out several hundred years later in the Levant.

So I think you are right — Leontiskos

:up:

but given that I am trying to avoid these "exponentially more complex" facets of the thread lest I get sucked in too deep, I will say no more on this issue of generational grudges. :razz: — Leontiskos

Eh c'mon you can do it. You had a line of thought.. Follow it.

Sorry did you have a response?

a balancing of interests based on various contingencies. — Leontiskos

You may not see what I added:

Someone STOLE your olive groves! No amount of compensation will allay your indignation over this! If your great grandchildren rape and pillage those who you think STOLE your olive groves that is the Great Devastation, is something off with this myth? Does it even seem reasonable anymore or has it morphed into something else? — schopenhauer1

Regarding politics, suppose Bob steals Fred's land in 1800. The land passes on through his descendants until in 2000 Bob Jr. owns it. At that time Fred Jr. demands that the land be returned to his family. He has a justified cause. Bob Jr. resists the claim, pointing out that he inherited the land that has been in his family for 200 years, during which time the land was substantially improved. Whatever we want to say about Bob Jr's resistance, I do not think we can say it is immoral. Two justified causes exist which are in conflict with one another. Such is politics. To reiterate my conclusion, "Not every action taken against a justified cause is immoral, much less punishable." — Leontiskos

This seems to parallel my points here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849629

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849634

But with the added element that much of these things are social myths (stories) of indignation and selecting which ones “matter” (and carried in generationally) and with what means and intensity one uses to justify one’s injustices and “indignation”.

Someone STOLE your olive groves! No amount of compensation will allay your indignation over this! If your great grandchildren rape and pillage those who you think STOLE your olive groves that is the Great Devastation, is something off with this myth? Does it even seem reasonable anymore or has it morphed into something else?

I think popular opinion within Europe is generally more critical of Israel, if that is what you're asking. — Tzeentch

:up: that is what I was asking.

The term 'anti-Israel' would be a misrepresentation, though. — Tzeentch

Yes terms can be very indicative of how the debate is framed. For example, “anti-Israel” implies that it should never exist in the first place and any action it takes is wrong tout court. It could be a subtler suggestion though.

view the European countries as little more than US vassals. What they do or think is generally irrelevant, — Tzeentch

So basically what I said here:

if you proffer one side or is Europe “objective” and “too meek” for this to be an issue (which I predict to be a response — schopenhauer1

Do you think there is still more anti-Israeli bias (and I’m going to say bias because each side thinks it’s objective and right) than the US proportionally? Or is philosophy forum just representative of a Non representative trend?

Just curious, do you think the inverse is true? As you imply the US has a (insert common trope Israeli lobby), European countries might have an Anti-Israeli bias/lobby? Could both be true then if you proffer one side or is Europe “objective” and “too meek” for this to be an issue (which I predict to be a response in some couched form).

True. There was once a quiet little village in the middle of nowhere. One day the blacksmith said it had come to him that he owned the moon. Startled by this, the weaver said he'd always thought of the moon as his own property. The villagers began taking sides and war broke out amongst them to finally decide who owned the Great Orb. Now they're all dead. — frank

But I can always say THAT is TRULY a MYTH. I "actually owned" the OLIVE GROVES! The Government TOOK my OLIVE GROVES. It's the Great Devastation! I have passed this INJUSTICE to my grandchildren, unto generations. They will always fight. By any means necessary, WE WANT THE OLIVE GROVES FROM THE OPPRESSORS!

In fact the Netherlands and Finland has been secretly funneling money to our group in support of our FREEDOM CAUSE! Because they see the injustice of the Eminent Domainists and their colonizing ways.

Yea. We all see the world through myths, I think. There's the Muslim terrorist myth, which shows up sometimes. The America-bad myth is ever-present. What I do is just try to be slow to judgment so I can detect my own myths and try not to write off what someone says as if it's nothing but myth. Sometimes a person is appealing for a particular fact to be recognized, and it may be important. How do you get to that when there's a cloud of myths in the way? — frank

My much earlier point up on this page somewhere when talking to Javi, was to question all of it as myth. I tied it to the idea that bigger questions like "being born itself is good and should be condoned" could be a myth. How indeed, do we handle the social fictions that we are given?

So here is an example. There is an idea of "eminent domain" in many countries. In some countries (like the US with the 5th amendment) it is enshrined as federal law. That is to say, if the "government" (and this could extend to private businesses whose revenues would "help" the government with revenue as "backed up" by "Supreme Court decisions"), wanted to take your property for a Court backed cause, that is perfectly acceptable. They can pay you a "fair price" for your property/land and start building on it. You have to "take the deal" or they can technically arrest you, fine you, etc. if you refuse. Now, what if you think this is "unjust"? It's your land according to YOU. YOU HAD THIS LAND in your FAMILY. You grew OLIVE GROVES on this land. But the "evil GOVERNMENT" took your FAMILY'S LAND!! You DON'T WANT a FAIR PRICE. YOU WANT YOUR LAND DAMN IT! So instead of accepting this, you form a posse of angry individuals who also hate this idea. It's a minority of people. But you are all people who think were "screwed over" by the policy of "eminent domain". So you all get pitch forks, torches, you all stock pile a bunch of weapons, you all form a gang and call yourselves the Freedom Domain Front (the FDF). You are the underdog. You feel dispossessed. You refuse to live under this TYRANNY. You start doing terrible acts to the "oppressors" who are not letting you live on YOUR LAND! Etc. etc. etc.

It's ALL choosing which MYTHS are going to be your INDIGNATION.

Just curious did you see my response to that? My response to that quote was because it basically was "yadadyadaya.. but AMERICA couldn't know". It just seemed like knee-jerk leftist rhetoric which goes.. Yadyadayda..America (bad).

Second anti-natalism post here, stop it. It's not the place to parade your favourite horse. — Benkei

Everyone's posting their favorite (anti-) post here. But it was to elucidate a bigger point of where people pick their "indignation". So I did tie it into a philosophical point that we often handwave some things and include others in what we condemn. In a philosophy forum setting, where we question even first principle of our debate (and not just political science or history), I think this is a legitimate point to make. But carry on with your particular indignation.

That's true, Japan wreaked havoc in China - some of the worst horrors known to humanity went on their, they arguably put the Nazis to shame. Although I don't think Americans knew that. — flannel jesus

Liberalism used to mean being for a certain way of life (liberal democracy). Presumably, whatever blemishes America has (and there are many.. from how the Cold War was conducted to cult-like authoritarianism like Trump), the ideal stands for "old school Liberalism".

The "newer" liberalism can be differentiated with the term "leftism". That is to say, culture matters more than old-school "liberal" ideas such as "rights". Thus if a culture deems their "territory" to be "self-determined", it can thus do whatever it wants. If it is an illiberal democracy so be it. There might not be enthusiastic support from the "leftists" in European countries, but there might be "indifferent" support that at least it is what the "majority" culture wants there.. Like why someone would support an illiberal state like Iran, who also claim to be "liberal" is beyond me. It would have to be a case of extreme anti-US hegemony (cut my nose to spite my face), or extreme cultural relativism.

OK. According to your opinion, why is the main problem which goes beyond that? Because denying the occupation of an artificial country in someone's territory is just a twisted argument to back up the 'superiority' of some countries over others. — javi2541997

Because it's all about how people get to control other people. Procreation is the "original sin" of ethics. As a parent, you get to control the decision for someone else that "this world" must be "endured" (lived out, survival.. living as a human with various burdens, suffering, and self-awareness of all of this). But this is handwaved. But then we take "seriously" made up social fictions (that are taken s realities) like, "this territory is for my people!!". You can parse out where the "serious" part is for anything. People think taking the given traditions of "nation-states are true/real/necessary" as simply what must be the case. It was a narrative that grew out of the wars of the 17th century Europe, the colonialism of 18th century Europe, the philosophies of the 19th century Europe (exported to other areas of the world), and the World Wars of the 20th century Europe (exported to other parts of the world). In other words, it's just bullshit carried out in real time and the "reality" part is simply its backing by violence.

to their specific territory — javi2541997

If you truly see yourself as against the "Western" narrative, even this idea of "territory" should be questioned. Did you ever consider that even buying into the "this is rightfully mine that is not for them" is itself just buying into the meta-narrative given you? You are doing the narrative-creators a favor with the internalized bickering within their framework. In that sense, they have already "won", due to your lack of vision beyond the given.

From an antinatalist's perspective, all supporters of procreation support bringing both known, unknown, un-consented amounts of harm to people born into the world. So from that standpoint, pick your poison, pick your side- it's always going to be some wrong involved :wink:

Reformation — Count Timothy von Icarus

I’m sure they mean Enlightenment :wink:.

I should reiterate that I think Baden's earlier points against RogueAI were decisive. There is no such thing as a moral judgment that does not work from limited information (link). We assess moral situations based on the information at hand, and if we discover new information the moral judgment may change. ...but this is a larger and more unwieldy topic. — Leontiskos

Granted, which is why I answered to my best for that limited part of the debate and it was tacitly recognized that we were moving to a new “category?” whereby an enlarged context is taken into consideration regarding the moral dilemma being discussed.

Now someone might say, "Well he bombed at night even though he knew civilians would die, therefore he intended to kill civilians." The cogent point here is that even if we grant this claim, the night-bomber is still morally superior to the day-bomber, because he did not intend (in the objector's sense) to kill the more numerous daytime workers. This is not splitting hairs. It is a real and important moral difference. — Leontiskos

Good point. I don’t have much to add to that except one can still try to go back to why bomb at all and I think that’s where my analogy in the last post (see below) regarding Allied response to Nazi aggression and the hypothetical Chinese/Tibetan scenarios elucidate various ends and means in context:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849346

I think that these questions are essentially handled in this post so let's move forward from here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849346

You see the relation though, right? When we achieve some physical and emotional distance from our acts of killing we can start to leverage that into an illusory mitigation of moral responsibility. — Baden

So again, I am just going back to the very original framing of butchery up close versus from a bombing. There is an extra de-humanization of doing something in person, an intimacy, all else being completely equal (involving intent, surrounding circumstances, ends, etc.).

However, if we add in context, agreed, this starts making a difference for moral culpability. If you tweak the parameters to get the case that BOTH the bomber, and butcher want to see maximum horror and death, they are about equal in regards to moral culpability.

Where we probably disagree is consequences versus intent, however. For example, if the US bombed a Nazi armaments plant in the middle of Hamburg, Germany, intending to just destroy the facility, but kills 100 civilians, that is not the same as a group of Nazis lining up 100 civilians and shooting them in the heads, shoving them in a ditch and burying the bodies.

And indeed, I anticipate the move here regarding the earlier point about intimacy and false sense of harm. Because Nazis then moved to "manufactured" forms of killing that removed more of the in person aspect of the wholesale killing. But this would then certainly be a false equivalence and actually addressing the wrong point I was making regarding the context of intent. Rather, the WHOLE POINT of what the Nazis were doing was to torture, work-to-death, and kill groups of people. The killing was an END IN ITSELF! Thus the means became even more perverse because it wasn't a case of "pursuing an enemy combatant but collateral damage then occurred" it literally was to round up as many civilians as possible and torture, work-to-death, and kill them in wholesale ways. Obviously an evil there. And the ends DOES matter. The INTENT DOES matter.

Ireland stayed neutral during WW2, because of their ongoing tensions with the British. This doesn't mean that Irish citizens didn't see the good in the defeat of the Nazis, even if it means a "win" for the British. I think any sane person can agree the Nazis defeated is not only a good thing, but an absolute necessity for the world to not be overrun by a murderous/evil regime. It may have meant, even the hated enemy "the British" may have had to make hard moral decisions during wartime in regards to how to deal with combating a regime doing harm to them and the world in general.

So then we can move the dilemma even more starkly. What if to defeat the Nazis, and to prevent them from continuing their murderous ends, you had to bombard various cities? What if this was unknown as to whether bombing the cities in round-the-clock bombings were actually working to stop the Nazi regime or not? Was it bombing targets that were legitimate? Was it really breaking the will of the people to support the Nazis? Is it effective? How far do you go in stopping a regime with murderous ends? That is a good question, and there can be arguments (like Dresden) that the Allies went too far or were simply doing it from a place of outright revenge.

If for example, there were two scenarios:

Scenario A) 100 peaceful Buddhist civilians were getting bombed and killed in Tibet, because China wanted to take out various peaceful, non-violent Tibetan Buddhist leaders who were also the recognized governing body of Tibet and were also hiding amongst their civilian population,

or

Scenario B) the Chinese killed 100 Tibetan civilians, and let's say, China wanted to take out various Tibetan Buddhist leaders who were hiding amongst their civilians, that mercilessly butchered, burned, maimed, and raped various Chinese neighboring citizens, and it was not just once, but ongoing for years, with also the added component that these Buddhist leaders were the governing body of Tibet, and were also funneling money into suicide bombers, to convince them they will reach Nirvana sooner if they blow themselves up to kill maximum amounts of Chinese...is there a possible component for justification for the Chinese response to Scenario B that is not present in Scenario A?

If that AND they had reason to believe their bombs would not cause collateral damage. If, on the other hand, they had reason to believe they would, no. Again there's no moral get-out-of-jail-free card in saying you don't want to do something but then choosing to do it. Their mental games with themselves can't excuse them of the known consequences of their actions. In fact, insofar as they facilitate more killing, they probably just make them worse people. — Baden

The original question was whether there is an aspect of killing up close that has some ethical dilemma dimension to it, and I added the affirmative and have some reasoning. In the spirit of charity in intellectual discourse, can we at least acknowledge the question was answered and that we have now moved onto a different question regarding intent and consequences?

Ditto with the direct killings. It's easy to argue that the more salient difference is that the bomber is taking a more cowardly route to murder. That hardly makes him morally superior, does it? — Baden

I mean I think you can tease out the moral standard there. If the bomber WANTS to inflict maximum damage or his superior does it’s just as morally culpable. If BOTH (the up close butcher and the removed bomber and his superior) want it, I still say there’s an added dimension when doing it to unarmed civilians up close. Both bad, one has an extra disregard attached to it.

If the bomber or superior truly DIDN’T want collateral damage, that does make a moral difference.

Some would say there's more honour in going out and hunting the animals ourselves. At least then we get to understand we're killing them rather than having some other party do it for us. It seems you think playing mental games with ourselves absolve us of responsibility for our actions. I don't. If you bomb civilians and kill them, you and those who directed you to do so are fully responsible for their deaths and suffering just as if you stabbed them in the face yourself. There is no magic intermediate party to take that responsibility from you. It's simply a false moral intuition brought about by a lack of proximity. — Baden

I think it’s precisely this that would make people possibly stop eating meat, so I don’t think this is some false sense of proximity. People don’t eat meat because they WANT to see the horror of bambi’s brains splattered! There’s a difference in wanting to eat meat, not because of some horror done to the animal, but because one wants the sustenance. It might not be the case, but people want to presume some sort of standard is being met with a “clean kill”.

This presumption seems like a kind of moral blindness to me. It has the stink of Milgram's experiments to it. As if we just presume our nice respectable bombers are morally superior methods of killing because they represent more clearly political and scientific authority. They are more "civilised". (And yes we can add a bunch more context to get whatever result we want but I'm sticking to the view that removing context or presuming the background context to "even out" allows us to focus on our flawed intuition here.) — Baden

I gave context after but just sticking to the first paragraph, I’m sticking to that response. I don’t think the idea that dropping bombs being more scientific and civilized-seeming at all counters my response which was this:

Just as with the good, there is a dignity and humanity you are dealing with in person, with the bad, there is a dignity and humanity you are disregarding in person, in barbaric and brutal ways of maiming, burning, cutting, etc. in person. — schopenhauer1

There is a personal intimate nature to killing up close. To knife someone is more intimate than with a gun, a gun more intimate than a bomb.

However, providing just some context, if it is more than a “clean kill”, or if not “clean”, it was not just collateral damage, but you actually WANT to inflict maximum pain, horror, by maiming and raping, and bashing the civilians in a personal brutal way, versus WANTING to kill only enemy perpetrators BUT in the process impersonally killing civilians in collateral damage, that adds another dimension.

I think in this hypothetical scenario, there actually is something a bit more bad/evil in face-to-face butchering/burning/maiming someone than doing it from bomber planes. It goes with the inverse too. Why is it that actually giving soup to the poor has some more "value" or "good" to it than simply sending money to a food bank that might end up doing the same? Just as with the good, there is a dignity and humanity you are dealing with in person, with the bad, there is a dignity and humanity you are disregarding in person, in barbaric and brutal ways of maiming, burning, cutting, etc. in person.

That is an answer with ONLY the contingencies defined in the OP. However, if you were to add other facts, I do believe @RogueAI's points should be taken into consideration. Is the person doing the butchering doing it out of "desperation" or out of planned operations in order to form fear in the enemy? After you do this butchering which will result in some response, do you care about your own people or would you rather knowingly use them as fodder by hiding under civilians?

How about if the bombers care and protect their citizens under any circumstance, whilst the butcherers disregard what happens with their citizens, and therefore don't value their lives as much as their cause?

Also, what if one side's intention is to cause mass terror and chaos, to provoke a war, and the other side is to try to get the enemy who did the butchering, maiming, burning, raping, but unfortunately, that enemy hides in hospitals and residential buildings?

These are all things to consider. You can take my first paragraph as the answer to the very limited parameters in the hypothetical scenario if you want.

It's used as if to suggest that because something is conscious it deserves to be treated with essential rights. We respect the lives of humans more than animals and sponges, because of factors extending beyond the idea that they have consciousness. — kudos

I am not using "panpsychism" in such a way. I am using it in its usual sense that "experientialness" is spread across matter in some way (whether through simple "occasions of experience" all the way up to something like Schopenhauer-style neutral monism).

It is just for the very reason that one cannot tell what beings are conscious agents except by certain cues, and that's really all we mean when we use the word; it is a word for a phenomenological agent by definition. — kudos

Well sure. "What" counts as the most basic existing phenomenological agent and why are the relevant questions I am asking. When @Wayfarer created this thread from another one, I actually said if he was going to do that, it would be better to specifically name it "Transcendentalism of Neurofauna". I meant it. That is to say, we should take a deep dive into what it is about certain animals that have neurons/neural systems for why they have internal "what it's like" experiences. The dividing line is somewhere between sponges/worms/jellyfish/insects. Well, having an "eye spot" for example. WHENCE is that? We can describe it, but what is it about this sensory physical feature that now has an animal "online" if you will (has phenomenal experiences)?

Which we now consider common sense. Unless you take the view that the activity of matter depends on or is directed by it, which is another story. To suggest otherwise would be as homunculus as you can possibly get. That there is a little man with the controls inside who is seeing existence unfiltered, and he decides whether or not to think or consider things independently, and is thus controlled by another homunculus ad infinitum as far as I understand the concept. — kudos

Common sense? Ask any "common sense" scientist or even non-scientist, most people are inclined not to give "dead" matter any form of experiential qualities. That comes with biological systems (and neural ones at that), or at the least sufficiently complex functional systems (e.g. the possibility for AI, for example).

What is at issue here is not who said what. The philosophical issue is how we are to think about possibilities. — Fooloso4

I stand by my original response to this. Don’t say “philosophers”, pick out what school of thought you are referencing, quote them or at least charitably paraphrase what they stated, and then provide a rebuttal based on this.

Wittgenstein, however, is not attaching straw men. He is addressing problems that arose in his discussions with students and colleagues. — Fooloso4

Then point them out and don’t just generalize “philosophers” writ large. At least outline the specific schools of thought.

But it is not just the engineer who know such possibilities. The ordinary person familiar with machines knows this. Rather than the philosopher's ideal picture of a machine as something rigid, the ordinary picture of a machine is of something that will require maintenance and repair in order to move in the ways it was designed to. — Fooloso4

When you setup a straw man, you can paint anything in any way you want and use aphorisms to knock it down like you’re the anti-hero messiah :roll:. There’s an audience for all criticisms.

What's evil about a Palestinian state and a right of return, exactly? Or do you have it in your head again this excludes an Israeli State?

And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too. — Benkei

That's a red herring and strawman. I did not question a Palestinian state (right of return is trickier but in theory some compensation makes sense). Rather, the means for the ends is not justified.

And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too. — Benkei

Nothing that Israel has done regarding land justifies that barbarity to people, sorry. That's what you are supporting, and it's sad.

So if you don't want terrorist attacks you need a) a real Palestinian State and b) a right of return. — Benkei

I'm sorry, whatever ends you're going for, that's evil on the face of it. It's sad you support it. I am bracketing the issue to this. You can justifiably be against violence by the Israeli military, but if you are not against Palestinian violence due to this particular issue, then you are too far gone. As I said earlier:

What do I expect from Palestinians?

Not supporting terrorist groups that funnel money into violent barbaric means of getting what they want. They tried conventional warfare and lost. That doesn't mean "Ok, let's try some asymmetrical warfare". At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or be indifferent to it. Also, if they were going to use violence, use it against their own extremists! Fight the internal "enemy". Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s. — schopenhauer1

And as to even giving a shit what a terrorist organization tweaked a section (so the sliver of gullible (already biased) people might think it more respectable, which apparently worked for that small percent) is:

I think they’ve proven very thoroughly they can’t be, and odd that you’d want to reward it because “settlements”. One can be against settlements and not barbarism. In fact, if barbarism is justified, who cares- they’re all violent, right. It’s using people for causes. One can be so theoretical as to lose sight of the point of any of it. Perhaps Hamas can rule an empire of rubble and death. But it seems, you’d be satisfied with that. It’s either naïveté or blind hatred. A righteous cause gone sour. if you think Hamas gives a shit about its own people, you don’t seem to have paid attention to that side of the whole equation. — schopenhauer1

and

A vague reference couched in absolutist terms of Jordan to Mediterranean all of a sudden means Hamas is for two states? Its actions say otherwise. And if you think that it is a legitimate form of "getting Israel to negotiate", and they are just playing some "game" then your means not only doesn't justify the ends, it cancels out whatever supposed "peaceful" ends that it supposedly is aiming for (and I don't believe it is intending that in any way). — schopenhauer1

That's part of the problem. Hamas' funding and ability to keep control over the Strip isn't really conditioned on popular support or "getting results," but on continued financial and military assistance from Iran.

This is why Hamas is so beneficial to Likud. Hamas doesn't necessarily face incentives to do "the best thing possible for independence and economic development," quite the contrary in some sense. Their incentives shape their intransigence and their intransigence had (until now) been a boon to Likud. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So what do you think is the solution?

Imperfect though it may be. if we agree that we can't expect the two battling sides to come to a rational solution, we will have to accept the intervention of a third party at some point. — Tzeentch

I think if the Arab nations can muster enough courage and temper their "all-or-nothing" tendencies, MAYBE they can be part of a solution. It would be ironic because I don't believe they are not particularly fond of "liberal democratic" Arab countries. But, I think the ability to create a stable Israel/Palestine is immensely more in their interest than not.

Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side. — schopenhauer1

Ideally, that also means that Palestine would be an Arab/Muslim-oriented government that respects the rights of its minority citizens (Christian, Jewish, Druze, Samarians, etc.), similar to what Israel has, or even on the style of something like Turkey (pre-Erdogan).