And I think you are confusing moral obligations with legal ones. — unenlightened

Hmm. No. Legality has nothing to do with anything.

Of course moral obligations are impossible. — unenlightened

How so?

"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a perfectly realistic moral obligation, for example.

Yes. I challenge the idea that we have no obligation to strangers. We have a small obligation to do something if we reasonably can to make another's situation better if they are in difficulty. — unenlightened

You're suggesting that you feel a sense of moral obligation to all strangers, are you not? And yet I'll go out on a limb and assume that you don't spend the majority of your time trying to fulfill that moral obligation.

This is starting to sound like "I have an 'obligation', but only when I feel like it."

And that's the thing about moral obligations: whether we feel like it or not, we should abide by them.

I think you're throwing the term around too loosely, and in the process either claiming the existence of moral obligations which are impossible to fulfill, or 'obligations' which are so vague and subjective that they lose all their meaning.

Thanks for the kind words! Always nice to hear someone finds my comments insightful.

Ah, gotcha.

Well, the interesting development is that big US media outlets are now pushing the lableak theory and seem to be pointing their arrows at China, even though the US has obviously been implicated as well.

It smells of the US trying to exculpate themselves, probably because evidence is starting to pile up in the background. (Some compilations of which were shared a few posts above)

I thought the smoking gun was the fact they found big jumps in the development of the Covid strain - gaps in the natural evolution process, so to speak - that are the hallmark of biological tampering. The phases of the evolution that can't be retraced are then thought to have been carried out in an isolated lab environment.

No, I'm on the other side of the lever pulling in theory, [...] — unenlightened

Well, you were challenging my comment and I worked with what you gave me.

I can respond to something on the tv by various means, usually involving my bank account so as to pay someone else to do something. — unenlightened

Does that really count, though? :chin:

How do you know that money doesn't disappear into some embezzler's pocket?

And if it does, have you fulfilled your moral obligation?

But if I did that too often I'd have to sell the tv and then I wouldn't even have that option. — unenlightened

The idea that the bystander is morally obligated to involve themselves creates all sorts of strange situations.

But if you don't believe there exists such an obligation then that's fair enough.

If the lab leak theory is correct, which seems likely, then the US and China have the blood of millions on their hands. How exactly is that not relevant?

Well, that's not an answer to my question, but this is getting more interesting by the minute.

Apparently there exists a moral obligation to save people from dying, even if it requires the murder of bystanders, but this obligation is limited by distance and now seemingly also does not include acts that exceed the effort of a lever pull.

Fascinating!

Distance has something to do with it?

Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?

If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero.

And the cover-up attempt is still in full swing, by the way:

Fauci denies suppressing COVID lab leak theory before US House panel

There has been a lot of evidence supporting the lab leak theory for years, so much so that I figured it to be accepted fact by now. I guess I was wrong, and apparently this is still a surprise to people.

Given the fact that the US likely shared in responsibility through their funding of the very lab where Covid is said to have originated, it's rather rich they're now trying to shift all the blame on China.

I am not sure that I agree. For simple, totalizing moral theories, such as classical utilitarianism, it is very much relevant (perhaps as a reductio).

In other cases it depends on degree of similarity and how that factors into your moral thinking. Most of us at least contemplate public policies. Public policies not infrequently involve life-and-death decisions. Do we do this and save this many lives, or do we do that and save that many, or do we do nothing? How about emergency room or field hospital triage? Battlefield decisions? Relatively few people are directly involved in those, but it's not a negligible number. — SophistiCat

The real world parallels indeed seem apparent and relevant.

In the case of triage there's an essential difference in the fact that every person there will die unless treated, and the medic uses triage in order to save as many of them as possible.

So while the medic must choose who lives and who dies, anyone they save is a life won.

In the trolley problem, one must actively kill innocent bystanders in order to save.


There's potentially much substance here to talk about, and moral principles to test. I'm not sure why people dislike the trolley problem so much.

As far as criminals go, Trump is far from the worst the American political class has to offer. The difference is that most of them never were held to account for their crimes.

The United States is practically ran by war criminals.

My action killed one, but your inaction killed five. — unenlightened

Ah, but I'm afraid that's an inaccurate representation of cause and effect.

My inaction didn't do anything. Whoever put those people there is the one responsible for their deaths, and not me.

I think it's morally relevant, but not in the way it's usually portrayed.

The dilemma doesn't state the person has to get involved. The person has a third choice: do not get involved. So why would they choose to get involved in business that only has bad outcomes?

It's a dimension of morality that isn't explored often, but which in my opinion is a critical part of any coherent moral system: when is it morally acceptable to choose non-interference?

That would make you a murderer, not a savior. And you're the one calling me callous? :chin:

Callous? You're the one suggesting you'd like to actively participate.

Well, I did not put the people on the track, nor am I responsible for their well-being.

So really it's none of my business. I would keep walking. Whatever weird game they're playing over there, I want none of it.

Modern politics is a giant clown car any way.

The best thing you can do is get off and laugh at the spectacle.

I wish we could laugh about our politicians, but over here in Europe it's not even funny anymore. It's just sad.

So I guess American politics beats European politics in that regard.

The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, [...] — Christoffer

Is your impression that this isn't already the case? :chin:

The Western approach doesn't make sense on any level, does it?

They commit fully to the military option, even though there is no chance of victory.

Meanwhile, they categorically refuse dialogue and diplomatic negotiations, while Russia keeps signaling it wants a diplomatic settlement.

Why would the West insist on fighting a war it is clearly losing?

Victory was never the goal.

And if victory was never the goal, then what is?


My two cents: the US is using this war in an effort to decouple Europe from Russia, and to remilitarize Europe.

Why? Because both Europe and Russia will be crucial to China in the upcoming power struggle between it and the US, and both Europe and Russia stand to profit from said power struggle.

But not if the US manages to embroil the two in a war with each other.

I think this has always been the reason, ever since the US started pushing in Ukraine since 2008, when it was already clear its actions would lead to war.

But it is true, isn't it?

Israel has inflicted over ten times as many civilian casualties as Hamas did.

Nothing screams "moral high ground" more than resorting to the same barbarism as your enemy and outdoing him ten times over.

Right. I'm the one that is confused.

Nevermind the fact that any brutality perpetrated by Hamas you may point at has been repeated by Israel tenfold.

[...] dismembering and killing civilians doesn't disqualify them? — schopenhauer1

This is what Israel is doing 'round the clock, and you're still calling that self-defense, aren't you?

That's unfortunately what Israel has been - a bully.

Just like stopping Hitler before 1940 would have been justified and needed to stop an actual aggressor. — schopenhauer1

Except that 1940's Germany was an actual threat, and wasn't bullied over the span of six days after which Israel doubled its own territory.

Yes, sending rockets, and then actually invading and brutally targeting civilians and capturing hostages rather than peace talks would make me condemn Hamas. — schopenhauer1

Why? They are simply reacting to Israeli aggression with the few tools at their disposal.

There's nothing you have said so far that disqualifies that from being an act of self-defense.

You're all over the place.

Now aggressive action is self-defense. I'm sure oppression and apartheid are self-defense, etc.

There's simply no way you can condemn Hamas while apologizing for Israel without being an utter hypocrite.

After all, I could use the same logic to claim Hamas is acting out of self-defense.

Philosophers should practice what they preach.

Precisely because philosophy isn't a hard science, the philosopher themselves should act as a 'living proof' of the validity of their views and lead by example.

If they do not, then the philosophy should be looked upon with a degree of skepsis.

Huh? The point was France did little to jack shit when Hitler was violating the Versailles treaty, opting to build a wall over taking any military or other measures to “head it off at the pass”. Essentially, they just put their head in the sand from looming threats..so in a way, Israel is the France here, but did the opposite strategy and didn’t wait to be taken over by surrounding armies. — schopenhauer1

France was actually preparing for a new conflict with Germany, and it was preparing to fight that conflict on German soil.

Yet, when Germany invaded France, Germany was the clear aggressor and no one would buy it if Germany said, after clobbering France in a month-and-a-half, that France was the aggressor and that it was reacting to a threat from France.

Israel, just like Germany, grossly overpowered its rivals. Israel even tried to play the victim afterwards, not unlike today.

Illegal action to defend themselves? — schopenhauer1

So occupying territory illegally now becomes "self-defense"?

When Israel does it, it is self-defense, and when Hamas does it, is it terror?

Is that sort of the way you believe this works?

Based on what you're saying, one could easily spin the October 7th attacks to be "self-defense" - Israel is the clear aggressor in this conflict after all.

Except France wasn't threatening. If anything, they were intractably in a defensive posture, even when the situation did not call for it. — schopenhauer1

Except that the Maginot Line was most definitely built to accomodate a counter-offensive into Germany.

It even explains why on the Wikipedia page you linked...

Someone else I am sure will bring up the 3 No's and whatnot, and that there was room for negotiation if the Arab states had made an agreement after its disastrous loss. This didn't happen though. — schopenhauer1

Negotiation?

Israel decided to take land that didn't belong to it, and its adversaries rightfully resisted any naturalisation of this state of affairs. Just like the Palestinians have resisted the illegal occupation.

Why do you keep suggesting Israel should be accomodated in its illegal actions?

I never get this kind of point. If an enemy is bested militarily, even easily, does it make it any less threatening? — schopenhauer1

If Germany had excused its invasion of France under the pretense that France was oh-so threatening, would we take it very seriously?

I wouldn't.

And Israel's victory in the Six Day War was even more one-sided than Germany's.

Israel took an opportunity to double its territory, thinking it would get away with it. And then the world didn't let it.

Load whatever premise to get the conclusion you need. — schopenhauer1

The premise has all the support it needs: decades upon decades of UN Security Council resolutions.

There are few things as set in stone as the fact that Israel is the belligerent occupier and has been in the wrong ever since it made that ill-fated decision.

Rather, the Arab/Islamic states surrounding Israel were immanently going to try to conquer it.. — schopenhauer1

Haha. Hahaha.

A "massive" threat I'm sure, considering Israel clobbered all of its neighbors simultaneously and doubled its own territory in the span of six days. :lol:

Yea, I'm sure the Israelis were real scared of them.

If "not acknowledging" means non-violence, then sure, that. — schopenhauer1

It's a bit rich to expect non-violence from a people who have been subjected to a brutal occupation, apartheid and other crimes against humanity for decades.

When will Israel try its hand at non-violence?

As far as "apartheid".. There has to be a peace movement amongst the Palestinians. That means controlling people like Hamas. Until that is solved, Israel has to defend itself. — schopenhauer1

In 1967 it was Israel who decided to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza (among other territories).

Its base territorial greed cannot excuse "controlling people like Hamas" which in practice means the brutal oppression of millions. Israel can't even legally claim self-defense in these regions, because as the belligerent occupier, it is by definition in the wrong.

In reality, there isn't even an onus on the Palestinians to negotiate. The 1967 expansion of Israel was illegal, period. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the West Bank and Gaza.

Those pesky Palestinians, refusing to simply acknowledge Israel's illegal occupation and just leave, eh?

I think you'll have to admit that even if we disregard all of the nations you named, we will still end up with near-unanimous condemnation of Israel's conduct.

So perhaps Israel is uniquely barbaric in the modern day and age.

Its apartheid regime is perhaps most reminiscent of South Africa. South Africa also possessed over nuclear weapons, by the way.

But, Jews haven't been known to be easy and exceptionally singled out targets in history, right? — schopenhauer1

By the way, Israel does not represent Jews globally. It doesn't even represent all Jews within its borders. Many are adamantly opposed to Israel's malpractices.

Numerous (48 or so?) human rights violations, [...] — schopenhauer1

If countries' views may be disregarded based on human rights violations then where does that leave Israel? :lol:

many vote as an Arab/Islamic bloc, — schopenhauer1

Okay, so in your view, Arab and Islamic nations don't count...

and then there is the third-world non-aligned countries in Africa. — schopenhauer1

And third world countries in Africa. (?) :chin:

not to mention China and Russian interests and violations against the "West". — schopenhauer1

And any nation that is aligned against the West.


Well then, let's disregard all of these (on whatever shakey grounds you have yet to present).


What kind of a picture do you think we'll end up with?

Will the voting behavior of the list of countries that are left paint a less painful picture for Israel?

As in, look at a lot of those countries in the General Assembly... — schopenhauer1

What should I be looking for?

In other words: "I'm not crazy, the world is crazy!"

If Hitler were to make the same argument in 1939, what would you think of that? Would that be very convincing?

All countries are in the General Assembly. :chin:

I don't think much of the UN.. They are a biased body. — schopenhauer1

The UN represents global opinion, and global opinion has condemned Israel's actions now and in the past nearly unanimously - in the General Assembly, in the Security Council, in various UN bodies, etc.

Have you considered that maybe it is you that is biased?