For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. — schopenhauer1

Ok then.

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?

Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?

I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:

It's not based on individuals but actors on behalf of states. — schopenhauer1

What other actors are there besides individuals?

These individuals can be liable for acting poorly on the state, but war itself is considered a legitimate form of conflict (however ironic that sounds), between state actors. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like international law, and not like ethics.

You're right; within international law war can be legitimate.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you or anyone in this thread is primarily interested in a discussion about international law.

You were talking about a different form of ethics that applies to states. For transparency's sake, I don't think such a form of ethics exists, because the state is an abstraction and personifying the state has no basis in reality. It's just a handy tool we use for communicating broad ideas.

Now, on an ethical basis, when talking about ethics-proper, I agree with you that the individual is the locus of ethics. However, this is why I've always separated government and ethics. I do NOT think that ethics can in a 1:1 way ramped up to large social levels. That is because this a discontinuity at some point when actions can no longer be controlled at individual levels. — schopenhauer1

So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?

It’s a war of self-defense. — schopenhauer1

This isn't often explicitly discussed, but there is a fundamental difference between an individual acting out of self-defense, and a state (an abstract idea) "acting" out of self-defense.

In my opinion, what constitutes genuine self-defense from a moral angle, is when the individual in question has no alternatives.

If we assume for a moment the state seeks to act purely out of self-defense by proxy (and not for example to protect its territorial integrity, national identity, etc.), this fundamental prerequisite of there being no alternative options is not met, because that is simply not how states function.

An individual can choose to flee from war. A state can't, nor will a state suggest that its people try avoiding the violence by fleeing.

A country on that is on the verge of being invaded may claim it is acting in defense of its citizens (self-defense by proxy), but in fact those citizens have an option open to them: flee.

Therefore it is not an act of self-defense, and practically speaking wars of self-defense do not exist.


Debunking the idea of a "war of self-defense" from a more practical angle: morality must be analyzed on the appropriate level - that of the moral agent, which is to say the level of the individual.

So even in war, determining the moral nature of actions must happen for each individual and each action seperately. Just because many individuals are involved does not mean we get to use special shortcuts by which a war can be labeled as just as a whole.

What incentive is there for the Kremlin to agree to such terms?

Ok, but what about my question? — RogueAI

I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions.

If you have a point to make, make it.

If your point is that Israel commiting crimes against humanity is morally equivalent to people opposing Nazism or slavery, you're obviously off your rocker.

As usual, Mearsheimer manages to deliver a lucid take on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I have echoed similar sentiments in this thread: Israel is paving the way to its own destruction, and apologizing for its misdeeds or cheering it on is simply going to expediate that process.

Israel needs a radical change of course.

This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, [...] — RogueAI

That's what I'm trying to point out.

One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't.

Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.

International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law.

The writer does not understand the nature of international law.

International law is a method of communication between states, and first and foremost a matter of credibility.

One can interpret international law to fit their agenda all they want; given the amount of grey area and tension between articles that is hardly a challenge.

The real question is whether the rest of the world finds that interpretation plausible, and in the case of Israel that is overwhelmingly not the case.

It's not like "the police" would come and invade Israel to "arrest" Israeli politicians, even if they were convicted of war crimes. That's simply not how international law works.

The rules and stakes in an international court are completely different. Contrary to a civilian court, what's at stake here is not punishment but credibility.

Arguing technicalities and producing skewed interpretations of the law may save one from the former, but won't produce an iota of the latter.

Does the Western world have the moral fortitude to allow Israel to take the bloody but ethical steps to defeat Hamas? — Shlomo M. Brody

This sentence from the article reads like a bad joke.

Anyone who speaks of moral justification while excusing the intentional of bombing refugee camps is a joke, and probably doesn't know what the term means.

Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going? — Athena

When Rome fell, Europe was first sacked and then taken over by barbarians tribes that eventually settled and became the inheritors of the civilization.

Near the tail end of this process, the Viking age started, which roughly coincided with the creation of Islam which posed yet another round of grave threats to Europe from nearly every direction.

It is only around the 11th and12th century that the aforementioned inheritors manage to stabilize the situation and European society could start to flourish again.

But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started.

All in all, it's not so strange Europe entered a Dark Age.

Nationalism doesn't exist, and we're just one big happy family?

You're starting to bend yourself at fascinating angles.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country. — Sir2u

Which is clearly a nationalist sentiment, and Churchill was clearly a nationalist.

I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

You seem to be unaware of the nature of the things you're arguing and now you're trying to compensate with snark.

It depends on the scale really. Perhaps its possible to run a small village ("society") morally. But the larger the scale, the less realistic that seems to me, even for so simple a reason that virtually every modern state has to rely on widespread coercion (law) to maintain order.

That would - or should - also apply to war? If you behave in such a way as to make enemies, or force other people into untenable positions, sooner or later you will have to defend yourself by killing your erstwhile victims. — Vera Mont

I'd say that makes sense. Though, I don't believe in modern war as a form of "collective self-defense". The nature of war is simply too diffuse for that.

↪Tzeentch, so, homicide to defend your loved ones is :up: then? — jorndoe

To any sane person homicide is :sad:.

But as a last resort, it might be rightfully be labeled a tragedy.

Self-defense can be excused as last resort, even for so simple a reason that most won't be fully in control of themselves if they are in a real self-defense situation.

But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself.

Self-defense might be extended to other persons, but the same principles apply.

If one doesn't have the spine to make hard moral choices, one should not get into politics. Wouldn't you agree? — RogueAI

If one wishes to be moral, one probably should avoid politics altogether.

That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough. — RogueAI

I disagree.

Leaving would still be the right thing to do - better late than never - but there is an element of immorality in the fact that Winston foolishly took upon himself such responsibilities.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u

Morality isn't about Britain.

What would have happened if all of the people in line for his job with exactly the same circumstance bowed out saying "I don't want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to be responsible for losing the war"? — Sir2u

Who knows what would have happened?

Perhaps the world would have become a better place with so many people wisening up and taking the high road.

Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars. — Sir2u

Probably not.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, [...] — Sir2u

Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics.

It's moral to quit one's post and provoke a crisis in leadership on the eve of a Nazi invasion? How is that not cowardice? — RogueAI

As I explained earlier, Winston made the crucial error of taking up responsibilities that he would not be able to carry out without breaking moral principles.

But be that as it may, the moral thing to do would be to cut one's losses and make the right decision anyway. Better late than never. Let the people who want to play that game figure it out among themselves.

Cowardice has nothing to do with it, because one extracts themselves not out of fear, but out of moral principle.

He could abdicate and go to the English countryside, and a few weeks later him and the undesirables of his countrymen will be rounded up and likely murdered. — BitconnectCarlos

He could go anywhere, really. And so could his countrymen.

Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. — BitconnectCarlos

So?

Why should I, an individual interested in making moral decisions, have any interest in leading something that cannot be led morally?

But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination. — BitconnectCarlos

:ok:

I agree that extreme examples tend to turn into situations in which no moral outcomes are possible, and that such examples tend to be unrealistic and not very helpful.

On the other hand it does provide an opportunity to view the dilemma critically and test one's principles.

While the powerful villain "forcing" one to act is a common concept, I think we should remain critical about whether there is actually any forcing going on.

Winston for example is perfectly free to leave office. He's not forced to do anything.

There's a perfectly moral option available to him: extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures.

And then came the actions that Russia took, which forced even Finland and Sweden to change their course. You had to do a lot to change the stance these two countries had, actually. — ssu

Washington worked very hard for it. And they got what they wanted: a new set of lambs to sacrifice on the altar of American geopolitics.

Even rarer when there's a villain we can point to who manoeuvred us in that situation (in which case we actually no longer have moral agency because this villain controls and constrains both choices). And even if it did exist, there's always the option not to choose. It's not up to me to condemn innocent people because of the crimes of others. — Benkei

Personally, even if we suppose the situation is this clear (ignoring for example Britain's part in causing WW2), I wouldn't let Winston off the hook so easily.

Why does the mere existence of a villain remove moral agency?

The villain, Hitler in this case, wasn't preventing Winston from extracting himself from the situation.

What was preventing Winston from doing so, was the fact that he had taken upon himself a responsibility as prime minister. That is something he did to himself, voluntarily.

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? — Sir2u

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that parties have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, moral reasoning, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument.

Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, [...] — Sir2u

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL.

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification? — Sir2u

Sure.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion.

I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess. — Sir2u

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then...

I guess I was right when I said we would probably have too little common ground for a fruitful discussion.

For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm. — Sir2u

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin:

Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes. — Sir2u

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no.

If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion.

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me.

OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

I am not so sure whether I agree, since I believe there can be no moral obligation to do immoral things.

If Winston cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a prime minister without breaking moral principles (which he probably cannot), then he has foolishly put himself into a double bind.

Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps? — RogueAI

My position is whichever option he chooses, he is an immoral person, because he has foolishly taken upon himself responsibilities that require him to break moral principles.

Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion? — RogueAI

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?

The answer is no.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands.

I didn't mean to imply these policies were the only cause of atomization, but I believe they certainly are a big contributor.

Social structure is underpinned by needs. The nanny state seeks to fulfill those needs with the purpose of making the individual less reliant on other individuals, but thereby making them more reliant on the state.

This is seen as a desirable form of emancipation, which in my opinion it isn't.

UBI would be a rather extreme manifestation of the nanny state.

The reason I point it out is because atomization is often blamed on individualism, when it is in fact collectivism that causes it, as in the process of binding the individual to the state ("collective") it breaks apart social structures.

I couldn't tell you, since I'm not much of a socialist myself.

One thing I hear a lot being argued in favor of UBI, is that people experience less financial pressure.

However, in a healthy society that is not a role the government should take on. In a healthy society, people form social bonds with friends, family and their wider community that provides them with a much more personal and robust safety net.

Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies, because they seek to replace social bonds with government surrogates.

It turns people isolated, needy and dependent on government, which (needless to say) isn't a desirable situation at all.

If socialism wants to be effective at reducing poverty, it should focus on creating jobs and keeping the prices of basic needs low.

UBI does neither, and seems like an economic Trojan horse to me.

Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by Silicon Valley's CEOs own opinion regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it. — Shawn

In that context it sounds like an awful idea.

People becoming chronically reliant on modern governments is asking for trouble.

I give it exactly one crisis before "universal" is replaced by "conditional".

Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line.

But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant?

If the poor are so pissed off at the government that they need to be "pacified", that's probably a good signal that they shouldn't be pacified.

And we'll make the rich pay for it!

Where have I heard this song before? :chin:

Paying taxes to pay your own income.

Genius!

I had ChatGPT provide me with a list of geopolitical events relevant to Ukraine. — Benkei

It is very odd that ChatGPT makes no mention of the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit (that preceded the Georgia war) and the 2014 coup d'etat (that preceded the annexation of Crimea).

Smells like its algorithms are being tampered with.

After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be EVERY child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter. — FrankGSterleJr

It's rather remarkable then that you're asking of them that they make half the world's problems their own.

Propaganda is large-scale psychological manipulation. It leans more heavily on psychology than it does on philosophy, although the two fields can overlaps in certain places.

Education and intelligence don't appear to be a good predictor of susceptibility.

The antidote to propaganda is to know oneself better than the propagandist; and "to know oneself" is such a complicated and multi-faceted endeavor that I don't think it can be taught in a school environment.