Actually, it might do you good to climb up on this cloud with me and take in the bigger picture for a change. — frank

I've been through a very similar discussion on here before, with @SophistiCat. If you're interested give it a read.

Freedom of religion becomes a religion worth killing for?

There are many things I enjoy. I wouldn't sanction killing to get them — frank

The question isn't whether there are many things you wouldn't kill for. The question is whether there is anything you would kill for. If the answer is no, and that you'd allow yourself and your entire family to be enslaved and oppressed, then you strike me as immoral, caring for nothing other than the ability to breath.

Morality is heavily nuanced by our values and our psychology. What is immoral to one person may be considered moral by someone else. — jajsfaye

Opinions vary, yes. I'm deflational about morality without being a nihilist (relativism just being a form of nihilism).

Morality is a part of my experience. Tracing geneology is fun, but I have no interest in ontological issues related to morality. I'm an ontological antirealist.

through a very similar discussion on here before, with SophistiCat. If you're interested give it a read. — fdrake

Cool. I was pretending that you're the Quiet American after your Vietnam comment. Its just as well our discussion went silent.

Hrm! I missed that thread. It was a good read.

I think it's worth noting evil for what it is. In this case, war. I agree that this is a view somewhat distended from immediate decision making or even decisions we'll make. (After all, as I said earlier, war isn't even really a decision for the majority of us) -- but it's also something of a no-brainer. The evils of war are great, and so acknowledging this influences our attitude towards war, which in turn does influence how we react to war -- something which we do have control over.

I'd also say that the decision to defend your city from an invasion is a no-brainer, though. I think cases of revolution are justifiable to participate in. I'm not fully against all war, in the sense that it can be the right choice to be a part of a war, in my view. But it is also a sort of participation in evil, and that tone changes how we make that decision I'd say.

I appreciate your need to defend your phantom cat. Its organized military exploits I was really condemning. — frank

Same difference really.

Vladimir Putin wants to drown all the kittens. He sends forth his evil legions. Do you now appreciate our organised military defense of all these kittens? Or do you think we should all let them get curbstomped because it is more evil to do something about it?

I mean, this isn't really a choice. You are objectively a horrible human being if you are not willing to declare full nuclear war for the sake of your pets.

It seems to me that one cannot posit one's existence without formally limiting the existence of others. To say, "I exist", or rather, "I will continue to exist" is to stake one's flag into the dirt and claim a certain island of space as one's own. It is to say, my life is important, my existence is worth something. But do we have the right to do this? On what grounds can we say that we, ourselves, have a right to exist, and if push comes to shove, also have the right to exclude others from this space?

The self is an arbitrary locus of value. Simply being always-already is a formal violence against the other. There is no such thing as a purely pacifist existence, only a gradient of aggression.

It seems to me that one cannot posit one's existence without formally limiting the existence of others. To say, "I exist", or rather, "I will continue to exist" is to stake one's flag into the dirt and claim a certain island of space as one's own. It is to say, my life is important, my existence is worth something. But do we have the right to do this? On what grounds can we say that we, ourselves, have a right to exist, and if push comes to shove, also have the right to exclude others from this space? — darthbarracuda

If you decided to drown yourself you'd quickly realize the extent to which the life does not belong to You, the Homunculus decision maker. You'll fight. That being the case, I see no need to furnish a warrant.

And you pointed out that war isn't something any individual does. Is it out of our hands just like the will to live? The problem I see is that we'll have victims and no one taking responsibility for what happened to them.

There is no such thing as a purely pacifist existence, only a gradient of aggression. — darthbarracuda

I'll buy that.

The death penalty, for example, is absolutely wrong, in my opinion, because for the simply fact that empirical observations are always, on principle, about to be doubted. Guilt is never proven absolutely - it is only proven within reasonable doubt - yet death is an absolute punishment with no way of going back if it turns out the justice system failed in its operation. — darthbarracuda

Suppose the person is seen by dozens committing the crime, it is videotaped, there is physical evidence linking the person to the crime, and we have an admission? Epistimilogically, wouldn't we have the same level of certainty that the person committed the crime as we would that the criminal died at the hands of the executioner?

I mean, if you're right that we can't know who killed the victim, then we can't know who killed the murderer, and I suppose we can't even know if anyone really died at all.

Uh huh.

So how about this question I posted or has it been relegated to the untouchable category?

To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral. — frank

“Is this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?”

this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?” — raza

No. Pacifism is radical. It's about human potential.

No. Pacifism is radical. It's about human potential. — frank

So it is not toward a realization of pacifism?

If pacifism is about "human potential" then surely there needs to be process instigated towards REALIZING the potential.

Is conversation, engagement with "the other", negotiation, NOT a process toward realizing the human potential for peace therefore pacifism?

If not why not?

Or do you mean "pacifism" is not something that requires to be actual but rather remains an ideal, like "heaven" or "utopia"? In a word, fantasy?

So it is not toward a realization of pacifism?

If pacifism is about "human potential" then surely there needs to be process instigated towards REALIZING the potential. — raza

Historically, hardcore pacifists expect this "realization" to be a next step in human evolution. They would say war is too deeply embedded in human life to expect progress by small steps.

Historically, hardcore pacifists expect this "realization" to be a next step in human evolution. They would say war is too deeply embedded in human life to expect progress by small steps. — frank

Who are we therefore having a discussion with? A hardcore pacifist or some other version?

That's an interesting question. Darth was the only one who actually listened to me, so I think most were talking to themselves.

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments? — frank

You made the statement. You claim to know of versions of pacifism.

Is the “moral path” version the hardcore pacifists?

You made the statement. You claim to know of versions of pacifism.

Is the “moral path” version the hardcore pacifists? — raza

I didn't address any practicalities in that post. Its just the assertion that all military ventures are immoral.

Versions of pacifism: separate issue. IOW, the OP was an invitation to examine a certain question; not to examine me.

Versions of pacifism: separate issue. IOW, the OP was an invitation to examine a certain question; not to examine me — frank

I was examining by asking the question as to what does applying a pacifist moral path look like?

Is it just a set of virtuous sounding words?

Why not just address the OP directly?

Yes, no, not applicable (n/a)?

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments? — frank

1. Are you able to describe this path or describe how it may not be comparable to a "engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion" path?

2. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion not moral, in your opinion?

3. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion excluded as a viable path toward peaceful relations, in your opinion?

(re: Pacifism) Its just the assertion that all military ventures are immoral. — frank

4. Could engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion be conceivably regarded as a move away from immoral military ventures, in your opinion?

Lol. Are you invading my thread like a trump-bot?

Lol. Are you invading my thread like a trump-bot? — frank

Ah. It's a solo thread.

Difficult questions, eh?

Are you self-confessed low hanging fruit?

You're a loony-bot.

My point has obviously found it’s mark as indicated by your fear to reply to clear questions.

Hello.

Have you heard of the Just War Theory? It gives a list of criteria to judge not only if going to war is just, but can also judge if not going to war could be unjust.

E.g. if the Nazis decide to commit genocide against the Jews, it could be your nation's moral duty to declare war against them to save other lives.

Yes. I'm just rejecting just war based on my own sentiment.

I wouldnt say it's moral to wage war on Nazis. It's an evil we embrace to combat another evil.

More later...

I agree that war is intrinsically evil, but not necessarily immoral.

P1: The first principal of morality is "do good and avoid evil". In other words, "act in such a way so as to maximum the resulting good and minimize the resulting evil".
P2: Saving lives is intrinsically good, and taking lives is intrinsically evil.
C: Going to war that is expected to result in saving more lives in the long run than not going to war is good; and not going to war in that case is evil.

So you might knowingly do things that are intrinsically evil while considering yourself to be morally compliant.

Does this sit well with you?

There is no position that one can take in human affairs that will always guarantee a verdict of "Not Guilty" or "Not Immoral".

In 1964 when I turned 18 I registered as a conscientious objector with my draft board. They didn't act upon it, and when I reported for my physical I didn't pass. That was a long time ago. It has been easy to maintain a pacifist stance when unjustifiable wars like Vietnam, Iraq, et al have been the rule.

I can't find a way to justify not resisting the Axis Powers in WWII. Self-interest dictated that we resist--and protecting one's self is supposed to be moral. But the Allied Powers were not moral, either.

Japan and Germany had designs for reordering the world in their interests. European and American powers had been doing that very thing for several centuries, of course, and we all thought it was a good thing. I'm sure Germans and Japanese felt the same. We were all guilty.

But what would the justification be that would make it moral to just resign the game and say, "Ok. Herr Hitler; it's your turn to run the world; just send a list of requirements for your management of our affairs. We'll round up a few million more Jews for you, so you won't have to do that. Anybody else you want to get rid of... Communists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Criminals? Blacks? Homosexuals? Slavs? Retarded? Hey, we've got them all here You'll be busy!"

On the other hand, the negotiations with Iran (assuming that everybody was being honest) were the sort of thing the world should do: derail the development of powerful weapons that facilitates naked aggression. All of the negotiations in the Middle East that have delayed the definitive war of resolution between Israel and the Arab states has been worthwhile. Trying to dissuade North Korea from developing nuclear weapons was worthwhile; alas, the effort failed. Peace and Reconciliation in South Africa and in a few other places has been a highly beneficial thing, even if it didn't resolve all problems.

So, sometimes nations do things that keep its people in the "moral" column. As often as not, national policies commit citizens to the resolution of problems which may engage them in acts that will be judged immoral -- after the fact. What is one to do--flee to another country? How would that save one from all moral dilemmas?

I disagree that your rigid formula, pacifism or immorality.