As a slight interlude: The ethical dictum of "an eye for an eye" strictly upholds a 1:1 ratio of retribution as moral. So both a 100:1 or a 10:1 ratio would be misaligned to it, and thereby immoral.

Just wanted to say it.

But an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth could be freely and even positively interpreted to not retaliate in kind. — Vaskane

:100:

As a slight interlude: The ethical dictum of "an eye for an eye" strictly upholds a 1:1 ratio of retribution as moral. So both a 100:1 or a 10:1 ratio would be misaligned to it, and thereby immoral.

Just wanted to say it. — javra

No it doesn't. Your literalist, four corners reading isn't consistent with how those who actually use that document for moral guidance interpret that passage of Leviticus.

Your literalist, four corners reading isn't consistent with how those who actually use that document for moral guidance interpret that passage of Leviticus. — Hanover

So how ought it to be properly interpreted? You take out one of my eyes and I take out both of yours, kind of thing? Or something else?

So how ought it to be properly interpreted? You take out one of my eyes and I take out both of yours, kind of thing? Or something else? — javra

In an entirely unpredicted way:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/479511/jewish/What-Does-Eye-for-an-Eye-Really-Mean.htm

These biblical interpretations tend to pull in so many sources, you're never safe to assume they are used in a literal way.

I've perused the link offered. Why should I take this interpretation of monetary compensation as authoritative?

After all, given what I've gathered in my life, the dictum, though metaphorical, makes plenty of sense at multiple levels of interpretation: generally, when someone does you unwarranted wrong retribution should be in like measure (even if in a different form), but going beyond this leads to you then doing unwarranted wrong against your opponent (as in, fully blinding him when he did not do that to you) ... and thereby leads into a downward spiral of wrongdoing, since your opponent is the justified in seeking retribution against you.

More mathematically speaking, this very strategy has been evidenced to be the optimal means of assuring reciprocal altruism. As a brief synopsis:

Game theory

Tit-for-tat has been very successfully used as a strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments,[2] held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both the simplest strategy and the most successful in direct competition.

An agent using this strategy will first cooperate, then subsequently replicate an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is similar to reciprocal altruism in biology. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

I can expand on this at some later time, but I'm still interested in an answer to my initial question.

They killed their own people in which they came from the Canaanites, to gain Israel the first time. And have held plenty of wars in their time.

And Jews had been killing Palestinians under Orde Wingate for over a decade by the time of the Nakba.

Palestinians already knew their fate prior to the Nakba, prior to the 1930s even. — Vaskane

I would take biblical history relating to the 2nd millennium bc with a grain of salt, but regardless, point taken -- Israel was bloody in those times! I am sure there were civil wars. I don't believe in the historicity of the Joshua conquests though. But yes, I do believe that 3300 years ago the ancient Israelites got their hands dirty. What exactly was going on in those days we'll never know, and it should also be clear that the Israelites of Moses's time (~13th century BC if not earlier) did not remotely resemble the ethno-religion of Judaism which is only first mentioned in the 6th century BC, AFAIK -- book of zechariah. They were surely not even monotheists that far back.

Ooh, this is an event that I am not too familiar with. How many Arabs do you figured were killed by Jews working under Wingate? But I'm sure you're familiar with the Hebron massacre of '29 and the Jaffa massacre of '36 among others, where Jews, lacking protection, were massacred by Arabs bearing primitive tools going from house to house with the permission of the authorities. I don't believe the Arabs of the 20s and 30s believed in the inevitability of Israel but perhaps I am wrong?

I've perused the link offered. Why should I take this interpretation of monetary compensation as authoritative? — javra

You can arrive at your own interpretation, but I was offering one that those who are committed to using those words as a guide to living actually use it.

I brought it up because in the context we're speaking against the backdrop of the war in Israel is that some might believe the Israeli response is motivated by an eye for an eye mentality. As you noted, that might require a 1:1 ratio, as if to imply an Israeli response is inconsistent with Jewish morality. My point was that an eye for an eye response to life is inconsistent with Jewish thought regardless of ratio

My point was that an eye for an eye response to life is inconsistent with Jewish thought regardless of ratio — Hanover

Reading this charitably, I already knew that. "Do not commit undue harm" to me seems more in keeping with the Jewish thought I've been primarily exposed to. But this does not nullify the validity of heuristic I've previously expressed.

as if to imply an [the current] Israeli response is inconsistent with Jewish morality — Hanover

I, personally, uphold this to be true. See, for example, the aforementioned.

They are used as weapons of war. If you don't use them, then my original point stands, that the virtuous put themselves at a disadvantage by renouncing immorality. Once we have agreed that far, we can argue about what acts in particular we might find it seemly to renounce in all circumstances, and what killings and maimings of innocents we can tolerate while still enjoying our moral superiority in difficult situations. — unenlightened

It's not a renouncement of morality when you have to resolve a moral dilemma in a real world situation. A dilemma arises not when you have to choose between being moral or not (e.g. should I lie and get the job or not?), but when there are two equally compelling choices based both upon equally justified bases (e.g. should I throw a person into the sea to keep the boat from sinking or do we all have to sink?).

In the scenario posed, the question is whether we can shoot a child who is being used as a human shield in order to save our city (or, in the alternative, whether we can invade a hospital in order to remove an enemy military base underneath). We have two competing moral rules: (1) protection of the innocent vs. (2) protection of ourselves. I've resolved this issue by prioritizing my own safety and the safety of my city, and I do think that justifiable under various ethical theories, particularly Utilitarianism. I place a higher duty on the protection of those closest to me as well, meaning I do have a higher duty to my children, my family, and my general community. I also think it's necessary to ask what it would mean to allow the enemy to prevail in the conflict in terms of the suffering that would result from that.

To offer a legal analogy, we don't consider it an abandonment of the law when courts are called upon to interpret the interplay of laws and resolve conflicts in laws. That's just how law works and that's how ethics works.

The world is usually more complicated than trolley-like thought experiments make it out to be Start with doing what's right and then you might see that there are alternative courses of action that weren't obvious at first.

You may also see that you wanted to simplify things because what you really wanted was revenge, not defense.

The world is usually more complicated than trolley-like thought experiments make it out to be Start with doing what's right and then you might see that there are alternative courses of action that weren't obvious at first. — frank

I'd say the opposite and argue that usually the world is more complicated than black and white, particularly in situations involving war where there are many competing interests. We typically try to find our best and brightest to resolve our ethical and legal issues due to their complexity and nuance.

You may also see that you wanted to simplify things because what you really wanted was revenge, not defense. — frank

Bias of the decision maker is always an issue in every decision, which requires that person making the decision to be self-aware and have the proper temperment, but I don't think it is impossible to make decisions where your own interests will be affected.

To be able to sustain your argument that the decision was based not upon ethical reasons but upon personal vendetta, you would have to show that the ethical basis provided for the decision was not reasonable, as opposed to just presenting a vague concern over what the hidden motivations of the decision maker might be.

I'd say the opposite and argue that usually the world is more complicated than black and white, particularly in situations involving war where there are many competing interests. We typically try to find our best and brightest to resolve our ethical and legal issues due to their complexity and nuance. — Hanover

You were earlier indicating that you reserve the right to work out the moral solution to a thought experiment, but now you say it's beyond you and we need to outsource these judgments to the special few? How do you choose these best and brightest if you don't know right from wrong yourself?

To be able to sustain your argument that the decision was based not upon ethical reasons but upon personal vendetta, you would have to show that the ethical basis provided for the decision was not reasonable, — Hanover

I would encourage you to rethink the link between morality and reasonableness. Look at this:

Or because Jews are not murderous people. They are used to be being minorities in countries and having to keep their heads down
— BitconnectCarlos

They killed their own people in which they came from the Canaanites, to gain Israel the first time. And have held plenty of wars in their time. — Vaskane

Are you making the argument that Jews are in fact a murderous people from time immemorial? Is it something in the Jewish blood or culture do you suppose that makes them such animals?

You were earlier indicating that you reserve the right to work out the moral solution to a thought experiment, but now you say it's beyond you and we need to outsource these judgments to the special few? How do you choose these best and brightest if you don't know right from wrong yourself? — frank

I'm not interested in these meta-meta discussions that lead us to the place that none of us have a view from no where, so we all are biased and there is not such thing as objectivity. We function very well with all our baggage and are able to make decisions daily is the best I can say.

I would encourage you to rethink the link between morality and reasonableness. Look at this: — frank

The video doesn't address what we're discussing.

There are (1) ethical reasons and (2) pragmatic reasons. If I want to steal your belongings that you are not watching over and I can do this without any possibility of being caught, there are a variety of ethical reasons not to do that. For those reasons, I will not do that.

There are a number of pragmatic reasons I should steal your belongings, namely that I will get some cool shit for free. I will not do that, though, because the ethical reasons prevail over the pragmatic because I wish to be an ethical person. But, sure, if I steal under the cover of night in full disguise in order to avoid detection, I am being rational in the sense I've arrived at ways to achieve my pragmatic (yet unethical) goal.

When I say I am looking for a reasonable basis for making an ethical decision, I am not interested in the pragmatic, but I am interested in the ethical. I fully understand that Stalin might have been very rational in the sense that he formulated reasons for his brand of evil, but he was entirely unreasonable if he thought that the basis he provided for his actions were based upon ethical reasons and not just pragmatic ones.


take over Canada by invading and pillaging, there are numerous ethical reasons why that is wrong. For that reason, I will not do it.

I'm not interested in these meta-meta discussions that lead us to the place that none of us have a view from no where, so we all are biased and there is not such thing as objectivity. We function very well with all our baggage and are able to make decisions daily is the best I can say. — Hanover

We do. We're just sharing our views on ethics. One way we pick up on our own pathological biases is by listening to each other, for instance, I tell you that you put "rape" into every post you made about the recent attack on Israel, but then supported Israel's attack by referencing the defense of Israel. The rape of a Jewish woman has nothing to do with the defense of Israel. It looks like your ability to talk about morality might be sidelined by the desire for revenge. I'm guessing you already know that?

There are (1) ethical reasons and (2) pragmatic reasons. If I want to steal your belongings that you are not watching over and I can do this without any possibility of being caught, there are a variety of ethical reasons not to do that. For those reasons, I will not do that. — Hanover

The point was that reason is not the anchor of morality. It can support either moral or immoral behavior. Therefore, assuring yourself that you're reasonable is not the way to make sure you aren't about to become a Nazi.

In the scenario posed, the question is whether we can shoot a child who is being used as a human shield in order to save our city (or, in the alternative, whether we can invade a hospital in order to remove an enemy military base underneath). — Hanover

And the answer you give is yes. The answer I give is no.

Incidentally, I understand that British policy is never to negotiated with hostage takers, on the grounds that to negotiate would be to encourage hostage taking in the future. I don't know if the policy is implemented on every occasion, but it is certainly advertised. Strange that tough minded Israel doesn't follow such a policy. All a matter, I have to suppose, of whose child it is whether it is or isn't moral to sacrifice them.

The rape of a Jewish woman has nothing to do with the defense of Israel. — frank

Of course it does. Israel doesn't want its citizens raped again, so they are dismantling their enemy's ability to do that.

The point was that reason is not the anchor of morality. It can support either moral or immoral behavior. Therefore, assuring yourself that you're reasonable is not the way to make sure you aren't about to become a Nazi. — frank

I'm just not agreeing that there isn't a rational basis for ethical reasoning, even if the source of decisions rests additionally in the emotions. If you're an ethical emotivist, that's just a difference between the two of us. I also am not conflating pragmatic reasons with ethical ones, which is what I think you're doing here. I get that Jeffrey Dahmer had his reasons for his vile acts and that he wasn't entirely irrational else he could not have carried them out. I do not think, however, that he had any valid ethical reasons for why he acted as he did.

Strange that tough minded Israel doesn't follow such a policy. All a matter, I have to suppose, of whose child it is whether it is or isn't moral to sacrifice them. — unenlightened

It's immoral to sacrifice children in the advancement of a political objective, which is what makes Hamas immoral in their doing that. Israel is also trying to protect its children by exchanging Palestinians who have actually attacked and murdered Israelis for the return of its innocent children.

The party guilty for the death of the children are those who drape themselves in the children while attacking, not the person protecting themselves.

I don't see the moral equivalence you're trying to draw.

I don't see the moral equivalence you're trying to draw. — Hanover

You know, I really believe you don't. That is the tragedy.

But "Hamas made me do it" is pathetic.

[1]Dude said they're a peaceful people, I pointed out not really.

[2]Do you know the why word for the average majority that makes up a set is mean? And why Mean also equates to a nasty hateful individual? Why is it that the word Villain means to come from the Villa where the masses come from? — Vaskane

Comment #1 says something about Jews. In particular you said that they are a murderous people. Comment #2 says something about everybody.

You did not say "Jews are not a peaceful people, but, then again, no one is, just look at the word "mean" and "villa."
You also did not say something about Israel. You said something about Jews.

The rape of a Jewish woman has nothing to do with the defense of Israel.
— frank

Of course it does. Israel doesn't want its citizens raped again, so they are dismantling their enemy's ability to do that. — Hanover

That's just ridiculous.

I get that Jeffrey Dahmer had his reasons for his vile acts and that he wasn't entirely irrational else he could not have carried them out. I do not think, however, that he had any valid ethical reasons for why he acted as he did. — Hanover

Sure. Hitler's Mein Kampf, on the other hand, is very well thought through and supremely reasonable. He was just trying to defend Germany. For real. Read it.

I still think you know what you saying is wrong, you just can't keep your from saying it.

You know, I really believe you don't. That is the tragedy.

But "Hamas made me do it" is pathetic. — unenlightened

I'm sincere regardless of whether you believe me.

The cause of the attack on Gaza was the Hamas invastion that preceded it. The cause of your shooting an intruder was the intrusion.

You made me stop talking to you.

If you were in charge of Israel, how would you have responded to Oct.7 attacks?

That's just ridiculous. — frank

That's not an argument. That's just a wrong evaluation. The invasion of Gaza absolutely had to do with the invasion by Hamas, which was, as I recall, the murder of children, raping of women, and the kidnapping of the elderly and the young. Had that not happened, today would be a normal Monday and not one with Gaza under heavy attack (although they are paused momentarily).

Sure. Hitler's Mein Kampf, on the other hand, is very well thought through and supremely reasonable. He was just trying to defend Germany. For real. Read it.

I still think you know what you saying is wrong, you just can't keep your from saying it. — frank

Your inability to keep straight that there are moral justifications and pragmatic justifications is where you have gone wrong. A vicious murderer can be rational. I've already conceded that and that was the point of the video that was provided, to establish that it is not irrationality that drives people to evil decisions, but that it is a lack of moral reasoning that does. The reason Dahmer did as he did isn't because he lacked the abilty to do otherwise, but it's because he thought out a vile plan and did it. Had he an ounce of moral reasoning, he wouldn't have.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to follow.

You made me stop talking to you. — unenlightened

Very well. But, so you know, my objective wasn't just to be contrary. I find your position as absurd as you find mine. Worldview difference maybe.

That's just ridiculous.
— frank

That's not an argument. That's just a wrong evaluation. The invasion of Gaza absolutely had to do with the invasion by Hamas, which was, as I recall, the murder of children, raping of women, and the kidnapping of the elderly and the young. Had that not happened, today would be a normal Monday and not one with Gaza under heavy attack (although they are paused momentarily). — Hanover

I didn't think I needed an argument. Hamas fired 5000 missiles at Israel. That is why Israel retaliated. That is why the west, with Joe Biden in the lead, is supporting Israel's offensive. If it just been a few cases of rape, infanticide, and kidnapping, today would be a normal Monday.

f you were in charge of Israel, how would you have responded to Oct.7 attacks? — RogueAI

Can you give me all the data that was available to Israeli intelligence that day? I'll meet you in the war room and we'll figure it out.

I didn't think I needed an argument. Hamas fired 5000 missiles at Israel. That is why Israel retaliated. That is why the west, with Joe Biden in the lead, is supporting Israel's offensive. If it just been a few cases of rape, infanticide, and kidnapping, today would be a normal Monday. — frank

It's obviously a myriad of factors, but the paratroopers marked an actual boots on the ground invasion which certainly gave Israel a basis for the attack, even absent the 5000 missiles. Whether the 5000 missles alone would have raised security concerns high enough to necessitate the current invasion, I'm not sure. In any event, my statement that this invasion has much to do with the real security issue that needed to be resolved when the women were raped was hardly ridiculous.