You got me, 180. I would have been a Nazi in the 40s. :up: :rofl:

And you would have been a klansman in the 20s. :rofl:

Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement.

Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement. — Moses

Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll:

I would have been a [Ashken]Nazi in the 40s. :up: — BitconnectCarlos

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.

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

Well, somebody is going to have to make that choice whether it's a single person or group of people together. My point is that these theoretical examples ignore the question of agency. This is most obvious when there's a powerful antagonist introduced that tells you either shoot one kid or I murder all 20 of them, as if that still allows for a moral choice. I think there's no moral choice possible because there's only the illusion of choice - instead it has already been decided for you that you're going to have to do something horrible.

It's the same when we're going to pretend there's a false dichotomy between two equally unpalatable choices: use immoral means to win a war by killing countless innocents or to lose the war from an unjust aggressor.

Real life tends to have alternatives available.

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.

extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

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. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.

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

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:

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

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?

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.

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. — Tzeentch

I might agree with you if we're talking about someone forced into a leadership position. That's not the case here. Leaders almost always choose to get in the game in the first place. That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough.

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

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. — Tzeentch

This is silly.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make.
Question: 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"?
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars.

As for there not being any forces applied, you are wrong. Circumstances are a major force in world affairs since mankind started to flourish.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, just because you disagree with his type of morality does not make him the bad guy.

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.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type). First, abstaining from warcrimes simply doesn't hinder your ability fight a war successfully. Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants.

But the above thinking goes well with people who want revenge and who think that if the enemy kills civilians, then you have to give them "a message" by killing their civilians, a lot of them. Eye for an eye or perhaps more accurately 100 eyes for one eye. In similar fashion these people, usually who have not served in the military, think that not committing war crimes when the enemy does them means that somehow the military is soft and not harsh enough to counter such bloodthirsty foe. These ideas are quite ludicrous and typically show the total lack of understanding of modern warfare of those who given justification for war crimes.

Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No.

:ok: — Tzeentch

How far does this go I wonder...

How about yourself, would you choose death before homicidal self-defense? (due to immorality of homicide)

If they come for your loved ones, would you also be (or run) elsewhere? (after all, there might be killing involved)

In short, are there boundaries? Would homicide (or whatever-cide) ever be OK?

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

You seem to be implying that politics necessarily leads to immorality, else why should one avoid it? Yet politics is necessary for society. Are you anti-society?

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

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.
Churchill and 'moral' don't really belong in one sentence. He was a pragmatic nationalist and not especially gentle in his methods, at home, in the empire or abroad.

, so, homicide to defend your loved ones is :up: then?

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.

The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants. — ssu

We're dealing with a hypothetical here posed by @RogueAI. Nor do rules created in the 1920s always maintain the same character that they did as years go on. These rules were created in the 20s, so I ask: Was it ok to use in WWI? I'll readily admit that gas is a nasty weapon and not something that I would use on the battlefield unless extraordinary circumstances. But I would say this qualifies as one.

In this scenario your country's (UK) beachfront is being stormed by Nazis. Intel says gas would be extremely effective - perhaps because they're not wearing gas protection or perhaps because a new type of gas has been synthesized.

There's also conventional means of resistance but we're not given much info as to Britain's capability here and we could envision a wide number of scenarios from futile to easily being able to ward them off. Obviously the more futile potential resistance is the greater the attraction is towards using gas. But the UK has lost air superiority here.

In broad strokes though, if a large Nazi invading force combined with air superiority landed on the British beachfront in '43 or '44 and I (the Prime minister) learned that gas would be extremely effective and I used it and it did prove extremely effective would I feel vindicated? Yes. My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.

If the invading force was small I would not use it though. I am only talking a very large, very serious invading force that would surely successfully invade otherwise.

To any sane person homicide is :sad:.

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

Hmm Can't quite figure out if that's a :down: or a don't know or a :up:
Leaning towards reading your comments as a :up: which is the most common anyway
Is my interpretation way off...?

In my old Dojo, we were taught: trouble → run. :up:

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

Whoever engineers the war sells it to the people who have to fight in it as self-defence (Israel's right to exist) or liberation (the American states' from British taxation) or regaining what is rightfully ours (Ukraine) The actual chain of causation and desired outcome are always concealed, as is the incompetence and short-sightedness through with which a government blundered into its military entanglements. Moral decisions rarely enter in.

My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it. — BitconnectCarlos

How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts

responsibility is to my people and my country

in reverse order. What's left of the country being thus defended will not be known until afterward. Like the Coventry decision on a much larger scale.

Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? With collateral damage that's a different scenario. I'm just trying to simplify.

This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type).

[ ... ]

Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No. — ssu

:100: :fire:

Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? — BitconnectCarlos

That's the existential danger to Britain - massed units on a single unpopulated beach? Such an invasion could be repelled or contained by land/naval forces without risk to residents from a change in wind direction and residual poison left on the beach. I realize the question can be put in binary form, but reality never is that simple. This kind of example is always biased by artificial constraint that ignore factors relevant to an actual decision.

Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll: — 180 Proof

:rofl: Definitely stealing that one when some minority mentions their own liberation movement.

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. — Tzeentch

I have no idea how you got from what I said to your reply, absolutely nonsensical.

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. — Tzeentch

So you think a NAZI Europe should be considered as the high road? I have to think about that for a while.

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

You are confused and confusing what I said. Let me write it slowly for you.

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

As we have already mentioned, moral reasoning comes in many version. Churchill considered the different possible out comes of his actions and did what he thought best in REAL life. What he thought best to protect the millions of people under his charge.

So lets go back to the OP.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

As in real life, in this imaginary scene he has a hard decision to make. If the use of gas is considered to be a deciding factor to stop the invasion then he must have been reasonable sure of losing the battle if he did not use it. That outcome would not have been morally acceptable to him therefore he would probable not doubt in using it.

But this is all speculation, because no one here actually knew the gentleman.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". — ssu

But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.