I invite you to comment here as well: — schopenhauer1
So I am not saying these are proof that there is now justification, but that these considerations along with merely "We are all people" when in a conflict of an enemy that wants to see you harmed or destroyed, is something to consider. — schopenhauer1
If only one side plays by those rules, they will be the ones to suffer because the other party will use it to their own advantage. — Sir2u
I'm desolate. I had no idea!Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry: — Sir2u
I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated.You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. — Sir2u
My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes.You seem to only have one. — Sir2u
In this, we also differ.Just because I decided to argue from this side today does not mean I could not oppose it tomorrow, because I really don't give a shit about any of it. — Sir2u
Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture.And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? — Sir2u
Doesn't one? I suppose it helps not to give a shit.One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on. — Sir2u
Thus, to these folks, if it takes your army taking on massive casualties to get the bad guys in the attempt to minimize the enemies casualties, this is still the correct thing to do. — schopenhauer1
I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated. — Vera Mont
My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes. — Vera Mont
In this, we also differ. — Vera Mont
Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture. — Vera Mont
Doesn't one? — Vera Mont
I suppose it helps not to give a shit. — Vera Mont
toand if those policies are/were widely supported by the peoples of those nations — RogueAI
can those societies also be judged? — RogueAI
For example, let's suppose the Trail of Tears is judged to be immoral and was supported by every citizen in the country except for one person. Wouldn't it be fair to label that citizenry as immoral, even though the label would misapply to that one moral person? — RogueAI
What's it to do with books? You've presented a point of view and advocated for it quite vigorously. I see no reason to move the conversion into unrelated contexts.So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover. — Sir2u
By all means, avoid fanaticism!I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even. — Sir2u
Depends on the judges.Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. — Sir2u
I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake.So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago? — Sir2u
What's it to do with books? You've presented a point of view and advocated for it quite vigorously. I see no reason to move the conversion into unrelated contexts. — Vera Mont
By all means, avoid fanaticism! — Vera Mont
Depends on the judges. — Vera Mont
I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake. — Vera Mont
The moral case is clear, "we are all people" and those lives are all equal. That's why the just war tradition sets out to find objective criteria and random squiggly lines on a map ain't it. — Benkei
The "We are all people" concept does need to be accepted by both parties in a conflict if it is to be acted upon. If only one side plays by those rules, they will be the ones to suffer because the other party will use it to their own advantage. — Sir2u
Is there such a thing as a just offense, and such a thing as a just defense?
Heck, while at it anyway, what about an unjust offense, and an unjust defense? — jorndoe
Human rights movements and prisons say unjust offense and just defense, seems like a no-brainer, with the offense/defense nuance. — jorndoe
Yes. Have you ever wondered why publishers go to so much trouble to design a cover that conveys what the book is about and put more information on the back and flaps?Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? — Sir2u
Prehistory is an acceptable designation for the historical period during which sufficient data is available to piece together what people were doing. I was remiss in not including that.So how is the 30,000 year span that you have called historical if most of it is in prehistory?
Or is there another term that you would you like to use for the 25,500 years before the invention of writing. — Sir2u
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
I was just thinking of history books. Extreme examples could be: the Holocaust was unjust offense, the imprisonment of Jeffrey Dahmer was just defense. — jorndoe
Hamas doesn't think like that. They want to cause harm. The point of a self-defense war like this is to take out the people doing the repeated harm to your citizens. And my point then still stands: — schopenhauer1
No doubt you would let your close family member drowned to save the stranger it seems. Some people disagree there. — schopenhauer1
Irrelevant. What other people do is no argument for any type of moral decision. — Benkei
Why don't you try to make a coherent moral argument why a close family member's life is more valuable than another's. Maybe my mother in law is a real bitch, maybe my dad a rapist. Filial connections are morally irrelevant. — Benkei
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? — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
It's not based on individuals but actors on behalf of states. — schopenhauer1
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
What other actors are there besides individuals? — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level. — schopenhauer1
War is another name for conflict and there are many kinds of those, have you never seen people fighting — Sir2u
Tariffs is another word for charging, I do that to my boss every month for my services to him. Treaties is just another way of saying agreement, I have an agreement with my neighbor not to call the police again if he keeps the volume of his music down to a reasonable level. All of these are done daily at the individual level. — Sir2u
The only thing that change between state and individual ethics is the size, fist fight 2 or more people - war hundreds. — Sir2u
But what makes something ethical will always be the same, the ethics system that is used in the place were the action is to be judged. In some places you get a telling off, in others you might go to jail for street fighting, in others places you might get whipped. — Sir2u
I see this as playing with words. There is a reason why "war" is different than a fight between individuals. It's "conflict" and "violent", but it's not the same thing. — schopenhauer1
No, because an individual fighting doesn't worry about things that are only seen in war.. collateral damage, for example is uniquely only seen in war. — schopenhauer1
Drafts are something that only happens in war. — schopenhauer1
Moving massive amounts of people on behalf of the state in tactical and strategic settings to gain some objective only happens in war. They are things that happen at the level of "state". There is a hierarchy one must follow. — schopenhauer1
I mean not really. There are things that happen in war that would not be seen as appropriate at an individual level. As an individual you cannot drop a bomb on a target or order others to do that for you in any legitimate way. But you can in a certain hierarchical setting on behalf of the state, as a state actor. Interesting how that confers by way of institutionalism, but that is how it seems to be. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.