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

I think I can get behind that way of thinking.
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.

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

That's a whole other consideration. What if we have two sides (A) and (B).

A plays by international laws at the beginning but B does not, making A think that they cannot win unless they use B's tactics.. At the least B is as bad as A, not worse.

However, this isn't the situation as I see it. Rather, Israel is still following a type of framework to minimize mass casualties, but with the caveat that their own side will not be drawn into undue harm either. That changes the calculation.

There is an argument perhaps, that this calculation is the immoral part. I am emphasizing the case being made that this is not immoral. But for reasonable interlocutors (unlike certain forum participants who like to ad hom and poison the well), who may see that calculation as illegitimate, this could be considered irrelevant in any calculation of war. 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. But I think you see the author's point that, there is a case that this calculation should be added- that one's own citizens are weighted more if their deaths can be prevented.

Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry: — Sir2u

I'm desolate. I had no idea!

You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. — Sir2u

I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated.

You seem to only have one. — Sir2u

My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes.

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

In this, we also differ.

And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? — Sir2u

Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture.

One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on. — Sir2u

Doesn't one? I suppose it helps not to give a shit.

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

So to stop these people killing a few thousand over the next few years I am supposed to lose maybe that many today by playing by the rules. :rofl:
Your right, that is not going to make any sense at all.

I vote to make it illegal for anyone in the world to make, obtain or use any weapon, except small caliber handguns and rifles, under 25 caliber. That would include, missiles and bombs of any kind, warships and submarines, aircraft with guns or bombs, chemical weapons and anything else that goes bang, boom or splat.

And all swords have to have a 80cmm (32 inch) long by 10cm (4 inch) wide blade, be at least 2cm (3/4 inch) thick and have a padlock on the sheath. Pikes, spears, lances, war-hammers and other nasty things should also be banned.

I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated. — Vera Mont

So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover.

My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes. — Vera Mont

I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even.

In this, we also differ. — Vera Mont

Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. Or just becoming grouchy.

Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture. — Vera Mont

So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago?
Talk about narrow perspective.

Doesn't one? — Vera Mont

Not really easy is it when you spend your whole life believing that learning about the mistakes in history can help prevent them from happening again, only to be told that the images that are used to show what history was like are now racists relics of an awful past that needs to be swept away and never mentioned again.
Not easy either when they teach you that a kid that is born with a penis is a boy just to learn 60 years later that it can be a girl as well, but if you make a mistake while talking to that person or even ask about it is is homophobic, anti trans or whatever label they put on it today.
And I don't spend any time on tic-tacky, farcebook or twatter to try and figure out the differences.

I suppose it helps not to give a shit. — Vera Mont

Now your getting the right idea. You might get to be a philosopher someday. :wink:

To go from

and if those policies are/were widely supported by the peoples of those nations — RogueAI

to

can those societies also be judged? — RogueAI

You jump from "peoples" to "societies". Moral theories don't make judgements about people, they make judgements about actions. From the moral judgement of a person's actions we judge their character. Your argument treats a society as an individual agent and uses that nation's actions to judge the people's character as a monolith. Your fallacy is on the last part.

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

I don't know what TofT is, but assuming it is immoral, the answer is still no. There are several factors that play into a society's actions besides the will of the people/government. On the individual's side, we may say they support an immoral action — in that instance — but we can't say their character is immoral, like we would of a serial r*pist.

So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover. — 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.

I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even. — Sir2u

By all means, avoid fanaticism!

Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. — Sir2u

Depends on the judges.

So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago? — Sir2u

I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake.

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

Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

By all means, avoid fanaticism! — Vera Mont

Yep I am a fanatic when it comes to things like that.

Depends on the judges. — Vera Mont

Only school and college debates have judges, out here in the real world it is not like that.

I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake. — Vera Mont

Yes it is. Technically.
prehistory is the time before writing was invent, but humans kept oral history long before that happened.
History is the the earliest known written history was only about 4500 or so years ago.

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.

And the funny thing is that paleontology has given us so much information about the ancient civilizations that happen in the period called history.

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

So, something is missing here.

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?
Isn't violent conflict typically chains of offense/defense (except the best defense is a good offense)?

Human rights movements and prisons say unjust offense and just defense, seems like a no-brainer, with the offense/defense nuance.

Fun video of the day. How a war should be fought.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27982809/india-and-china-medieval-style-border-clash/

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

Is there an example of any of these you could give us? Just to be sure we understand properly.

Human rights movements and prisons say unjust offense and just defense, seems like a no-brainer, with the offense/defense nuance. — jorndoe

What do defense lawyers say?

Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? — Sir2u

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?

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

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.

, well, it's trivial to find examples of unjust offense and just defense.

Anyway, I was trying to convey differentiating offense and defense, as opposed to war without further nuance. Seemed a bit like you were doing the same.

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.

well, it's trivial to find examples of unjust offense and just defense. — jorndoe

And it is also difficult to do.

Anyway, I was trying to convey differentiating offense and defense, as opposed to war without further nuance. — jorndoe

I understand.

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

That indeed does seem to be an outlier view of war. When a country gets attacked, like a sneak attack, (think something like Pearl Harbor), then generally the sovereignty attacked generally has a right to declare war against the attacking entity.

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

So this is a fringe theory whereby state institutions have no right to do anything on behalf of the people they represent because they are not individuals. Thus, providing aid, working out trade deals, protecting commerce, and other international procedures of state go out the window. And all of these things can be said to have an ethical component insomuch as policies enacted by states can have ethical intent or outcomes.

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.

What you are advocating is a sort of anarchism perhaps, or anarcho-capitalism. While an interesting theory, this would pretty much negate any political dialogue as we know it. So there is really no where to go from there regarding this debate as now we are getting into much more theoretical territory about whether states are legitimate.

And it is also difficult to do. — Sir2u

I was just thinking of history books. Extreme examples could be: the Holocaust was unjust offense, the imprisonment of Jeffrey Dahmer was just defense.

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

The Holocaust was probable a good example.
I had to look up the other one though, and yes it is an example of just defense. It also points out the obligation of a state to act in the protection of its people.
Which sort of answers the question on whether or not a government is justified in acting in a larger situation to protect its people against much larger threats.

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

Irrelevant. What other people do is no argument for any type of moral decision.

No doubt you would let your close family member drowned to save the stranger it seems. Some people disagree there. — schopenhauer1

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.

Irrelevant. What other people do is no argument for any type of moral decision. — Benkei

That seems unethical. You are not allowed to defend yourself now if someone does you harm? I think that is a universally accepted notion... And again, the issue then becomes about collateral damage, not waging a war against an aggressor who wants to see your people, state, or both destroyed, and are actively and repeatedly doing this. Should FDR have declared war against Japan? Perhaps he should have waited for other Pearl Harbors...

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

Noticed I said "close family member" and not just named a family member. So yeah, that already was not my argument, and thus a straw man..

But the main argument one might make is that the state is obligated to its own citizens more than protecting other citizens. This doesn't mean they are COMPLETELY devoid of considering other country's citizens. The author stated as such. Rather, that the balance is weighted more for one's own citizens in the state's obligations above other countries when weighing decisions of life and death.

In the case of Israel, presumably the state is a platform for which the people are to survive. Like family and friends help each other for survival and day-to-day living, one's own state presumably would be akin to a political family that is closer to helping in one's own survival, and thus if the political family is mutually supporting each other, there are bonds and obligations to help each other, above and beyond the obligations to other political actors that are not necessarily in the mutual interest, or in fact, are completely opposed to the mutual interest of the political family. This would seem even more so in such a small nation-state where people have much more in common. It is arguable the bigger a state, the more impersonal that family is, like a large extended family that is estranged. Anyways, that part is farther afield from the main point which yes, there are special obligations to friends and family that would be violated if they were not considered.

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?

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

It's not based on individuals but actors on behalf of states. 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. Hence it isn't war that is the basis for the target of individuals but war crimes, which are specific actions taken by individual leaders during war.

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

morality:

• Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
• Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
• A personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest

I think it is about time to update your definition of morality. While I am not really sure about it most people are instructed in morality through social contact, making common morality a social construct. While a lot of people make some adjustment to the ingrained morality they learned from childhood, most of the bad guys just throw it out of the window or go in the opposite direction all together.

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

Oh dear, how come you missed so many news article about people fleeing across borders to escape the war raging in their country or the mass evacuations of people from areas in danger of being overrun by enemies?

I mean that even if there is no warring troops coming into town, most governments, local or national, issue evacuation orders to get the people out of danger from flooding and hurricanes. Is this not an example of a government acting in self defense to protect the people.

Just because the enemy is wind and water does not take away the governments moral obligation to protect people, from there it is not a big leap to protect them from other forms of enemies.

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.

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

But this is my point. This is why "ethics proper" would be a category error to apply to "governments". 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. 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.

So here we have a situation whereby Israel is claiming that it was attacked, which, similar to say, a Pearl Harbor situation, would lead it to declare war, or some military response to the attacker.

They have obviously now done so against Hamas, who had initiated the current conflict by killing civilians indiscriminately, brutally, and whathaveyou.

So now, Israel is conducting a war where it must face various modern dilemmas, that state actors must do in war. The main dilemma is, unlike battles in the 1700s or 1800s which were often done on open fields, these asymmetrical wars, are often conducted in urban environments, whereby the soldiers hide in plain clothes. In this case, it is even more stark because billions of dollars were put into tunnel systems that wrap around, under, and into civilian infrastructure, basically making the whole city a web-fortress.

Then the calculations of how to conduct the war. In such a messy, web-like urban environment, let's say there are two ways of conducting the war to get rid of Hamas.

Let's say there are two broad approaches:
A1) Just ground troops
A2) Aerial bombardment and ground troops.

A1)Let us say, if the first approach was the one taken, 10x the casualties on one's own side would take place, and the war would become bogged down to indefinite, hellish levels for one's own troops because it would become essentially an unending maze or trap.

A2) The second broad approach allows your troops enough room to maneuver and eventually go in and fight more aggressively, saving lives for your own troops, and ending the war more quickly.

So, I am fine discussing international law.. But it will simply get bogged down to various instances whereby "Did this fighter, by ducking into a building, make that building a legitimate target in the eyes of international law".. Having civilians as "human shields" doesn't make the enemy use it as a "get out of jail free" during a war. As we both agreed, (even if we detest war and violence), war is a "legitimate" thing countries can wage.

BTW, I am more in support of what Galant and Benny Gantz is saying to Netanyahu.. It is immoral to go to war without an end in mind... And I have always said this.

For example, in the Potsdam Conference, in July 1945, there was a vision for a robust Japan after the war. Without something like that, a war becomes indefinite and then questionable. It only makes sense in the beginning phases as a deterrent. But if it is a total war, like this is (complete surrender is demanded), then there has to be a positive vision, for how that reconstruction looks.

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

Do you think that all ethics are the same? Is something that is ethical to a newspaper reporter ethical also to a lawyer? Is the ethical point of view of a major food company the same as that of the shopper? There are plenty of different types of ethics.

As for states being abstract, what do you think ethics and morality are? Going by this rule, neither have a place in reality either.

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

Here I disagree.
War is another name for conflict and there are many kinds of those, have you never seen people fighting over something like their place in a line? 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.

The only thing that change between state and individual ethics is the size, fist fight 2 or more people - war hundreds.
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.
It has nothing to do with the actual actions, but where they happened and the ethical system they use.

And this is made obvious by both sides claiming to be morally and ethically in the right.

War is another name for conflict and there are many kinds of those, have you never seen people fighting — 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.

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

Sure, there are analogies to individuals, but they can only happen in the domain of large institutions. It may be "fake" or "abstract" but what is a "law", but something that people of an institution agree to that head the apparatuses of a territory. All of it is abstracted. It can be considered a fantasy.. but then so is any social institution.. That then gets into what counts as "real", but for all practical purposes we act as though the fictions are real, and that is what I am going with. I can certainly question the reality of these institutions, but that wouldn't change the pragmatic outcome of how states operate in the world.. They will keep enacting laws, people creating money, making policies, etc.

The only thing that change between state and individual ethics is the size, fist fight 2 or more people - war hundreds. — Sir2u

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. Drafts are something that only happens in war. 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.

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 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.

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

As I said, from my point of view the only difference is the size.

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

Could you explain that to the landlord of the pub where I was dragged into a fight and he tried to get me to pay for all of the collateral damage to chairs and tables. Maybe he will return the money he took.

Drafts are something that only happens in war. — schopenhauer1

Again the principles are the same but the size is different. If I had called my mates to come and help the collateral damage would have been greater.

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

Does any of this have any bearing on the war being ethical or moral?

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

So people do not sent fire to house to kill their ex's? The Oklahoma bombing never happened? The school shooters do not exist? And you can order killings quite easily it appears on the internet. There have been several cases recently of people hiring other to kill, kidnap or injure others.

The only thing that governments have in their favor is nicely put in the old phrase "Anything an individual can do, we can do better and bigger.