Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well because my perspective seems so natural to myself. I'll come back to it later. — Baden

I just wanted to hear a clear condemnation of the coming bloodshed. That's all.

I don't support Russia's violation of Ukraine sovereignty in any way. On the contrary, I condemn it. — Baden

Right on.

I can consistently do that while also condeming NATO's attempts to integrate Ukraine as provocative and destabilizing. — Baden

Ok. Although I imagine that wasn't one sided. Ukraine probably wanted protection from Russia.

Can you, just for a few seconds, imagine that his comment is not showing more concern for Russia's interests than for Ukraine's, and that it does not represent cutting Russia any slack? — jamalrob

Baden earlier said that where there's a moral issue here, it's with the intransigence of both Russia and NATO.

He's saying that Russia is partially justified, and NATO is partially responsible.

In order to say that Russia is justified even partially, requires that Russia is acting to defend itself existentially. If that is true, I'd like to understand how.

I'm just trying to show that falling back merely on anti-Putin rhetoric and moralizing is pointless and harmful. — jamalrob

I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to understand the world. I'm usually the one exhorting others to look at the world mechanically.

It can't stop there though. When bloodshed is on the horizon, you have to take a moral stand.

I throw myself fully into both: understanding and judging. Not at the same time, obviously.

It seems to me that Baden's comments are concerned with how to ensure peace, whereas your own approach, especially your talk of "appeasement", is--to put it as politely as I can--very much not. — jamalrob

If you'd like to discuss appeasement further, we can. I gather you're too busy for a deep dive into the topic.

Being critical of the West and opposed to American interference around the world doesn't make one a tankie. — jamalrob

I don't know who this is directed toward. I think you read one of my comments and created a persona for me.

Russia telegraphed its intentions very clearly and NATO gave them no plausible way out. Hence, war — Baden

Honestly, I think Putin is taking this opportunity to invade because he knows NATO won't respond. I think it's the opposite of a response to NATO taunting. It's a response to NATO weakness and disunity.

So NATO has responsibility for the deaths of Ukrainians in the coming months because of historic pressure from the West, not anything that's happening now.

Or is that wrong?

If you back a rat into a corner and it bites, do you blame the rat for biting or you for being an idiot? — Baden

If you blow up the World Trade Center, do you blame the superpower for trying to reorganize the whole middle east? Or do you blame the middle east for being an idiot?

I don't believe that Putin is acting to protect Russia. He's acting to increase its influence.

I don't understand why you would cut them slack here. Why is Russia's interests more important to you than Ukraine's?

think he's arguing for a kind of immersion therapy. A little QAnon here, a little Mein Kampf there, until you become desensitized and nonreactive. — praxis

That was more charity than I needed. Thanks.

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Absolutely. I get that. So Ukraine just gets to be a pawn.

And maybe invasion is the only way to draw a line in the sand.

But the irony is that if Russia hurts its own economy by drawing this line, it doesn't really win in the end.

Both sides are defending a narrow set of interests. NATO is defending its “right” to expansion up to Russia’s borders and Russia is defending its “right” to a sphere of influence or buffer zone around its borders. Both sides can apply ostensibly reasonable arguments to support their positions — Baden

I understand that. But don't you agree that at this time, NATO has no desire to destabilize or threaten Russia in any way? Particularly post pandemic, Europe and the USA are reaching for something like normality, not domination of Central Europe, and certainly not aggression toward Russia.

So we have to back up in time to pick up the threads of NATO opposition to Russian expansion. And maybe I should stop here (before going into the history of Russian oppression and persecution of Ukrainians).

Do you agree that NATO has primarily sought to limit Russian expansion? Or do you really think NATO wants to somehow undermine the health of the Russian state?

Side-note: Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors. — Wayfarer

Cool. China is working on fusion too. Hope they get it working soon.

An attempt at calm assessment is greeted with demands for condemnation etc. It's a waste of time. — jamalrob

It's clear that you haven't read this thread. Calm assessment have mostly been met with attempts to lay blame on the US and NATO without any details as to how that's supposed to work.

And you don't have to have any political sympathies to condemn military aggression. All you have to do is think about all the lives that will be destroyed. To those who were busy thinking about economic concerns rather that effects of an invasion of now 190,000 soldiers:

shame on you.

That probably means the interruption of work on the pipeline from Russia is temporary. They'll quietly go back to it when this is over.

Too bad. It would be a good idea to go back to nuclear.

:100:

Germany really has to look what to do with it's energy policy. — ssu

So what are their alternatives?

If he really cared about the future of Russia he would be more occupied with the problems and potential of melting and burning Siberia. — magritte

I think it's going to melt on its own. NOAA says 2022 will be the hottest year on record.

Delusional nonsense and lies — ssu

Enough of your trolling. — ssu

:up:

Bonus points to you for being among the few on this forum to condemn Putin for the bloodshed and horror he's about to unleash. :up:

FINALLY!

The Truth from you (likely as a slip, but still). — ssu

:lol:

I think it could be interesting what Walzer thinks about anarchism, Bakunin thought or the perception of the State as culture entity not political one — javi2541997

Not sure.

Walzer decided that there really are ethical dilemmas where you have to do evil in order to do good.

One way to deny them is to say that absent a divine order, all that exists is individuals facing problems, weighing consequences, and deciding.

Moral rules are just an accumulation of these events. They shouldn't be taken as absolutes. You can't just follow rules blindly, you have to think things through just as people have been doing since Noah's dog was a pup.

Walzer says this is wrong because morality can't be understood as reducing to the decisions of individuals. Morality is a community activity.

What do you think?

Yes. But he's saying accept both sides of the issue: accept that we want immoral leaders (during war), but also feel grief and shame that we accept these crimes.

I don't know about thoughts, but emotions are related to who you think you are.

You can use your radical freedom to pop in and out of identities. It's all tricky because you shouldn't try to lie to yourself. This kind of freedom isn't about fiction, if you know what I mean.

But you'll frequently find people trying to control you by telling you who you are. You have a choice in whether you accept their suggestions. Sometimes they'll offer love or protection to induce your agreement, or threaten you subtly for refusing.

Well in terms of war we can make some exceptions... Nevertheless, don't you think we demand from them to be more diplomatic?
I think a good leader would put peace as a first option rather than war.
recruit soldiers would sound selfish for putting their citizens in danger if it does not exist a good reason — javi2541997

Yes, but it's the "exceptions" Walzer wants to focus on. Real moral dilemmas.

In the essay he covers arguments against moral dilemmas and explains why he thinks they fail to address real life.

If you were in danger of being blown up, would you want your leaders to engage in immoral acts to save you?

Same question but, for the sake of your whole country?

I don't think he will invade Ukraine to face off against NATO. That's suicide. — Manuel

No it's not. NATO isn't going to do anything.

Yes, it doesn't need one. But why does Washington care about Ukraine and not Afghans? One is clearly connected to the US, the other is not. — Manuel

I don't think the US government does care about Ukraine. Historically they did because they wanted to foster the liberalization of the former USSR. Times have changed.

Why should the US intervene? — Manuel

They're not going to intervene. They're only going to increase sanctions that Russia is either prepared for, or can survive by turning to China.

The US doesn't have a military base in Ukraine and doesn't need one.

This aggression is coming from Moscow, not Washington.

So Frank, I can’t help wondering how committed you are to ‘growing the psychological muscles necessary for listening to a view we don't like’. Imagine, if you’re willing, that Marjorie Taylor Greene submitted an Op-Ed piece to the New York Times on weekly basis, assuming she knows how to read and write. How often do you think they should publish her esteemed options (instead of something more substantive)? — praxis

I think the NYT should publish nothing but QAnon content on every page from now on. Like QAnon recipes, QAnon gardening tips, and so forth.

And little snippets from Mein Kampf. The whole block of lasagne.

Walzer uses the example of torture to show a true ethical dilemma: a leader decides to use torture to save a community threatened by hidden bombs.

If I were to attack this, I'd say the example neglects the fact that torture has limited effectiveness.

IOW, the decision to do wrong is going to be based on information that could be wrong. But the ethical rule itself isn't subject to doubt in the same way. Does that work?

Indeed. If we understand 'leadership' to mean a position of power then most of us hold power to some degree, for example as a parent. Should we be prepared to do wrong for (what we consider) a greater good? It's a wider and more pervasive problem than statecraft. — Cuthbert

True. A parent is in a leadership role and would likely commit murder to save her child's life.

Walzer needs the parent to recognize that murder is a necessary evil, but still evil in order to preserve dilemma of dirty hands.

Do you buy this?

He recognizes it and probably takes some decisions on it. But, at the same time, he knows he has to be corrupt and a cheater to climb in the world of power inside of politics.
Then, is a vicious circle. Corruption will never end inside politics. Again, this causes a negative image along citizens about what politicians suppose to be. — javi2541997

That's Walzer's point, and that we actually want our leaders to fight dirty on our behaves.

Is that really true?

Walzer goes on to claim that we generally expect politicians to be somewhat corrupt. "Dirty hands" refers to the one who is corrupt and recognizes that corruption is wrong.

Everybody else in America knows about it. I can't imagine caring enough to persuade someone who has managed to remain oblivious.

My uneducated answer: a political realist will write an essay on ethical dilemmas as they relate to leadership, and try to sort it out. She'll take ethics seriously.

A political pragmatist will warn that the realist is following a mirage. There's no truth of the matter when it comes to ethics (or anything else, really).

So you can see how a realist has pulled a lot more rope out to hang herself with. Realists are much more interesting, but more prone to saying bizarre things like: leaders should break the rules, but be sorry for it.

A lot of the people "canceled" by cancel culture actually resigned due to public uproar. They weren't fired per se, so I don't think you're grappling with the main problem. It's public intolerance and the vulnerability of a university, newspaper, etc. to public anger.

Or it can just be a social media thing. Richard O'Brien has been pretty thoroughly attacked for his opinion that trans women can't be real women.

So let's squash the composer of "Sweet Transvestite" because he didn't say what we wanted to hear.

It's that kind of nonsense. The opposition to cancel culture (the sane part of it anyway) is saying we really need to grow the psychological muscles necessary for listening to a view we don't like.

OK. You were talking about rights, tho. Strictly speaking, the ability to fire people is property rights.

The first issue Walzer ponders is whether there really is such a thing as an ethical dilemma. Some say no. Where people are more likely to say yes is in the area of governance. Sartre's character Hoerderer, asks "Do you think you can govern innocently?"

Walzer says: no.

True. Walzer is a political realist. I think realists of any kind venture further philosophically that a pragmatist could stomach.

Whenever the citizens see the dirty hands being applied they get angry and can destroy your image forcing you to just resign. — javi2541997

Walzer says a leader should earnestly and publicly demonstrate remorse, so the leader should basically destroy her own image.

I'm reading the article now (while I have access to jstor :wink:)

That's property rights (the employer's).

I'm basing my comment on the fact that there have been many reports of an imminent Russian attack, which has not materialized each time it was stated. It got to the point that the Ukrainian president told the West to tone it down, or it would increase tensions. — Manuel

You're right. We both look at the available facts and draw the conclusions that are most reasonable to us respectively. We're just coming to very different conclusions on this.