Comments

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank



    As usual, Mearsheimer manages to deliver a lucid take on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    I have echoed similar sentiments in this thread: Israel is paving the way to its own destruction, and apologizing for its misdeeds or cheering it on is simply going to expediate that process.

    Israel needs a radical change of course.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, [...]RogueAI

    That's what I'm trying to point out.

    One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't.

    Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

    A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

    Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    The writer does not understand the nature of international law.

    International law is a method of communication between states, and first and foremost a matter of credibility.

    One can interpret international law to fit their agenda all they want; given the amount of grey area and tension between articles that is hardly a challenge.

    The real question is whether the rest of the world finds that interpretation plausible, and in the case of Israel that is overwhelmingly not the case.

    It's not like "the police" would come and invade Israel to "arrest" Israeli politicians, even if they were convicted of war crimes. That's simply not how international law works.

    The rules and stakes in an international court are completely different. Contrary to a civilian court, what's at stake here is not punishment but credibility.

    Arguing technicalities and producing skewed interpretations of the law may save one from the former, but won't produce an iota of the latter.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Does the Western world have the moral fortitude to allow Israel to take the bloody but ethical steps to defeat Hamas?Shlomo M. Brody

    This sentence from the article reads like a bad joke.

    Anyone who speaks of moral justification while excusing the intentional of bombing refugee camps is a joke, and probably doesn't know what the term means.
  • The Idea That Changed Europe
    Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going?Athena

    When Rome fell, Europe was first sacked and then taken over by barbarians tribes that eventually settled and became the inheritors of the civilization.

    Near the tail end of this process, the Viking age started, which roughly coincided with the creation of Islam which posed yet another round of grave threats to Europe from nearly every direction.

    It is only around the 11th and12th century that the aforementioned inheritors manage to stabilize the situation and European society could start to flourish again.

    But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started.

    All in all, it's not so strange Europe entered a Dark Age.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Nationalism doesn't exist, and we're just one big happy family?

    You're starting to bend yourself at fascinating angles.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country.Sir2u

    Which is clearly a nationalist sentiment, and Churchill was clearly a nationalist.

    I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

    You seem to be unaware of the nature of the things you're arguing and now you're trying to compensate with snark.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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:
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And then came the actions that Russia took, which forced even Finland and Sweden to change their course. You had to do a lot to change the stance these two countries had, actually.ssu

    Washington worked very hard for it. And they got what they wanted: a new set of lambs to sacrifice on the altar of American geopolitics.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    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.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Is that based on MORALITY or convenience?Sir2u

    IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that parties have agreed upon should be followed.

    It is underpinned by, among other things, moral reasoning, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument.

    Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, [...]Sir2u

    That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL.

    Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?Sir2u

    Sure.

    A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

    A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion.

    I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess.Sir2u

    Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

    Ok then...

    I guess I was right when I said we would probably have too little common ground for a fruitful discussion.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm.Sir2u

    And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin:

    Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
    Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

    Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes.
    Sir2u

    The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law.

    If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion.

    As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion.RogueAI

    I am not so sure whether I agree, since I believe there can be no moral obligation to do immoral things.

    If Winston cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a prime minister without breaking moral principles (which he probably cannot), then he has foolishly put himself into a double bind.

    Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps?RogueAI

    My position is whichever option he chooses, he is an immoral person, because he has foolishly taken upon himself responsibilities that require him to break moral principles.
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion?RogueAI

    Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?
  • Are War Crimes Ever Justified?
    The answer is no.

    First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.

    So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

    Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

    For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

    An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    I didn't mean to imply these policies were the only cause of atomization, but I believe they certainly are a big contributor.

    Social structure is underpinned by needs. The nanny state seeks to fulfill those needs with the purpose of making the individual less reliant on other individuals, but thereby making them more reliant on the state.

    This is seen as a desirable form of emancipation, which in my opinion it isn't.

    UBI would be a rather extreme manifestation of the nanny state.

    The reason I point it out is because atomization is often blamed on individualism, when it is in fact collectivism that causes it, as in the process of binding the individual to the state ("collective") it breaks apart social structures.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    I couldn't tell you, since I'm not much of a socialist myself.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    One thing I hear a lot being argued in favor of UBI, is that people experience less financial pressure.

    However, in a healthy society that is not a role the government should take on. In a healthy society, people form social bonds with friends, family and their wider community that provides them with a much more personal and robust safety net.

    Atomization (also mistakenly termed 'individualism'/'individualization') is a result of these types policies, because they seek to replace social bonds with government surrogates.

    It turns people isolated, needy and dependent on government, which (needless to say) isn't a desirable situation at all.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    If socialism wants to be effective at reducing poverty, it should focus on creating jobs and keeping the prices of basic needs low.

    UBI does neither, and seems like an economic Trojan horse to me.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by Silicon Valley's CEOs own opinion regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it.Shawn

    In that context it sounds like an awful idea.

    People becoming chronically reliant on modern governments is asking for trouble.

    I give it exactly one crisis before "universal" is replaced by "conditional".
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line.

    But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant?

    If the poor are so pissed off at the government that they need to be "pacified", that's probably a good signal that they shouldn't be pacified.
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    And we'll make the rich pay for it!

    Where have I heard this song before? :chin:
  • Does Universal Basic Income make socialism, moot?
    Paying taxes to pay your own income.

    Genius!
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I had ChatGPT provide me with a list of geopolitical events relevant to Ukraine.Benkei

    It is very odd that ChatGPT makes no mention of the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit (that preceded the Georgia war) and the 2014 coup d'etat (that preceded the annexation of Crimea).

    Smells like its algorithms are being tampered with.
  • Mindlessly Minding Our Own Business
    After all, a mentally as well as physically sound future should be EVERY child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter.FrankGSterleJr

    It's rather remarkable then that you're asking of them that they make half the world's problems their own.
  • Philosophy as a prophylaxis against propaganda?
    Propaganda is large-scale psychological manipulation. It leans more heavily on psychology than it does on philosophy, although the two fields can overlaps in certain places.

    Education and intelligence don't appear to be a good predictor of susceptibility.

    The antidote to propaganda is to know oneself better than the propagandist; and "to know oneself" is such a complicated and multi-faceted endeavor that I don't think it can be taught in a school environment.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Also, in case anyone missed it:

    Congress threatens ICC over Israeli arrest warrants

    In case the US wasn't done making itself into a complete international joke, it is now threatening the ICC to prevent it from serving justice on the matter of Gaza.

    One wonders what the US hopes to gain by disposing of what little credibility it had left, playing directly into the hands of the challenging powers.

    How can anyone take the US seriously after this?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran.ssu

    I agree, they would be shooting themselves in the foot internationally.

    But domestically it may look different, and when I talk about Biden's re-election chances I am referring to the domestic factors that may lead the US to declare war on Iran.

    If Biden refuses to side with Israel, there is a good chance the Israel lobby will favor another candidate. Trump, or even Kennedy.

    Or perhaps they will give no one public support, which will likely result in a Biden defeat as well since his chances are simply that poor.


    The problem the US is now running into is that, as things stand, there is no option besides Biden that keeps the neocons firmly in power.

    Kennedy and Trump may still be forced to do the neocon's bidding, but they will do so reluctantly.

    Both Kennedy and Trump are in their own ways calling for reform - reforms which would be a gigantic threat to the US establishment.


    So the US will again be between a rock and a hard place, having to choose between domestic stability and their geopolitical position.


    Normally I would argue that their geopolitical position goes before domestic politics, but when it comes to the stability of the country and there is so much on the line, domestic stability basically becomes a geopolitical issue in and of itself.

    Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help.ssu

    I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows.

    Iran is instrumental to BRICS long-term economic stability as it occupies the geographical pivot between Asia and the Middle-East.

    France and the UK would play no role of significance. Iran is well-prepared for modern war, and France and the UK simply aren't. As things stand, even Israel would not be able to hurt Iran to any great degree.

    This is why all eyes are on the US when it comes to war with Iran.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Iran is definitely not looking to escalate.

    The West is weakening in the Middle-East, leaving ample room for Iran to expand its influence. They have no reason to want to go to war with Israel or the United States since the status quo favors them.

    It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances.
  • Politics and Current Affairs - and the Lounge
    I'd be in favor of it, but only if the threads are properly moderated for low-quality content.

    Right now, these threads belong in the Lounge because the quality of the posts is, for a large part, dogshit.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    anti-Jew/Israeli anti-Semitism of the Middle-East runs deeptim wood

    Ah, and Israeli war crimes, mass slaughter and crimes against humanity somehow changes that situation for the better?

    And here I was, thinking that would make the situation much, much worse.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq.ssu

    Kuwait is not a great example to make your point. The Gulf War(s) were exactly the type of wars that were made possible by the unnatural state of unipolarity. They took place during the peak, in fact.

    Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East.

    Firstly because the actors in the Middle-East are, relatively speaking, much more powerful than they were 30 years ago,
    and secondly because the enemies of the US are much more powerful and ready to profit off the fact that the US would be bogging itself down in another war.

    This is why the US can't commit, for example to Ukraine, or to a war with Iran. They would be playing directly into the hands of the Chinese if they were to do that.

    What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.ssu

    I'm not sure what the significance is of this, but sure with this I can agree.