Predicting war, preventing war

Reply to Vishagan I don't agree with this. You're not immoral just because you're factually wrong. Morality is judged largely, but not entirely, upon intent. So, if your intent is to save a child from a burning building and you throw them out the window, break all sorts of their bones, but later learn the fire didn't pose the risk you assessed, I wouldn't treat you the same as a crazed child thrower, who throws children from windows for sport.

That's not to say you get to throw children from windows as long as you have a good faith basis for doing it, but I'd expect some amount of careful deliberation, considering the consequences.

In your example of wat, which seems to be an alternative spelling of war, I would say you have a right to preemptive action if it can be rationally justified in terms of protecting against risk. You will be judged later upon what information you had, what you could still reasonably obtain, what other options there were, etc. Considering the consequences of war, morality would demand a high level of investigation and deliberation, but I can't buy into the view that if your factual assessment is imperfect, then you're per se immoral.

The solution for war is as simple as it is, I feel, idiotic. The OP seems to be approaching the problem under the assumption that the zero point is we can wage wars and then not to. I'd say we simply disarm ourselves to the point that war would mean punching, kicking, pulling out the hair of your opponents. The casualty rates will be ridiculously low. :snicker:

Reply to Hanover Ok we do have to judge a state by its intent. I just want to clear up a question that could arise as a consequence. This is the problem of measuring bad or good intent. If an intent of a person is assigned merely through their confession in other words what they say, they have every incentive to make a false confession. We can also not read that persons mind which is another option if that were to be possible. What is left is the Evaluation of a persons intent through considering their action in relation to the available information they had.

If this method is used to evaluate intent and then morally judge any given subject, then there will be a great disparity in the effort to act morally than if intent was to be measured by other possible means.

Didn't some war (external and internal) free men (and perhaps women) used to say : love thy neighbor? Whatever happened to that dictum? We need some christian friends on this thread.

On second thoughts, my mistake. The dictum has been advocated by many 'deep thinkers'. Christians don't have a copyright on it.

Reply to Vishagan
It's easy to predict war, just look which country buys most gold.

Russia for ex. was buying a lot of gold in recent years.

With modern spy satellites its easy peasy to predict war - troop & armor mobilization, a necessity, can be detected months in advance. So, guys & gals, we can stop asking the so-called war experts, they're useless. All you have to do is turn your eye in the sky (if you have one :snicker: ) towards the borders and ... all will be revealed.

Quoting Vishagan

this method is used to evaluate intent and then morally judge any given subject, then there will be a great disparity in the effort to act morally than if intent was to be measured by other possible means.

We must decipher intent from behavior. That's all we can ever do. That's how criminal trials are conducted thousands of times a year.

Remember that the decision to go to war stems from one issue. It's not a guessing game. One issue. That's all it takes.

Quoting Hanover

You're not immoral just because you're factually wrong.

[quote=SEP (Ethics of belief)]Clifford's essay is chiefly remembered for two things: a story and a principle. The story is that of a shipowner who, once upon a time, was inclined to sell tickets for a transatlantic voyage. It struck him that his ship was rickety, and that its soundness might be in question. Knowing that repairs would be costly and cause significant delay, the shipowner managed to push these worries aside and form the “sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy.” He sold the tickets, bade the passengers farewell, and then quietly collected the insurance money “when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales” (1877, 70).

According to Clifford (who himself once survived a shipwreck, and so must have found this behavior particularly loathsome), the owner in the story was “verily guilty of the death of those men,” because even though he sincerely believed that the ship was sound, “he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him.” Why did he have no such right? Because, says Clifford, “he had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts” (1877, 70). After making this diagnosis, Clifford changes the end of the story: the ship doesn't meet a liquid demise, but rather arrives safe and sound into New York harbor. Does the new outcome relieve the shipowner of blame for his belief? “Not one jot,” Clifford declares: he is equally guilty—equally blameworthy—for believing something on insufficient evidence.

Clifford goes on to cite our intuitive indictments of the shipowner—in both versions of the story—as grounds for his famous principle:

(Clifford's Principle) “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”[/quote]

What about ignorantia juris non excusat?

Reply to Vishagan When hatred and contempt are normalized, it's only a question of time before there will be a war.