RogueAIMay 08, 2024 at 23:434975 views439 comments
Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion.
Justified, maybe.
But what is the difference between gas and killing a bunch of people with a big bomb that might only kill a few of them immediately and leave a lot more suffering their wounds before they die or even living a life of suffering for years after?
[It seems extremely incongruous that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could ever be justified or excused by defensive force self-defence, defence of others and defence of property. Nonetheless, art 31(1)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codifies defensive force as a ground for excluding criminal responsibility
A better question is whether the Bombing of Dresden was justified something that actually happened.
The targeted murder of thousands of civilians was justified?
Hamburg was a strategically important city to Germany. Britain's bombing campaign forced Germany to devote resources to flak guns, divert fighters away from the Eastern Front, and placate Stalin. In 43, this was essential to winning the war. Dresden was just overkill.
Reply to Lionino Goebbels asked the Germans if they wanted total war. They enthusiastically said yes. The Allies gave it to them, good and hard. Everything is fair game in total war.
As Arthur Harris said, "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
Turnabout is fair play. If someone uses poison gas against you, you are justified in using it against them. If they bomb your cities, theirs are fair game.
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.
BitconnectCarlosMay 09, 2024 at 16:45#9026920 likes
Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion.
If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.
Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos I think that's obvious. I think anyone in charge of England in the situation I outlined is going to use gas, no matter what they vote for here. They're not going to sacrifice England to the Nazi's to die on a moral hill. And as a practical matter, if Churchill refused to use gas and his generals believed it would be effective, he would have been replaced with someone who would use it.
Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified.
Well I already knew what this was about. You things think you are not brainwashed like the North Koreans but in fact you are worse. North Koreans are enlightened by comparison.
But excuse me while I watch 9/11 footage with popcorn on my hands because the Great Satan is evil as we can see from the aggression against Vietnam.
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 Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion?
Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?
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. Now, there are a couple hundred thousand Jews in the UK in WW2. Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I am not sure about this. Justification does not really belong in the realm of morality. Justified would mean that there are adequate reasons or motives to make an action reasonable. Morality is not always based on reasoning and quite often on vague concepts or beliefs.
If there are enough reasons to justify an action then a moral system can always be found to validate it.
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.
Since when has war been about the individual? Yes he could have found a better job, testing cigars for the Cubans possibly would have given him the life of contemplative seclusion you suggest.
But that does not change the fact that the bloody nazis were invading and there would still have to have been some poor chump of a prime minister in England that would have been forced to make the decision.
Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?
I have aspired to be a great pianist, but it aint gonna appen cause I be tone def.
I doubt that he ever seriously thought that he would live a moral life in politics, but I bet he tried his best.
After the allies started getting German coded messages through Enigma he had to make several serious decisions about how to use the info so as the Germans did not find out that they had cracked the code, many allied lives were lost because of not being able to use that information.
But I think that anyone, even you placed in that position would make the same choices from the bad options available.
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
A better question might be
"Is it justifiable to permit a group of people ruthlessly kill, kidnap, rape, torture and willfully cause great suffering to others by withholding permission to act in a necessary manner from those changed with the safety of those affected?"
Reply to Sir2u 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.
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.
I would have thought that having completely different ideas about a topic would make for an even more interesting topic. A discussion between two like minds rarely leads to new thoughts for either. :chin:
Justification:
Something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary
A statement in explanation of some action or belief
The act of defending, explaining or making excuses for by reasoning
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.
Reasonableness:
Goodness of reason and judgment
The quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person
Yes, well mankind is not famous for being the most reasonable of creatures or using his reasoning skills in adequate ways. His actions throughout history are ample proof of this. And as I already mentioned, anyone can find a version of morality that can allow them to sleep peacefully after their horrific actions. There are plenty of moral systems out there and you can always invent your own.
Justifying something is not about moral correctness but about having reasons and motives for ones actions. Whether those actions are morally admissible or reprehensible has nothing to do with the actual reasoning behind the actions.
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.
Let us ask another question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zooming in to individual persons, can homicide be justified? Self-defense is typically said to justify killing in some or many cases, where are the boundaries, though? (In general, there are all kinds of odd cases to consider.)
Can such, or similar, justification be applied when zooming out to societies? Societies also encompass individuals. Boundaries...? Initiators carry significant responsibility, they're just not always easy to identify, which can be (is) abused. The attackers?defenders relationship is asymmetrical, attackers choose for both, defenders can't choose otherwise.
Warring has already parted ways with (self)constraint in marked ways, that notions of war crimes then have to contend with. Giving up on the ethics doesn't help though. War crimes are unjustified (at least illegal) as per definition, yes?
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
Is throwing a plane into Wall Street and the Pentagon justified by the evil ways of Yankees in the Middle East then?
BitconnectCarlosMay 11, 2024 at 17:24#9031460 likes
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
:100:
Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.
Reply to Benkei If you're Churchill, and the Germans are about to invade, and you have good intelligence they're completely unprepared for a gas attack, you would honor the Geneva conventions rather than gas the Nazi's and save the country and hundreds of thousands of Jews?
The Nazis also had their own rationale to do what they did everybody does and everybody did, the exception are psychopaths but those get arrested after the first few murders. This conversation about international law degenerates into "what is the right thing to do?" and people want to bring mutable laws signed by nameless (often ignorant) politicians instead of actually proving their case instead, they paint whoever as evil and go from there.
This mode of thought is very particular of the Anglosphere, and by the site's userbase we see why it manifests so often in the lounge. The French are evil, the Germans are evil, the Japanese are evil, the communists are evil [hide="Reveal"](this one wasn't too far off)[/hide], the Russians are evil, the Arabs are evil, and now we see lots of "the Chinese are evil" talk. It is only them who are good, and the good guys always win (except all the times their side got beat, but it was more of a "strategic retreat"). And from there every sort of wickedness follows. It is a very anti-philosophical and pernicious mode of thought.
BitconnectCarlosMay 12, 2024 at 02:35#9032550 likes
The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.
Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.
Reply to BitconnectCarlosReply to Lionino Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." We can apply that to the Holocaust as well. Here's a litmus test for any moral theory: does it say the Nazi's were evil? No? Then that moral theory is a philosophical piece of shit.
Reply to RogueAI It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.
So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.
It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.
So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.
So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.
Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?
Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist.
I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading.
Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.
I never mentioned justice, only that I could justify my actions because it helped you.
NOTE TO SELF: I must remember not to help you if your dog bites you so as not to anger your sensibilities.
The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law.
Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.
If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no.
Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
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.
So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.
Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?
Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist.
We already know you have the moral backbone of a jellyfish so no need to come up with increasingly unrealistic mind games to try to break someone else's.
First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well.
Countries defending against such aggression are often only too keen to turn perfectly defensive wars in punitive expeditions afterwards. A sentiment that's as understandable as it's wrong.
To me, the moral character off my adversaries is irrelevant where it concerns activities I think are inherently wrong. This is the same argument that would lead to saying people who break the law should not be afforded legal representation, because they're bad people. I can see a lot of bad outcomes if we go this way - especially since half of the time such judgments are entirely the result of group-identity (tribalism, nationalism, patriotism etc.).
The likelihood of securing victory using immoral means is also irrelevant. In that case if I enter a cage fight and bring an Uzi then I should use it because I'm guaranteed to win. This is obviously ludicrous. Also, I'm not a utilitarian so these calculations make no sense to me.
I also think the conflation of Nazis with Germans, as people are wont to do with Hamas and Palestinians, is unfair to the non-Nazi Germans and the non-Hamas Palestinians. But your decisions (and therefore the way you look at "groups") certainly impacts what happens to a lot of innocent people.
But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity.
Reply to Sir2u I'm not sure I understand the question. To further explicate what I mean with the sentence I quoted: Law is not about morality. Statutes of limitation are not about fairness but economics. There are more things "not done" that are not legislated, which leads to all sorts of externalities that broader society has to (try to) fix.
I can do a lot of things within the law that I consider immoral. Like cheating on my wife. Being an absent father or even purposefully going out of my way to undermine my kids' confidence by blaming them for everything from bad weather to breaking a cup.
Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"?
BitconnectCarlosMay 12, 2024 at 17:16#9034210 likes
Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
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.
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.
Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"?
Sorry about that.
The original question is about justifying a person's acts, then morality pops its head up, then justice appears, then law.
While it is obvious that there are connections between these concepts it is difficult to get them into a clear picture.
Justifying ones acts means having facts, motives or reasons for them. But there is no specific reason for them to be morally acceptable.
Morality has to be based on sort of guiding concept, but not all morality is equally acceptable by everyone.
Justice is about judgement of actions and usually is after the fact, therefore not being part of the decision to take a particular action.
Laws would be the method of application of justices. Whilst probably being known before the action to be judged have nothing to do with morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past and some are still today, depending on ones version of morality.
Is there a real difference between moral justification and plain justification, or is it all just word play?
BitconnectCarlosMay 12, 2024 at 17:57#9034370 likes
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court :In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Taking of hostages;
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.
I will let you figure out how it applies to gang warfare. Oh, hang on. Maybe you have never experienced driveby's with bullets flying in all direction trying to hit the members that are stealing the drug customer of the guys in the car.
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.
Is there any FIRST PRINICLE that is not an opinion?
OK, you win.
I just hope that when you are assaulted in the street your possible life saver does not just walk away thinking that he will not be justified in assisting you by hitting the criminal on the head with a big stick.
Reply to Sir2u I would agree "facts, motives and reasons" are not necessarily moral justifications. They could be though. I can express the belief of the existence of a certain moral fact (murder is wrong), a moral motive (I wanted to do the right thing and helped the drowning man) and reasons (I stopped the crime because it was morally wrong), although where one ends and the other begins is probably not something we can really disentangle.
The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. Even if on a lot of other issues most of our moral intuitions and judgments probably coincide due to a shared cultural heritage.
And people feel like these are important discussions: morality is clearly interrelational, people are looking for affirmation and confirmation and, I think even, acceptance. We want to understand and be understood on some primary issues and often quite primal feelings like disgust or, the other side of the coin, admiration and worship. Unfortunately, nowadays, you will always find this online, so very little reason for people to actually investigate their moral intuitions. All this is more important than justifying buying pasta instead of potatoes at least. So, no, it's not just words I think. There's a lot more going on.
A bit rambling but hope that touches on what you wanted to talk about.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos That's what they call a false dichotomy because this rarely occurs in real life. 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.
BitconnectCarlosMay 12, 2024 at 19:08#9034630 likes
The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.
An idea I have had running through my head for a while, not exact on this topic but not too far from it either.
One of the things that for Muslims is supposed to be immutable is the behavior of women.
I have been watching the protests around the world of the Gaza supporters.
Right alongside the Arab women,(many of which fled their homelands because of laws forbidding them education and basic rights) in typical head scarfs are local women in shorts and crop tops with their heads uncovered.
I wonder if the extremists are sitting around watching the news and saying "Look, Allah has blessed us, even the western whores are protesting for us"
I am not try to be racist or even provoke ire amongst the people in the forum. It is just an honest thought.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos There's no fact of the matter but I try to have a more or less consistent approach to morality which is broadly informed by virtue ethics and the idea that empathy is more or less the nucleus of moral thinking in humans. I positively hate utilitarianism.
The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them.
Just as well you didn't live in India or Africa during the heyday of the British Empire.
First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well.
Yessss!!!
Nuclear missiles, too. And all of them are always justified, because somebody was always in danger from somebody for some reason that we don't go into.
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.
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.
Why does the mere existence of a villain remove moral agency?
Well, somebody is going to have to make that choice whether it's a single person or group of people together. My point is that these theoretical examples ignore the question of agency. This is most obvious when there's a powerful antagonist introduced that tells you either shoot one kid or I murder all 20 of them, as if that still allows for a moral choice. I think there's no moral choice possible because there's only the illusion of choice - instead it has already been decided for you that you're going to have to do something horrible.
It's the same when we're going to pretend there's a false dichotomy between two equally unpalatable choices: use immoral means to win a war by killing countless innocents or to lose the war from an unjust aggressor.
Reply to Benkei 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.
BitconnectCarlosMay 13, 2024 at 15:05#9036640 likes
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. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.
But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination.
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.
He could go anywhere, really. And so could his countrymen.
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?
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.
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.
I might agree with you if we're talking about someone forced into a leadership position. That's not the case here. Leaders almost always choose to get in the game in the first place. That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough.
If one doesn't have the spine to make hard moral choices, one should not get into politics. Wouldn't you agree?
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.
This is silly.
All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make.
Question: 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"?
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars.
As for there not being any forces applied, you are wrong. Circumstances are a major force in world affairs since mankind started to flourish.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, just because you disagree with his type of morality does not make him the bad guy.
That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough.
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.
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"?
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.
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type). First, abstaining from warcrimes simply doesn't hinder your ability fight a war successfully. Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants.
But the above thinking goes well with people who want revenge and who think that if the enemy kills civilians, then you have to give them "a message" by killing their civilians, a lot of them. Eye for an eye or perhaps more accurately 100 eyes for one eye. In similar fashion these people, usually who have not served in the military, think that not committing war crimes when the enemy does them means that somehow the military is soft and not harsh enough to counter such bloodthirsty foe. These ideas are quite ludicrous and typically show the total lack of understanding of modern warfare of those who given justification for war crimes.
Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No.
Reply to jorndoe 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.
If one wishes to be moral, one probably should avoid politics altogether.
You seem to be implying that politics necessarily leads to immorality, else why should one avoid it? Yet politics is necessary for society. Are you anti-society?
But the best form of self-defense is running away, or simply not getting into situations that might require one to defend oneself.
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.
Churchill and 'moral' don't really belong in one sentence. He was a pragmatic nationalist and not especially gentle in his methods, at home, in the empire or abroad.
Reply to RogueAI 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.
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.
The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants.
We're dealing with a hypothetical here posed by @RogueAI. Nor do rules created in the 1920s always maintain the same character that they did as years go on. These rules were created in the 20s, so I ask: Was it ok to use in WWI? I'll readily admit that gas is a nasty weapon and not something that I would use on the battlefield unless extraordinary circumstances. But I would say this qualifies as one.
In this scenario your country's (UK) beachfront is being stormed by Nazis. Intel says gas would be extremely effective - perhaps because they're not wearing gas protection or perhaps because a new type of gas has been synthesized.
There's also conventional means of resistance but we're not given much info as to Britain's capability here and we could envision a wide number of scenarios from futile to easily being able to ward them off. Obviously the more futile potential resistance is the greater the attraction is towards using gas. But the UK has lost air superiority here.
In broad strokes though, if a large Nazi invading force combined with air superiority landed on the British beachfront in '43 or '44 and I (the Prime minister) learned that gas would be extremely effective and I used it and it did prove extremely effective would I feel vindicated? Yes. My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.
If the invading force was small I would not use it though. I am only talking a very large, very serious invading force that would surely successfully invade otherwise.
But as a last resort, it might be rightfully be labeled a tragedy.
Hmm Can't quite figure out if that's a :down: or a don't know or a :up:
Leaning towards reading your comments as a :up: which is the most common anyway
Is my interpretation way off...?
In my old Dojo, we were taught: trouble ? run. :up:
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.
Whoever engineers the war sells it to the people who have to fight in it as self-defence (Israel's right to exist) or liberation (the American states' from British taxation) or regaining what is rightfully ours (Ukraine) The actual chain of causation and desired outcome are always concealed, as is the incompetence and short-sightedness through with which a government blundered into its military entanglements. Moral decisions rarely enter in.
My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.
How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts
responsibility is to my people and my country
in reverse order. What's left of the country being thus defended will not be known until afterward. Like the Coventry decision on a much larger scale.
BitconnectCarlosMay 14, 2024 at 15:59#9039280 likes
Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? With collateral damage that's a different scenario. I'm just trying to simplify.
This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type).
[ ... ]
Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No.
Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead?
That's the existential danger to Britain - massed units on a single unpopulated beach? Such an invasion could be repelled or contained by land/naval forces without risk to residents from a change in wind direction and residual poison left on the beach. I realize the question can be put in binary form, but reality never is that simple. This kind of example is always biased by artificial constraint that ignore factors relevant to an actual decision.
BitconnectCarlosMay 14, 2024 at 20:24#9039740 likes
Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics.
You are confused and confusing what I said. Let me write it slowly for you.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country.
As we have already mentioned, moral reasoning comes in many version. Churchill considered the different possible out comes of his actions and did what he thought best in REAL life. What he thought best to protect the millions of people under his charge.
Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion.
As in real life, in this imaginary scene he has a hard decision to make. If the use of gas is considered to be a deciding factor to stop the invasion then he must have been reasonable sure of losing the battle if he did not use it. That outcome would not have been morally acceptable to him therefore he would probable not doubt in using it.
But this is all speculation, because no one here actually knew the gentleman.
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method".
But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.
How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts
My dad told me that nearly all of the people in England had gas masks, so I doubt there there would be too much collateral damage.
And the reason everyone had them was that there was amply evidence that the nazis had gas and were prepared to use it. After all all they really needed was the territory and a lot of the people would have been exterminated or used as slave labor until they died.
Then how would it stop the enemy, who would presumably be more prepared for gas attack than the local peasants?
If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use.
But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.
That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality.
Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner.
Because how would implementing war crimes be "the only viable method"? How is that the only viable way? War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective. And warcrimes typically happen when the fighting force has huge discipline problems, especially when the armed force is not an organized army, but simply an armed mob. Warcrimes are typical also to armies with soldiers that are treated as cannon fodder. A bit different is then states that have genocidal objectives (like the Third Reich). As I've said earlier, the effectiveness of the idea of making a desert and calling it peace has been understood from Antiquity, but also the rejection of this strategy comes from that time too. The question of justification has been clear since Antiquity: there is no moral justification for it.
The only possibilities that come to my mind of "the only viable method" are totally morally objectionable scenarios, typically dictatorships with little support of the populace clinging on to power. Hence no moral grounds for this. Or then you believe in the ideas like Lebensraum from one Austrian mister H.
And this strategy actually has nothing to do with actual warfare of killing the enemy combatants and destroying the enemy itself, which is the stuff the laws of war are basically about (even if they have been enlarged to consider other things too). The Chinese can indeed have a genocidal program against the Uighurs (arbitrary detention, forced sterilization and abortion etc.), but these are not warcrimes because the Chinese military isn't fighting Uighurs in armed combat.
If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use.
Churchill himself advised to use mustard gas on Iraq rebels, so you don't have to assume here that Churchill would have had to be encouraged to use them on a hypothetical German beach head landing zone in 1940, if Operation Sea Lion would have gone through. I think he would have wanted to use them in that kind of dire situation. Of course I also think that mr Hitler would had no difficulties in ordering the Luftwaffe then to bomb London with chemical weapons: once the Allies used them, no reason why not to use them yourself! After all, Douhet, the father of the terror bombing strategy, thought prior to WW2 that strategic bombing should be done with a mixture of conventional bombs and fire bombs and then followed on with a chemical attack to prevent first responders from doing their job. Hence the common thought prior to WW2 that bombings of cities would be done also by chemical weapons. Just look at any photos of pre-WW2 that handle preparations for the common people against aerial bombing.
Notice that this is a bit of different question. Because here the question is of weapons that have been deemed "unlawful". There's a multitude of these "banned" weapons: chemical weapons, biological weapons, antipersonnel mines etc. which countries can either participate in banning or not. Yes, there was the Geneva Protocol of 1925 forbidding the use of chemical weapons, but actually even before WW1 the UK had signed a ban on chemical weapons. But once the Germans used chemical weapons in WW1, the UK had no problems of using them itself.
The simple question here is the futility of such an attack: the German soldier carried all time during WW2 the gas mask, if you've seen photos of German troops from WW2. And btw Germany had the largest quantity of chemical weapons during WW2, the allies actually didn't have a similar stockpile. It's not a miracle weapon, which all sides knew.
German WW2 canisters for the gasmasks:
It might be handy when the enemy has no gas masks, like the Ethiopians didn't have when Mussolini attacked them.
(An Ethiopian with burns from chemical agents during the Italian-Abyssinian war in 1936)
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.
So when a christian does what he considers the best he can do to protect his family and kills the people attacking them it is a religious sentiment. No it is animal survival instinct, look after the pack, herd, tribe.
Just because Churchill had a bigger family does not make it a nationalist sentiment, he did not make the decisions he made just because he was British but as the person responsible for the people he was in charge of.
It started as an implausible situation and has continued throughout as one. What if questions usually have that characteristic.
Okay. But some are more fantastical than others. The answer to this particular one: Yes, he'd probably use whatever means he considered effective; he would not be hampered by moral considerations. His biographers would justify it, regardless of collateral damage or harm to British citizens, and continue to hold him up as a hero. It was the nation and the empire he served; the common people were not 'his family'.
That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality.
Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions.
One of those conditions is the one I specified as its use being the ONLY possible method, in which I stated that I consider that he would be justified in using it.
There are many other possible scenarios, but here I am not making any statements about them.
War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective.
I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon.
Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner.
It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon.
If it is actually the ONLY method, then there is no other option. Key word ONLY.
If the world, due to some natural disaster, reached a point where there were few people left and the only way to continue the human race was to force people to breed as much as possible even if they were against the idea. Should the human race be allowed to become extinct? Or would it be immoral to force women to have babies?
Please remember that morality is a social construct based on the needs of the society it serves.
EErr, and just who are the nation and the empire? Surely they are the people?
No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation. As for the empire, the people who live there are of far less significance. Individually and in very large numbers, they can be sacrificed for the crown, the state and the empire. These are quite distinct entities in the world-view of a monarchist head of state.
No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation.
Were do you live? The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people. That is why people get elected to be national leaders, so that the nation can serve the people.
I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them
Everything is allowed when it comes to self-defense, but bombing civilian targets because it improves the chances of winning a war is several jumps away from self-defense.
Here's a litmus test for any moral theory: does it say the Nazi's were evil? No? Then that moral theory is a philosophical piece of shit.
First it was Germans, then Nazis, when pressed further, you will change the script to the say the ideology is evil instead. But the comments defending the murder of German civilians will remain. Funny.
The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people.
Spoken like a true nationalist. Except, of course, the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity at the exclusion of other more universal principles, which principles are sacrificed on the altar of injustice.
the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity
And while saying this you keep repeating that the nation is not the people? Who makes up the ethnic or cultural groups if it is not the people? Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation?
Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation?
The people are loyal to the monarch and aristocracy, the pope and high clergy, the populist demagogue, the warlord, the caliph, the ayatollah, the governor, the chieftain, the general, the company, the regiment... The rulers are loyal to their own power structure. They do the plotting and declaring; the people do the fighting and dying.
I think the points raised in this article might help ground this debate in some more concrete ethical viewpoints during wartime. One might disagree with this author, I can see many points for debate, but I wanted to present it as a good starting place to help bring up important points about war.
Here is the article:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2024/03/92928/
Reply to schopenhauer1
Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice? There are more terrorist enclaves in Turkey, Russia, India, Malaysia, South America, Africa.... I wonder who'll be left to benefit from all that lasting peace.
However, he collateral damage I referred to was British civilians and livestock and fish - "the people" who were being defended and their food sources. One assumption that the Germans, if they had the chance, would kill everybody anyway - something that didn't happen in the countries they occupied. That's a more difficult moral choice than sacrificing potential foreign enemies. But Churchill proved himself capable of making that choice, so there is no doubt of his resolve.
The moment-by-moment tactics are one ethical consideration. The long-term strategy is another. A third, which is a moot point in the heat of a military campaign, but nevertheless relevant for future consideration, is how the state of affairs came about that produced this particular crisis. We could ask that regarding Israel's unending hostilities, and the Middle East in general. We could even ask why there are so many terrorists and what conditions, besides killing lots and lots of people, could be altered to produce fewer instead of more.
Reply to Sir2u It's all in what I wrote. Maybe quote the whole thing and read it again? National identity is bullshit. It's not about the people at all. Just random lines on a map. Us vs. Them. Excuses for atrocities.
Reply to Sir2u It conveniently ignores ius ad bellum and goes straight to ius in bello. He's also applying a doctrine developed for states to non-state actors. And it's obviously a piece written by someone written an agenda - justifying Israeli war crimes.
It's not that the West has forgotten about collateral damage being sometimes acceptable under ius in bello but that Israeli violence is disproportionate and that the ill intent and targeting of civilians is by now well documented.
Here's an actual analysis instead of this opinion piece:
Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice?
As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf.
Is no one in Gaza telling them to stop being terrorists or is it that no one is listening to their pleas to stop?
Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved.
After this brief survey of the Just War Tradition we can conclude the following six criteria regarding Ius ad Bellum:
1) right authority; meaning the supreme authority, which cannot turn to a higher authority
2) just cause; of which are identifiable, self-defence, defence of a friend or ally, wars of recovery both immediate and after some time, self-determination and finally humanitarian intervention; no punitive wars are allowed
3) right intention; an authority should have as its aim the common good of all involved although the particular good of its own community may outweigh such considerations; the intention to kill is lawful for a public authority
4) last resort; all other means to solve the conflict must have been tried and failed
5) reasonable chance of success; before waging a war an authority must surmise whether a war will be successful for otherwise he will waste the lives of its citizens
6) proportionality; the evils let loose by war should be proportionate to the evil avoided or the better peace attained
Let us suppose the the objective of Israel is to rid the world of a terrorist group that defines itself as representatives of a country.
1. Who can get rid of Hamas? I have not heard of any other authority including the ones in the country they claim to represent offering to do the job.
2. I can think of a couple of things on that list that would cover the situation.
3. Getting rid of the terrorist group would be of benefit to even the people they claim to represent.
4. I am sure that they have tried other means of stopping people killing their people
5. Unless third parties actually intervene I see no reason why success is not a sure thing. And I do not see to many rushing to aid the terrorists.
6. If this method eliminates the terrorists and allows for peace then I am sure other groups will fear the same methods being used against them. The world could actually become a nice place.
Now lets apply it to the OP
1. Churchill was the highest authority, there was no one else he could have passed the decisions on to.
2. Again there are several options here.
3. Defeating the nazi war machine at any cost would benefit the whole world, except those that started the action.
4. No way out of the hole they were in. The bad guys did not want anything but war.
5. As stated in the OP, there was a good chance of success.
6. Again, ridding the world of the bad guys at that moment would halt further evil and make it easier to obtain peace.
As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf.
And for that, they should die? I respectfully disagree. Quoting Sir2u
Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved.
Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism.
Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea?
Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism.
I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success.
Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future.
As one of the best know acts of terrorism, maybe you could start with 9/11.
Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea?
Oh dear, don't you think that maybe it would be unreasonable and immoral to do something like that? Just think of all of the [s]prisoners[/s] innocent people that live in North Korea, it is not their fault that their leader is an ugly twat.
But there again, I have not heard about how they have tried to get rid of him by staging mass revolution or just shooting the ugly mother. So maybe it would be justifiable to do it to get rid of one more dictator. Just make it is small enough that it does the minimum amount of damage possible.
Disclaimer: To the north Korean hackers; the writing contained in this post is for the enjoyment of the readers and in no way is meant as an insult to any world leaders.
Reply to Sir2u You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid.
You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid.
I am sure that they have lots of other weapons that are just as effective but less damaging. But if not, let the bad birds fly.
On second thoughts, they will need to send at least one to nail the boss man, and he will probably have a lot of people around him. Let em rip, or is it R.I.P.?
Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future.
I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. You, as well as the world leaders in control, can read the effects of past foreign policy decisions for yourself.
Reply to Sir2u Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison. Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again.
Does the Western world have the moral fortitude to allow Israel to take the bloody but ethical steps to defeat Hamas?
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.
Reply to RogueAI A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well.
We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions.
And therefore yes, someone that has advise the use of chemical weapons makes it clear how he does value the weapon system. It is worth mentioning in this purely hypothetical situation.
And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc).
I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon.
Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?
Besides, my point was that arguing about individual weapon systems goes quite off the mark here: if you use napalm, white phospherous, thermobaric weapons, mustard gas or so isn't the main issue here. Because you surely can use conventional high explosives, ordinary bullets quite irresponsibly and commit heinous war crimes with them too. Let's not forget that genocides have been done with a cheap pesticide and in Ruanda with machetes. It is something similar of the Pope calling for the limitation of the crossbows only to be used against the infidels and not fellow Christians, a rather hypocrite act of morality. Hence in my view arguing about the lawfulness of certain weapon systems simply drifts the focus from the obvious: how and in what manner are the weapon systems used. Yet the general thing here is that if the enemy commits warcrimes, then that doesn't give you the right to do the same, and warcrimes aren't a way to success in the battlefield (hence you can be victorious even without committing warcrimes).
Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner.
It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon.
As pointed earlier by others, a far better example for this thread would have been the actual terror bombings that happened. At least there Bomber Command Arthur Harris knew well that if the Allies lost the war, he would be in court for war crimes. Again, what I'm against is the whole wording of the problem of warcrimes as being the only option, or in the example using banned weapons systems as the only viable option. There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? It simply is questionable. Just as is the hypothetical idea that women don't want to start families, so forced sex is the "only viable method". Especially when the cost effectiveness of chemical weapons on the battlefield and the deterrence of simply chemical weapons possibly existing within the stockpiles of the enemy made somebody like Hitler not to use them. That should tell a lot about the effectiveness of chemical weapons on the 20th Century battlefield.
Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned.
A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well.
So that's a "yes", then. You would use a gun against an enemy with no weapons. In your words, "categorically disproportionate".
Reply to Sir2u
I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict.
Walzers approach is well-intentioned but misguided. It repeats the same error made by many contemporary ethicists: prioritizing individual human rights to override other values. In this particular example, Walzer errs in two critical ways: 1) neglecting the obligation to protect ones own citizens, combatants and noncombatants alike, from attacks on them; and 2) neglecting the associative duties that a country owes to its own brethren, including its own soldiers. To understand the point, lets focus again on the common dilemma Walzer and Margalit reference:
Violating international law, Hamas launches mortars from the neighborhood toward a town in Israel. The IDF commander has two options: seek aerial support to bombard suspicious houses in the neighborhood, or order his subordinates to take the neighborhood house by house.
The advantage of the first option, using aerial support, is that it provides not only greater soldier safety, i.e., protection from risk of capture, injury, or death, but also velocity. Israel should stop the mortar attacks as soon as possible; otherwise, its civilians will continue to suffer. By failing to immediately halt these attacks with aerial fire, Israel would be prioritizing enemy citizens over its own citizens.
Israels citizenry, moreover, might not tolerate high body-bag counts from house-to-house combat and demand to end it prematurely. Indeed, over the past few decades, heads of leading democracies like Britain, France, and the United States have changed their military plans because of waning popular support following troop casualties. Morale among soldiers, moreover, regularly decreases when the troops feel their lives are being overly jeopardized. As one Israeli soldier lamented, Were like pizza delivery boys who have to come right to the door of the terrorists houses. This is clearly a problem.
The decision to place soldiers at greater risk might also endanger the efficacy of the entire defensive mission. For this reason, countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand signed the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention (AP/1) treaty while insisting that force protection, i.e., actions taken toward protecting troops, must be taken into account when weighing the proportionality of a given action. (The U.S. and Israel never signed AP/1, in part because of these concerns.)
NATO, in fact, relied primarily on aerial strikes during its intervention in Yugoslavia while flying its planes at higher altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire. This protected the lives of soldiers and gained popular support at home, but it probably increased collateral damage, including incidents like the one in Korisa described earlier. The decision to fly high received much condemnation from philosophers, but citizens and soldiers lauded it.
The IDFs decision in 2008 to send soldiers to fight house-to-house, moreover, fails to consider that those soldiers are also citizens. They are civilians in uniform sent on behalf of the state. Yes, we send them to fight to protect their fellow citizens. This makes them liable to attack by the enemy, but that does not mean that the state that sent them can neglect their security. On the contrary, the state that sent them to fight must constantly justify why it is endangering them. The state bears special duties toward its citizens and agents alike. Force protection, in other words, is a deep moral obligation. There is no compelling reason why the state should jeopardize soldiers lives to save the terrorists neighbor.
The lead author of the IDFs first code of ethics, Professor Asa Kasher, and the former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, General Amos Yadlin, have repeatedly emphasized this point, including in a pointed exchange with Walzer and Margalit. Israeli forces, they argued, should try to separate enemy noncombatants from fighters. After that, not only is the state no longer obligated to endanger the lives of its own soldiers to attempt to further such a separation, it is forbidden from doing so.
They further argued, compellingly but with great controversy, that the IDF Code of Ethics demanded only that soldiers do all that they can to avoid harming noncombatants. This does not include risking their lives and those of their comrades. A very distinguished group of Israeli philosophers lined up to disagree. Yet Kasher correctly held his ground. When push comes to shove, brother trumps other.
This doesnt mean that we allow the army to protect its soldiers by carpet bombing the enemy nation and indiscriminately killing. That strategy may (or may not) stop the mortar fire, but it would treat the enemy civilians as disposable means to achieving the end of protecting our own. Moreover, it would negate our attempt to balance the values of communal defense and loyalty with respecting the inherent dignity of all humans.
Yet at some point, these values can conflict. Choices must be made. At this stage, we should prioritize the safety of our brethren at the expense of increased enemy collateral damage. Not because we appreciate the divine image of all human beings any less, but because we value our filial responsibilities even more.
Reply to schopenhauer1 This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group.
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.
Reply to Benkei
This isn't addressing the author's position on duty to one's own citizens versus duty to the enemy's citizens, so I find this comment irrelevant.
The writer does not understand the nature of international law.
I'm not sure the writer is completely commenting on law as much as ethics, which could be the basis of the laws or perhaps ways of applying them. It's a bit of both.
Reply to schopenhauer1 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.
Reply to Tzeentch
I was referring to the article I was quoting that relates ti the ethics of war. Clearly the debate is about collateral damage and the article gets to the heart of the current conflict and perhaps gives insights into some thinking on the matter. It is more nuanced way to answer the OP.
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.
This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, and since we're talking about WW2...suppose Nazi Germany had a law requiring people to report the whereabouts of any Jews that were hiding. Tzeentch, if you were a citizen in Nazi Germany, would you follow that law?
A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well.
Suppose a woman is being raped and strangled. She has a gun and the only shot available to her is a headshot. Furthermore, she also knows the rapist is a neighbor in the grips of a drug-induced psychosis brought on by an unforeseen reaction to a prescription drug, and is therefore "innocent" by reason of insanity. You would condemn her if she shot the innocent person in the head to save herself?
Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute.
You think that's implausible??? Let's suppose you were kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist... stupid, right? How did it ever get published?
First it was Germans, then Nazis, when pressed further, you will change the script to the say the ideology is evil instead. But the comments defending the murder of German civilians will remain. Funny.
This was not about bombing Germany, but about litmus tests for moral theories. If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?
I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding.
I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding.
I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track?
If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote.
I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track?
Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? Or that we should pretend to know nothing about how things work, for the sake of a question the answer to which has no effect on anything?
If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote.
Why bother?
I think the concept of ethics and ethical behaviour exist in a realm of real events and people. I see no point in making up these far-fetched scenarios, when there are plenty of examples to contemplate in the world we actually inhabit, where we actually have to make ethical decisions and judge other people who make them.
Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously?
Yes. Why do you think Trolley Car is so popular? Or Thomson's violinist analogy? Or Plato's allegory of the cave? They're totally absurd and people will be talking about them a thousand years from now. It's like reading a good fiction book. Some suspension of disbelief is required.
Let's just do that then. I'm up for discussing novels.
But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower.
This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, [...]
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.
Reply to schopenhauer1 which highlights your own ignorance and shows you just squarely walking in the trap of acceptance of the premise that Israel is on the just side of this war. It isn't. As a result all military action is tainted by the unjust cause and there cannot be just military action to begin with. It's therefore supremely relevant: it needs to be resolved before you can even get into this debate. But you need to actually know about the just war tradition to realise this.
That's why I shared my own analysis of the just war tradition because it's an analysis entirely separated from any actual conflict and doesn't have an axe to grind for any international actor.
If a moral theory concludes the US is not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?
For a lot of it's history, yes. But you didn't answer my question: "If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?"
One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't.
Ok, but what about my question? You're a citizen of Germany in 1942. Do you follow the law and turn in the hiding Jews?
Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.
Suppose slavery still existed and all the countries got together and agreed that escaped slaves should be returned to their countries of origin. However, 20 years after signing the agreement, Russia has an epiphany and bans slavery. Escaped slaves flock to Russia. Should Russia follow the international agreement they signed 20 years ago and return the slaves?
But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower.
You mean like being kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist? That's one of the most preposterous thought experiments ever. Does that stop you from thinking about the morality of the situation?
I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions.
If you have a point to make, make it.
If your point is that Israel commiting crimes against humanity is morally equivalent to people opposing Nazism or slavery, you're obviously off your rocker.
As a result all military action is tainted by the unjust cause and there cannot be just military action to begin with.
Its a war of self-defense. They were attacked brutally and are responding to the group that did it. The question becomes how to handle collateral damage. The article I provided was answering it a certain way. The part I was interested in was when considering collateral damage, how much do you weigh your own citizens versus the civilians on the other side. There are a lot of nuances there for example Citizens, soldiers, and things such as this, but you would actually have to read the premises there and then evaluate.
Really? You can't take Searle's Chinese Room seriously? Mary's Room? The Experience Machine? The Transporter Problem? The Utility Monster? You just mentally shut down when you hear stuff like that?
Reply to schopenhauer1 It's not a war of self defence. It's conquest and has been for decades.
As to weighing one group of civilian lives above others or even your own soldiers, this goes against everything any universal morality would stand for. So, I don't find it interesting at all. Just glaringly an argument for the sake of opportunity.
As to weighing one group of civilian lives above others or even your own soldiers, this goes against everything any universal morality would stand for. So, I don't find it interesting at all. Just glaringly an argument for the sake of opportunity.
I think whatever your own Benkei ideas on it to suit your own argument, it is THE argument at hand and would like an actual philosophical answer rather than a treatise on everything you know related to Just War theory or dismissive frothing at the mouth ad homs and poo poos. You see, I am not an international agency, nor am I anything to you except someone on a philosophy forum.. Your invective towards interlocutors is not warranted.
"If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?"
Yes.
With the disclaimer that moral theories shouldn't make moral judgements over whole societies that ranged over many years. Because of that, the more appropriate answer to both my and your question is that it doesn't apply.
With the disclaimer that moral theories shouldn't make moral judgements over whole societies that ranged over many years.
But moral theories can make judgements about the policies those nations carried out, such as Manifest Destiny or the Holocaust, and if those policies are/were widely supported by the peoples of those nations, can those societies also be judged? 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?
There's a glaringly obvious philosophical point which I made and you chose to ignore.
If you're referring to the war of conquest thing, then that's not really a philosophical point as a chance to rehash the whole conflict which we have done many times here.
Reply to schopenhauer1 No. I'm talking about the article. The idea that morality gives a shit about borders is dumb as fuck. There's no difference in the moral value of innocent Israelis or innocent Palestinians and it's an affront to the just war tradition to pretend it has room to be interpreted that way.
Edit: the argument for opportunity is the article's author BTW.
I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort.
All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently. I suppose that if you do not have any thoughts on the topic you brought up it says a lot about the things you have said so far.
Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison.
How so, their intention is to get rid of a political party called hamas. They did not decide to eradicate hamas until the attack. They tried to live with them before that.
#6 they might have gone too far, but we are sitting far away from the fishbowl and cannot see the complete picture they have. Would you walk into a place were there are a lot of dangerous people trying to kill you while hiding amongst women and children?
If, from their point of view, this is the only way left to put an end to the evils of hamas, then who am I to say that they are wrong.
Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again.
I think that after such an attack it would be a normal response. The USA went after ISIS I believe after the attacks. There were fewer cases of lateral damage because the people from ISIS did not hide in peoples houses and hospitals.
I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict.
Me too. I think that if the bad guys in any situation put noncombatants in danger, then I am not responsible for their safety. And I would not risk my people lives to try and solve that problem.
This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group.
Have the Palestinians denied the claims that hamas represents them and their fight for freedom yet?
Reply to Benkei
The part I am most interested in what the author said here:
Walzers approach is well-intentioned but misguided. It repeats the same error made by many contemporary ethicists: prioritizing individual human rights to override other values. In this particular example, Walzer errs in two critical ways: 1) neglecting the obligation to protect ones own citizens, combatants and noncombatants alike, from attacks on them; and 2) neglecting the associative duties that a country owes to its own brethren, including its own soldiers. To understand the point, lets focus again on the common dilemma Walzer and Margalit reference:
Violating international law, Hamas launches mortars from the neighborhood toward a town in Israel. The IDF commander has two options: seek aerial support to bombard suspicious houses in the neighborhood, or order his subordinates to take the neighborhood house by house.
The advantage of the first option, using aerial support, is that it provides not only greater soldier safety, i.e., protection from risk of capture, injury, or death, but also velocity. Israel should stop the mortar attacks as soon as possible; otherwise, its civilians will continue to suffer. By failing to immediately halt these attacks with aerial fire, Israel would be prioritizing enemy citizens over its own citizens.
Israels citizenry, moreover, might not tolerate high body-bag counts from house-to-house combat and demand to end it prematurely. Indeed, over the past few decades, heads of leading democracies like Britain, France, and the United States have changed their military plans because of waning popular support following troop casualties. Morale among soldiers, moreover, regularly decreases when the troops feel their lives are being overly jeopardized. As one Israeli soldier lamented, Were like pizza delivery boys who have to come right to the door of the terrorists houses. This is clearly a problem.
The decision to place soldiers at greater risk might also endanger the efficacy of the entire defensive mission. For this reason, countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand signed the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention (AP/1) treaty while insisting that force protection, i.e., actions taken toward protecting troops, must be taken into account when weighing the proportionality of a given action. (The U.S. and Israel never signed AP/1, in part because of these concerns.)
NATO, in fact, relied primarily on aerial strikes during its intervention in Yugoslavia while flying its planes at higher altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire. This protected the lives of soldiers and gained popular support at home, but it probably increased collateral damage, including incidents like the one in Korisa described earlier. The decision to fly high received much condemnation from philosophers, but citizens and soldiers lauded it.
The IDFs decision in 2008 to send soldiers to fight house-to-house, moreover, fails to consider that those soldiers are also citizens. They are civilians in uniform sent on behalf of the state. Yes, we send them to fight to protect their fellow citizens. This makes them liable to attack by the enemy, but that does not mean that the state that sent them can neglect their security. On the contrary, the state that sent them to fight must constantly justify why it is endangering them. The state bears special duties toward its citizens and agents alike. Force protection, in other words, is a deep moral obligation. There is no compelling reason why the state should jeopardize soldiers lives to save the terrorists neighbor.
The lead author of the IDFs first code of ethics, Professor Asa Kasher, and the former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, General Amos Yadlin, have repeatedly emphasized this point, including in a pointed exchange with Walzer and Margalit. Israeli forces, they argued, should try to separate enemy noncombatants from fighters. After that, not only is the state no longer obligated to endanger the lives of its own soldiers to attempt to further such a separation, it is forbidden from doing so.
They further argued, compellingly but with great controversy, that the IDF Code of Ethics demanded only that soldiers do all that they can to avoid harming noncombatants. This does not include risking their lives and those of their comrades. A very distinguished group of Israeli philosophers lined up to disagree. Yet Kasher correctly held his ground. When push comes to shove, brother trumps other.
This doesnt mean that we allow the army to protect its soldiers by carpet bombing the enemy nation and indiscriminately killing. That strategy may (or may not) stop the mortar fire, but it would treat the enemy civilians as disposable means to achieving the end of protecting our own. Moreover, it would negate our attempt to balance the values of communal defense and loyalty with respecting the inherent dignity of all humans.
Yet at some point, these values can conflict. Choices must be made. At this stage, we should prioritize the safety of our brethren at the expense of increased enemy collateral damage. Not because we appreciate the divine image of all human beings any less, but because we value our filial responsibilities even more.
Whatever people's views of this conflict are, THIS seems to be the main justification for the bombardments in Gaza. Where is the balance between protecting one's own troops through killing from "afar", versus sending in troops door-by-door, guaranteeing the killing of one's own citizens.
What seems to be the sentiment here of some is that war can only take place in hypothetical spaces where troops can fight it out. Of course, Hamas doesn't allow for that. It has built a large infrastructure to hid within under civilians. So the empasse of whether to get the targets amongst the civilians or to send groundtroops to try to pinpoint them..
This brings up issues of protecting one's own brethren/family/people versus anothers when in a war of self-defense (preventing a group from repeatedly harming your country)..
There are several ethical frameworks here..
Social-contract theory provides a justification that states have obligations to its own citizens to protect them. One presumably can extend this even in times of war that, while international law considerations apply, one still must uphold one's obligations to one's own citizens above and beyond others when protecting lives.
Basic filial piety ethical considerations like the "lifeboat scenario" are relevant here. If a ship was sinking and all things being equal, you had to save your own family members versus strangers, what do you do? Obviously, discounting one's own brethren as having some moral weight would seem off in some ethical sense. People are people are people, but to pretend one doesn't have obligations for one's own relations is to dishonor what it even means to have relations.. or so one might argue.
Not to mention this is just psychological.. One's brethren/countrymen presumably are part of one's own survival, so by extension, one's own family/brethren/countymen would be a self-preservational response to a threat. This can be considered a natural phenomenon of ethical concern.
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.
All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently.
I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother. The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism (When states, including powerful empires with gigantic armies and unlimited ordnance, indulge in terror against weaker opponents, it's called something else - maybe even counter-terrorism) is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat.
When imperialist forces invade a country, or support a rival's aggression against a country, a whole lot of people killed, maimed, bereaved, displaced and very upset. When the incursion is done by a vastly more power enemy who then attempts to govern that conquered nation with little or no regard for its culture and customs, upset turns to resentment. Over time, resentment festers in localized postules of hate and rage that periodically erupt in violence.
Destabilize a region, it tends to be unstable for quite a long time.
Really? You can't take Searle's Chinese Room seriously? Mary's Room? The Experience Machine? The Transporter Problem? The Utility Monster? You just mentally shut down when you hear stuff like that?
No, I don't 'shut down'. I question the basis of the example, its relevance to real life, its constraints and its aims. Having thought about it, I then decide whether to take it seriously, dismiss it as silly, reject it on the grounds of invalidity or trickery, or respond to it.
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.
Only interesting if you're not interested in morality. 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.
I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother.
I asked what you thought, not what is available on the internet.
Could you send me a link to your brain so that i can look for myself.
The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism ...................... is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat.
And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc).
OK, no idea what this has to do with the discussion though.
Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?
Are we still discussing the OP? I am pretty sure that if Churchill had declared his desire to kill every single German, he would have gotten a lot of support for the idea.
There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks?
Of course there does, but in hypothetical questions one has to decide what part is reality.
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality.
Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned.
This actually highlights the fact that gas being banned is just as ridiculous as banning swords and pikes. There are bigger and better ways to kill of a bunch of people nowadays which really makes both irrelevant.
I don't think your POV will ever get any wider or your historical perspective any longer.
Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry:
You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. You seem to only have one.
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.
And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on.
Only interesting if you're not interested in morality. 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.
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:
What seems to be the sentiment here of some is that war can only take place in hypothetical spaces where troops can fight it out. Of course, Hamas doesn't allow for that. It has built a large infrastructure to hid within under civilians. So the empasse of whether to get the targets amongst the civilians or to send groundtroops to try to pinpoint them..
This brings up issues of protecting one's own brethren/family/people versus anothers when in a war of self-defense (preventing a group from repeatedly harming your country)..
There are several ethical frameworks here..
Social-contract theory provides a justification that states have obligations to its own citizens to protect them. One presumably can extend this even in times of war that, while international law considerations apply, one still must uphold one's obligations to one's own citizens above and beyond others when protecting lives.
Basic filial piety ethical considerations like the "lifeboat scenario" are relevant here. If a ship was sinking and all things being equal, you had to save your own family members versus strangers, what do you do? Obviously, discounting one's own brethren as having some moral weight would seem off in some ethical sense. People are people are people, but to pretend one doesn't have obligations for one's own relations is to dishonor what it even means to have relations.. or so one might argue.
Not to mention this is just psychological.. One's brethren/countrymen presumably are part of one's own survival, so by extension, one's own family/brethren/countymen would be a self-preservational response to a threat. This can be considered a natural phenomenon of ethical concern.
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.
No doubt you would let your close family member drowned to save the stranger it seems. Some people disagree there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. Quoting Sir2u
I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even.
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.
Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?
I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is there an example of any of these you could give us? Just to be sure we understand properly.
Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?
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.
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.
Reply to Sir2u, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?
So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply to Tzeentch
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision?
Reply to Vera Mont
I dont know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if its all the same kind of decisions?
Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state...
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.
Ok then.
What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?
Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?
I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:
I dont know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if its all the same kind of decisions?
Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state...
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality.
In history, using counterfactuals (what if's) is actually a way to think about actual reality that happened. It is using the history itself to answer the what if, not just assume historical persons without looking at what they actually thought and did.
OK, the first thing here is notice that when chemical weapons are used against you forces, Churchill is of the opinion to use them then against the enemy. This is simply a historical fact:
In his role as Secretary of State for War and Air in the wake of the First World War he ordered the use of mustard gas by the RAF in support of the pro-Tsarist White forces fighting to contain the Bolsheviks. This was after the Bolsheviks employed captured German gas shells against the Whites. When news of his intentions broke in Parliament there was uproar. I do not understand why, if they use poison gas, he told the House of Commons, they should object to having it used against them. When the raucous objections had died down he retorted, it is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them. Six Bolshevik targets were bombed by the RAF with little effect.
And the occasion of Churchill using chemical weapons against an enemy that didn't even have chemical weapons, in Iraq, but Afghanistan too:
When Afghanistan invaded British ruled India in 1919 Churchill urge the use of mustard gas against the marauding Afghan tribesmen. This according to Churchill was on the grounds that Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive. When the India Office in London objected pointing out that this would set a dangerous precedent with the Muslim population on the Northwest Frontier and in India generally, the idea was quietly dropped. Instead conventional bombs were deployed and the invaders driven back over the border. Likewise, the following year when the widespread Iraq Revolt broke out in Mesopotamia, Churchill once more authorised the use of gas. However, as all the mustard gas bombs had been sent to Russia none were available. Undeterred he ordered the army to despatch 15,000 gas shells that were stockpiled in Egypt. Again though only conventional means were used to crush the rebels. A vexed Churchill wrote to his colleagues I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. Subsequently the use of chemical weapons was banned internationally in 1925 under the Geneva Protocol. Churchill seems to have taken very little heed of this.
So Churchill had ordered the use of the gas weapon post WW1 and had advocated actually twice the use of the gas weapon and didn't understand "the squeamishness about the use of gas" simply portrays a person that actually has a quite positive view about the weapon system. There is absolutely no denying of this. And so yes, all the above is relevant when thinking what Churchill would have done in the situation described in the OP.
Hence you don't have to use the hypotheticals so much as if Churchill would have to had a lot of encouragment to use chemical weapons. It's more like that if there would have been German landings on the UK, it would have been the military command reigning down Churchill from using the gas weapon.
Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.
If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.
If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.
I dont know, can you declare war as an individual?
Heads of state often do. Or wage one without a declaration. Sometimes in secret. Quoting schopenhauer1
What makes a government declare war and not you if its all the same kind of decisions?
Nothing makes a government declare a war or launch a war; a powerful individual or a small group of like-minded individuals entrusted with the governance of a nation, usually confer with the top generals and make the decision in camera. I very much doubt ethical considerations at the top of their agenda when deliberating. In some instances, that decision is then brought before a parliament or congress or senate for ratification. By then, the wheels are already in motion. Quoting schopenhauer1
And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state..
Yes. On behalf of some elements of the state, on behalf of 'the state' in their opinion, at the expense of the people - even if they need to introduce conscription because the war isn't popular enough to attract enough volunteers, even if they have to use deception and coercion on the people.
The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit.
In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision?
Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.
Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.
If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.
If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.
You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.
The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.
The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.
Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood
Halifax was nicknamed the Holy Fox, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.
Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the Guilty Men (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.
Reply to schopenhauer1 We are talking here in the context of WW2 about the strategic bombing campaign. Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.
Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war.
The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit.
This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. That is to say, "War" is seen as something legitimate when done for self-defense, on a state level, and involves aspects that can never really be analogous to the individual (i.e. collateral damage, sending other people in harms way, etc.).
Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not.
Reply to Sir2u Naturally after the "darkest hour" had passed, nobody will admit that they were for negotiating with mr Hitler. In fact, any possible attempts to end the war with something else than later unconditional surrender was (is?) obviously hushed away.
This is perhaps something that we forget now when talking about the war in Ukraine: both sides ardently will declare to keep on fighting... until some agreement is found, which comes quite "spontaneously" for the people.
You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.
And this actually is the answer to the question of the OP in my view. Natural you can take the stance that something that a country has accepted to be unlawful... is also unlawful in war.
Perhaps the only exception might be the modern discourse of Imperialism/Colonialism, where there's few defenders for obviously otherwise stunning military campaigns of conquest of the past. But this has no political weight anymore, especially when those colonies have gotten independence or the native people that have been fought with genocidal strategies pose little or no political threat anymore.
Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.
Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war.
Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? The intent is not to kill civilians, but the outcome might be civilian deaths if one pursues them. Also if we couple this with Social Contract theory, do states not have obligations to protect its own citizens if possible from undue death in its calculations? In theory, if there were no sides, but we were but robots, the universal rule would be that civilians and protecting one's own troops from sending in a hellish ground assault that would be way costlier on one's own troop's levels and morales, would be considered equal, but is is it even moral to not consider protecting one's own troops and not prolonging a war, putting one's troops in what would look to be a way more deadly approach? This is why I said earlier here:
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.
This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states.
'States' are ruled by persons. The decisions in war, as in manufacturing, as in agriculture, as in trade, re made by individuals either separately or in groups that communicate and agree on a conclusion. Quoting schopenhauer1
You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do.
It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?"
Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not.
Yes, all that, plus the fact that from one hour to the next both leaders and followers will individually have to decide what to do next -- and what not to do.
Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't?
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? Quoting Sir2u
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play.
Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers?
Sounds more like the present sanctimonious propaganda of trying to give an excuse why population centers should be bombed in the first place. Because you don't hide formations in cities, you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.
During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet:
What, exactly, did Douhet preach? The main assumptions of his airpower concept, all contained in The Command of the Air and other writings, can be summarized briefly.
Wars are no longer fought between armies, but between whole peoples, he believed, and future wars would be total and unrestrained, with civilians as legitimate targets. Wars are won by destroying the enemys will to resistand only this produces decisive victory. Defeat of enemy forces is a poor indirect route. It is far better to strike directly at vital centers of power inside an enemy nation.
World War I was a turning point, showing armies and navies can no longer end wars; the power of the defensepoison gas, machine gunsmakes offensive action futile.
The airplane, though, is revolutionary, the offensive weapon par excellence, able to bypass surface defenses and carry out massive attacks on cities, destroying the enemys will to resist.
Prior to WW2, this idea of "destroying the enemy's will to resist" was quite popular. You can notice the stark difference to the present attitudes towards war. Douhet wouldn't have a following today, but he sure did in the pre-WW2 era.
Air power advocates like Giulio Douhet advocated the use of air power as a tool to avoid
trench warfare and dramatically shorten wars. Aircraft would attack an enemys sources of
strength, namely its population centers to force the enemy to sue for peace. The key was to
destroy the enemys will to fight. Great Britains RAF was a strong proponent of using strategic air power to avoid another major ground war. Air Marshal Hugh Trenchard was a major advocate for the role of strategic bombing. In the United States, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was another strong air power advocate.
Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't?
Please read the post again. I don't feel that I should have to explain something that is basic high school intro to sociology and psychology. I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. Write "role psychology" in google
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?
This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.
I was talking about you.
Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting nonsensical ideas. If you insist on posting, please read carefully and make sure you understood what you read. If you have problems with anything, you can always ask for explanations here.
As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them.
Or they thought that they British were to ethically/morally upright to do such dastardly deeds.
you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.
So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings...
During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet:
Indeed, I would say that is not even what is happening in the current conflict as a strategy (though various tactical errors can be questioned)... More apt is the fortress analogy here.
Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy...Indeed you reap what you sow...
It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?"
But what is this "war"? What is "war"? It is not something that an individual can have... Do you think war is can be legitimate? Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what? What is that implying?
Also, as @ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars...
I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned.
Yes, I got that: Different roles, different ethics. Quoting Sir2u
Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group.
So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? If it is not in the matter of honesty, fair dealing, observance of public safety or respect for property, what is the salient matter of each role-specific ethic? Quoting Sir2u
This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.
They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit.
War is armed conflict between two or more groups with opposing objectives. Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you think war is can be legitimate?
Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate. Quoting schopenhauer1
Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what?
Whether you say it aloud or just think it, considering a war legitimate means you agree with its objectives. That may imply - or someone may infer from it - that you accept whatever methods are used to attain those objectives. This could the 'ends justify mean' territory - can't be too sure about implications. Quoting schopenhauer1
Also, as ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars...
Yes. And people keep making new rules in futile attempts to cover the changed situations. And people keep breaking those rules.
If they win, they're considered - at least by themselves - justified. If they lose, they're punished.
Reply to ssu Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front.
So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings...
I think the laws of war are quite clear on this case: if a combatant uses an otherwise restricted area as a fighting position, let's say a hospital or a church/mosque, it can be attacked.
Naturally in the present climate this has lead to simply to hospitals being attacked in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has gone so bad that one of the lessons from the war in Ukraine is for medical personnel to hide their status simply by not using the red cross. Why use a large red cross, when it means that you just paint yourself as a target?
During WW2 the most famous example was the bombing of Monte Cassino. As the monastery has such a prominant view over the whole valley, the Allies presumed it had to be used by the Germans. It wasn't, but after the monastery was demolished, it was.
In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth.
Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate.
Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945?
In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth.
No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. My point is, war itself is a sort of absurdity, because it means death and destruction, and yet it has "legitimacy" (for good or bad). Yet, it seems in many arguments, people don't acknowledge that this indeed is what war pretty much entails. It isn't just Rambo going into a building getting the bad guys, saving the good guys and the end.
Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan?
Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).
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...
This doesn't make sense based on the exchange we had. I said the moral case is clear "we're all people". You say "Hamas doesn't think that way". I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question.
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..
How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know.
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.
And as I've tried to clarify, this point is irrelevant in an ethical discussion. State borders, the luck or misfortune being born one side of the border, are not moral facts and therefore shouldn't be part of moral consideration. Nothing in the just war tradition takes this into account other than the obvious requirement that governments actually represent the people over which they've been established.
It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse.
If people decide it is the legal way to settle their territorial claims or religious differences or political disagreements, of course it's legitimate. This was not even an issue until the 20th century: imperial aggression, crusades and national expansion, as well as local disputes, were simply accepted as perfectly normal. Quoting schopenhauer1
Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy?
Sure. What human endeavour on a mass scale is not absurd?
But in reality, the very existence of standing armies is a testament that people do consider the waging of wars perfectly normal. Quoting schopenhauer1
Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945?
That's not a question about the legitimacy of war in general. It is a question about allied strategy after a particular conflict was already underway. Should Poland and France ever have been in jeopardy? Of course not. Should Germany ever have been in the state of national upheaval that spews out a Nazi leadership? Of course not. Could the entire giant debacle have been prevented? Of course.
People create the conditions in which they then make war on one another. Then they say "War broke out" as if it were some natural phenomenon, like wildfire.
Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front.
Well, when it came to Poland, Stalin had been an ally to Hitler. So by his standards, that was a totally reasonable possibility (which many Nazis in the end hoped to happen).
But the strategic bombing didn't really do much compared the Ostfront, even
Yet do notice that even with the strategic bombing, actually Germany's military production went all the time up during 1941-1944. For example aircraft production is telling that it didn't
As it comes to air power, I think the idea of forcing the population to surrender by strategic bombing has been shown to be a quite dubious and questionable idea. What has been showed to work in strategic bombing is actually attacking the military-industrial complex and simple interdiction: to take away the ability to move troops and materiel to the frontline troops. Here air superiority and dominating the skies have showed just how effective air power can be.
No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed.
For the worse, actually.
It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.
Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century.
So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers?
Les take an example that is really easy to understand.
A lawyer has the ethical responsibility to keep quiet about everything to do with his client that dos not already reside in the public domain, especially things that might harm the case.
A newspaper or TV reporter is ethical bound to divulge that same information if he has it.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.
But then maybe there is a secret witness that would be in serious danger if his name was revealed, the report would be remiss in naming him without his permission.
They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit.
If as, I had indicate, had you done some investigation on the topic of roles you would have found quite a few.
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas or look up the things you do not understand.
Saying that I did not provide examples of something that should be basic knowledge lays the blame for your ignorance on me and that is not a nice thing to do.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.
Rules of 'engagement', yes. Two different people in two different roles. So far, no ethical conflict.
So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information?
If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation?
Now, it's unlikely that a journalist practices law as a hobby or vice versa, so the same person probably won't wear those different hats. Maybe each can reconcile his occupational responsibilities with his own civic and personal ones, if not the other person's.
But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime.
What ethical conflict would arise among those roles, and how is she to work out such a conflict?
I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields. Quoting Sir2u
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax.
No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply. Quoting Sir2u
I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas
That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance.
So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information?
It is not my contention, I have nothing to do with the laws of any country.
In most countries he is forbidden from revealing any information that his client has confided to him personally. I am not sure how far it goes with information gathered from other sources.
If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation?
Most journalist I believe would publish anything they can find to get a scoop on the other news outlets. And I am not sure if it is legal for any jury lis to be kept from the public.Quoting Vera Mont
But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime.
As I said earlier, you need to understand the concept of different hats used in different roles. If you will not make an effort to do that then you will never understand.
A mother of a child does not need to be a salesperson, a taxi driver, a nurse or any other job for that matter.
A mother is by nature a nurse when she looks after sick kids, she is a taxi driver when she takes her kids to school or games, she is a cook and a waitress when her kids are hungry, she is the washer women when there are dirty clothes, a councilor when the kids have problems and a lawyer when they are in trouble. These are the roles I was talking about.
It has nothing to do with her job or a side hustle, but with the work inherent in bringing up kids.
And pleas do not start talking about how that is going against the equality of women. If what I said bothers you for the obvious stereotyping just read father for mother or the parents to get equality.
I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields.
You can suggest all you like, you will not be the first one to do so and not even the last. The world has been turning for a very long time and people have come up with so many IDEAL moral theories that you would need a couple of life times to read and try to understand them all.
No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.
I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas Sir2u
That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance.
I made no broad claim, I gave you the way to find out what we were discussing by doing some investigation. The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. It was your responsibility to find out about it before making ridiculous claims about mothers having side hustles.
Do you think that someone saying that you are ignorant is disrespectful? When someone does no know something, they are ignorant. I am ignorant about brain and tree surgery. even more so about digital money.
The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet.
I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience.
Reply to Vera Mont But you do agree that depending on the role the outcome of an ethical decision may be different?
I personally think, which is also why I didn't become a lawyer, that client confidentiality goes too far. If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C. I think disclosures should be permitted as long as it doesn't frustrate the defence of murder A since B and C is gratuitous information that is in principle irrelevant for my defence and therefore continues to protect the principles of due process (there could be a timing issue to avoid bias during trial, so a lawyer would have to sit on the information until after trial and appeals are exhausted). In other words, the client should've paid more attention and kept his mouth shut about B and C.
Unfortunately, this would get me disbarred in no time.
But you do agree that depending on the role the outcome of an ethical decision may be different?
If the deciding agent uses a different set of rules, of course. That's why we can't tolerate heads of state with principles: we need them to be morally flexible for every occasion. It's okay for them to be sworn in on a stack of bibles, as long as they don't take the Christian ethic too seriously.
If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C.
I don't know what the laws are in your country, but in Canada, there are exceptions, where the lawyer is required to divulge information or is permitted to divulge it at his own discretion.
Public safety can trump privilege where a lawyer reasonably believes that a clear, serious and imminent threat to public safety exists.
; in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is void.
in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is nullified.
Yes, this concerns probable future events. A well-known exception. I think we need one for past events as well which doesn't exist in Anglo-Saxon countries as far as I know and doesn't exist in the Netherlands either.
Reply to Benkei
You were faster than me
In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't.
I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience.
If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.
And if you had actually read and understood my post;
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.
I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.
In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't.
Seriously. i think that you should stop quoting things you see on the screen and do some actual research on the topic. I would certainly like to see those laws.
It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.
Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century.
Yes wars can be brutal, and civil wars especially. But I'm interested in your response to the rest of my last post:
Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan? (Edit: I mean, the Germans especially didn't vote in the Nazis with a majority, and by 1939, anyone who spoke out against the Nazis would be imprisoned or killed. Shouldn't the air raids over Britain, and the total conquest of France, Netherlands, and Poland NOT BE a good excuse to completely demand total surrender from Germany? Again.. to be read with heaping dose of sarcasm here.. but you get the point).
Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).
Now you might say, that wasn't a civil war, or an insurrectionist war, but a war of aggression.. But of course, Germany might frame that differently.. And the allies might frame the differently..
The immoral thing is not to demand the total surrender of a neighbor but that one doesn't have a plan for what to do with it afterwards to prevent a second war.. WWI is an example of not doing this right, for example, but post WW2 is in terms of how to defeat an enemy who is implacably aggressive until they get everything they WANT.
I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question.
No you misinterpreted what I meant then.. Let's replace Hamas with Nazis if that helps you be more unbiased about it.. If Nazis don't think that a freely run Netherlands should exist independent of their domination, or of France, or of Eastern Europe, and freely decide that bombing Britain is best, and that America should be defeated using their ally, Japan... What should the defender do in response to that? And hence I said this in another post:
Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan? (Edit: I mean, the Germans especially didn't vote in the Nazis with a majority, and by 1939, anyone who spoke out against the Nazis would be imprisoned or killed. Shouldn't the air raids over Britain, and the total conquest of France, Netherlands, and Poland NOT BE a good excuse to completely demand total surrender from Germany? Again.. to be read with heaping dose of sarcasm here.. but you get the point).
Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).
And thus my point is, war is almost never the case of stealthy Rambos going in, involving no one but the combatants, and ending the war quickly. And hence I posted the ridiculous Rambo video as a fantasy position that people naively claim war should look like. Should I post it again?
What does a just war look like if any civilian dies in it? If Germans die fighting Nazis, is the war against the Nazis wrong? Let's say there were individual soldiers, leaders, or strategies that were wrong, indeed, they should be punished.. But war itself entails some amount of destruction and death on the people involved. Hell, the US and the Soviets had a policy of MAD.. The strategy was literally both sides getting annihilated in a nuclear holocaust in one wrong move. Why was that even a thing? Well both sides wanted to keep their sphere of influence "safe" from the other, along with their own territories. Let's say the US did NOT have nuclear weapons, and the Soviets did, does that mean they had a right to wield them to take over the world because any conventional war could possibly mean that that other side would be annihilated. No, nuclear war is terrible, but it was better that the US had them then didn't IF the Soviets had them.. Because, simply "non-violence" towards aggressive actors by itself seems pretty wrong.. No defense against violent actors means might makes right, even if that means LESS violence to fight against the aggressors.
How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know.
No, I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.
It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse.
But being at a state of war means what to you? Again, shall I post that fantasy Rambo ideal of war being in some remote jungle whereby an elite team/individual just goes in blows up the perfectly out-in-the-open combatants? If only it was open fields, and people wearing Blue and Grey...
Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).
Surely the German leadership would have preferred to that especially in 1945, but here again one has to remember that WW1 had happened. A negotiated peace when Germany wasn't fighting in it's own territory (yet) and the ideas of Dolchstoss and basically Hitler's coming to power ...because of the lost war.
It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Again. Nobody argues against a right to self defence so if anybody is raising a straw man, then this is it.
What I take issue with is the idea that the lives of enemy non-combatants are less than your "own". This is not supported in any historic tradition, law or indeed sensible moral thinking for the reasons I've repeated twice. Everything else you pull into your Rambo fantasies are entirely yours.
It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything.
Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2?
Also, it's entirely possible within the just war tradition to reach the conclusion that it's more just to not defend against armed force. Some reasons could be:
1. There's no chance of winning
2. Or it won't lead to a better peace
3. The price in human lives is too high
4. The armed force itself was a just exercise of force
If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.
Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? (Who said anything about its quality?) Quoting Sir2u
Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.
And neither is an ethical response and neither is a decision to take specific action. Quoting Sir2u
While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.
That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior. Quoting Sir2u
I would certainly like to see those laws.
They're as available on line to you as they are to me. Quoting Sir2u
I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does.
I see no way in which a non-schizophrenic can manage that feat of multiple-think.
Reply to Benkei
I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.
And this brings us back to Rambo...
You agreed: Quoting Benkei
Nobody argues against a right to self defence so if anybody is raising a straw man, then this is it.
But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...
So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality..
And this ties in with my conversation with @ssu about WW1 and WW2 and the differences in how those ended, and the goals of a "defensive war" (certainly a case can be made for this in WW2)...
I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.
I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. Not my problem you don't like the outcome but that's the consequence of principles: they tend to be difficult to stick to.
Just that we could be swayed by emotions to make different choices doesn't mean that choice all of a sudden becomes moral.
But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...
So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality..
That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.
Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2?
WW2 should be remembered really, as the name says, as a continuation of WW1 or the end result of WW1 and the afterward made peace. Losing WW1 is the reason why the gang of mr Hitler came into power. Yet many times people just start with Hitler rising to power without considering just why this happened.
Also the winning powers were in 1945 fully aware of how badly in hindsight the Paris peace talks went in securing peace.
BitconnectCarlosMay 22, 2024 at 20:43#9060510 likes
I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth.
Benkei, are you able to actually abide by this morality or are we ruminating in theoryland?
If your son and another random child were drowning at sea and you could only save one, would it be wrong to favor your own? Should you maybe flip a coin to not show preference? Go ahead, treat your own family like anyone else in the world. You're all equal, after all - individual moral units.
EDIT: And when you do swim out to save him then you're morally wrong (for showing filial bias) and worthy of condemnation. This puts a new perspective on your condemnation of Israel.
All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.
I agree with this.
Specifically going after the combatants and simply denying them any territory from which to operate is already quite decisive way to end a war. Here it must be understood that if the combatant force, one side's army etc, is destroyed or surrenders, but the civilian society then start itself to attack the forces, they are then illegal combatants. There's no problem here in the case of laws of war. However civilian you are, if you start shooting enemy soldiers, they have the total right to shoot you. However if they shoot you assuming you could potentially pick up a rifle and fight them, that's another thing.
Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity.
Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower?
What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? How is that even part of the discussion?
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?
That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior.
All I can say now is that you are not even trying to understand, The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. While her morale compass would not let her put anyone in danger, she would not hesitate to grab a spot by going a different route to the rest of the queue.
They're as available on line to you as they are to me.
You are the one making broad claims about the laws, it is you that is supposed to show proof of your claims. I have made no claims so I do not have to do anything. So I just just ignore the comment.
I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye.
If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.
Who said anything about its quality?) Vera Mont
You did, or do you not remember what you write!
" It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?"
In response to a previous post, attempting to clarify this: Quoting Sir2u
Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity.
What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2?
What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2?
Never heard of the term collateral damage? And keeping collateral damage to the minimum?
Isn't bombing an armaments factory where there are no soldiers and knowing you will kill civilians "going after the civilian population itself"?
Not in the arithmetic of military strategy. If it is strategically right to take out a munitions factory, a bridge, a railroad junction or a communications tower, the civilians working there are only one part of the equation. In the example, the consideration is how many lives on our side would potentially be taken by the cannons or tanks bombs or whatever is produced in that factory, compared to the people on their side who produce those weapons. 200 of them is pretty cheap for an effective strike against the weapons that could kill 4000 of us.
That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.
So my point was to establish several things here...
First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...
So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...
I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...
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 essentially this is how the enemy would like you to play..keep you indefinitjry stuck for maximum length and lethality. Make it a complete street fight, booby traps etc
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.
Reply to Vera Mont I agree. I don't think SSU's prohibition against going after the civilian population works. I think munitions and aircraft and tank factories and the like are always going to be fair game in war.
Reply to schopenhauer1 I'm not discussing international law though but simply applying the rules developed as part of the just war tradition. I'm also not interested in discussing unrealistic hypotheticals. You will not understand just war through thought experiments.
It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied.
BitconnectCarlosMay 23, 2024 at 17:29#9062050 likes
Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making. It's just seemingly another instance of a someone proclaiming something to be moral that no one would actually follow (is grossly contrary to human nature) and would lead to the complete dissolution of the family unit if followed. This is why I dismissed thinkers like e.g. Peter Singer years ago. Unless I'm understanding you wrong?
In abstract, impersonal judgments I have no problem treating everyone as moral equals, but it works both ways too: If the father isn't going to favor his son, why should the son favor his father when it comes to e.g. caring for him in old age when there's thousands of other fathers that he could also care for? Complete dissolution of the family unit.
It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied.
Fair enough.. I felt this was just a more theoretical arm of the Israel thread.. one which I am more apt to want to participate in rather than emotional outbursting that seems to happen in the other one..
But we can simply keep it to WW2.. And we can extrapolate from there on our own how it relates to current conflicts.. If we do that, I still don't really see my points about Nazi Germany and Japan addressed.. And specifically this:
First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...
So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...
I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...
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 essentially this is how the enemy would like you to play..keep you indefinitjry stuck for maximum length and lethality. Make it a complete street fight, booby traps etc
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.
Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making.
Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child? If it's a question of being able to save only one from an external danger, making the decision emotionally would be accepted by most people. However, if it's a question of sacrificing an unknown child in order to save one's own (say, with a heart transplant), most people would consider that wrong.
Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child?
I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child.
They are just two children with equal moral worth and there would be something not quite right about a man diving in to save his own child when the two children are really equal. Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it.
Probably the more intuitive idea is that one should first secure their own realms of responsibility, and then branch outwards as opposed to first and foremost being responsible for the entire world.
I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child.
It's not morally relevant. But if the choice is 1/1, some other factor must tip the balance, else the would-be rescuer is paralyzed by indecision and both children drown. Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it.
How would that be better than letting emotion decide?
How would that be better than letting emotion decide?
So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other.
Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality. So we both share the assumption that the children have equal moral value. However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger. That's our difference, I think.
If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin? That would actually showing impartiality in a situation where both decisions are exactly equal and to show partiality would not be acting in accordance with that fundamental truth. The truth being that both are equal and neither choice is better than the other.
I'm concerned here with reasonable action.
We can say "all fathers have the same duties to all children everywhere" and this takes us into Peter Singer territory which is more utilitarian, which @Benkei interestingly does not like.
So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other.
Even if that were the case, the impasse is broken and the rescuer can take action. Morally, it makes no difference whether the tie-breaker is love, anger, fear or chance.
Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality.
Maybe so, but I also doubt reason plays much of a part in this example. More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy. Once he can think again, he may very well intend to go in after the other kid - in fact, almost certainly will do so, even if reason tells him it's too late. Quoting BitconnectCarlos
However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger.
OK. I'm not invested in the moral dimension of a situation that involves a split-second response from an party with a deep vested interest.
If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin?
There isn't time. If both drowning children are your own, or both are strangers, the primal impulse is to save both, or failing that, the nearest one. In that situation, you don't weigh odds, and you don't know the result: you simply act.
BitconnectCarlosMay 23, 2024 at 20:42#9062440 likes
More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy.
First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate?
A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror.
Then, if you don't do warcrimes, you don't have any skeletons in the closet (literally...) that you try to hide away. You can have a clear consciousness about the war and that you fought in it.
Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess..
Well, for example in the 19th Century when the British forces fought the Crimean war in Finland, it was a gentleman's war. Their behaviour of the Royal Navy was quite "Victorian" in a way. In the university I studied the Crimean war in Finland and the stories and events show a reality of behaviour that simply wouldn't happen today. It's like from another world, actually. And that shows how low we as humanity have gone. Perhaps when faced "savages" that did the hideous things to those soldiers captured, the British Armed Forces behaved in a different manner, but when faced with other Europeans in war, the meeting was very different. But who cares today about red crosses or white negotiations flags. It's all just naive stupidities in war. And that's the problem.
But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example.
Again I would recommend reading Clausewitz.
When attacking the US at Pearl Harbour, Japan likely assumed that the US "would see" the writing on the wall and simply negotiate some peace with Japan and leave it alone, which the Japanese would have gladly accepted. Yet (domestic) politics in the US didn't go that way. Just as mr Hitler didn't see what a huge error he made with declaring a war with the US.
But hey, Americans were simply lazy racists with an army smaller the size of Belgium, so what kind of threat could they be? That was the idea of the US that the Nazis had.
I guess your question refers to a non-instrumental evaluation of war crimes. Indeed, if justified means to have compelling reasons to believe that war crimes will likely enough succeed in attaining the desired outcome, then of course one can justify war crimes.
The question sounds less trivial if we are talking in terms of legal and moral justification, because desired outcomes may be successfully achieved also by violating legal and/or moral constraints.
Now, when we classify certain acts as war crimes, I take it to mean that those actions are major violations of the law and therefore can not be legally justified by (legal) definition. There is no legally justified crime.
What about moral justification? If one takes morality as a set of universal para-legal or pre-legal norms (like do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) and takes the legal norms defining war crimes as a legal codification of moral norms, then I find it reasonable to take war crimes as morally unjustified, again, by definition.
As far as Im concerned, I deeply question such an understanding of moral claims. Moral norms (and, ultimately, also legal norms) MUST be grounded on historical and political conditions. This is a rational requirement, since historical-political conditions set what CAN be done by individuals in some contingent yet constraining sense.
Ill try to make my point more clear with a concrete example: one may believe that Netanyahu SHOULD stop the current massacre in Gaza, because killing innocents as collateral damage (i.e. unintentionally but consciously) is morally wrong by (moral) definition. This moral claim MUST presuppose at the very least that Netanyahu CAN stop the current massacre in Gaza to make a rational (not emotional) appeal to me. Well, can he?
It seems that all that it is required for such an assessment is a credible assumption about certain Netanyahus rule-following abilities, like the ability to intellectually grasp moral norms, the physical ability to perform a series of bodily actions and speech acts in compliance with such norms (e.g. verbally instruct its military and political servants to withhold the Israeli war machine), and the ability to will or being disposed to act accordingly.
Such an assessment completely and arbitrarily misses the political dimension of our human condition, more specifically the POLITICAL ROLE of Netanyahu facing a HISTORICAL PREDICAMENT (the massacre of October the 7th). To simplify, the Israeli society (or an influential subgroup of such society) has POLITICALLY SELECTED Netanyahu for his specific abilities to act in accordance with certain political EXPECTATIONS in a variety of challenging historical circumstances. To my understanding, such political abilities and expectations are what allows us to assess what Netanyahu CAN do in certain historical circumstances in a more compelling way. And the same goes with ALL other politicians (including Hamas leaders).
Far from being presupposed by political expectations about individuals and collectives, moral norms as much as legal norms MUST presuppose political expectations about individuals and collectives to look rationally compelling to people living in society. The very idea that by following a pre-defined universal moral norm by my own initiative and in any circumstance (without considering how others will act and re-act, or what consequences will follow) will turn me into A PARADIGMATIC EXAMPLE of moral behaviour to others, presupposes the expectation that others (all or the absolute majority or the relative majority or the relevant minority etc.) have the ability to grasp paradigmatic moral examples and the disposition to conform to them.
If moral reasoning is grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms then its a-political (because it is not grounded on political expectations and the circumstances of the political struggle - btw I even find it questionable that anybody concerned with social discipline can consistently adopt such a view on morality). If moral reasoning guides political life and struggles then it cant plausibly be grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms (at best, one can extrapolate such alleged universal norms [I]a posteriori[/I] by comparison across societies and/or held in support for intersocietal institutions like international law). In other words, war crimes (as legally defined) can be morally justified if one doesnt reason in terms of a-priori and universal moral norms, yet moral justification may not be enough to dissipate the controversial nature of such actions. And this observation can no be used to question a specific moral reasoning, since it can be retorted against all examples of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning can not be de-politicized if it is supposed to inform political life.
A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror.
Then, if you don't do warcrimes, you don't have any skeletons in the closet (literally...) that you try to hide away. You can have a clear consciousness about the war and that you fought in it.
When attacking the US at Pearl Harbour, Japan likely assumed that the US "would see" the writing on the wall and simply negotiate some peace with Japan and leave it alone, which the Japanese would have gladly accepted. Yet (domestic) politics in the US didn't go that way. Just as mr Hitler didn't see what a huge error he made with declaring a war with the US.
But hey, Americans were simply lazy racists with an army smaller the size of Belgium, so what kind of threat could they be? That was the idea of the US that the Nazis had.
It seems here that Nazis and Imperial Japan had it coming, even though Japan only killed 2,403 people as far as attacking Americans.. But the millions lost aren't presumably considered a "war crime". How can you square that circle? I am trying to look for double standards and blind spots in arguments that lead one to say "Heads I win, tails, you lose" as another poster put it about another argument.
[Note: Adjust the numbers to what you want.. the point being that the magnitudes are much greater, the end result of the death from the initial attack which both of us can probably agree was justified in starting a defensive response].
A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror.
And yet this is still too vague as who attacked who and what concerns an attack is subject of discussion. And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life.
BitconnectCarlosMay 24, 2024 at 16:00#9064010 likes
The OT is full of wars of aggression not merely sanctioned by Jehovah but instigated by him. How did Joshua come into possession of Jericho? Sappers. How did all the other wars come about? Israel was not attacked by all its neighbours.
He was only kidding about that shalt not kill thingie.
Deuteronomy 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
BitconnectCarlosMay 24, 2024 at 17:36#9064170 likes
And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life.
Yes, life is so.
A pre-emptive attack is quite an oxymoron. Just like a suprise pre-emptive nuclear strike that reaches total strategic surprise and destroys the other ones nuclear deterrence. Have fun trying to establish afterwards that the other side had the real intent to start a nuclear war and this was the only way...
It seems here that Nazis and Imperial Japan had it coming, even though Japan only killed 2,403 people as far as attacking Americans.
Again, do not convieniently forget the colony of the US, the Philippines. It wasn't just an attack on Pearl Harbour, it was also the Japanese taking over the Philippines, which started on the 8th of December (one day after). Just in the Bataan Death march some 5000 to perhaps 18000 POWs were killed, many from the Continental US too. So it wasn't just Pearl Harbour, but I can understand that the US isn't keen to make WW2 to be a war of it defending it's colonies (especially when the Philippines was given independence after the war).
But the millions lost aren't presumably considered a "war crime". How can you square that circle?
By the fact that the victors of wars lay down the post-war laws. As I've stated earlier, the commander of the RAF Bomber command has acknowledged that if the UK would have lost the war, he would have been convicted of war crimes.
And now you have that "squaring of the circle" done by the ICC, when they put warrants for warcrimes at both Israeli and Hamas leadership. People aren't happy about that, when they support one side against another.
By the fact that the victors of wars lay down the post-war laws. As I've stated earlier, the commander of the RAF Bomber command has acknowledged that if the UK would have lost the war, he would have been convicted of war crimes.
Right, good quote.. So can you see where the implication I am going with this is? I am talking about Wittgenstein and not directly stating something in another thread.. but unlike him, I am not trying to give you a never ending transformative methodology that you need to "get".. just a leading question.. but do you know where I am leading?
IN A LOT OF PLACES!!! In the Old Testament, where not? should be the question. In the Old Testament, not a forgiving peacenik of a Dad like in the teachings of Jesus C.
But perhaps the best example should be this one that is actually quite current:
(1 Samuel 15) And Samuel said to Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.
That's from the Christian Holy Bible. But of course as we are talking about Abrahamic religions, then it's no wonder that a certain Israeli Prime minister referred to the same thing:
Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do.
Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do.
How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy.
And if you come to the conclusion that "make a desert and call it peace", the genocide-strategy only viable way to defeat the enemy, then I think your objectives are themselves immoral.
BitconnectCarlosMay 25, 2024 at 11:58#9065470 likes
How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy.
In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it.
In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it.
Nowhere is it stated that you have to provide food and shelter to an invading enemy.
And you don't have to the 8th Century. When Finns retreated in WW2 from the Red Army, they naturally withdrew all of their civilian population and basically repopulated into areas in Finland that were controlled by Finland. And then, if time, destroyed all the housing. I remember my grandfather telling a story as an officer in WW2, they were ordered to cut down the wheat in the fields and destroy it when withdrawal was inevitable. Some of the soldiers who were farmers took it very sadly such destruction of food, but nothing was to be given to the enemy. If Red Army wouldn't have been stopped where it historically was stopped, the next line of fortifications where on a line just west of my summer place, and old farm. It very likely would have been burnt down by us Finns.
Nobody has said that this was a warcrime. Especially when it meant that the Finnish civilian deaths in WW2 were very low, and there weren't numbers of Finnish women and girls then raped by the Red Army and left in their own misery in the "Workers Paradise". It would have been a little bit different if those people would have been Russians that were waiting for them to be liberated to be then forced into Finland.
Half a million refugees were moved twice from Eastern Finland. During the Winter War 1940:
After repopulation the lost areas and rebuilding the houses, they had to do it again during the War of Continuation in the summer and fall of 1944:
It's a war crime when you move people against their will with the intent of having other people there. After all, Israel has evacuated people from the Lebanese border to Central Israel and other places. Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.
Reply to ssu
I am trying to understand your own paradoxes here..
You seem to agree that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had the right to be put in a position of total surrender, no? For the perspective of the US, let's say, there were only 2,403 people actually killed in a sneak attack. Did that mean Japan should suffer many thousands to millions of deaths upon the end of the war? And if the tragic answer was, "Yes, because Japan would keep trying to expand, retaliate and become even more aggressive", then look at how a) 2,403, turned into b) millions of death for Japanese.
And there were around 111,000 Americans that died let's say, just in the Pacific theater. Lower percentage than Japanese, but if the Americans had a way to keep that number lower but still maximizing efforts against Japan, do you not think they would, if they had the advantage? Just having a greater force for example, and using it to defeat an enemy that unwisely decides that you need to be "eliminated from the map", doesn't confer that the bigger enemy shouldn't try to defeat the weaker one for foolishly attacking.. In fact, one would think the smaller army would not attack precisely because the enemy were bigger and had the potential to use their bigger force, and that would be a preventative measure for attacking the country directly in the first place.. (Not the case in Vietnam, for example, because that was a civil war that the bigger country tried to "help" in, not really an a country sneak attacked and then declaring a state of war with that country.. it was a limited military action comparatively..and same even in Iraq and Afghanistan.. If the US mission was utter an total surrender in the same terms as WW2, then we would be talking very differently about the aims and outcomes of that war.. In fact a greater discussion could be had about what it means to have a limited war and its general failures even).
So I guess my bigger point is that we see that war itself means death and destruction, and not just of soldiers involved, then how can war be legitimate, even as a defensive action against an aggressor, like one that does a sneak attack, when we know that horrible outcomes are the result of going to war (especially total wars that are about making the other country's leadership completely surrender)...
I say it is the 18th and 19th century that might be the aberration due to the technology of the time.. But you also look a little closer, internal politics might have been much bloodier.. The English Civil War preceding that time and the French Revolution were bloody as hell...And even in the 17th century, the bloody and deadly Thirty Years War...
BitconnectCarlosMay 25, 2024 at 17:18#9066040 likes
The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china. Many "war crimes" like this are surely on the books but prosecution and enforcement are the important matters. If one country is placed under a microscope while others ignored it detracts from the legitimacy.
Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.
If the Gazans are removed and Israeli settlers move in then, yes, that is ethnic cleansing. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza or more in settlers but we'll have to see.
It's tricky though. If a formerly ethnically cleansed population were to retake their land we could call it both "ethnic cleansing" if the occupier was forced out or fled but also "decolonization."
Biblically speaking, being ethnically cleansed was often interpreted as a sign that something had gone wrong with your own people to have been conquered like that. Sometimes populations get dispossessed due to their own wickedness. Or it could just be God's plan.
BitconnectCarlosMay 26, 2024 at 17:17#9067400 likes
Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis. Israel should do its best to remove the source of this (the governments which teach it), but even after the war the palestinian people ought to undergo a massive re-education otherwise the same problems will just emerge. You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. Arabs and Jews have both been ethnically cleansed and subject to historic injustices, yet life must continue forward.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos you mean the Israeli illegal occupation, land grab, violence, oppression and hate has conditioned many Palestinians to hate their oppressors in turn? Shocking.
BitconnectCarlosMay 26, 2024 at 20:03#9067620 likes
And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation.
Actually, it might be a contributing factor. What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband?
Domestic situations are on a different scale from international situations, but both are far more complex than the you have represented.
Jews and Arabs have a history - a whole lot more of it than either of them have has had with Europe, and I'm including the Greek and Roman conquests. That land has been fought over more than any other in the world, with the possible exception of a few corners of Africa and Asia.
BitconnectCarlosMay 27, 2024 at 03:22#9068180 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply.
Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis.
You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too. I think that many Jewish Israelis support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
And this isn't something that just happened after October 7th, this is from six years ago:
The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china.
The Uighur genocide is actually quite apt example to compare here. First of all, China has simply controlled the area so that there isn't an armed struggle going on. Everything is also done in the name of anti-terrorism, in [s]Uighuria[/s], sorry, Xinjiang it's called Strike Hard Campaign against Terrorism. Then China obviously is a far bigger country with much more effect to retaliate on any country making the case of the obvious (that Uighurs are tried to be assimilated, even destroyed). I think the US can do this and state the obvious truths here, obviously, as China isn't it's ally.
But then again, The Chinese don't declare their intensions in the fashion as Bibi's administration has in this subject. They prefer the usual denial of everything.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos
Maybe so, but that didn't sound like satire. The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. Everyone who lives there (with the possible exception of a few truly evil leaders) is the victim of international events that started a very long time before they themselves were born. The major world powers have been playing silly buggers in the region for over two thousand years and won't stop any time soon.
And then, of course, one has to wonder whether one can take at face value anything Mr. Netanyahu says in public.
As long as one is wondering... Why does every discussion go from thought experiment to WWII to Israel?
BitconnectCarlosMay 27, 2024 at 16:15#9068780 likes
I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply.
You don't get what it's like because nobody hates you. No one hates the Dutch. No one raises their children to hate the Dutch. Be thankful you don't have to deal with that, and this begins well before the state of Israel. I don't hate Palestinians but am wary of them. You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews.
You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born?
Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia.
Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia.
I disagree. I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles.
You disagree that oil, strategic location and the routes to gold, ivory and spices existed before 600AD?
Or that they were important then as they are still?
and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Obviously. Whatever threat a military or militant organization is created to counter, religion has a great deal of influence on recruitment and popular support. That worked for Israel. Quoting RogueAI
If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles.
Except that the factions in Ireland didn't include big international players like Russia and the US. Britain may have given the lands of Catholic peasants to imported Protestants, but a foreign world power was not constantly pumping enormous quantities of arms and money into Ulster.
There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices.
BitconnectCarlosMay 27, 2024 at 17:07#9069020 likes
You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too.
I was talking before the war. You will see Palestinian kindergarten students decked out in terrorist gear murdering Israeli hostages openly for kindergarten graduation ceremonies. You will see Palestinian mothers openly wishing their children become martyrs for palestine. It is inculcated in them from an early age and you see it in their children's shows. We've seen a generation raised on this under Hamas rule in Gaza and earlier. It is just not the same on the Israeli side. There's anger, of course, but it's not the same.
On 10/7 that the murderers rode in joyous. Jubilant. I guess it makes sense: Go have fun robbing, raping and torturing the enemy and worst comes to worst and you die you just go to Heaven as a martyr. Life is short, enjoy it! There is no parallel concept in Judaism. I once saw a Palestinian girl complain how the IDF were cowards who hid behind their tanks because God forbid they actually value their lives. Are the zionists to blame for this mindset? Did the evil Jews inculcate the Palestinians not to care about the value of material life?
Yes such violence degrades. It sows fear and hatred. So the Israeli right rises to power to protect its own. But no Jew is under the belief that all palestinians must either be killed or converted to judaism. judaism is not a religion which seeks to spread/universalize; islam is.
There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices.
If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be, Muslim or Western? Obviously, Western. Now, why is it Muslim countries have lagged so far behind Western countries in recognizing basic human rights?
You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews.
Another misplaced comment. I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). How you conflate that with what I think about Jews is entirely on you.
I actually like you when you're not talking about this subject.
If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be?
Bad regimes a-plenty. Russia and Uganda, both predominantly Christian - and that's just in the present. We don't exactly know yet how the conservative backlash, so tough on women lately, will play out in the western countries.
And, of course, that has nothing whatever to do with war crimes.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike theocracies and official state religions.
But war crimes are also committed by secular nations.
BitconnectCarlosMay 27, 2024 at 17:35#9069140 likes
I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around).
You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. It was Muslim land previously, after all. Islam already includes Judaism so Judaism is a step backwards from their perspective. I actually do understand them. God has spoken through their prophet Muhammad but the Jews will not accept the revelation. It must be frustrating.
And there is a very long, complicated history of violence that goes back well before the establishment of Israel. From the Jewish perspective things do not begin with Israel. Also palestinian attacks, for whatever reason, are very often against random civilians intentionally. It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy.
Before this current war on 10/7. Palestinian children shows and schools have been inculcating hate for decades. I don't ever recall Israeli television shows teaching Israelis to hate their neighbor or glorifying martyrdom. Israel does however have a beautiful three-tiered cemetery that commemorates its war dead.
You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land.
Yet, the Israelis have had their state for nearly a century, and the Palestinians have been living under a brutal Israeli oppression since 1967.
A recurring pattern seems to be that you value your own constructs of what Palestinians are like over the very real atrocities that are being committed to by Israel as we speak. Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian?
BitconnectCarlosMay 28, 2024 at 15:29#9071190 likes
According to the Arab/Palestinian narrative, the tragedy begins with the Nakba. The occupation, according to Hamas at least, begins then. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv are considered occupied Palestine.
From ChatGPT:
Approximately 58% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 62% in Gaza support the continuation of conflict with Israel until all of historic Palestine is regained, even if a two-state solution is achieved. This reflects a significant portion of the population desiring the reclamation of all territories historically identified as Palestine, indicating a preference for a one-state solution over a two-state solution among many Palestinians? (The Washington Institute)?? (The Times of Israel)
When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not.
The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.
The Palestinians reject a two state solution because they are opposed to Israel regardless of government style. Jewish self-rule is a slap in the face.
Even though the Palestinians don't have their own state their rule is basically autonomous. Hamas controls Gaza proper, Israel does not control Gaza proper. They manage their own internal affairs and they are not Israeli puppets.
The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.
Viable = too weak to get even the minimum of their requirements? Palestine cannot be any kind of threat to Israel with its vast arsenal and foreign backing. At its most outraged, it can only ever be a nuisance and an excuse for Israeli governments to keep their country in a state of perpetual war, in a state of existential crisis. At least until all the Palestinians are dead and there's no more challenge to their occupation of whatever lands they want. It worked in the OT.... until a big empire came and gobbled them all up.
BitconnectCarlosMay 28, 2024 at 21:15#9071740 likes
If Gaza became a state Hamas would be able to import whatever it liked.
What, like food, medicine, building material? Assuming they could afford it and somebody were willing to sell it to them.
And that's a pretty good reason for Bibi to keep Hamas in place, isn't it?
BitconnectCarlosMay 28, 2024 at 21:56#9071820 likes
They're already able to import that. Palestinians receive billions in aid yearly. Much of it just goes to the Hamas leadership who are themselves billionaires. Gaza isn't destitute either; there were many luxury hotels and really nice cars there before 10/7.
Israel (and Egypt) monitors for dangerous materials but humanitarian aid is fine.
The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.
That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same. They can point to Begin in 37 saying they'll remove inhabitants to build Israel and point to Herut and Likud and a straight line from his Zionist statements to today.
Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well. Especially given the fact Israeli set out to do exactly what the Zionists said they'd do through oppression and Apartheid for decades but in contrast Palestinian resistance has been largely ineffectual.
So you are afraid where Israel holds all the power because Israel is ruled by irrational fear. In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim.
So, really what's your point? Two people are fighting and they both don't want to stop? So they should continue? That seems the wrong answer.
Why though? Why should the two people care about what seems wrong to you about their beef? Why do you take your humanitarian feelings as universal if the two people do not feel the way you feel about their conflict?
Unfortunately contended territories easily end up in genocidal or cleansing perceived practices. When one evokes self-determination aspirations against empires is one thing, another is when self-determination aspirations of some people irreparably clashes with the self-determination aspirations of other people. That's the dark side of self-determination.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos
I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.
Reply to neomac
The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.
Reply to neomacReply to neomac Oh fun, let's pretend it's inevitable for two people to bash each other's head in. The reductio of that argument is that genocide is ok. So, yes, it's wrong. And I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.
BitconnectCarlosMay 29, 2024 at 16:08#9073460 likes
That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same.
This is an interesting point that should be followed up on. My question would then be what % of Israelis in the public and in the Israeli government seek to annex Gaza and the WB into "greater Israel?" Gaza was not historically Israel.
There's no need to go back to the 30s and 40s but if we do the Grand Mufti was an extremely ugly figure. Good Israelis try to put this behind them. Different times now.
Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well.
You can't expect a country to negotiate with a group that wants to annex it and denies its right to exist. Hamas isn't asking for reform; it's asking for an end to Jewish self-rule.
In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim.
You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
And in an era of WMDs large modern armies don't ensure survival.
BitconnectCarlosMay 29, 2024 at 16:20#9073540 likes
I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.
Israel's targets are terrorists, the targets of terror are very often civilians. Their governments reward them for this. What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me.
The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.
We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. What shell we do with this piece of information now?
The reductio of that argument is that genocide is ok. So, yes, it's wrong. And I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.
If genocide is ok or not, thats up to you to decide so Im fine with you claiming I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.
However if you write I don't care that to others, others can say the same to you. Still the burden of costs and risks for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more on the Palestinians AND the Israelis, than on an avg Westerner (I assume its your case too). So since they have much more skin in that game than an avg Westerner, my guess is that their motivation to the conflict is much stronger and unifying than that of an avg Westerner about the same conflict. What I think Westerners should care about is how strong and unified the will of certain people, countries, governments is (by comparison with theirs), what they are ready to do, what sacrifice are willing to accept or impose to achieve their shared goals. As much as they should care about means and opportunities that powers hostile to the West can exploit in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As long as the not picking side policy is contributing to stability or symmetry of the power balance, its impossible to not pick side. Not to mention that the not picking side policy can be perceived as a sign of weakness and cowardice by others.
Stop killing civilians. Stop settling territories that don't belong to them. Stop being recalcitrant and sabotaging negotiations. Stop barricading Gaza. Stop supporting Hamas. Then we'll see how things progress.
We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too.
Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.
You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
No, oppressors don't get sympathy.
BitconnectCarlosMay 29, 2024 at 18:21#9073910 likes
I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me?
Is that a quote from Ben-Gurion?
When oppressors rule, there are always victims - some willing, some random, some too slow to flee. You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block where an enemy leader might perhaps be staying or a weapon may perhaps be stored...
but only when the much stronger combatant commits that war crime.
BitconnectCarlosMay 29, 2024 at 23:51#9074380 likes
You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block
No. Modern civilized armies strive to avoid civilian casualties. But they still are inevitable in any war.
And their deaths are on the hands of the enemy who breached a border and murdered ~1000 of that country's civilians. And took hostages which are repeatedly subject to sexual abuse.
We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. neomac
Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.
OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land?
If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all.
Actually not.
I've started from the reasonable (or at least in my opinion a reasonable) stance that Israel should show restraint against civilians and civilian targets like the US did while it was fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS.
It hasn't. Proof: you didn't hear about civilians starving to death in Iraq or accusations of it used as a tool by the US while fighting the insurgents. Besides, the US was assisting the civilian populace at the same time it was fighting Al Qaeda and later ISIS.
Not something the IDF is doing... especially when it doesn't allow the normal flow food and supplies to the area it has all the ability to check.
But if it's too much for you that the IDF isn't "the most moral army" in the World as Bibi has said, then just defend them, if it makes you feel better.
OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land?
It doesn't and we can't. At the time, I was responding to a particular post, not solving the middle east mess. It shouldn't have been created; the major powers should have had more foresight, but pursued their short-term advantage instead. Once committed, they've been obliged to keep feeding the fire, and nobody seems inclined to stop. It won't end until one or all of the combatants die.
But that's all incidental to the topic of the thread.
If war crimes are justifiable, then what's the point of labelling any actions "war crimes"?
Is there an implicit "except as a last resort" attached to each proscribed action? In that case, any warring entity that is at a strategic disadvantage are justified.
If there's an implicit "unless the opponent is truly evil" - how is this to be judged objectively, in general? Couldn't any warring entity claim the other side is evil?
BitconnectCarlosJune 02, 2024 at 16:54#9080460 likes
I've started from the reasonable (or at least in my opinion a reasonable) stance that Israel should show restraint against civilians and civilian targets like the US did while it was fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS.
It absolutely has and I've seen Israel avoid conducting strikes because there were civilians around. I've seen them ship in boatloads of aid. I've seen then provide medical care for wounded Palestinians. Israel has shown restraint.
you didn't hear about civilians starving to death in Iraq or accusations of it used as a tool by the US while fighting the insurgents.
There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there.
There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there.
This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous.
BitconnectCarlosJune 02, 2024 at 18:03#9080550 likes
What do you make of the fact that Hamas steals most of the aid and keeps it for themselves? Or sells it at a much higher price? The problem with the aid is the distribution. Israel can send it in but Hamas takes it.
How many have actually died of starvation? Are we able to get facts on this?
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/siege-and-starvation-how-israel-obstructs-aid-to-gaza/Despite its claims to be facilitating humanitarian aid, research and analysis by Refugees International shows that Israeli conduct has consistently and groundlessly impeded aid operations within Gaza, blocked legitimate relief operations, and resisted implementing measures that would genuinely enhance the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
BitconnectCarlosJune 02, 2024 at 19:54#9080680 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos It is as a reply to atrocities by Israel. "but Hamas does bad things too" is a fallacy to argue for the permissibility of Israeli crimes, which you - and others - do all the time.
BitconnectCarlosJune 03, 2024 at 06:13#9081550 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos Oh for fucks sake. It's disproportionate, targets civilians etc. You know, all of the things I've consistently said from the beginning.
BitconnectCarlosJune 03, 2024 at 06:28#9081570 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos Fallacious reasoning again. In this case an argument from ignorance. You're assuming other conflicts were fought correctly and we know the majority were not.
Maybe read some Illan Pappé to put all the Israeli crimes and intent of its Zionist leadership into historic perspective.
It absolutely has and I've seen Israel avoid conducting strikes because there were civilians around. I've seen them ship in boatloads of aid.
This is quite a whimsical statement.
FYI the UN or any aid organization didn't make the statements that the aid to the civilians of the cities where the US was fighting the insurgents was actively limited or said that the situation had lead to starvation.
It's been clear since day one that the logistical support given to the civilian populace isn't anywere close to avoid famine.
This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous.
I think that here @BitconnectCarlos has to be given the strawman argument of the month.
* * *
On the positive side, Biden's proposals have been at least not been shot down immediately.
(REUTERS, 1st June) Hamas said it was ready to engage "positively and in a constructive manner" with any proposal based on a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli forces, the reconstruction of Gaza, a return of those displaced, and a "genuine" prisoner swap deal if Israel "clearly announces commitment to such deal".
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said he had authorized his negotiating team to present the deal, "while insisting that the war will not end until all of its goals are achieved, including the return of all our hostages and the destruction of Hamas' military and governmental capabilities."
Yes, that's not much (if any), but at least it's something else than the "evil city" that has to cut of everything -rhetoric or the "We'll do Oct 7th again and again" -rhetoric.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos
That's according to the Israeli news outlet. The IDF releases have said 1combatant to 1.5 or 2 civilians. Unbiased outside authority has insufficient access to the actual numbers. However:
Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, said: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."
The fatality data for the current conflict from the Gaza health ministry shows a sharp increase in the proportion of women and children among the dead compared with previous wars.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere if you have zero sympathy for the victims on the Israeli side. Dead Israelis might just be faceless oppressors to you but they are my people. You dehumanize Israelis.
You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
BitconnectCarlos
Reply to BitconnectCarlos Do you have sympathy for a criminal when the victim hurts him? Most people don't. Because that's what you're asking.
It's not dehumanizing at all; it's consistent application of ethical principles: I don't side with the wrong side especially if they have zero self reflection with respect to their own actions.
I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent. But Israel as a political entity doesn't get my sympathy. There wouldn't be any resistance if there wasn't injustice. So it's a conscious choice by Israeli leadership to put their own civilians in harm's way in a conflict they have every ability to resolve, if there was a will. But we know there isn't because Israeli leadership is currently made up of criminals.
BitconnectCarlosJune 04, 2024 at 18:54#9084800 likes
Do you have sympathy for a criminal when the victim hurts him?
Is this a good comparison for, say, a 7 year old Israeli child who happened to be born and raised near the Gaza border or anywhere in Israel? For this "crime" they are considered valid targets by Hamas.
I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent.
Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland.
Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland.
It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise.
And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same but then 30 times worse except you're always making excuses why Palestinians deserve it because apparently you think they are all Hamas.
BitconnectCarlosJune 04, 2024 at 19:11#9084880 likes
It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise.
Question: Let's say a group of Jews are expelled by the Romans from Judea in 135 AD. The community goes to Alexandria and continues to preserve those traditions and maintains its distinctiveness & maries among itself. In 235 AD is Israel still their ancestral homeland or have they lost it? Are they now indigenous to Alexandria? How about 335 AD?
And what do we say about African Americans? Indigenous to a Georgia plantation?
And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same
It does not as Israeli soldiers do not go from house to house murdering Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It does not commit rapes. It does not take Palestinians hostage and bring them to rape dungeons. It does not aim for civilians. If it did there would be no more Palestinians.
Let's say a group of Jews are expelled by the Romans from Judea in 135 AD. The community goes to Alexandria and continues to preserve those traditions and maintains its distinctiveness & maries among itself. In 235 AD is Israel still their ancestral homeland or have they lost it?
They've lost it. Like a whole lot of other people. You win some wars and you lose some. If you lose a big one, you lose the land you're living on - which is ancestral through some finite number of generations, just as it was ancestral to the people who lived there before.
And what do we say about African Americans? Indigenous to a Georgia plantation?
We call them African Americans for the reason that their ancestors were transplanted to a different country and successive generations have adapted and assimilated. There is no large contingent of African Americans descending on Ghana to claim it as their ancestral home, and if there were, the US would not finance and arm them.
It does not as Israeli soldiers do not go from house to house murdering Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It does not commit rapes. It does not take Palestinians hostage and bring them to rape dungeons. It does not aim for civilians. If it did there would be no more Palestinians.
Yes they were expelled from their ancestral homeland in 135 AD.
Barred from Jerusalem after the third major revolt. Roman rule was often brutal to occupied peoples, especially those who gave them a hard time. If the OT is anything to go by, the Judeans' treatment of its conquests was no better. That's imperial wars for you. Sometimes, if God is displeased, he does choose somebody else for a change - (sorry, Tevye) - at least, according to the prophets.
That's a tradition, a history, a memory - not an excuse for carnage.
Yes they can go to Africa and be ruled by Africans. Muslims can go to ~50 countries and be ruled by Muslims. Jews are lucky to have one. Israel has already survived several wars which would have destroyed it had it lost.
Barred from Jerusalem after the third major revolt.
There were two waves: One in 70 and one in 135. There were Jews who remained in the region and have had a continuous presence since antiquity. These Jews were still subject to persecution under Arab rulers. So the violence is not just due to the "occupation" but rather occurred well before it and the heightened the need for a Jewish state.
It is the ancestral homeland of the Jews making the Jews indigenous to it.
Indigenous in what way, according to what source? The OT story has them attacking Jericho without provocation. The real story is lost, though archeologists keep chipping away at it. Somebody was there before who isn't there now. This is a fairly common situation when peoples are nomadic, or flee from invasion or migrate due to inimical weather events or fight among themselves and split off.
Ancestors are any preceding generations from grandparents backward, even if it's only two generations. "Ancestral home" means nothing - it's a slogan. Maybe one day China will be the major world power and restore all the North American indigenous peoples to their ancestral homes - regardless of who lives there now, or whether those people, or their ancestors, had done any harm.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 01:23#9085720 likes
Jewish identity is born in that region -- in Israel. According to any number of scholars that I could cite if need be (it's not a debate, more an established fact). I'm talking second temple period but we can go back a little earlier.
Jewish identity is born in that region -- in Israel.
According to the biblical story, the ancestors wandered all over those lands from Turkey to Egypt. Does that mean modern Israel has a right to occupy all of what was Mesopotamia? Is the US obliged to arm and finance that expansion?
Every nation started someplace.
In case Mongolia was worried, I'm not about to claim my ancestral rights.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 02:37#9085870 likes
According to the biblical story, the ancestors wandered all over those lands from Turkey to Egypt.
Yes apparently Abram was briefly in Turkey as were the Israelites in Egypt. Does Judaism form in Turkey? No. Or in Egypt? No. It forms in the latter half of the first millennium bc in modern day Israel. It's a several century process from around 500 bc to 100 bc.
Ah, so religious identity is distinct from national identity.
Arabs - according to the OT, descendants of the unloved sons of Abraham - were also there, all that time, long before Islam.
And so, "ancestral home" means exactly what?
People wandered around an area and had kids. Then they went someplace else and had more kids. So frickin what? People have wandered over every place and had kids.
Some people invented a religion in a place. So frickin what? People invented religions all over the place.
That doesn't give their descendants any special privileges.
I once had a cat who liked to bully all the other cats that came near our back yard. He wasn't particularly imposing or strong, but his best friend was a Newfoundland dog.
Reply to Vera Mont Ancestral home means nothing because it's a religious claim. As is the claim to be descendant from original Israelites, which, with 10% intermarriage, means current Jews are less than 1,000th a descendant. It's ludicrous because some asshat with twirly hair decided that if your mother was a Jew, so are you. And we are to believe fairy tales as a reason to allow war crimes. This is why all religious people are dumb; they try to elevate stories to facts.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 05:03#9086120 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos You're the gift that keeps on giving. How stupid are you when you don't address what I actually say and raise straw men al the time? I'm speaking in your naive language after all.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 05:24#9086190 likes
This is why all religious people are dumb; they try to elevate stories to facts.
It's not just religious people. Nationalists and ideologues of every stripe have a banner story.
Interestingly, I listened to a radio program the other day, interview with an (unpopular) Israeli historian who said people don't fight to the death for land or resources or their leaders; they fight for their stories.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos
There is no exact external definition of a Jew, any more than there is of a Muslim or a Protestant. They don't all live in the same place or in the same way and they don't all have the same facial features or character.
People who identify with a group that shares a culture or religion or ethnicity or some identifying feature are perceived as belonging to that group. I'm quite sure the people who thus identify themselves do have a clear idea what they each mean by it.
Just curious, do you believe in biological essentialism when it comes to nation-states, or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?
Also, not to open a can of worms, doing some research on this, Ashkenazi (Central/Eastern European) Jewish DNA according to various genetic studies, are about 40-50% in Levantine origin (that is the area around Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan) with about 30-40% Roman Italian admixture, and ~10% Germanic mix ~10% Slavic mix.
If we combine this with the historical plausible theories, ancient Judeans/Israelites from the Levant intermixed with Roman Italians sometime in the Roman Empire/Early Middle Ages, and this intermixed group moved across the Alps to around France and the Rhineland region around the time of the Carolingian Dynasty (c.800s-1000s CE). A few centuries later, a large segment of the population moved into the Poland/Lithuanian/Russian region (c.1300s CE) after much repeated persecution in Western/Central Europe. So the migration from Levant-Italy (the bulk of the admixture), France/Germany, Eastern Europe (a much lower percentage) shows up on the DNA markers.
*Also, the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies indicate the original females were mainly of Southern European/Roman Italian origin, and the Y-Chromosome studies show a Middle Eastern/Levantine origin, which indicates that it might have been the case that male Jewish/Judean/Levant residents were taken as slaves after the Jewish Revolts to Italy/Rome around the years 70CE and 135 CE, respectively, and these males intermixed with pagan Italian women who they converted to Judaism. After the initial intermarriage, the group mainly intermixed with each other.
** Also some of this admixture could come from Judean/Levant-originating merchants, rather than being slaves taken from the two main Jewish Wars with Rome. These merchants were males in the Roman Italian peninsula, that intermixed and converted local Italian wives during the Roman Empire.
There are also smaller traces of Germanic/Celtic, and Slavic populations based on where they moved after Italy (10-20% Germanic/Celtic/Slavic). However, the bulk of the admixture is about ~45% Levantine/40% Roman (Empire Era) Italian.
This information is getting really in the weeds, but since the creation of Israel, people have had a whole host of questions regarding European Jewish origins, and it's best to use the genetic evidence available rather than just pulling random notions out of one's ass or based on phenotypes...There are people of even just two very different ethnic backgrounds that could look one way or the other, and that one would not "suspect" as being of a certain origin, let alone a people whose admixture origin goes back thousands of years (during the Roman times between mainly Levant males and Southern European females).
I don't even know what it is. I'm guessing bloodlines, DNA sort of thing. In which case, no. (Wouldn't look very good on a Canadian.) Quoting schopenhauer1
or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?
That's what it means to the nation. Of course the notion doesn't play well with colonial subdivision of territory or post- WWI and II redrawing of maps by world powers. Then, too, 'identified' may have quite an elastic interpretation.
As to the genetic makeup of modern peoples - especially those that have been dispersed from a relatively small original stock - why even bother to trace them? There are Americans the colour of ginger ale who consider themselves Black. People don't identify with their DNA; they identify with their community, religion, culture and shared past. And their story - no matter what percent of it is factual.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 18:20#9087120 likes
a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?
Sure? Jewish self-definition is derived from a sort of religious reasoning formed and discussed over thousands of years. Any outsider who takes issue with it should be ignored until he engages the reasoning behind it.
Yes, just as Christian and Muslims determine their own definitions. We don't insist that they use our logic. Ultimately self-definition will be decided by that community.
I'm sympathetic to native american claims to get back some parts of the land to which they are indigenous to. It's been extremely destructive to those communities to try to erase that heritage.
Now you're just making your own personal definition. I can do the same. To be a Christian, one must have known Christ personally while he was still alive.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos It's not my definition. The Israeli supreme Court has confirmed being Jewish is a religious claim. You can convert to Judaism and obtain all sorts of rights and you lose rights if as a Jew you convert to another religion because Israel is so civilised it has institutionalised discrimination.
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 19:31#9087260 likes
Everyone agrees Judaism is a religion. You don't agree with the idea that it is an ethno-religion. Regarding Israel, I believe being Jewish only benefits one when it comes to immigration -- countries like Greece and Spain have similar rules where it's easier to emigrate there if you have it in your ancestry.
But under the law, once citizens, Jew and non-Jew are equal.
Of course it isn't. There's Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, which are distinct ethnicities. Plenty of discrimination between those groups as well by the way although at least on paper they are equal.
Yes, just as Christian and Muslims determine their own definitions.
Christian and Muslim are not definitions of nationhood. They are religious affiliations, professed by citizens of many different countries. Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm sympathetic to native american claims to get back some parts of the land to which they are indigenous to. It's been extremely destructive to those communities to try to erase that heritage.
No kidding! But would you be willing to give up your house and farm if they had a claim on it on genetic, religious, traditional, or 'some of us have been here all along' grounds?
BitconnectCarlosJune 05, 2024 at 19:57#9087310 likes
Of course it isn't. There's Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, which are distinct ethnicities. Plenty of discrimination between those groups as well by the way although at least on paper they are equal.
Just curious did you read some historical background here?
As to the genetic makeup of modern peoples - especially those that have been dispersed from a relatively small original stock - why even bother to trace them? There are Americans the colour of ginger ale who consider themselves Black. People don't identify with their DNA; they identify with their community, religion, culture and shared past. And their story - no matter what percent of it is factual.
I'm curious because @Benkei was making claims to the contrary. But even if we did "trace the DNA", my point was it works both ways. Afterall, even in Native Americans, DNA can be relevant, but is certainly not the sole understanding of a member of a nation. One can even take upon the tribal identity through marriage or initiation ceremony, like ethno-religions do. So yes, there is definitely some "backbone" of DNA but that's not the full story (and never was). Certainly a Navajo or Ojibwe person with 48% native DNA but is fully invested in tribe and has roots going way back to that tribe is notexcluded as member of that tribe by most standards.
And again, even if we look at the genetic history solely, we see there was a strong linkage to that land by a vast majority of even Ashkenazi. This was obvious to all before the state of Israel. Obviously, when this "difference" (of Jews and the surrounding ethnicity of the nation they were in) becomes a way to take away their rights, and throw them in concentration and death camps, this becomes insanely genocidal. However, as purely an understanding of an ethno-history and how it relates to identity, it is perfectly fine to make the distinction. No one is being "racist" by saying Jews have a specific ethnic history, and understanding that, any more than how the Dutch people are different than (or similar to!) French, Belgian, or (other) German peoples.
I'm curious because Benkei was making claims to the contrary.
He and I may agree on a lot of things, but we don't share a brain!
I'm not a fan of DNA tracing for any purpose except forensics and anthropological research. (This means, not even genealogy).
No one is being "racist" by saying Jews have a specific ethnic history, and understanding that, any more than how the Dutch people are different than (or similar to!) French, Belgian, or (other) German peoples.
Some Jews? Most Jews? Everyone who identifies as Jewish? Fine.
But I don't see it as a contribution to excusing war crimes.
Fine. But I don't see it as a contribution to excusing war crimes.
None of this was about excusing war crimes, but it was about the basis for which the idea of "homeland" was established in a particular region for a particular people thus associated through history, culture, and genetics to that region.
Reply to schopenhauer1
In this case, not 'homeland' but 'ancestral homeland'. The difference being: Most of us have been living in many other places, but our long-ago ancestors used to live here, so the people who have been living here better get the hell out.
If you go by history, culture and genetics, why are the Palestinians' claim less valid than the European Jews'?
In this case, not 'homeland' but 'ancestral homeland'. The difference being: Most of us have been living in many other places, but our long-ago ancestors used to live here, so the people who have been living here better get the hell out.
If you go by history, culture and genetics, why are the Palestinians' claim less valid than the European Jews'?
They aren't less valid. They too have a historical ancestral claim. Hence the dilemma.
I think we often misconstrue various understandings of nation-states as well. I think European type nation states are different than North American and many (former) colonial areas which were simply wholesale takeovers. That being the case of course, Native Americans then would have a right to form a state. Also, interestingly, Liberia.
Presumably it would be harder for both precisely for reasons why the Jewish state makes sense.. The Jews had a very specific geographic location they can point to. Unfortunately, descendents of enslaved Africans cannot point to which exact regions their ancestors came from so would be developing a state that is roughly in the region. Also, the cultural ties to the specific tribes people came from were disconnected (which is not at all the problem with Jewish cultural ties to their homeland).
In the case of Native Americans, the tribes are very spread out, and the numbers are generally pretty low, so it would be hard to compose a cohesive state, which is why it basically ends up being what we have now which is a semi-autonomous region of "reservations", where the tribal nation has control of all internal affairs and laws, but is not in charge of state apparatuses like armies, foreign diplomats, or territorial independence from the larger countries (US/Canada/Latin American/Caribbean countries) etc.
The Jews had a very specific geographic location they can point to
Which very conveniently happens to coincide with Christian notions of the Holy Land. It doesn't seem to signify that, according to the same book, the Hebrews originally occupied that land by means of a sneak attack on people who had done them no harm.
There is no real analogy to Native Americans, who were here before the Europeans arrived and pushed them out or exterminated them. The question of which Natives lived exactly where is a red herring. Nor is there a real likeness to Africans who were captured and kidnapped and thereby apparently forfeited their right to claim any part of Africa, because they don't each know where their ancestors were from.
BitconnectCarlosJune 06, 2024 at 01:07#9088100 likes
With the difference that they actually built the houses and worked the farms.
The question is should there be a Jewish state. My answer was yes. I didnt say anything about taking over farms. The original UN map was not agreed ti by Arab states and thus, here we are in a 75 year old battle of two peoples.
My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badly held notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice.
Which very conveniently happens to coincide with Christian notions of the Holy Land. It doesn't seem to signify that, according to the same book, the Hebrews originally occupied that land by means of a sneak attack on people who had done them no harm.
Look, there should be no Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, or France according to this notion. Im ok if youre equal across the board with historical violence and territories.
There is no real analogy to Native Americans, who were here before the Europeans arrived and pushed them out or exterminated them. The question of which Natives lived exactly where is a red herring. Nor is there a real likeness to Africans who were captured and kidnapped and forfeited their right to claim any part of Africa because they don't each know where their ancestors were from.
Did you not read my post? I just stated roughly the same thing. Maybe you didnt see it as I added it a bit after my initial post.
My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badlyheld notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice.
The injustice was real in every case. The Romans displaced the Jews from a land from which the Jews had previously displaced some other people. The British and Americans were complicit (after a couple of terror attacks) in the displacing Arabs to re-emplace the Jews. How the festering resentment is resolved depends on what people do to restore balance. In this instance, it wasn't a festering revenge fantasy, it was an act of penitence by the big countries that had rejected Jewish refugees and turned a blind eye to the holocaust, plus a calculated attempt to place an ally in the middle of a strategic, oil-rich region.
Look, there should be no Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, or France according to this notion. Im ok if youre equal across the board with historical violence and territories.
This notion? Colonialism was what it was, it did the harm it did. We have to deal with the consequences. Point here being, both Palestine and Israel have the exact same claim, according to imperialist Britain, but only one of them has the backing of imperial powers.
Colonialism was what it was, it did the harm it did. We have to deal with the consequences. Point here being, both Palestine and Israel have the exact same claim, according to imperialist Britain, but only one of them has the backing of imperial powers.
If you only apply that bolded statement to what I was saying here:
My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badly held notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice.
I know. And 'homeland' was misapplied in this situation. One people's homeland was given to another people, who then systematically persecuted the natives. And are still doing so.
I know. And 'homeland' was misapplied in this situation. One people's homeland was given to another people, who then systematically persecuted the natives. And are still doing so.
No one was given anything. The UN partitioned two states, Arab armies rejected, lost war, and lost more land as a result. That was a consequence of not accepting. Clearly, you not only dont believe in two states, you wish Israel was never formed. Tough shit news for you, it was. Same with Canada, same with almost any country. As I said, Im done with the endlessly fruitless value signaling on this thread. Have your circle jerk arguments with others who can be your echo chamber.
taking the bigger and more productive half from a large Arab population and giving it to a smaller population of European immigrants. No, the Arabs didn't accept this plan and Ben Gurion only accepted it as an interim plan, always intending to expand his territory.
Clearly, you not only dont believe in two states, you wish Israel was never formed. Tough shit news for you, it was.
It's caused an awful lot of international strife and cost an awful lot of money. And it's not finished doing either by a long chalk. Still don't see how that justifies war crimes. But by all means, jerk elsewhere!
Comments (439)
But what is the difference between gas and killing a bunch of people with a big bomb that might only kill a few of them immediately and leave a lot more suffering their wounds before they die or even living a life of suffering for years after?
A better question is whether the Bombing of Dresden was justified something that actually happened.
Hamburg was a strategically important city to Germany. Britain's bombing campaign forced Germany to devote resources to flak guns, divert fighters away from the Eastern Front, and placate Stalin. In 43, this was essential to winning the war. Dresden was just overkill.
As Arthur Harris said, "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
Turnabout is fair play. If someone uses poison gas against you, you are justified in using it against them. If they bomb your cities, theirs are fair game.
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.
If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.
Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.
Good to see you are consistent with your views that the Germans were justified in all their war decisions.
Everything was fair game for the Allies. Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified.
Well I already knew what this was about. You things think you are not brainwashed like the North Koreans but in fact you are worse. North Koreans are enlightened by comparison.
But excuse me while I watch 9/11 footage with popcorn on my hands because the Great Satan is evil as we can see from the aggression against Vietnam.
Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion?
:up:
Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?
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. Now, there are a couple hundred thousand Jews in the UK in WW2. Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps?
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.
Quoting 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.
War crimes are never justified.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml :roll:
I am not sure about this. Justification does not really belong in the realm of morality. Justified would mean that there are adequate reasons or motives to make an action reasonable. Morality is not always based on reasoning and quite often on vague concepts or beliefs.
If there are enough reasons to justify an action then a moral system can always be found to validate it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Since when has war been about the individual? Yes he could have found a better job, testing cigars for the Cubans possibly would have given him the life of contemplative seclusion you suggest.
But that does not change the fact that the bloody nazis were invading and there would still have to have been some poor chump of a prime minister in England that would have been forced to make the decision.
Quoting Tzeentch
I have aspired to be a great pianist, but it aint gonna appen cause I be tone def.
I doubt that he ever seriously thought that he would live a moral life in politics, but I bet he tried his best.
After the allies started getting German coded messages through Enigma he had to make several serious decisions about how to use the info so as the Germans did not find out that they had cracked the code, many allied lives were lost because of not being able to use that information.
But I think that anyone, even you placed in that position would make the same choices from the bad options available.
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.
A better question might be
"Is it justifiable to permit a group of people ruthlessly kill, kidnap, rape, torture and willfully cause great suffering to others by withholding permission to act in a necessary manner from those changed with the safety of those affected?"
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.
I would have thought that having completely different ideas about a topic would make for an even more interesting topic. A discussion between two like minds rarely leads to new thoughts for either. :chin:
Justification:
Quoting Tzeentch
Reasonableness:
Yes, well mankind is not famous for being the most reasonable of creatures or using his reasoning skills in adequate ways. His actions throughout history are ample proof of this. And as I already mentioned, anyone can find a version of morality that can allow them to sleep peacefully after their horrific actions. There are plenty of moral systems out there and you can always invent your own.
Justifying something is not about moral correctness but about having reasons and motives for ones actions. Whether those actions are morally admissible or reprehensible has nothing to do with the actual reasoning behind the actions.
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.
Let us ask another question.
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.
And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin:
Quoting 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.
Can such, or similar, justification be applied when zooming out to societies? Societies also encompass individuals. Boundaries...? Initiators carry significant responsibility, they're just not always easy to identify, which can be (is) abused. The attackers?defenders relationship is asymmetrical, attackers choose for both, defenders can't choose otherwise.
Warring has already parted ways with (self)constraint in marked ways, that notions of war crimes then have to contend with. Giving up on the ethics doesn't help though. War crimes are unjustified (at least illegal) as per definition, yes?
:100:
Quoting Sir2u
Is throwing a plane into Wall Street and the Pentagon justified by the evil ways of Yankees in the Middle East then?
:100:
Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.
This mode of thought is very particular of the Anglosphere, and by the site's userbase we see why it manifests so often in the lounge. The French are evil, the Germans are evil, the Japanese are evil, the communists are evil [hide="Reveal"](this one wasn't too far off)[/hide], the Russians are evil, the Arabs are evil, and now we see lots of "the Chinese are evil" talk. It is only them who are good, and the good guys always win (except all the times their side got beat, but it was more of a "strategic retreat"). And from there every sort of wickedness follows. It is a very anti-philosophical and pernicious mode of thought.
The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.
Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.
So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.
Also applies to the Nakba ... :mask:
So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.
Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?
Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist.
Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.
I never mentioned justice, only that I could justify my actions because it helped you.
NOTE TO SELF: I must remember not to help you if your dog bites you so as not to anger your sensibilities.
Quoting Tzeentch
Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.
Quoting Tzeentch
Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
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.
We already know you have the moral backbone of a jellyfish so no need to come up with increasingly unrealistic mind games to try to break someone else's.
First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well.
Countries defending against such aggression are often only too keen to turn perfectly defensive wars in punitive expeditions afterwards. A sentiment that's as understandable as it's wrong.
To me, the moral character off my adversaries is irrelevant where it concerns activities I think are inherently wrong. This is the same argument that would lead to saying people who break the law should not be afforded legal representation, because they're bad people. I can see a lot of bad outcomes if we go this way - especially since half of the time such judgments are entirely the result of group-identity (tribalism, nationalism, patriotism etc.).
The likelihood of securing victory using immoral means is also irrelevant. In that case if I enter a cage fight and bring an Uzi then I should use it because I'm guaranteed to win. This is obviously ludicrous. Also, I'm not a utilitarian so these calculations make no sense to me.
I also think the conflation of Nazis with Germans, as people are wont to do with Hamas and Palestinians, is unfair to the non-Nazi Germans and the non-Hamas Palestinians. But your decisions (and therefore the way you look at "groups") certainly impacts what happens to a lot of innocent people.
But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity.
Again the question, is morality implicit in justification? Or is there a difference between morally justified and plane old justification?
I can do a lot of things within the law that I consider immoral. Like cheating on my wife. Being an absent father or even purposefully going out of my way to undermine my kids' confidence by blaming them for everything from bad weather to breaking a cup.
Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"?
Well, in this situation you've got Nazis storming an English beach head after already establishing air superiority.
So you can either try to kill them or let them take over.
Presumably you choose "resistance by other means" which sacrifices many more English lives but avoids breaking international war laws.
What if conventional means were sure to lead to failure against the upcoming Nazi onslaught? Would you continue with the futile resistance?
It's really just a matter of which bullet you bite.
Since then they have invent so many weapons that make gas look like a water pistol.
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.
Quoting Sir2u
That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Sorry about that.
The original question is about justifying a person's acts, then morality pops its head up, then justice appears, then law.
While it is obvious that there are connections between these concepts it is difficult to get them into a clear picture.
Justifying ones acts means having facts, motives or reasons for them. But there is no specific reason for them to be morally acceptable.
Morality has to be based on sort of guiding concept, but not all morality is equally acceptable by everyone.
Justice is about judgement of actions and usually is after the fact, therefore not being part of the decision to take a particular action.
Laws would be the method of application of justices. Whilst probably being known before the action to be judged have nothing to do with morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past and some are still today, depending on ones version of morality.
Is there a real difference between moral justification and plain justification, or is it all just word play?
Ok, it's a matter of which moral bullet you bite. Use an ugly weapon or turn over your countrymen to death when you could have prevented it.
Whose morality? On what is that morality based?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not necessarily.
I will let you figure out how it applies to gang warfare. Oh, hang on. Maybe you have never experienced driveby's with bullets flying in all direction trying to hit the members that are stealing the drug customer of the guys in the car.
Quoting Tzeentch
Is there any FIRST PRINICLE that is not an opinion?
Quoting Tzeentch
OK, you win.
I just hope that when you are assaulted in the street your possible life saver does not just walk away thinking that he will not be justified in assisting you by hitting the criminal on the head with a big stick.
The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.
We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. Even if on a lot of other issues most of our moral intuitions and judgments probably coincide due to a shared cultural heritage.
And people feel like these are important discussions: morality is clearly interrelational, people are looking for affirmation and confirmation and, I think even, acceptance. We want to understand and be understood on some primary issues and often quite primal feelings like disgust or, the other side of the coin, admiration and worship. Unfortunately, nowadays, you will always find this online, so very little reason for people to actually investigate their moral intuitions. All this is more important than justifying buying pasta instead of potatoes at least. So, no, it's not just words I think. There's a lot more going on.
A bit rambling but hope that touches on what you wanted to talk about.
Interesting tension here. You say there's no fact of the matter about what morality is, yet you hold immutable opinions towards it. :chin:
It's like you're saying "there's no fact of the matter as to what morality is, yet its character is immutable."
Quoting Benkei
An idea I have had running through my head for a while, not exact on this topic but not too far from it either.
One of the things that for Muslims is supposed to be immutable is the behavior of women.
I have been watching the protests around the world of the Gaza supporters.
Right alongside the Arab women,(many of which fled their homelands because of laws forbidding them education and basic rights) in typical head scarfs are local women in shorts and crop tops with their heads uncovered.
I wonder if the extremists are sitting around watching the news and saying "Look, Allah has blessed us, even the western whores are protesting for us"
I am not try to be racist or even provoke ire amongst the people in the forum. It is just an honest thought.
Just as well you didn't live in India or Africa during the heyday of the British Empire.
Quoting Benkei
Yessss!!!
Nuclear missiles, too. And all of them are always justified, because somebody was always in danger from somebody for some reason that we don't go into.
Projection like this is often a confession (e.g. Zionfascists or sympathizers in the 2020s). :shade:
You got me, 180. I would have been a Nazi in the 40s. :up: :rofl:
And you would have been a klansman in the 20s. :rofl:
Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement.
Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
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.
Well, somebody is going to have to make that choice whether it's a single person or group of people together. My point is that these theoretical examples ignore the question of agency. This is most obvious when there's a powerful antagonist introduced that tells you either shoot one kid or I murder all 20 of them, as if that still allows for a moral choice. I think there's no moral choice possible because there's only the illusion of choice - instead it has already been decided for you that you're going to have to do something horrible.
It's the same when we're going to pretend there's a false dichotomy between two equally unpalatable choices: use immoral means to win a war by killing countless innocents or to lose the war from an unjust aggressor.
Real life tends to have alternatives available.
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.
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. Someone must lead, even if there are no states this remains true. Tribes had leaders. Kingdoms had leaders. Poor or lack of leadership historically frequently results in one's people being decimated or conquered.
But by all means be "moral" and go frolic away in the countryside while stronger organized forces seek domination.
He could go anywhere, really. And so could his countrymen.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So?
Why should I, an individual interested in making moral decisions, have any interest in leading something that cannot be led morally?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:ok:
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?
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.
I might agree with you if we're talking about someone forced into a leadership position. That's not the case here. Leaders almost always choose to get in the game in the first place. That's what makes it immoral and cowardice to abdicate responsibility when the going gets rough.
If one doesn't have the spine to make hard moral choices, one should not get into politics. Wouldn't you agree?
This is silly.
All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make.
Question: 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"?
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars.
As for there not being any forces applied, you are wrong. Circumstances are a major force in world affairs since mankind started to flourish.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, just because you disagree with his type of morality does not make him the bad guy.
If one wishes to be moral, one probably should avoid politics altogether.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Sir2u
Morality isn't about Britain.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Sir2u
Probably not.
Quoting Sir2u
Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics.
This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type). First, abstaining from warcrimes simply doesn't hinder your ability fight a war successfully. Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". The laws haven't been made in a vacuum without knowledge of actual warfare. If you know the laws, it should be evident that it doesn't limit the way to destroy the enemy combatants.
But the above thinking goes well with people who want revenge and who think that if the enemy kills civilians, then you have to give them "a message" by killing their civilians, a lot of them. Eye for an eye or perhaps more accurately 100 eyes for one eye. In similar fashion these people, usually who have not served in the military, think that not committing war crimes when the enemy does them means that somehow the military is soft and not harsh enough to counter such bloodthirsty foe. These ideas are quite ludicrous and typically show the total lack of understanding of modern warfare of those who given justification for war crimes.
Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No.
How far does this go I wonder...
How about yourself, would you choose death before homicidal self-defense? (due to immorality of homicide)
If they come for your loved ones, would you also be (or run) elsewhere? (after all, there might be killing involved)
In short, are there boundaries? Would homicide (or whatever-cide) ever be OK?
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.
You seem to be implying that politics necessarily leads to immorality, else why should one avoid it? Yet politics is necessary for society. Are you anti-society?
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.
Churchill and 'moral' don't really belong in one sentence. He was a pragmatic nationalist and not especially gentle in his methods, at home, in the empire or abroad.
Quoting 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.
Quoting jorndoe
To any sane person homicide is :sad:.
But as a last resort, it might be rightfully be labeled a tragedy.
We're dealing with a hypothetical here posed by @RogueAI. Nor do rules created in the 1920s always maintain the same character that they did as years go on. These rules were created in the 20s, so I ask: Was it ok to use in WWI? I'll readily admit that gas is a nasty weapon and not something that I would use on the battlefield unless extraordinary circumstances. But I would say this qualifies as one.
In this scenario your country's (UK) beachfront is being stormed by Nazis. Intel says gas would be extremely effective - perhaps because they're not wearing gas protection or perhaps because a new type of gas has been synthesized.
There's also conventional means of resistance but we're not given much info as to Britain's capability here and we could envision a wide number of scenarios from futile to easily being able to ward them off. Obviously the more futile potential resistance is the greater the attraction is towards using gas. But the UK has lost air superiority here.
In broad strokes though, if a large Nazi invading force combined with air superiority landed on the British beachfront in '43 or '44 and I (the Prime minister) learned that gas would be extremely effective and I used it and it did prove extremely effective would I feel vindicated? Yes. My first responsibility is to my people and my country is in imminent danger. Not my first choice of weapon, but if my hand is forced I'll use it.
If the invading force was small I would not use it though. I am only talking a very large, very serious invading force that would surely successfully invade otherwise.
Hmm Can't quite figure out if that's a :down: or a don't know or a :up:
Leaning towards reading your comments as a :up: which is the most common anyway
Is my interpretation way off...?
In my old Dojo, we were taught: trouble ? run. :up:
Whoever engineers the war sells it to the people who have to fight in it as self-defence (Israel's right to exist) or liberation (the American states' from British taxation) or regaining what is rightfully ours (Ukraine) The actual chain of causation and desired outcome are always concealed, as is the incompetence and short-sightedness through with which a government blundered into its military entanglements. Moral decisions rarely enter in.
How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts
in reverse order. What's left of the country being thus defended will not be known until afterward. Like the Coventry decision on a much larger scale.
Presumably it would only be on the landing force which has stormed an isolated beachhead? With collateral damage that's a different scenario. I'm just trying to simplify.
:100: :fire:
That's the existential danger to Britain - massed units on a single unpopulated beach? Such an invasion could be repelled or contained by land/naval forces without risk to residents from a change in wind direction and residual poison left on the beach. I realize the question can be put in binary form, but reality never is that simple. This kind of example is always biased by artificial constraint that ignore factors relevant to an actual decision.
:rofl: Definitely stealing that one when some minority mentions their own liberation movement.
I have no idea how you got from what I said to your reply, absolutely nonsensical.
Quoting Tzeentch
So you think a NAZI Europe should be considered as the high road? I have to think about that for a while.
Quoting Tzeentch
You are confused and confusing what I said. Let me write it slowly for you.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country.
As we have already mentioned, moral reasoning comes in many version. Churchill considered the different possible out comes of his actions and did what he thought best in REAL life. What he thought best to protect the millions of people under his charge.
So lets go back to the OP.
Quoting RogueAI
As in real life, in this imaginary scene he has a hard decision to make. If the use of gas is considered to be a deciding factor to stop the invasion then he must have been reasonable sure of losing the battle if he did not use it. That outcome would not have been morally acceptable to him therefore he would probable not doubt in using it.
But this is all speculation, because no one here actually knew the gentleman.
Quoting ssu
But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.
My dad told me that nearly all of the people in England had gas masks, so I doubt there there would be too much collateral damage.
And the reason everyone had them was that there was amply evidence that the nazis had gas and were prepared to use it. After all all they really needed was the territory and a lot of the people would have been exterminated or used as slave labor until they died.
Then how would it stop the enemy, who would presumably be more prepared for gas attack than the local peasants?
If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use.
Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute.
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.
Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner.
Because how would implementing war crimes be "the only viable method"? How is that the only viable way? War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective. And warcrimes typically happen when the fighting force has huge discipline problems, especially when the armed force is not an organized army, but simply an armed mob. Warcrimes are typical also to armies with soldiers that are treated as cannon fodder. A bit different is then states that have genocidal objectives (like the Third Reich). As I've said earlier, the effectiveness of the idea of making a desert and calling it peace has been understood from Antiquity, but also the rejection of this strategy comes from that time too. The question of justification has been clear since Antiquity: there is no moral justification for it.
The only possibilities that come to my mind of "the only viable method" are totally morally objectionable scenarios, typically dictatorships with little support of the populace clinging on to power. Hence no moral grounds for this. Or then you believe in the ideas like Lebensraum from one Austrian mister H.
And this strategy actually has nothing to do with actual warfare of killing the enemy combatants and destroying the enemy itself, which is the stuff the laws of war are basically about (even if they have been enlarged to consider other things too). The Chinese can indeed have a genocidal program against the Uighurs (arbitrary detention, forced sterilization and abortion etc.), but these are not warcrimes because the Chinese military isn't fighting Uighurs in armed combat.
Churchill himself advised to use mustard gas on Iraq rebels, so you don't have to assume here that Churchill would have had to be encouraged to use them on a hypothetical German beach head landing zone in 1940, if Operation Sea Lion would have gone through. I think he would have wanted to use them in that kind of dire situation. Of course I also think that mr Hitler would had no difficulties in ordering the Luftwaffe then to bomb London with chemical weapons: once the Allies used them, no reason why not to use them yourself! After all, Douhet, the father of the terror bombing strategy, thought prior to WW2 that strategic bombing should be done with a mixture of conventional bombs and fire bombs and then followed on with a chemical attack to prevent first responders from doing their job. Hence the common thought prior to WW2 that bombings of cities would be done also by chemical weapons. Just look at any photos of pre-WW2 that handle preparations for the common people against aerial bombing.
Notice that this is a bit of different question. Because here the question is of weapons that have been deemed "unlawful". There's a multitude of these "banned" weapons: chemical weapons, biological weapons, antipersonnel mines etc. which countries can either participate in banning or not. Yes, there was the Geneva Protocol of 1925 forbidding the use of chemical weapons, but actually even before WW1 the UK had signed a ban on chemical weapons. But once the Germans used chemical weapons in WW1, the UK had no problems of using them itself.
The simple question here is the futility of such an attack: the German soldier carried all time during WW2 the gas mask, if you've seen photos of German troops from WW2. And btw Germany had the largest quantity of chemical weapons during WW2, the allies actually didn't have a similar stockpile. It's not a miracle weapon, which all sides knew.
German WW2 canisters for the gasmasks:
It might be handy when the enemy has no gas masks, like the Ethiopians didn't have when Mussolini attacked them.
(An Ethiopian with burns from chemical agents during the Italian-Abyssinian war in 1936)
It started as an implausible situation and has continued throughout as one. What if questions usually have that characteristic.
So when a christian does what he considers the best he can do to protect his family and kills the people attacking them it is a religious sentiment. No it is animal survival instinct, look after the pack, herd, tribe.
Just because Churchill had a bigger family does not make it a nationalist sentiment, he did not make the decisions he made just because he was British but as the person responsible for the people he was in charge of.
Okay. But some are more fantastical than others. The answer to this particular one: Yes, he'd probably use whatever means he considered effective; he would not be hampered by moral considerations. His biographers would justify it, regardless of collateral damage or harm to British citizens, and continue to hold him up as a hero. It was the nation and the empire he served; the common people were not 'his family'.
You're starting to bend yourself at fascinating angles.
Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions.
One of those conditions is the one I specified as its use being the ONLY possible method, in which I stated that I consider that he would be justified in using it.
There are many other possible scenarios, but here I am not making any statements about them.
Quoting ssu
I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon.
Quoting ssu
It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon.
If it is actually the ONLY method, then there is no other option. Key word ONLY.
If the world, due to some natural disaster, reached a point where there were few people left and the only way to continue the human race was to force people to breed as much as possible even if they were against the idea. Should the human race be allowed to become extinct? Or would it be immoral to force women to have babies?
Please remember that morality is a social construct based on the needs of the society it serves.
EErr, and just who are the nation and the empire? Surely they are the people?
I never said that, I am just trying to make it clear what his motivation was.
Quoting Tzeentch
[snark]I must be learning from you![/smark]
But one thing I will bet with you about. If Churchill had used gas to stop the Germans crossing the channel, the people would have loved him for it.
No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation. As for the empire, the people who live there are of far less significance. Individually and in very large numbers, they can be sacrificed for the crown, the state and the empire. These are quite distinct entities in the world-view of a monarchist head of state.
Were do you live? The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people. That is why people get elected to be national leaders, so that the nation can serve the people.
Everything is allowed when it comes to self-defense, but bombing civilian targets because it improves the chances of winning a war is several jumps away from self-defense.
Quoting RogueAI
First it was Germans, then Nazis, when pressed further, you will change the script to the say the ideology is evil instead. But the comments defending the murder of German civilians will remain. Funny.
Spoken like a true nationalist. Except, of course, the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity at the exclusion of other more universal principles, which principles are sacrificed on the altar of injustice.
Me, a nationalist. :rofl: :rofl:
I have not been near my country of birth in 50 years, and I am not even politically minded.
Quoting Benkei
And while saying this you keep repeating that the nation is not the people? Who makes up the ethnic or cultural groups if it is not the people? Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation?
The people are loyal to the monarch and aristocracy, the pope and high clergy, the populist demagogue, the warlord, the caliph, the ayatollah, the governor, the chieftain, the general, the company, the regiment... The rulers are loyal to their own power structure. They do the plotting and declaring; the people do the fighting and dying.
I think the points raised in this article might help ground this debate in some more concrete ethical viewpoints during wartime. One might disagree with this author, I can see many points for debate, but I wanted to present it as a good starting place to help bring up important points about war.
Here is the article:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2024/03/92928/
Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice? There are more terrorist enclaves in Turkey, Russia, India, Malaysia, South America, Africa.... I wonder who'll be left to benefit from all that lasting peace.
However, he collateral damage I referred to was British civilians and livestock and fish - "the people" who were being defended and their food sources. One assumption that the Germans, if they had the chance, would kill everybody anyway - something that didn't happen in the countries they occupied. That's a more difficult moral choice than sacrificing potential foreign enemies. But Churchill proved himself capable of making that choice, so there is no doubt of his resolve.
The moment-by-moment tactics are one ethical consideration. The long-term strategy is another. A third, which is a moot point in the heat of a military campaign, but nevertheless relevant for future consideration, is how the state of affairs came about that produced this particular crisis. We could ask that regarding Israel's unending hostilities, and the Middle East in general. We could even ask why there are so many terrorists and what conditions, besides killing lots and lots of people, could be altered to produce fewer instead of more.
Very interesting, I am in total agreement with him.
It conveniently ignores ius ad bellum and goes straight to ius in bello. He's also applying a doctrine developed for states to non-state actors. And it's obviously a piece written by someone written an agenda - justifying Israeli war crimes.
It's not that the West has forgotten about collateral damage being sometimes acceptable under ius in bello but that Israeli violence is disproportionate and that the ill intent and targeting of civilians is by now well documented.
Here's an actual analysis instead of this opinion piece:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/466473
As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf.
Is no one in Gaza telling them to stop being terrorists or is it that no one is listening to their pleas to stop?
Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved.
Let us suppose the the objective of Israel is to rid the world of a terrorist group that defines itself as representatives of a country.
1. Who can get rid of Hamas? I have not heard of any other authority including the ones in the country they claim to represent offering to do the job.
2. I can think of a couple of things on that list that would cover the situation.
3. Getting rid of the terrorist group would be of benefit to even the people they claim to represent.
4. I am sure that they have tried other means of stopping people killing their people
5. Unless third parties actually intervene I see no reason why success is not a sure thing. And I do not see to many rushing to aid the terrorists.
6. If this method eliminates the terrorists and allows for peace then I am sure other groups will fear the same methods being used against them. The world could actually become a nice place.
Now lets apply it to the OP
1. Churchill was the highest authority, there was no one else he could have passed the decisions on to.
2. Again there are several options here.
3. Defeating the nazi war machine at any cost would benefit the whole world, except those that started the action.
4. No way out of the hole they were in. The bad guys did not want anything but war.
5. As stated in the OP, there was a good chance of success.
6. Again, ridding the world of the bad guys at that moment would halt further evil and make it easier to obtain peace.
I like this idea.
And for that, they should die? I respectfully disagree.
Quoting Sir2u
Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism.
Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea?
[hide="Reveal"]Yes.[/hide]
I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success.
Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future.
As one of the best know acts of terrorism, maybe you could start with 9/11.
Oh dear, don't you think that maybe it would be unreasonable and immoral to do something like that? Just think of all of the [s]prisoners[/s] innocent people that live in North Korea, it is not their fault that their leader is an ugly twat.
But there again, I have not heard about how they have tried to get rid of him by staging mass revolution or just shooting the ugly mother. So maybe it would be justifiable to do it to get rid of one more dictator. Just make it is small enough that it does the minimum amount of damage possible.
Disclaimer: To the north Korean hackers; the writing contained in this post is for the enjoyment of the readers and in no way is meant as an insult to any world leaders.
I am sure that they have lots of other weapons that are just as effective but less damaging. But if not, let the bad birds fly.
On second thoughts, they will need to send at least one to nail the boss man, and he will probably have a lot of people around him. Let em rip, or is it R.I.P.?
Suppose on what evidence? Quoting Sir2u
I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. You, as well as the world leaders in control, can read the effects of past foreign policy decisions for yourself.
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.
If a bigger, stronger, faster person than you is beating the crap out of you/trying to rape you, and you have a gun, would you use it?
Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons.
Quoting Sir2u
And therefore yes, someone that has advise the use of chemical weapons makes it clear how he does value the weapon system. It is worth mentioning in this purely hypothetical situation.
And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc).
Quoting Sir2u
Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?
Besides, my point was that arguing about individual weapon systems goes quite off the mark here: if you use napalm, white phospherous, thermobaric weapons, mustard gas or so isn't the main issue here. Because you surely can use conventional high explosives, ordinary bullets quite irresponsibly and commit heinous war crimes with them too. Let's not forget that genocides have been done with a cheap pesticide and in Ruanda with machetes. It is something similar of the Pope calling for the limitation of the crossbows only to be used against the infidels and not fellow Christians, a rather hypocrite act of morality. Hence in my view arguing about the lawfulness of certain weapon systems simply drifts the focus from the obvious: how and in what manner are the weapon systems used. Yet the general thing here is that if the enemy commits warcrimes, then that doesn't give you the right to do the same, and warcrimes aren't a way to success in the battlefield (hence you can be victorious even without committing warcrimes).
Quoting ssu
Quoting Sir2u
As pointed earlier by others, a far better example for this thread would have been the actual terror bombings that happened. At least there Bomber Command Arthur Harris knew well that if the Allies lost the war, he would be in court for war crimes. Again, what I'm against is the whole wording of the problem of warcrimes as being the only option, or in the example using banned weapons systems as the only viable option. There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? It simply is questionable. Just as is the hypothetical idea that women don't want to start families, so forced sex is the "only viable method". Especially when the cost effectiveness of chemical weapons on the battlefield and the deterrence of simply chemical weapons possibly existing within the stockpiles of the enemy made somebody like Hitler not to use them. That should tell a lot about the effectiveness of chemical weapons on the 20th Century battlefield.
Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned.
So that's a "yes", then. You would use a gun against an enemy with no weapons. In your words, "categorically disproportionate".
I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict.
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.
This isn't addressing the author's position on duty to one's own citizens versus duty to the enemy's citizens, so I find this comment irrelevant.
I'm not sure the writer is completely commenting on law as much as ethics, which could be the basis of the laws or perhaps ways of applying them. It's a bit of both.
Quoting Tzeentch
Granted, but this is a philosophy forum and he's making claims on what seems to be more ethical matters, as much as (international) lawful ones.
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.
I was referring to the article I was quoting that relates ti the ethics of war. Clearly the debate is about collateral damage and the article gets to the heart of the current conflict and perhaps gives insights into some thinking on the matter. It is more nuanced way to answer the OP.
This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, and since we're talking about WW2...suppose Nazi Germany had a law requiring people to report the whereabouts of any Jews that were hiding. Tzeentch, if you were a citizen in Nazi Germany, would you follow that law?
Suppose a woman is being raped and strangled. She has a gun and the only shot available to her is a headshot. Furthermore, she also knows the rapist is a neighbor in the grips of a drug-induced psychosis brought on by an unforeseen reaction to a prescription drug, and is therefore "innocent" by reason of insanity. You would condemn her if she shot the innocent person in the head to save herself?
You think that's implausible??? Let's suppose you were kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist... stupid, right? How did it ever get published?
This was not about bombing Germany, but about litmus tests for moral theories. If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?
I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding.
I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track?
If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote.
Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? Or that we should pretend to know nothing about how things work, for the sake of a question the answer to which has no effect on anything?
Quoting RogueAI
Why bother?
I think the concept of ethics and ethical behaviour exist in a realm of real events and people. I see no point in making up these far-fetched scenarios, when there are plenty of examples to contemplate in the world we actually inhabit, where we actually have to make ethical decisions and judge other people who make them.
Yes. Why do you think Trolley Car is so popular? Or Thomson's violinist analogy? Or Plato's allegory of the cave? They're totally absurd and people will be talking about them a thousand years from now. It's like reading a good fiction book. Some suspension of disbelief is required.
Let's just do that then. I'm up for discussing novels.
But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower.
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.
That's why I shared my own analysis of the just war tradition because it's an analysis entirely separated from any actual conflict and doesn't have an axe to grind for any international actor.
If a moral theory concludes the US is not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?
For a lot of it's history, yes. But you didn't answer my question: "If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?"
Ok, but what about my question? You're a citizen of Germany in 1942. Do you follow the law and turn in the hiding Jews?
Suppose slavery still existed and all the countries got together and agreed that escaped slaves should be returned to their countries of origin. However, 20 years after signing the agreement, Russia has an epiphany and bans slavery. Escaped slaves flock to Russia. Should Russia follow the international agreement they signed 20 years ago and return the slaves?
You mean like being kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist? That's one of the most preposterous thought experiments ever. Does that stop you from thinking about the morality of the situation?
I'm not going to play games answering your loaded questions.
If you have a point to make, make it.
If your point is that Israel commiting crimes against humanity is morally equivalent to people opposing Nazism or slavery, you're obviously off your rocker.
:roll:
Stops me from taking it seriously, yes.
Its a war of self-defense. They were attacked brutally and are responding to the group that did it. The question becomes how to handle collateral damage. The article I provided was answering it a certain way. The part I was interested in was when considering collateral damage, how much do you weigh your own citizens versus the civilians on the other side. There are a lot of nuances there for example Citizens, soldiers, and things such as this, but you would actually have to read the premises there and then evaluate.
Really? You can't take Searle's Chinese Room seriously? Mary's Room? The Experience Machine? The Transporter Problem? The Utility Monster? You just mentally shut down when you hear stuff like that?
As to weighing one group of civilian lives above others or even your own soldiers, this goes against everything any universal morality would stand for. So, I don't find it interesting at all. Just glaringly an argument for the sake of opportunity.
So clearly we are not getting beyond this point.
Quoting Benkei
I think whatever your own Benkei ideas on it to suit your own argument, it is THE argument at hand and would like an actual philosophical answer rather than a treatise on everything you know related to Just War theory or dismissive frothing at the mouth ad homs and poo poos. You see, I am not an international agency, nor am I anything to you except someone on a philosophy forum.. Your invective towards interlocutors is not warranted.
Since you answered my question, I will go ahead and answer yours:
Quoting RogueAI
Yes.
With the disclaimer that moral theories shouldn't make moral judgements over whole societies that ranged over many years. Because of that, the more appropriate answer to both my and your question is that it doesn't apply.
But moral theories can make judgements about the policies those nations carried out, such as Manifest Destiny or the Holocaust, and if those policies are/were widely supported by the peoples of those nations, can those societies also be judged? 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?
If you're referring to the war of conquest thing, then that's not really a philosophical point as a chance to rehash the whole conflict which we have done many times here.
Edit: the argument for opportunity is the article's author BTW.
In THIS hypothetical question, you use the evidence given in the OP.
Quoting Vera Mont
All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently. I suppose that if you do not have any thoughts on the topic you brought up it says a lot about the things you have said so far.
How so, their intention is to get rid of a political party called hamas. They did not decide to eradicate hamas until the attack. They tried to live with them before that.
#6 they might have gone too far, but we are sitting far away from the fishbowl and cannot see the complete picture they have. Would you walk into a place were there are a lot of dangerous people trying to kill you while hiding amongst women and children?
If, from their point of view, this is the only way left to put an end to the evils of hamas, then who am I to say that they are wrong.
Quoting Benkei
I think that after such an attack it would be a normal response. The USA went after ISIS I believe after the attacks. There were fewer cases of lateral damage because the people from ISIS did not hide in peoples houses and hospitals.
Me too. I think that if the bad guys in any situation put noncombatants in danger, then I am not responsible for their safety. And I would not risk my people lives to try and solve that problem.
Have the Palestinians denied the claims that hamas represents them and their fight for freedom yet?
The part I am most interested in what the author said here:
Whatever people's views of this conflict are, THIS seems to be the main justification for the bombardments in Gaza. Where is the balance between protecting one's own troops through killing from "afar", versus sending in troops door-by-door, guaranteeing the killing of one's own citizens.
What seems to be the sentiment here of some is that war can only take place in hypothetical spaces where troops can fight it out. Of course, Hamas doesn't allow for that. It has built a large infrastructure to hid within under civilians. So the empasse of whether to get the targets amongst the civilians or to send groundtroops to try to pinpoint them..
This brings up issues of protecting one's own brethren/family/people versus anothers when in a war of self-defense (preventing a group from repeatedly harming your country)..
There are several ethical frameworks here..
Social-contract theory provides a justification that states have obligations to its own citizens to protect them. One presumably can extend this even in times of war that, while international law considerations apply, one still must uphold one's obligations to one's own citizens above and beyond others when protecting lives.
Basic filial piety ethical considerations like the "lifeboat scenario" are relevant here. If a ship was sinking and all things being equal, you had to save your own family members versus strangers, what do you do? Obviously, discounting one's own brethren as having some moral weight would seem off in some ethical sense. People are people are people, but to pretend one doesn't have obligations for one's own relations is to dishonor what it even means to have relations.. or so one might argue.
Not to mention this is just psychological.. One's brethren/countrymen presumably are part of one's own survival, so by extension, one's own family/brethren/countymen would be a self-preservational response to a threat. This can be considered a natural phenomenon of ethical concern.
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.
I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother. The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism (When states, including powerful empires with gigantic armies and unlimited ordnance, indulge in terror against weaker opponents, it's called something else - maybe even counter-terrorism) is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat.
When imperialist forces invade a country, or support a rival's aggression against a country, a whole lot of people killed, maimed, bereaved, displaced and very upset. When the incursion is done by a vastly more power enemy who then attempts to govern that conquered nation with little or no regard for its culture and customs, upset turns to resentment. Over time, resentment festers in localized postules of hate and rage that periodically erupt in violence.
Destabilize a region, it tends to be unstable for quite a long time.
Thanks for replying to my actual point. I invite you to comment here as well:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904669
No, I don't 'shut down'. I question the basis of the example, its relevance to real life, its constraints and its aims. Having thought about it, I then decide whether to take it seriously, dismiss it as silly, reject it on the grounds of invalidity or trickery, or respond to it.
Only interesting if you're not interested in morality. 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.
I asked what you thought, not what is available on the internet.
Could you send me a link to your brain so that i can look for myself.
Quoting Vera Mont
Who oppressed ISIS, al-Qaeda?
I don't think your POV will ever get any wider or your historical perspective any longer.
But he never did use it, are we discussing the OP or actually history?
Quoting ssu
OK, no idea what this has to do with the discussion though.
Quoting ssu
Are we still discussing the OP? I am pretty sure that if Churchill had declared his desire to kill every single German, he would have gotten a lot of support for the idea.
Quoting ssu
Of course there does, but in hypothetical questions one has to decide what part is reality.
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality.
Quoting ssu
This actually highlights the fact that gas being banned is just as ridiculous as banning swords and pikes. There are bigger and better ways to kill of a bunch of people nowadays which really makes both irrelevant.
Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry:
You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. You seem to only have one.
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.
And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on.
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:
Quoting schopenhauer1
No doubt you would let your close family member drowned to save the stranger it seems. Some people disagree there.
Quoting 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.
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.
I'm desolate. I had no idea!
Quoting Sir2u
I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated.
Quoting Sir2u
My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes.
Quoting Sir2u
In this, we also differ.
Quoting Sir2u
Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture. Quoting Sir2u
Doesn't one? I suppose it helps not to give a shit.
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.
So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover.
Quoting Vera Mont
I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even.
Quoting Vera Mont
Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. Or just becoming grouchy.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Vera Mont
Now your getting the right idea. You might get to be a philosopher someday. :wink:
Quoting RogueAI
to
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting Sir2u
By all means, avoid fanaticism!
Quoting Sir2u
Depends on the judges.
Quoting Sir2u
I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake.
Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?
Quoting Vera Mont
Yep I am a fanatic when it comes to things like that.
Quoting Vera Mont
Only school and college debates have judges, out here in the real world it is not like that.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Is there an example of any of these you could give us? Just to be sure we understand properly.
Quoting jorndoe
What do defense lawyers say?
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?
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
And it is also difficult to do.
Quoting jorndoe
I understand.
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.
Quoting 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.
I was just thinking of history books. Extreme examples could be: the Holocaust was unjust offense, the imprisonment of Jeffrey Dahmer was just defense.
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.
Irrelevant. What other people do is no argument for any type of moral decision.
Quoting 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.
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...
Quoting 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.
So what is this non-proper ethics that apparently applies to states?
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.
Quoting Tzeentch
morality:
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.
Quoting 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.
What other actors are there besides individuals?
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
As I said, from my point of view the only difference is the size.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Does any of this have any bearing on the war being ethical or moral?
Quoting 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.
I dont know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if its all the same kind of decisions?
Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state...
Ok then.
What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?
Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?
I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:
As I stated above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
In history, using counterfactuals (what if's) is actually a way to think about actual reality that happened. It is using the history itself to answer the what if, not just assume historical persons without looking at what they actually thought and did.
OK, the first thing here is notice that when chemical weapons are used against you forces, Churchill is of the opinion to use them then against the enemy. This is simply a historical fact:
(See Churchill and mustard gas)
And the occasion of Churchill using chemical weapons against an enemy that didn't even have chemical weapons, in Iraq, but Afghanistan too:
So Churchill had ordered the use of the gas weapon post WW1 and had advocated actually twice the use of the gas weapon and didn't understand "the squeamishness about the use of gas" simply portrays a person that actually has a quite positive view about the weapon system. There is absolutely no denying of this. And so yes, all the above is relevant when thinking what Churchill would have done in the situation described in the OP.
Hence you don't have to use the hypotheticals so much as if Churchill would have to had a lot of encouragment to use chemical weapons. It's more like that if there would have been German landings on the UK, it would have been the military command reigning down Churchill from using the gas weapon.
Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.
If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.
If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.
Bombing of terrorists you mean. One is a reaction of self-defense, the other is to attack in the first place, causing the defensive reaction.
Heads of state often do. Or wage one without a declaration. Sometimes in secret.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nothing makes a government declare a war or launch a war; a powerful individual or a small group of like-minded individuals entrusted with the governance of a nation, usually confer with the top generals and make the decision in camera. I very much doubt ethical considerations at the top of their agenda when deliberating. In some instances, that decision is then brought before a parliament or congress or senate for ratification. By then, the wheels are already in motion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. On behalf of some elements of the state, on behalf of 'the state' in their opinion, at the expense of the people - even if they need to introduce conscription because the war isn't popular enough to attract enough volunteers, even if they have to use deception and coercion on the people.
The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit.
Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.
You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.
Quoting ssu
Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood
Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war.
This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. That is to say, "War" is seen as something legitimate when done for self-defense, on a state level, and involves aspects that can never really be analogous to the individual (i.e. collateral damage, sending other people in harms way, etc.).
Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not.
This is perhaps something that we forget now when talking about the war in Ukraine: both sides ardently will declare to keep on fighting... until some agreement is found, which comes quite "spontaneously" for the people.
Quoting Sir2u
And this actually is the answer to the question of the OP in my view. Natural you can take the stance that something that a country has accepted to be unlawful... is also unlawful in war.
Perhaps the only exception might be the modern discourse of Imperialism/Colonialism, where there's few defenders for obviously otherwise stunning military campaigns of conquest of the past. But this has no political weight anymore, especially when those colonies have gotten independence or the native people that have been fought with genocidal strategies pose little or no political threat anymore.
Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? The intent is not to kill civilians, but the outcome might be civilian deaths if one pursues them. Also if we couple this with Social Contract theory, do states not have obligations to protect its own citizens if possible from undue death in its calculations? In theory, if there were no sides, but we were but robots, the universal rule would be that civilians and protecting one's own troops from sending in a hellish ground assault that would be way costlier on one's own troop's levels and morales, would be considered equal, but is is it even moral to not consider protecting one's own troops and not prolonging a war, putting one's troops in what would look to be a way more deadly approach? This is why I said earlier here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
'States' are ruled by persons. The decisions in war, as in manufacturing, as in agriculture, as in trade, re made by individuals either separately or in groups that communicate and agree on a conclusion. Quoting schopenhauer1
It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?"
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, all that, plus the fact that from one hour to the next both leaders and followers will individually have to decide what to do next -- and what not to do.
You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't?
It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?
Quoting Sir2u
Then what is it you're confused about?
Sounds more like the present sanctimonious propaganda of trying to give an excuse why population centers should be bombed in the first place. Because you don't hide formations in cities, you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.
During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet:
Prior to WW2, this idea of "destroying the enemy's will to resist" was quite popular. You can notice the stark difference to the present attitudes towards war. Douhet wouldn't have a following today, but he sure did in the pre-WW2 era.
Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
Harris was true to his word.
Please read the post again. I don't feel that I should have to explain something that is basic high school intro to sociology and psychology. I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. Write "role psychology" in google
Quoting Vera Mont
This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.
Quoting Vera Mont
I was talking about you.
Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting nonsensical ideas. If you insist on posting, please read carefully and make sure you understood what you read. If you have problems with anything, you can always ask for explanations here.
Or they thought that they British were to ethically/morally upright to do such dastardly deeds.
Quoting ssu
Yep, they got a bollocking, and he was justified in his thoughts and actions.
So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings...
Quoting ssu
Indeed, I would say that is not even what is happening in the current conflict as a strategy (though various tactical errors can be questioned)... More apt is the fortress analogy here.
Quoting ssu
That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy...Indeed you reap what you sow...
But what is this "war"? What is "war"? It is not something that an individual can have... Do you think war is can be legitimate? Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what? What is that implying?
Also, as @ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars...
It is not quite the ridiculous belief you think it is, Harris actually said that because it was the truth.
Yes, I got that: Different roles, different ethics.
Quoting Sir2u
So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? If it is not in the matter of honesty, fair dealing, observance of public safety or respect for property, what is the salient matter of each role-specific ethic?
Quoting Sir2u
They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit.
War is armed conflict between two or more groups with opposing objectives.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Whether you say it aloud or just think it, considering a war legitimate means you agree with its objectives. That may imply - or someone may infer from it - that you accept whatever methods are used to attain those objectives. This could the 'ends justify mean' territory - can't be too sure about implications.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. And people keep making new rules in futile attempts to cover the changed situations. And people keep breaking those rules.
If they win, they're considered - at least by themselves - justified. If they lose, they're punished.
I think the laws of war are quite clear on this case: if a combatant uses an otherwise restricted area as a fighting position, let's say a hospital or a church/mosque, it can be attacked.
Naturally in the present climate this has lead to simply to hospitals being attacked in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has gone so bad that one of the lessons from the war in Ukraine is for medical personnel to hide their status simply by not using the red cross. Why use a large red cross, when it means that you just paint yourself as a target?
During WW2 the most famous example was the bombing of Monte Cassino. As the monastery has such a prominant view over the whole valley, the Allies presumed it had to be used by the Germans. It wasn't, but after the monastery was demolished, it was.
In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth.
Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945?
No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. My point is, war itself is a sort of absurdity, because it means death and destruction, and yet it has "legitimacy" (for good or bad). Yet, it seems in many arguments, people don't acknowledge that this indeed is what war pretty much entails. It isn't just Rambo going into a building getting the bad guys, saving the good guys and the end.
Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan?
Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).
This doesn't make sense based on the exchange we had. I said the moral case is clear "we're all people". You say "Hamas doesn't think that way". I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know.
And as I've tried to clarify, this point is irrelevant in an ethical discussion. State borders, the luck or misfortune being born one side of the border, are not moral facts and therefore shouldn't be part of moral consideration. Nothing in the just war tradition takes this into account other than the obvious requirement that governments actually represent the people over which they've been established.
It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse.
If people decide it is the legal way to settle their territorial claims or religious differences or political disagreements, of course it's legitimate. This was not even an issue until the 20th century: imperial aggression, crusades and national expansion, as well as local disputes, were simply accepted as perfectly normal.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure. What human endeavour on a mass scale is not absurd?
But in reality, the very existence of standing armies is a testament that people do consider the waging of wars perfectly normal.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's not a question about the legitimacy of war in general. It is a question about allied strategy after a particular conflict was already underway. Should Poland and France ever have been in jeopardy? Of course not. Should Germany ever have been in the state of national upheaval that spews out a Nazi leadership? Of course not. Could the entire giant debacle have been prevented? Of course.
People create the conditions in which they then make war on one another. Then they say "War broke out" as if it were some natural phenomenon, like wildfire.
Well, when it came to Poland, Stalin had been an ally to Hitler. So by his standards, that was a totally reasonable possibility (which many Nazis in the end hoped to happen).
But the strategic bombing didn't really do much compared the Ostfront, even
Yet do notice that even with the strategic bombing, actually Germany's military production went all the time up during 1941-1944. For example aircraft production is telling that it didn't
As it comes to air power, I think the idea of forcing the population to surrender by strategic bombing has been shown to be a quite dubious and questionable idea. What has been showed to work in strategic bombing is actually attacking the military-industrial complex and simple interdiction: to take away the ability to move troops and materiel to the frontline troops. Here air superiority and dominating the skies have showed just how effective air power can be.
For the worse, actually.
It's telling that the ICC court now found both the Israeli leadership and the leadership of Hamas guilty of warcrimes. And both sides just don't give a fuck. Likely Israel trying to get the judge himself to be canceled. There's another thread for that war, so not meaning to go into detail with and only mentioning to give an example of why in our times war has become more barbaric, actually.
Of course people can find multiple examples extremely brutal wars in history and in general civil wars are far more brutal than two conventional armies fighting it out. Yet still, many things have become worse, especially when you compare to the fighting in the 19th Century.
Les take an example that is really easy to understand.
A lawyer has the ethical responsibility to keep quiet about everything to do with his client that dos not already reside in the public domain, especially things that might harm the case.
A newspaper or TV reporter is ethical bound to divulge that same information if he has it.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.
But then maybe there is a secret witness that would be in serious danger if his name was revealed, the report would be remiss in naming him without his permission.
Quoting Vera Mont
If as, I had indicate, had you done some investigation on the topic of roles you would have found quite a few.
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas or look up the things you do not understand.
Saying that I did not provide examples of something that should be basic knowledge lays the blame for your ignorance on me and that is not a nice thing to do.
Rules of 'engagement', yes. Two different people in two different roles. So far, no ethical conflict.
So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information?
If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation?
Now, it's unlikely that a journalist practices law as a hobby or vice versa, so the same person probably won't wear those different hats. Maybe each can reconcile his occupational responsibilities with his own civic and personal ones, if not the other person's.
But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime.
What ethical conflict would arise among those roles, and how is she to work out such a conflict?
I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields.
Quoting Sir2u
No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.
Quoting Sir2u
That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance.
It is not my contention, I have nothing to do with the laws of any country.
In most countries he is forbidden from revealing any information that his client has confided to him personally. I am not sure how far it goes with information gathered from other sources.
Quoting Vera Mont
Most journalist I believe would publish anything they can find to get a scoop on the other news outlets. And I am not sure if it is legal for any jury lis to be kept from the public.Quoting Vera Mont
As I said earlier, you need to understand the concept of different hats used in different roles. If you will not make an effort to do that then you will never understand.
A mother of a child does not need to be a salesperson, a taxi driver, a nurse or any other job for that matter.
A mother is by nature a nurse when she looks after sick kids, she is a taxi driver when she takes her kids to school or games, she is a cook and a waitress when her kids are hungry, she is the washer women when there are dirty clothes, a councilor when the kids have problems and a lawyer when they are in trouble. These are the roles I was talking about.
It has nothing to do with her job or a side hustle, but with the work inherent in bringing up kids.
And pleas do not start talking about how that is going against the equality of women. If what I said bothers you for the obvious stereotyping just read father for mother or the parents to get equality.
Quoting Vera Mont
You can suggest all you like, you will not be the first one to do so and not even the last. The world has been turning for a very long time and people have come up with so many IDEAL moral theories that you would need a couple of life times to read and try to understand them all.
Quoting Vera Mont
I made no broad claim, I gave you the way to find out what we were discussing by doing some investigation. The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. It was your responsibility to find out about it before making ridiculous claims about mothers having side hustles.
Do you think that someone saying that you are ignorant is disrespectful? When someone does no know something, they are ignorant. I am ignorant about brain and tree surgery. even more so about digital money.
I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience.
I personally think, which is also why I didn't become a lawyer, that client confidentiality goes too far. If I would represent a client for murder A and as a result he also confesses murders B and C from 5 years ago to me then as a lawyer I'm prohibited from disclosing B and C. I think disclosures should be permitted as long as it doesn't frustrate the defence of murder A since B and C is gratuitous information that is in principle irrelevant for my defence and therefore continues to protect the principles of due process (there could be a timing issue to avoid bias during trial, so a lawyer would have to sit on the information until after trial and appeals are exhausted). In other words, the client should've paid more attention and kept his mouth shut about B and C.
Unfortunately, this would get me disbarred in no time.
If the deciding agent uses a different set of rules, of course. That's why we can't tolerate heads of state with principles: we need them to be morally flexible for every occasion. It's okay for them to be sworn in on a stack of bibles, as long as they don't take the Christian ethic too seriously.
Quoting Benkei
I don't know what the laws are in your country, but in Canada, there are exceptions, where the lawyer is required to divulge information or is permitted to divulge it at his own discretion.
; in cases of child abuse, intention of harm and or a court order for any of several reasons, client privilege is void.
Yes, this concerns probable future events. A well-known exception. I think we need one for past events as well which doesn't exist in Anglo-Saxon countries as far as I know and doesn't exist in the Netherlands either.
You were faster than me
In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't.
If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.
And if you had actually read and understood my post;
Quoting Sir2u
I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.
Seriously. i think that you should stop quoting things you see on the screen and do some actual research on the topic. I would certainly like to see those laws.
So maybe Vera can give us a link to the laws.
Yes wars can be brutal, and civil wars especially. But I'm interested in your response to the rest of my last post:
Now you might say, that wasn't a civil war, or an insurrectionist war, but a war of aggression.. But of course, Germany might frame that differently.. And the allies might frame the differently..
The immoral thing is not to demand the total surrender of a neighbor but that one doesn't have a plan for what to do with it afterwards to prevent a second war.. WWI is an example of not doing this right, for example, but post WW2 is in terms of how to defeat an enemy who is implacably aggressive until they get everything they WANT.
No you misinterpreted what I meant then.. Let's replace Hamas with Nazis if that helps you be more unbiased about it.. If Nazis don't think that a freely run Netherlands should exist independent of their domination, or of France, or of Eastern Europe, and freely decide that bombing Britain is best, and that America should be defeated using their ally, Japan... What should the defender do in response to that? And hence I said this in another post:
And thus my point is, war is almost never the case of stealthy Rambos going in, involving no one but the combatants, and ending the war quickly. And hence I posted the ridiculous Rambo video as a fantasy position that people naively claim war should look like. Should I post it again?
What does a just war look like if any civilian dies in it? If Germans die fighting Nazis, is the war against the Nazis wrong? Let's say there were individual soldiers, leaders, or strategies that were wrong, indeed, they should be punished.. But war itself entails some amount of destruction and death on the people involved. Hell, the US and the Soviets had a policy of MAD.. The strategy was literally both sides getting annihilated in a nuclear holocaust in one wrong move. Why was that even a thing? Well both sides wanted to keep their sphere of influence "safe" from the other, along with their own territories. Let's say the US did NOT have nuclear weapons, and the Soviets did, does that mean they had a right to wield them to take over the world because any conventional war could possibly mean that that other side would be annihilated. No, nuclear war is terrible, but it was better that the US had them then didn't IF the Soviets had them.. Because, simply "non-violence" towards aggressive actors by itself seems pretty wrong.. No defense against violent actors means might makes right, even if that means LESS violence to fight against the aggressors.
No, I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.
But being at a state of war means what to you? Again, shall I post that fantasy Rambo ideal of war being in some remote jungle whereby an elite team/individual just goes in blows up the perfectly out-in-the-open combatants? If only it was open fields, and people wearing Blue and Grey...
Surely the German leadership would have preferred to that especially in 1945, but here again one has to remember that WW1 had happened. A negotiated peace when Germany wasn't fighting in it's own territory (yet) and the ideas of Dolchstoss and basically Hitler's coming to power ...because of the lost war.
It was quite logical that the Allies didn't want to make the same mistake again. And total defeat lead both Germany and Japan to change their policies totally. A total defeat makes an obvious reason for totally changing everything.
What I take issue with is the idea that the lives of enemy non-combatants are less than your "own". This is not supported in any historic tradition, law or indeed sensible moral thinking for the reasons I've repeated twice. Everything else you pull into your Rambo fantasies are entirely yours.
Ok then, I agree with this logic. In which cases can that be applied to, especially your analogy with WW1 and WW2?
1. There's no chance of winning
2. Or it won't lead to a better peace
3. The price in human lives is too high
4. The armed force itself was a just exercise of force
Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? (Who said anything about its quality?)
Quoting Sir2u
And neither is an ethical response and neither is a decision to take specific action.
Quoting Sir2u
That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior.
Quoting Sir2u
They're as available on line to you as they are to me.
Quoting Sir2u
I see no way in which a non-schizophrenic can manage that feat of multiple-think.
I meant by that, in a sort of Kantian way, you are completely undermining what it means to be a close relation with someone, if you treat them JUST as any person, and not someone who has special significance in your life. It would be crazy for a father to not feed his family, or his invalid mother, because an anonymous person is starving in Ethiopia... Or to make it more stark.. IF one must decide to protect one's family or another's family, one from a side that has a government causing the damage, that he is thus equally obligated to protecting both in the same due caution.
And this brings us back to Rambo...
You agreed:
Quoting Benkei
But self-defense doesn't look like Rambo, taking place in isolated areas against clear enemy targets...
So what are we admitting where we say countries have a right to a self-defensive "war"? And if you say, "Not this that or the other tragedy".. noted, and no one wants that.. but then, what are we "admitting" of it, other than we both agree it is not this idealized Rambo kind of situation.. as that is not reality..
And this ties in with my conversation with @ssu about WW1 and WW2 and the differences in how those ended, and the goals of a "defensive war" (certainly a case can be made for this in WW2)...
I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. Not my problem you don't like the outcome but that's the consequence of principles: they tend to be difficult to stick to.
Just that we could be swayed by emotions to make different choices doesn't mean that choice all of a sudden becomes moral.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's already established if you stop pretending I disagree with everything. I'm very clear about what I disagree with with respect to the article you cited. All non-combatants are equally innocent and therefore ALL of them need to be taken into consideration without weighing them because of their presumed affiliation when deciding on a military course of action, irrespective what side of the border they're on. Then it becomes abundantly clear plenty of historic and current violence is entirely disproportionate.
WW2 should be remembered really, as the name says, as a continuation of WW1 or the end result of WW1 and the afterward made peace. Losing WW1 is the reason why the gang of mr Hitler came into power. Yet many times people just start with Hitler rising to power without considering just why this happened.
Also the winning powers were in 1945 fully aware of how badly in hindsight the Paris peace talks went in securing peace.
Benkei, are you able to actually abide by this morality or are we ruminating in theoryland?
If your son and another random child were drowning at sea and you could only save one, would it be wrong to favor your own? Should you maybe flip a coin to not show preference? Go ahead, treat your own family like anyone else in the world. You're all equal, after all - individual moral units.
EDIT: And when you do swim out to save him then you're morally wrong (for showing filial bias) and worthy of condemnation. This puts a new perspective on your condemnation of Israel.
I agree with this.
Specifically going after the combatants and simply denying them any territory from which to operate is already quite decisive way to end a war. Here it must be understood that if the combatant force, one side's army etc, is destroyed or surrenders, but the civilian society then start itself to attack the forces, they are then illegal combatants. There's no problem here in the case of laws of war. However civilian you are, if you start shooting enemy soldiers, they have the total right to shoot you. However if they shoot you assuming you could potentially pick up a rifle and fight them, that's another thing.
Hence if you have ideas of going after the civilian population itself, then your thinking is similar with the Mongol Horde and the "make a desert and call it peace" -crowd, which I again remind, was rejected as immoral even in Antiquity.
What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? How is that even part of the discussion?
Quoting Vera Mont
You did, or do you not remember what you write!
Quoting Vera Mont
Quoting Vera Mont
All I can say now is that you are not even trying to understand, The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. While her morale compass would not let her put anyone in danger, she would not hesitate to grab a spot by going a different route to the rest of the queue.
Quoting Vera Mont
You are the one making broad claims about the laws, it is you that is supposed to show proof of your claims. I have made no claims so I do not have to do anything. So I just just ignore the comment.
I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye.
just there:
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
In response to a previous post, attempting to clarify this:
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Behaviour, yes. Ethics, no.
Quoting Sir2u
Fairly narrow ones, actually, in a different conversation, with links where appropriate. Quoting Sir2u
I'll get therapy and hope eventually to get over the loss.
What if you are planning on precision bombing an armaments factory and you know 200 civilians will be killed? Is the mission immoral? What about 20 dead civilians? What about 2?
Never heard of the term collateral damage? And keeping collateral damage to the minimum?
Isn't bombing an armaments factory where there are no soldiers and knowing you will kill civilians "going after the civilian population itself"?
Not in the arithmetic of military strategy. If it is strategically right to take out a munitions factory, a bridge, a railroad junction or a communications tower, the civilians working there are only one part of the equation. In the example, the consideration is how many lives on our side would potentially be taken by the cannons or tanks bombs or whatever is produced in that factory, compared to the people on their side who produce those weapons. 200 of them is pretty cheap for an effective strike against the weapons that could kill 4000 of us.
So my point was to establish several things here...
First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...
So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...
I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's quite obvious some people entered this discussion to defend Israeli atrocities. We can talk about those or pick other events less heated to see how these principles should be applied.
No need to go into that topic.
Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making. It's just seemingly another instance of a someone proclaiming something to be moral that no one would actually follow (is grossly contrary to human nature) and would lead to the complete dissolution of the family unit if followed. This is why I dismissed thinkers like e.g. Peter Singer years ago. Unless I'm understanding you wrong?
In abstract, impersonal judgments I have no problem treating everyone as moral equals, but it works both ways too: If the father isn't going to favor his son, why should the son favor his father when it comes to e.g. caring for him in old age when there's thousands of other fathers that he could also care for? Complete dissolution of the family unit.
Fair enough.. I felt this was just a more theoretical arm of the Israel thread.. one which I am more apt to want to participate in rather than emotional outbursting that seems to happen in the other one..
But we can simply keep it to WW2.. And we can extrapolate from there on our own how it relates to current conflicts.. If we do that, I still don't really see my points about Nazi Germany and Japan addressed.. And specifically this:
First off, what are we admitting to, when we say that (at least some) wars can be legitimate? I keep pressing the matter, because I keep seeing this denial of what war in reality looks like. We all agree it's not Rambo.. It is not just a bulging muscled crew of special forces in remote jungle environments perfectly being able to identify and target the bad guys...
So if we all agree it is not that, what can war look like? Presumably war isn't a gentleman's game of backgammon or chess.. a fun little trist whereby you send a missile here, I send a missile there.. wait a few months, etc.. If it is a war like let's say the Nazis taking over territory, or a terrorist governing body raping, brutally executing, and chopping up your countrymen, this certainly doesn't call for dilatant affairs of swords display.. Of course not.. But then, again, what is war? What is war when it means having to make Nazi Germany totally surrender? What is war in making Japan totally surrender? Japan only killed 2,403 people in Pearl Harbor, but it resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.. for example. Though an unprovoked sneak attack (similar to Hamas), it actually was not directed towards regular civilians either (though a few regular civilians died being nearby)...
I am not advocating "Just because you started a war, this means millions of people have to die. Don't misconstrue me for your straw man.. Rather, what is the result when fighting in certain extremely difficult environments to get rid of a governing body willing to do what it takes to constantly harm your civilians whilst not taking any regards themselves for their own civilians? We agree, what it takes is not Rambo and dilettante exercises.. because the enemy doesn't work like that. The enemy wants you dead, says it, shows it, films it...
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 essentially this is how the enemy would like you to play..keep you indefinitjry stuck for maximum length and lethality. Make it a complete street fight, booby traps etc
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.
Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child? If it's a question of being able to save only one from an external danger, making the decision emotionally would be accepted by most people. However, if it's a question of sacrificing an unknown child in order to save one's own (say, with a heart transplant), most people would consider that wrong.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's not always or necessarily a bad thing. But I very much doubt ethical public decisions would contribute to such a dissolution.
Quoting Vera Mont
I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child.
They are just two children with equal moral worth and there would be something not quite right about a man diving in to save his own child when the two children are really equal. Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it.
Probably the more intuitive idea is that one should first secure their own realms of responsibility, and then branch outwards as opposed to first and foremost being responsible for the entire world.
Quoting Vera Mont
Some families can be toxic but I do not believe the dissolution of all families would be something we should strive towards.
It's not morally relevant. But if the choice is 1/1, some other factor must tip the balance, else the would-be rescuer is paralyzed by indecision and both children drown.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
How would that be better than letting emotion decide?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Allowing a natural process with no predetermined outcome to take place and striving toward a goal are very different things.
So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other.
Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality. So we both share the assumption that the children have equal moral value. However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger. That's our difference, I think.
If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin? That would actually showing impartiality in a situation where both decisions are exactly equal and to show partiality would not be acting in accordance with that fundamental truth. The truth being that both are equal and neither choice is better than the other.
I'm concerned here with reasonable action.
We can say "all fathers have the same duties to all children everywhere" and this takes us into Peter Singer territory which is more utilitarian, which @Benkei interestingly does not like.
Even if that were the case, the impasse is broken and the rescuer can take action. Morally, it makes no difference whether the tie-breaker is love, anger, fear or chance.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Maybe so, but I also doubt reason plays much of a part in this example. More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy. Once he can think again, he may very well intend to go in after the other kid - in fact, almost certainly will do so, even if reason tells him it's too late.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
OK. I'm not invested in the moral dimension of a situation that involves a split-second response from an party with a deep vested interest.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
There isn't time. If both drowning children are your own, or both are strangers, the primal impulse is to save both, or failing that, the nearest one. In that situation, you don't weigh odds, and you don't know the result: you simply act.
Yes. But now we're playing the "human behavior game" and not the "philosophy game." In the "philosophy game" one strives for rationality at all times.
How nice for one! And the subject of this thread is rational?
But then again, who invented the philosophy game - and why?
Philosophers invented the philosophy game so they could play philosophy. ¯\_(?)_/¯
Didn't they use to be human, before?
A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so (not the New Testament, and not surprisingly). Nobody can say that you were the aggressor, however times the aggressor will declare "that he was forced to do it". Many would also see as legitimate an intervention to some heinous genocide or civil war. Like Vietnam isn't accused by the World community in ending Pol Pot's reign of terror.
Then, if you don't do warcrimes, you don't have any skeletons in the closet (literally...) that you try to hide away. You can have a clear consciousness about the war and that you fought in it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, for example in the 19th Century when the British forces fought the Crimean war in Finland, it was a gentleman's war. Their behaviour of the Royal Navy was quite "Victorian" in a way. In the university I studied the Crimean war in Finland and the stories and events show a reality of behaviour that simply wouldn't happen today. It's like from another world, actually. And that shows how low we as humanity have gone. Perhaps when faced "savages" that did the hideous things to those soldiers captured, the British Armed Forces behaved in a different manner, but when faced with other Europeans in war, the meeting was very different. But who cares today about red crosses or white negotiations flags. It's all just naive stupidities in war. And that's the problem.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again I would recommend reading Clausewitz.
When attacking the US at Pearl Harbour, Japan likely assumed that the US "would see" the writing on the wall and simply negotiate some peace with Japan and leave it alone, which the Japanese would have gladly accepted. Yet (domestic) politics in the US didn't go that way. Just as mr Hitler didn't see what a huge error he made with declaring a war with the US.
But hey, Americans were simply lazy racists with an army smaller the size of Belgium, so what kind of threat could they be? That was the idea of the US that the Nazis had.
I guess your question refers to a non-instrumental evaluation of war crimes. Indeed, if justified means to have compelling reasons to believe that war crimes will likely enough succeed in attaining the desired outcome, then of course one can justify war crimes.
The question sounds less trivial if we are talking in terms of legal and moral justification, because desired outcomes may be successfully achieved also by violating legal and/or moral constraints.
Now, when we classify certain acts as war crimes, I take it to mean that those actions are major violations of the law and therefore can not be legally justified by (legal) definition. There is no legally justified crime.
What about moral justification? If one takes morality as a set of universal para-legal or pre-legal norms (like do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) and takes the legal norms defining war crimes as a legal codification of moral norms, then I find it reasonable to take war crimes as morally unjustified, again, by definition.
As far as Im concerned, I deeply question such an understanding of moral claims. Moral norms (and, ultimately, also legal norms) MUST be grounded on historical and political conditions. This is a rational requirement, since historical-political conditions set what CAN be done by individuals in some contingent yet constraining sense.
Ill try to make my point more clear with a concrete example: one may believe that Netanyahu SHOULD stop the current massacre in Gaza, because killing innocents as collateral damage (i.e. unintentionally but consciously) is morally wrong by (moral) definition. This moral claim MUST presuppose at the very least that Netanyahu CAN stop the current massacre in Gaza to make a rational (not emotional) appeal to me. Well, can he?
It seems that all that it is required for such an assessment is a credible assumption about certain Netanyahus rule-following abilities, like the ability to intellectually grasp moral norms, the physical ability to perform a series of bodily actions and speech acts in compliance with such norms (e.g. verbally instruct its military and political servants to withhold the Israeli war machine), and the ability to will or being disposed to act accordingly.
Such an assessment completely and arbitrarily misses the political dimension of our human condition, more specifically the POLITICAL ROLE of Netanyahu facing a HISTORICAL PREDICAMENT (the massacre of October the 7th). To simplify, the Israeli society (or an influential subgroup of such society) has POLITICALLY SELECTED Netanyahu for his specific abilities to act in accordance with certain political EXPECTATIONS in a variety of challenging historical circumstances. To my understanding, such political abilities and expectations are what allows us to assess what Netanyahu CAN do in certain historical circumstances in a more compelling way. And the same goes with ALL other politicians (including Hamas leaders).
Far from being presupposed by political expectations about individuals and collectives, moral norms as much as legal norms MUST presuppose political expectations about individuals and collectives to look rationally compelling to people living in society. The very idea that by following a pre-defined universal moral norm by my own initiative and in any circumstance (without considering how others will act and re-act, or what consequences will follow) will turn me into A PARADIGMATIC EXAMPLE of moral behaviour to others, presupposes the expectation that others (all or the absolute majority or the relative majority or the relevant minority etc.) have the ability to grasp paradigmatic moral examples and the disposition to conform to them.
If moral reasoning is grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms then its a-political (because it is not grounded on political expectations and the circumstances of the political struggle - btw I even find it questionable that anybody concerned with social discipline can consistently adopt such a view on morality). If moral reasoning guides political life and struggles then it cant plausibly be grounded on a set of a-priori universal norms (at best, one can extrapolate such alleged universal norms [I]a posteriori[/I] by comparison across societies and/or held in support for intersocietal institutions like international law). In other words, war crimes (as legally defined) can be morally justified if one doesnt reason in terms of a-priori and universal moral norms, yet moral justification may not be enough to dissipate the controversial nature of such actions. And this observation can no be used to question a specific moral reasoning, since it can be retorted against all examples of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning can not be de-politicized if it is supposed to inform political life.
Agreed
Quoting ssu
I just want you to juxtapose that with this:
Quoting ssu
It seems here that Nazis and Imperial Japan had it coming, even though Japan only killed 2,403 people as far as attacking Americans.. But the millions lost aren't presumably considered a "war crime". How can you square that circle? I am trying to look for double standards and blind spots in arguments that lead one to say "Heads I win, tails, you lose" as another poster put it about another argument.
[Note: Adjust the numbers to what you want.. the point being that the magnitudes are much greater, the end result of the death from the initial attack which both of us can probably agree was justified in starting a defensive response].
And yet this is still too vague as who attacked who and what concerns an attack is subject of discussion. And what about pre-emptive self-defence. As usual, it's not so simple in real life.
Where?
He was only kidding about that shalt not kill thingie.
Thou shalt not murder.
Yes, life is so.
A pre-emptive attack is quite an oxymoron. Just like a suprise pre-emptive nuclear strike that reaches total strategic surprise and destroys the other ones nuclear deterrence. Have fun trying to establish afterwards that the other side had the real intent to start a nuclear war and this was the only way...
Again, do not convieniently forget the colony of the US, the Philippines. It wasn't just an attack on Pearl Harbour, it was also the Japanese taking over the Philippines, which started on the 8th of December (one day after). Just in the Bataan Death march some 5000 to perhaps 18000 POWs were killed, many from the Continental US too. So it wasn't just Pearl Harbour, but I can understand that the US isn't keen to make WW2 to be a war of it defending it's colonies (especially when the Philippines was given independence after the war).
Quoting schopenhauer1
By the fact that the victors of wars lay down the post-war laws. As I've stated earlier, the commander of the RAF Bomber command has acknowledged that if the UK would have lost the war, he would have been convicted of war crimes.
And now you have that "squaring of the circle" done by the ICC, when they put warrants for warcrimes at both Israeli and Hamas leadership. People aren't happy about that, when they support one side against another.
Right, good quote.. So can you see where the implication I am going with this is? I am talking about Wittgenstein and not directly stating something in another thread.. but unlike him, I am not trying to give you a never ending transformative methodology that you need to "get".. just a leading question.. but do you know where I am leading?
That, of course is completely different.... depending on how you define murder. Here's a list of things you not only may but must kill your own tribe members https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-20/
IN A LOT OF PLACES!!! In the Old Testament, where not? should be the question. In the Old Testament, not a forgiving peacenik of a Dad like in the teachings of Jesus C.
But perhaps the best example should be this one that is actually quite current:
That's from the Christian Holy Bible. But of course as we are talking about Abrahamic religions, then it's no wonder that a certain Israeli Prime minister referred to the same thing:
Just let me know if you know where you think I'm leading here...
Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do.
Be more specific then...
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy.
And if you come to the conclusion that "make a desert and call it peace", the genocide-strategy only viable way to defeat the enemy, then I think your objectives are themselves immoral.
In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it.
It depends on whose land you're scorching.
Nowhere is it stated that you have to provide food and shelter to an invading enemy.
And you don't have to the 8th Century. When Finns retreated in WW2 from the Red Army, they naturally withdrew all of their civilian population and basically repopulated into areas in Finland that were controlled by Finland. And then, if time, destroyed all the housing. I remember my grandfather telling a story as an officer in WW2, they were ordered to cut down the wheat in the fields and destroy it when withdrawal was inevitable. Some of the soldiers who were farmers took it very sadly such destruction of food, but nothing was to be given to the enemy. If Red Army wouldn't have been stopped where it historically was stopped, the next line of fortifications where on a line just west of my summer place, and old farm. It very likely would have been burnt down by us Finns.
Nobody has said that this was a warcrime. Especially when it meant that the Finnish civilian deaths in WW2 were very low, and there weren't numbers of Finnish women and girls then raped by the Red Army and left in their own misery in the "Workers Paradise". It would have been a little bit different if those people would have been Russians that were waiting for them to be liberated to be then forced into Finland.
Half a million refugees were moved twice from Eastern Finland. During the Winter War 1940:
After repopulation the lost areas and rebuilding the houses, they had to do it again during the War of Continuation in the summer and fall of 1944:
It's a war crime when you move people against their will with the intent of having other people there. After all, Israel has evacuated people from the Lebanese border to Central Israel and other places. Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.
I am trying to understand your own paradoxes here..
You seem to agree that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had the right to be put in a position of total surrender, no? For the perspective of the US, let's say, there were only 2,403 people actually killed in a sneak attack. Did that mean Japan should suffer many thousands to millions of deaths upon the end of the war? And if the tragic answer was, "Yes, because Japan would keep trying to expand, retaliate and become even more aggressive", then look at how a) 2,403, turned into b) millions of death for Japanese.
And there were around 111,000 Americans that died let's say, just in the Pacific theater. Lower percentage than Japanese, but if the Americans had a way to keep that number lower but still maximizing efforts against Japan, do you not think they would, if they had the advantage? Just having a greater force for example, and using it to defeat an enemy that unwisely decides that you need to be "eliminated from the map", doesn't confer that the bigger enemy shouldn't try to defeat the weaker one for foolishly attacking.. In fact, one would think the smaller army would not attack precisely because the enemy were bigger and had the potential to use their bigger force, and that would be a preventative measure for attacking the country directly in the first place.. (Not the case in Vietnam, for example, because that was a civil war that the bigger country tried to "help" in, not really an a country sneak attacked and then declaring a state of war with that country.. it was a limited military action comparatively..and same even in Iraq and Afghanistan.. If the US mission was utter an total surrender in the same terms as WW2, then we would be talking very differently about the aims and outcomes of that war.. In fact a greater discussion could be had about what it means to have a limited war and its general failures even).
So I guess my bigger point is that we see that war itself means death and destruction, and not just of soldiers involved, then how can war be legitimate, even as a defensive action against an aggressor, like one that does a sneak attack, when we know that horrible outcomes are the result of going to war (especially total wars that are about making the other country's leadership completely surrender)...
I say it is the 18th and 19th century that might be the aberration due to the technology of the time.. But you also look a little closer, internal politics might have been much bloodier.. The English Civil War preceding that time and the French Revolution were bloody as hell...And even in the 17th century, the bloody and deadly Thirty Years War...
The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china. Many "war crimes" like this are surely on the books but prosecution and enforcement are the important matters. If one country is placed under a microscope while others ignored it detracts from the legitimacy.
If the Gazans are removed and Israeli settlers move in then, yes, that is ethnic cleansing. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza or more in settlers but we'll have to see.
It's tricky though. If a formerly ethnically cleansed population were to retake their land we could call it both "ethnic cleansing" if the occupier was forced out or fled but also "decolonization."
Biblically speaking, being ethnically cleansed was often interpreted as a sign that something had gone wrong with your own people to have been conquered like that. Sometimes populations get dispossessed due to their own wickedness. Or it could just be God's plan.
Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis. Israel should do its best to remove the source of this (the governments which teach it), but even after the war the palestinian people ought to undergo a massive re-education otherwise the same problems will just emerge. You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. Arabs and Jews have both been ethnically cleansed and subject to historic injustices, yet life must continue forward.
And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation.
Actually, it might be a contributing factor. What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband?
Domestic situations are on a different scale from international situations, but both are far more complex than the you have represented.
Jews and Arabs have a history - a whole lot more of it than either of them have has had with Europe, and I'm including the Greek and Roman conquests. That land has been fought over more than any other in the world, with the possible exception of a few corners of Africa and Asia.
Maybe all Palestinian maladies can be blamed on the Jews.
Quoting Vera Mont
Surely the Jews had a role in this one too.
Quoting Vera Mont
I was satirizing a position. Some users will essentially blame all Palestinian maladies on the Jews.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This describes Israeli culture much better and you don't even realise it. Funny as fuck really.
You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too. I think that many Jewish Israelis support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
And this isn't something that just happened after October 7th, this is from six years ago:
Far more telling is that many liberals and non-religious Israelis are leaving Israel. That tells quite starkly how attitudes are changing in Israel.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The Uighur genocide is actually quite apt example to compare here. First of all, China has simply controlled the area so that there isn't an armed struggle going on. Everything is also done in the name of anti-terrorism, in [s]Uighuria[/s], sorry, Xinjiang it's called Strike Hard Campaign against Terrorism. Then China obviously is a far bigger country with much more effect to retaliate on any country making the case of the obvious (that Uighurs are tried to be assimilated, even destroyed). I think the US can do this and state the obvious truths here, obviously, as China isn't it's ally.
But then again, The Chinese don't declare their intensions in the fashion as Bibi's administration has in this subject. They prefer the usual denial of everything.
Maybe so, but that didn't sound like satire. The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. Everyone who lives there (with the possible exception of a few truly evil leaders) is the victim of international events that started a very long time before they themselves were born. The major world powers have been playing silly buggers in the region for over two thousand years and won't stop any time soon.
And then, of course, one has to wonder whether one can take at face value anything Mr. Netanyahu says in public.
As long as one is wondering... Why does every discussion go from thought experiment to WWII to Israel?
You don't get what it's like because nobody hates you. No one hates the Dutch. No one raises their children to hate the Dutch. Be thankful you don't have to deal with that, and this begins well before the state of Israel. I don't hate Palestinians but am wary of them. You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews.
You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born?
Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia.
I disagree. I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles.
Or that they were important then as they are still?
Quoting RogueAI
Not in its first thousand years, while Christianity was being a huge drag on Europe.
Quoting RogueAI
Obviously. Whatever threat a military or militant organization is created to counter, religion has a great deal of influence on recruitment and popular support. That worked for Israel.
Quoting RogueAI
Except that the factions in Ireland didn't include big international players like Russia and the US. Britain may have given the lands of Catholic peasants to imported Protestants, but a foreign world power was not constantly pumping enormous quantities of arms and money into Ulster.
There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices.
I was talking before the war. You will see Palestinian kindergarten students decked out in terrorist gear murdering Israeli hostages openly for kindergarten graduation ceremonies. You will see Palestinian mothers openly wishing their children become martyrs for palestine. It is inculcated in them from an early age and you see it in their children's shows. We've seen a generation raised on this under Hamas rule in Gaza and earlier. It is just not the same on the Israeli side. There's anger, of course, but it's not the same.
On 10/7 that the murderers rode in joyous. Jubilant. I guess it makes sense: Go have fun robbing, raping and torturing the enemy and worst comes to worst and you die you just go to Heaven as a martyr. Life is short, enjoy it! There is no parallel concept in Judaism. I once saw a Palestinian girl complain how the IDF were cowards who hid behind their tanks because God forbid they actually value their lives. Are the zionists to blame for this mindset? Did the evil Jews inculcate the Palestinians not to care about the value of material life?
Yes such violence degrades. It sows fear and hatred. So the Israeli right rises to power to protect its own. But no Jew is under the belief that all palestinians must either be killed or converted to judaism. judaism is not a religion which seeks to spread/universalize; islam is.
If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be, Muslim or Western? Obviously, Western. Now, why is it Muslim countries have lagged so far behind Western countries in recognizing basic human rights?
Another misplaced comment. I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). How you conflate that with what I think about Jews is entirely on you.
I actually like you when you're not talking about this subject.
Bad regimes a-plenty. Russia and Uganda, both predominantly Christian - and that's just in the present. We don't exactly know yet how the conservative backlash, so tough on women lately, will play out in the western countries.
And, of course, that has nothing whatever to do with war crimes.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike theocracies and official state religions.
But war crimes are also committed by secular nations.
You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. It was Muslim land previously, after all. Islam already includes Judaism so Judaism is a step backwards from their perspective. I actually do understand them. God has spoken through their prophet Muhammad but the Jews will not accept the revelation. It must be frustrating.
And there is a very long, complicated history of violence that goes back well before the establishment of Israel. From the Jewish perspective things do not begin with Israel. Also palestinian attacks, for whatever reason, are very often against random civilians intentionally. It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy.
It sure works for "Bibi". "We're at war!" has kept more than one corrupt politician in power and out of jail.
When?
Prior to 1948? Or prior to the Arab revolt of 1936-1939?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think you should notice how Israel is changing too.
Before this current war on 10/7. Palestinian children shows and schools have been inculcating hate for decades. I don't ever recall Israeli television shows teaching Israelis to hate their neighbor or glorifying martyrdom. Israel does however have a beautiful three-tiered cemetery that commemorates its war dead.
Quoting ssu
Always open to hearing new info.
Yet, the Israelis have had their state for nearly a century, and the Palestinians have been living under a brutal Israeli oppression since 1967.
A recurring pattern seems to be that you value your own constructs of what Palestinians are like over the very real atrocities that are being committed to by Israel as we speak. Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian?
According to the Arab/Palestinian narrative, the tragedy begins with the Nakba. The occupation, according to Hamas at least, begins then. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv are considered occupied Palestine.
From ChatGPT:
Approximately 58% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 62% in Gaza support the continuation of conflict with Israel until all of historic Palestine is regained, even if a two-state solution is achieved. This reflects a significant portion of the population desiring the reclamation of all territories historically identified as Palestine, indicating a preference for a one-state solution over a two-state solution among many Palestinians? (The Washington Institute)?? (The Times of Israel)
When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not.
So, really what's your point? Two people are fighting and they both don't want to stop? So they should continue? That seems the wrong answer.
It's a bit rich, don't you think?
The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.
The Palestinians reject a two state solution because they are opposed to Israel regardless of government style. Jewish self-rule is a slap in the face.
Even though the Palestinians don't have their own state their rule is basically autonomous. Hamas controls Gaza proper, Israel does not control Gaza proper. They manage their own internal affairs and they are not Israeli puppets.
Viable = too weak to get even the minimum of their requirements? Palestine cannot be any kind of threat to Israel with its vast arsenal and foreign backing. At its most outraged, it can only ever be a nuisance and an excuse for Israeli governments to keep their country in a state of perpetual war, in a state of existential crisis. At least until all the Palestinians are dead and there's no more challenge to their occupation of whatever lands they want. It worked in the OT.... until a big empire came and gobbled them all up.
It's not a matter of weakness.
If Gaza became a state Hamas would be able to import whatever it liked.
What, like food, medicine, building material? Assuming they could afford it and somebody were willing to sell it to them.
And that's a pretty good reason for Bibi to keep Hamas in place, isn't it?
They're already able to import that. Palestinians receive billions in aid yearly. Much of it just goes to the Hamas leadership who are themselves billionaires. Gaza isn't destitute either; there were many luxury hotels and really nice cars there before 10/7.
Israel (and Egypt) monitors for dangerous materials but humanitarian aid is fine.
Well, then, it's all hunky-dory innit? Everybody getting what they need and want.
No, not at all. Hamas horribly oppresses their own and teaches them to hate.
That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same. They can point to Begin in 37 saying they'll remove inhabitants to build Israel and point to Herut and Likud and a straight line from his Zionist statements to today.
Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well. Especially given the fact Israeli set out to do exactly what the Zionists said they'd do through oppression and Apartheid for decades but in contrast Palestinian resistance has been largely ineffectual.
So you are afraid where Israel holds all the power because Israel is ruled by irrational fear. In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim.
Why though? Why should the two people care about what seems wrong to you about their beef? Why do you take your humanitarian feelings as universal if the two people do not feel the way you feel about their conflict?
I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.
The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.
This is an interesting point that should be followed up on. My question would then be what % of Israelis in the public and in the Israeli government seek to annex Gaza and the WB into "greater Israel?" Gaza was not historically Israel.
There's no need to go back to the 30s and 40s but if we do the Grand Mufti was an extremely ugly figure. Good Israelis try to put this behind them. Different times now.
Quoting Benkei
You can't expect a country to negotiate with a group that wants to annex it and denies its right to exist. Hamas isn't asking for reform; it's asking for an end to Jewish self-rule.
Quoting Benkei
You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
And in an era of WMDs large modern armies don't ensure survival.
Israel's targets are terrorists, the targets of terror are very often civilians. Their governments reward them for this. What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me.
We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. What shell we do with this piece of information now?
Quoting Benkei
I didnt write its inevitable, nor implied it, nor suggested it, nor think its inevitable.
Quoting Benkei
If genocide is ok or not, thats up to you to decide so Im fine with you claiming I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.
However if you write I don't care that to others, others can say the same to you. Still the burden of costs and risks for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more on the Palestinians AND the Israelis, than on an avg Westerner (I assume its your case too). So since they have much more skin in that game than an avg Westerner, my guess is that their motivation to the conflict is much stronger and unifying than that of an avg Westerner about the same conflict. What I think Westerners should care about is how strong and unified the will of certain people, countries, governments is (by comparison with theirs), what they are ready to do, what sacrifice are willing to accept or impose to achieve their shared goals. As much as they should care about means and opportunities that powers hostile to the West can exploit in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As long as the not picking side policy is contributing to stability or symmetry of the power balance, its impossible to not pick side. Not to mention that the not picking side policy can be perceived as a sign of weakness and cowardice by others.
Stop killing civilians. Stop settling territories that don't belong to them. Stop being recalcitrant and sabotaging negotiations. Stop barricading Gaza. Stop supporting Hamas. Then we'll see how things progress.
Quoting neomac
Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.
This is patently false. Hamas has signalled being open for negotiations along the 1967 borders since 2017.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, oppressors don't get sympathy.
I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me?
BTW I have several of your countrymen/ethnic group as hostages who I do unspeakable things to. Now cede your territory and we can begin negotiations.
Quoting Benkei
Do you have any sympathy for Chinese victims of Muslim terror? How about 9/11 victims? Oppressors, right? Just chickens coming home to roost?
Is that a quote from Ben-Gurion?
When oppressors rule, there are always victims - some willing, some random, some too slow to flee. You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block where an enemy leader might perhaps be staying or a weapon may perhaps be stored...
but only when the much stronger combatant commits that war crime.
No. Modern civilized armies strive to avoid civilian casualties. But they still are inevitable in any war.
And their deaths are on the hands of the enemy who breached a border and murdered ~1000 of that country's civilians. And took hostages which are repeatedly subject to sexual abuse.
You have your sources of information and statistics, I imagine.
Therefore, war crimes are justified.
[end thread]
If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all.
Definitions of enemy may vary. Objects in mirror are more grotesque than they seem.
Anyone who takes hostages to place them in rape (and torture) dungeons qualifies as an enemy to me -- an enemy of humanity.
I mean that seems to be a presupposition of this thread.
OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land?
Actually not.
I've started from the reasonable (or at least in my opinion a reasonable) stance that Israel should show restraint against civilians and civilian targets like the US did while it was fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS.
It hasn't. Proof: you didn't hear about civilians starving to death in Iraq or accusations of it used as a tool by the US while fighting the insurgents. Besides, the US was assisting the civilian populace at the same time it was fighting Al Qaeda and later ISIS.
Not something the IDF is doing... especially when it doesn't allow the normal flow food and supplies to the area it has all the ability to check.
But if it's too much for you that the IDF isn't "the most moral army" in the World as Bibi has said, then just defend them, if it makes you feel better.
It doesn't and we can't. At the time, I was responding to a particular post, not solving the middle east mess. It shouldn't have been created; the major powers should have had more foresight, but pursued their short-term advantage instead. Once committed, they've been obliged to keep feeding the fire, and nobody seems inclined to stop. It won't end until one or all of the combatants die.
But that's all incidental to the topic of the thread.
Is there an implicit "except as a last resort" attached to each proscribed action? In that case, any warring entity that is at a strategic disadvantage are justified.
If there's an implicit "unless the opponent is truly evil" - how is this to be judged objectively, in general? Couldn't any warring entity claim the other side is evil?
It absolutely has and I've seen Israel avoid conducting strikes because there were civilians around. I've seen them ship in boatloads of aid. I've seen then provide medical care for wounded Palestinians. Israel has shown restraint.
Quoting ssu
There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there.
This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous.
What do you make of the fact that Hamas steals most of the aid and keeps it for themselves? Or sells it at a much higher price? The problem with the aid is the distribution. Israel can send it in but Hamas takes it.
How many have actually died of starvation? Are we able to get facts on this?
Starvation is slow. At this time it probably is 2 per 10,000 per day.
Israel could send it in, but doesn't.
Is this a psychology forum or a philosophy one?
Weasel words by a biased organization. :yawn:
Biased in favour of fleeing civilians? Shame!!
Being oppressed does not make one good or right. Tens of thousands of Israeli civilians have also been displaced by rockets so they are also refugees.
When we do it, war crimes are justified (or simply not crimes).
When they do it, war crimes arent justified. Its terrorism.
:ok:
Oh, I could've said tu quoque is a fallacy if that makes you happier.
The whole world is out to get me. The teacher hates me.
It's not tu quoque Hamas is stealing the aid and preventing its distribution.
Sez Bibi. All I could find on this is one shipment from Jordan (not Israel) being held up for a while, than released.
Is Israel not allowed to bomb them? Is that the main atrocity? Or is shooting them also an atrocity?
The fatality ratio is about 1:1 combatant:civilian so historically quite good and not at all unreasonable.
Maybe read some Illan Pappé to put all the Israeli crimes and intent of its Zionist leadership into historic perspective.
This is quite a whimsical statement.
FYI the UN or any aid organization didn't make the statements that the aid to the civilians of the cities where the US was fighting the insurgents was actively limited or said that the situation had lead to starvation.
It's been clear since day one that the logistical support given to the civilian populace isn't anywere close to avoid famine.
Quoting Benkei
I think that here @BitconnectCarlos has to be given the strawman argument of the month.
* * *
On the positive side, Biden's proposals have been at least not been shot down immediately.
Yes, that's not much (if any), but at least it's something else than the "evil city" that has to cut of everything -rhetoric or the "We'll do Oct 7th again and again" -rhetoric.
That's according to the Israeli news outlet. The IDF releases have said 1combatant to 1.5 or 2 civilians. Unbiased outside authority has insufficient access to the actual numbers. However:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864
I don't think we're going to get anywhere if you have zero sympathy for the victims on the Israeli side. Dead Israelis might just be faceless oppressors to you but they are my people. You dehumanize Israelis.
You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
BitconnectCarlos
No, oppressors don't get sympathy.
-- Benkei
No need to continue.
It's not dehumanizing at all; it's consistent application of ethical principles: I don't side with the wrong side especially if they have zero self reflection with respect to their own actions.
I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent. But Israel as a political entity doesn't get my sympathy. There wouldn't be any resistance if there wasn't injustice. So it's a conscious choice by Israeli leadership to put their own civilians in harm's way in a conflict they have every ability to resolve, if there was a will. But we know there isn't because Israeli leadership is currently made up of criminals.
Is this a good comparison for, say, a 7 year old Israeli child who happened to be born and raised near the Gaza border or anywhere in Israel? For this "crime" they are considered valid targets by Hamas.
Quoting Benkei
Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland.
Quoting Benkei
Fine with me I don't feel sympathy or empathy towards states or abstract entities either. It is individuals that matter.
Quoting Benkei
Hamas openly seeks Jerusalem as its capital according to the charter. There will be resistance as long as that is not the case.
It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise.
And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same but then 30 times worse except you're always making excuses why Palestinians deserve it because apparently you think they are all Hamas.
Question: Let's say a group of Jews are expelled by the Romans from Judea in 135 AD. The community goes to Alexandria and continues to preserve those traditions and maintains its distinctiveness & maries among itself. In 235 AD is Israel still their ancestral homeland or have they lost it? Are they now indigenous to Alexandria? How about 335 AD?
And what do we say about African Americans? Indigenous to a Georgia plantation?
It does not as Israeli soldiers do not go from house to house murdering Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It does not commit rapes. It does not take Palestinians hostage and bring them to rape dungeons. It does not aim for civilians. If it did there would be no more Palestinians.
They've lost it. Like a whole lot of other people. You win some wars and you lose some. If you lose a big one, you lose the land you're living on - which is ancestral through some finite number of generations, just as it was ancestral to the people who lived there before.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You don't become indigenous, but if you're willing, you can assimilate to a country that let your ancestors in.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We call them African Americans for the reason that their ancestors were transplanted to a different country and successive generations have adapted and assimilated. There is no large contingent of African Americans descending on Ghana to claim it as their ancestral home, and if there were, the US would not finance and arm them.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Those are excellent reasons not to fund or facilitate the funding of Hamas. Could be time to consider a change of leadership.
Yes they were expelled from their ancestral homeland in 135 AD. They lost possession of their ancestral homeland.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yet if they do have an ancestral homeland it is in Africa.
That's a tradition, a history, a memory - not an excuse for carnage.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Barred from Jerusalem after the third major revolt. Roman rule was often brutal to occupied peoples, especially those who gave them a hard time. If the OT is anything to go by, the Judeans' treatment of its conquests was no better. That's imperial wars for you. Sometimes, if God is displeased, he does choose somebody else for a change - (sorry, Tevye) - at least, according to the prophets.
Go a bit further back and we're (likely) all Africans.
Yes they can go to Africa and be ruled by Africans. Muslims can go to ~50 countries and be ruled by Muslims. Jews are lucky to have one. Israel has already survived several wars which would have destroyed it had it lost.
Quoting Vera Mont
There were two waves: One in 70 and one in 135. There were Jews who remained in the region and have had a continuous presence since antiquity. These Jews were still subject to persecution under Arab rulers. So the violence is not just due to the "occupation" but rather occurred well before it and the heightened the need for a Jewish state.
Presence is not possession and confers no rights.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes. So are/were most minorities.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Unfortunately, violence has occurred on Earth since the amoeba.
It is the ancestral homeland of the Jews making the Jews indigenous to it. It might not matter to you, but it matters to them.
Indigenous in what way, according to what source? The OT story has them attacking Jericho without provocation. The real story is lost, though archeologists keep chipping away at it. Somebody was there before who isn't there now. This is a fairly common situation when peoples are nomadic, or flee from invasion or migrate due to inimical weather events or fight among themselves and split off.
Ancestors are any preceding generations from grandparents backward, even if it's only two generations. "Ancestral home" means nothing - it's a slogan. Maybe one day China will be the major world power and restore all the North American indigenous peoples to their ancestral homes - regardless of who lives there now, or whether those people, or their ancestors, had done any harm.
Jewish identity is born in that region -- in Israel. According to any number of scholars that I could cite if need be (it's not a debate, more an established fact). I'm talking second temple period but we can go back a little earlier.
According to the biblical story, the ancestors wandered all over those lands from Turkey to Egypt. Does that mean modern Israel has a right to occupy all of what was Mesopotamia? Is the US obliged to arm and finance that expansion?
Every nation started someplace.
In case Mongolia was worried, I'm not about to claim my ancestral rights.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes apparently Abram was briefly in Turkey as were the Israelites in Egypt. Does Judaism form in Turkey? No. Or in Egypt? No. It forms in the latter half of the first millennium bc in modern day Israel. It's a several century process from around 500 bc to 100 bc.
The ancestors are different from Judaism.
Ah, so religious identity is distinct from national identity.
Arabs - according to the OT, descendants of the unloved sons of Abraham - were also there, all that time, long before Islam.
And so, "ancestral home" means exactly what?
People wandered around an area and had kids. Then they went someplace else and had more kids. So frickin what? People have wandered over every place and had kids.
Some people invented a religion in a place. So frickin what? People invented religions all over the place.
That doesn't give their descendants any special privileges.
I once had a cat who liked to bully all the other cats that came near our back yard. He wasn't particularly imposing or strong, but his best friend was a Newfoundland dog.
basically what you're saying:
Those Jews don't know what a Jew is but I do religious people are so stupid.
Not until you tell me the real definition of Jew. I'm having an identity crisis.
Like I said, it's a slogan, nothing more.
Quoting Benkei
It's not just religious people. Nationalists and ideologues of every stripe have a banner story.
Interestingly, I listened to a radio program the other day, interview with an (unpopular) Israeli historian who said people don't fight to the death for land or resources or their leaders; they fight for their stories.
There is no exact external definition of a Jew, any more than there is of a Muslim or a Protestant. They don't all live in the same place or in the same way and they don't all have the same facial features or character.
People who identify with a group that shares a culture or religion or ethnicity or some identifying feature are perceived as belonging to that group. I'm quite sure the people who thus identify themselves do have a clear idea what they each mean by it.
Just curious, do you believe in biological essentialism when it comes to nation-states, or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?
Also, not to open a can of worms, doing some research on this, Ashkenazi (Central/Eastern European) Jewish DNA according to various genetic studies, are about 40-50% in Levantine origin (that is the area around Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan) with about 30-40% Roman Italian admixture, and ~10% Germanic mix ~10% Slavic mix.
If we combine this with the historical plausible theories, ancient Judeans/Israelites from the Levant intermixed with Roman Italians sometime in the Roman Empire/Early Middle Ages, and this intermixed group moved across the Alps to around France and the Rhineland region around the time of the Carolingian Dynasty (c.800s-1000s CE). A few centuries later, a large segment of the population moved into the Poland/Lithuanian/Russian region (c.1300s CE) after much repeated persecution in Western/Central Europe. So the migration from Levant-Italy (the bulk of the admixture), France/Germany, Eastern Europe (a much lower percentage) shows up on the DNA markers.
*Also, the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies indicate the original females were mainly of Southern European/Roman Italian origin, and the Y-Chromosome studies show a Middle Eastern/Levantine origin, which indicates that it might have been the case that male Jewish/Judean/Levant residents were taken as slaves after the Jewish Revolts to Italy/Rome around the years 70CE and 135 CE, respectively, and these males intermixed with pagan Italian women who they converted to Judaism. After the initial intermarriage, the group mainly intermixed with each other.
** Also some of this admixture could come from Judean/Levant-originating merchants, rather than being slaves taken from the two main Jewish Wars with Rome. These merchants were males in the Roman Italian peninsula, that intermixed and converted local Italian wives during the Roman Empire.
There are also smaller traces of Germanic/Celtic, and Slavic populations based on where they moved after Italy (10-20% Germanic/Celtic/Slavic). However, the bulk of the admixture is about ~45% Levantine/40% Roman (Empire Era) Italian.
This information is getting really in the weeds, but since the creation of Israel, people have had a whole host of questions regarding European Jewish origins, and it's best to use the genetic evidence available rather than just pulling random notions out of one's ass or based on phenotypes...There are people of even just two very different ethnic backgrounds that could look one way or the other, and that one would not "suspect" as being of a certain origin, let alone a people whose admixture origin goes back thousands of years (during the Roman times between mainly Levant males and Southern European females).
I don't even know what it is. I'm guessing bloodlines, DNA sort of thing. In which case, no. (Wouldn't look very good on a Canadian.)
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's what it means to the nation. Of course the notion doesn't play well with colonial subdivision of territory or post- WWI and II redrawing of maps by world powers. Then, too, 'identified' may have quite an elastic interpretation.
As to the genetic makeup of modern peoples - especially those that have been dispersed from a relatively small original stock - why even bother to trace them? There are Americans the colour of ginger ale who consider themselves Black. People don't identify with their DNA; they identify with their community, religion, culture and shared past. And their story - no matter what percent of it is factual.
A civilizational claim. And also apparently you have no regard for native american claims either.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure? Jewish self-definition is derived from a sort of religious reasoning formed and discussed over thousands of years. Any outsider who takes issue with it should be ignored until he engages the reasoning behind it.
And thanks for the informative post.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Oddly enough, the Lenape are not getting Manhattan back and then spreading out over all of New York State with Chinese tanks and missiles. Yet....
Yes, just as Christian and Muslims determine their own definitions. We don't insist that they use our logic. Ultimately self-definition will be decided by that community.
I'm sympathetic to native american claims to get back some parts of the land to which they are indigenous to. It's been extremely destructive to those communities to try to erase that heritage.
It's religious because Judaism is a religion and the passing of jewishness via the mother a religious fantasy.
Now you're just making your own personal definition. I can do the same. To be a Christian, one must have known Christ personally while he was still alive.
Everyone agrees Judaism is a religion. You don't agree with the idea that it is an ethno-religion. Regarding Israel, I believe being Jewish only benefits one when it comes to immigration -- countries like Greece and Spain have similar rules where it's easier to emigrate there if you have it in your ancestry.
But under the law, once citizens, Jew and non-Jew are equal.
:rofl: Jesus Christ that's funny.
Of course it isn't. There's Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, which are distinct ethnicities. Plenty of discrimination between those groups as well by the way although at least on paper they are equal.
Christian and Muslim are not definitions of nationhood. They are religious affiliations, professed by citizens of many different countries. Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No kidding! But would you be willing to give up your house and farm if they had a claim on it on genetic, religious, traditional, or 'some of us have been here all along' grounds?
Can you cite me laws then showing this institutional discrimination? E.g. Are non-Jews barred from voting? Holding positions in government?
https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
https://www.btselem.org/
Guess that makes two of us then.
https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/institutional-racism-netherlands_en
Sounds like you have apartheid in your backyard.
Just curious did you read some historical background here?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908700
I say that because it contradicts what you said here:
Quoting Benkei
I'm curious because @Benkei was making claims to the contrary. But even if we did "trace the DNA", my point was it works both ways. Afterall, even in Native Americans, DNA can be relevant, but is certainly not the sole understanding of a member of a nation. One can even take upon the tribal identity through marriage or initiation ceremony, like ethno-religions do. So yes, there is definitely some "backbone" of DNA but that's not the full story (and never was). Certainly a Navajo or Ojibwe person with 48% native DNA but is fully invested in tribe and has roots going way back to that tribe is not excluded as member of that tribe by most standards.
And again, even if we look at the genetic history solely, we see there was a strong linkage to that land by a vast majority of even Ashkenazi. This was obvious to all before the state of Israel. Obviously, when this "difference" (of Jews and the surrounding ethnicity of the nation they were in) becomes a way to take away their rights, and throw them in concentration and death camps, this becomes insanely genocidal. However, as purely an understanding of an ethno-history and how it relates to identity, it is perfectly fine to make the distinction. No one is being "racist" by saying Jews have a specific ethnic history, and understanding that, any more than how the Dutch people are different than (or similar to!) French, Belgian, or (other) German peoples.
He and I may agree on a lot of things, but we don't share a brain!
I'm not a fan of DNA tracing for any purpose except forensics and anthropological research. (This means, not even genealogy).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Some Jews? Most Jews? Everyone who identifies as Jewish? Fine.
But I don't see it as a contribution to excusing war crimes.
None of this was about excusing war crimes, but it was about the basis for which the idea of "homeland" was established in a particular region for a particular people thus associated through history, culture, and genetics to that region.
In this case, not 'homeland' but 'ancestral homeland'. The difference being: Most of us have been living in many other places, but our long-ago ancestors used to live here, so the people who have been living here better get the hell out.
If you go by history, culture and genetics, why are the Palestinians' claim less valid than the European Jews'?
They aren't less valid. They too have a historical ancestral claim. Hence the dilemma.
I think we often misconstrue various understandings of nation-states as well. I think European type nation states are different than North American and many (former) colonial areas which were simply wholesale takeovers. That being the case of course, Native Americans then would have a right to form a state. Also, interestingly, Liberia.
Presumably it would be harder for both precisely for reasons why the Jewish state makes sense.. The Jews had a very specific geographic location they can point to. Unfortunately, descendents of enslaved Africans cannot point to which exact regions their ancestors came from so would be developing a state that is roughly in the region. Also, the cultural ties to the specific tribes people came from were disconnected (which is not at all the problem with Jewish cultural ties to their homeland).
In the case of Native Americans, the tribes are very spread out, and the numbers are generally pretty low, so it would be hard to compose a cohesive state, which is why it basically ends up being what we have now which is a semi-autonomous region of "reservations", where the tribal nation has control of all internal affairs and laws, but is not in charge of state apparatuses like armies, foreign diplomats, or territorial independence from the larger countries (US/Canada/Latin American/Caribbean countries) etc.
With the difference that they actually built the houses and worked the farms.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The dilemma wasn't over who had a valid reason to live there; it was over which promise to keep and which to break.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which very conveniently happens to coincide with Christian notions of the Holy Land. It doesn't seem to signify that, according to the same book, the Hebrews originally occupied that land by means of a sneak attack on people who had done them no harm.
There is no real analogy to Native Americans, who were here before the Europeans arrived and pushed them out or exterminated them. The question of which Natives lived exactly where is a red herring. Nor is there a real likeness to Africans who were captured and kidnapped and thereby apparently forfeited their right to claim any part of Africa, because they don't each know where their ancestors were from.
:vomit:
The question is should there be a Jewish state. My answer was yes. I didnt say anything about taking over farms. The original UN map was not agreed ti by Arab states and thus, here we are in a 75 year old battle of two peoples.
My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badly held notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice.
Quoting Vera Mont
This new discussion was based on @Benkei notions of Jewish homeland so again, that was my context.
Quoting Vera Mont
Look, there should be no Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, or France according to this notion. Im ok if youre equal across the board with historical violence and territories.
Quoting Vera Mont
Did you not read my post? I just stated roughly the same thing. Maybe you didnt see it as I added it a bit after my initial post.
You're not alone.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I did.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Indeed. The British authorities got Arab help in their war effort with promises of aid to their national aspirations. And the Rothchilds on board with a promise to aid Jewish aspirations. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-britain-promise-palestine-to-arabs-and-zionists
Quoting schopenhauer1
The injustice was real in every case. The Romans displaced the Jews from a land from which the Jews had previously displaced some other people. The British and Americans were complicit (after a couple of terror attacks) in the displacing Arabs to re-emplace the Jews. How the festering resentment is resolved depends on what people do to restore balance. In this instance, it wasn't a festering revenge fantasy, it was an act of penitence by the big countries that had rejected Jewish refugees and turned a blind eye to the holocaust, plus a calculated attempt to place an ally in the middle of a strategic, oil-rich region.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This notion? Colonialism was what it was, it did the harm it did. We have to deal with the consequences. Point here being, both Palestine and Israel have the exact same claim, according to imperialist Britain, but only one of them has the backing of imperial powers.
If you only apply that bolded statement to what I was saying here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
i would, if that's what the allies had been doing.
Im not here for endless debate. My point was about the homeland. Do what you wish.
I know. And 'homeland' was misapplied in this situation. One people's homeland was given to another people, who then systematically persecuted the natives. And are still doing so.
No one was given anything. The UN partitioned two states, Arab armies rejected, lost war, and lost more land as a result. That was a consequence of not accepting. Clearly, you not only dont believe in two states, you wish Israel was never formed. Tough shit news for you, it was. Same with Canada, same with almost any country. As I said, Im done with the endlessly fruitless value signaling on this thread. Have your circle jerk arguments with others who can be your echo chamber.
taking the bigger and more productive half from a large Arab population and giving it to a smaller population of European immigrants. No, the Arabs didn't accept this plan and Ben Gurion only accepted it as an interim plan, always intending to expand his territory.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's caused an awful lot of international strife and cost an awful lot of money. And it's not finished doing either by a long chalk. Still don't see how that justifies war crimes. But by all means, jerk elsewhere!
:point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908945