|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
haze
la belle poney sans merci
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:37 pm |
  |
|
give your military recruiters a valentine and their hearts will grow three sizes and they'll change their minds and leave.
MAKE LOVE NOT WAR |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
 |
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:43 pm |
|
|
| I actually agree with everything you said in that post. However, you're still not countering what I've stated regarding the role of the military in a larger process or mechanism or whatever that we call a nation. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| What I'm talking about is that I think that the military should be held responsible for it's actions, that a collection of men is more than a tool. That each man in the military must make a choice to suspend his own judgement, and should know full well the import of such a monumental action. And because of that I do believe it is possible to judge the military. |
You can judge them, in which case 99% of the American military are good people because they follow orders. The MORAL thing for a soldier to do is to follow his orders (when they aren't war crimes). Even if the war isn't justified. Because the idea of democracy and civilian control of the military is far more important than whether this particular war is righteous. As much as the Iraq war sucks, it's not as bad as replacing Bush with a military state. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:18 pm |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
| I actually agree with everything you said in that post. However, you're still not countering what I've stated regarding the role of the military in a larger process or mechanism or whatever that we call a nation. |
It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating.
Let me give an extreme example. Billy hears that the country is going to war with Mexico. Apparently Mexico caught and killed 3 American soldiers prior to the onset of hostilities. Billy considers himself a patriot and has always wanted to fight for his country, just like his father did. Billy joins up and fights what appears to be a routine war with Mexico.
Now, had Billy been paying attention prior to the war, he would have heard that the current commander in chief got elected on the "Kill all Mexicans" platform. He would have heard that the war was a genocidal campaign, supported by the public, and that the 3 soldiers captured and killed were actually trying to assasinate key members of the Mexican government, a fact openly admitted by the American government.
Should Billy, and by extension the military, be held responsible for the genocide that ensued? If the military had been completely formed after the president was elected, but before the war started, should it still be held responsible?
Protip: Yes, and yes.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| What I'm talking about is that I think that the military should be held responsible for it's actions, that a collection of men is more than a tool. That each man in the military must make a choice to suspend his own judgement, and should know full well the import of such a monumental action. And because of that I do believe it is possible to judge the military. |
You can judge them, in which case 99% of the American military are good people because they follow orders. The MORAL thing for a soldier to do is to follow his orders (when they aren't war crimes). Even if the war isn't justified. Because the idea of democracy and civilian control of the military is far more important than whether this particular war is righteous. As much as the Iraq war sucks, it's not as bad as replacing Bush with a military state. |
Please do not take my comments as an attack on the current military or a condemnation of the war in Iraq, that is not the pont I am trying to make at all.
And for the record I do not believe that morality is synonomous with democracy and national stability.
Edit: Actually, I guess your morality can be whatever you want. I should have said that I do not believe that morality should be synonomous with democracy and national stability, and that my morals are not.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:39 pm |
|
|
| slipstream wrote: |
| The UN is useful. It's the only forum that every nation state of the world is a part of and is a useful place to resolve disputes and work on problems. Maybe it's the two years of Model United Nations talking. What's wrong with the UN? |
The two years of Model United Nations tell me it's bloody ineffective as all Hell, like mostly all well-meaning ochlocracies.
| slipstream wrote: |
| Armed conflicts between nation states are rarely, if ever, are waged for the benefit of the citizens |
Perhaps not, but motives aren't entirely relevant when the actions do reap heaps of rewards. You think democracy is any less subject to enforcement as any other political ideal? Rich countries thrive on the backs of poorer ones. This is natural, and I've never seen it as sinister. It's not like the exploited wouldn't leap at the chance to do the same.
| slipstream wrote: |
| in addition to the whole killing people is morally wrong |
That's entirely subjective, and arguably short-sighted and emotionally-charged.
_________________
      |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:40 pm |
|
|
I'd like to make a bit of a retraction. Earlier I said:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| You tried your best, and we all use that as a salve, but if you're best wasn't good enough you have to face that fact. |
I think I implied, and I know that I meant, that if you try your best and fail you are morally responsible for the consequences. I actually don't believe that is true. I think that we can only try our best, we are not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. If we fail that is a fact we should learn from, but not feel shame for.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:22 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating.
. |
But the military HASN'T made an error by following the command. If they didn't follow civilian commands then we would live in a military state. There are plenty of those available if you'd like to move to one, but 99.999% of people living in democracies would rather not.
What you're proposing is like holding the warden of a prison where a few innocent men are jailed responsible for their unfair condition. The warden is doing the right thing by jailing these men because he'd be violating one of the basic elements of the constitution by freeing them: a trial by your peers. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:32 am |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
| Predator Goose wrote: |
It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating.
. |
But the military HASN'T made an error by following the command. If they didn't follow civilian commands then we would live in a military state. There are plenty of those available if you'd like to move to one, but 99.999% of people living in democracies would rather not.
What you're proposing is like holding the warden of a prison where a few innocent men are jailed responsible for their unfair condition. The warden is doing the right thing by jailing these men because he'd be violating one of the basic elements of the constitution by freeing them: a trial by your peers. |
Last time I checked, racially cleansing the world of Mexicans was wrong. I know Carlos Mencia is working hard to make it right, but he hasn't gotten there yet. So yeah, I'd still blame the military for it if they were serving the wants of a democracy. I'd also blame the public, the president, congress, and any one else invovled. But you don't get a free ride just because you've subordinated your judgement to someone else.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
SplashBeats
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:34 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| internisus wrote: |
| I actually agree with everything you said in that post. However, you're still not countering what I've stated regarding the role of the military in a larger process or mechanism or whatever that we call a nation. |
It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating.
Let me give an extreme example. Billy hears that the country is going to war with Mexico. Apparently Mexico caught and killed 3 American soldiers prior to the onset of hostilities. Billy considers himself a patriot and has always wanted to fight for his country, just like his father did. Billy joins up and fights what appears to be a routine war with Mexico.
Now, had Billy been paying attention prior to the war, he would have heard that the current commander in chief got elected on the "Kill all Mexicans" platform. He would have heard that the war was a genocidal campaign, supported by the public, and that the 3 soldiers captured and killed were actually trying to assasinate key members of the Mexican government, a fact openly admitted by the American government.
Should Billy, and by extension the military, be held responsible for the genocide that ensued? If the military had been completely formed after the president was elected, but before the war started, should it still be held responsible?
Protip: Yes, and yes. |
This is a hilariously bad example that assumes that someone could be raised in the modern U.S. with no exposure to the mass media until he was 18 and heard "We are fighting a war with Mexico." Please try to present realistic examples for your argument or don't bother at all. Like, try one about someone who has grown up in the media, knows about the "Kill the Mexicans" platform, and still joins up. Also, how would you view the morality of someone who got drafted into such a war? Perhaps the drafters used the tried and true "follow orders or you'll be shot" persuasion technique former Second/Third World militaries seemed to be fond of.
The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:48 am |
|
|
| Joe wrote: |
This is a hilariously bad example that assumes that someone could be raised in the modern U.S. with no exposure to the mass media until he was 18 and heard "We are fighting a war with Mexico." Please try to present realistic examples for your argument or don't bother at all. Like, try one about someone who has grown up in the media, knows about the "Kill the Mexicans" platform, and still joins up. Also, how would you view the morality of someone who got drafted into such a war? Perhaps the drafters used the tried and true "follow orders or you'll be shot" persuasion technique former Second/Third World militaries seemed to be fond of.
The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
It's an exaggeration. A simplified version to prove a point. It removes other complications in order to express a view that I think anyone would have, and that supports my conclusions about judging the military. If we all agree that the military can be judged in this case, we can move on from there. If you've got an issue with the morals presented in the case, then we should discuss those instead.
Then again, not many people like the way I argue. They say I get too technical and argue semantics. I do so love semantics. I also like to boil down arguments to their abstract form. So yeah, I'm kind of a prick.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
haze
la belle poney sans merci
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:55 am |
|
|
oh heh on wikipedia it said the WWII allies called themselves "the united nations" so technically they did stop Hitler.
declaring the UN a failure isn't that kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water? it's far from perfect but maybe people expect too much from it. i mean maybe we should declare the US Congress a failure for being so slow and ineffectual. replace those bickering politicians with an emperor who can get things done. it took a hundred years for them to finally end racial segregation, after a civil war they couldn't even prevent, because they were too weak to ban slavery. what a joke. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
SplashBeats
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:59 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Joe wrote: |
This is a hilariously bad example that assumes that someone could be raised in the modern U.S. with no exposure to the mass media until he was 18 and heard "We are fighting a war with Mexico." Please try to present realistic examples for your argument or don't bother at all. Like, try one about someone who has grown up in the media, knows about the "Kill the Mexicans" platform, and still joins up. Also, how would you view the morality of someone who got drafted into such a war? Perhaps the drafters used the tried and true "follow orders or you'll be shot" persuasion technique former Second/Third World militaries seemed to be fond of.
The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
It's an exaggeration. A simplified version to prove a point. It removes other complications in order to express a view that I think anyone would have, and that supports my conclusions about judging the military. If we all agree that the military can be judged in this case, we can move on from there. If you've got an issue with the morals presented in the case, then we should discuss those instead.
Then again, not many people like the way I argue. They say I get too technical and argue semantics. I do so love semantics. I also like to boil down arguments to their abstract form. So yeah, I'm kind of a prick. |
| Quote: |
| The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
Haze, the US Congress is part of a whole that functions rather well. It passes laws and other people enforce them. The United Nations is a singular body dedicated to passing edicts and then failing to enforce them, because they have absolutely no authority to do so. They are, at best, the nagging mother-in-law of soverign states across the world. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:13 am |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
Geez man, I was just defending the ability of other people to judge the military. You and others seemed to want to dismiss them because you thought that the military is in an unquestionable position, that it is merely a tool to be used by someone else. It was that assumption that I was addressing, a point that I assumed was important. You know, since if I just accepted it that would mean you were right. And if we just screamed at each other we wouldn't get anywhere.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:29 am |
|
|
| Joe wrote: |
| The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that. |
Is it laughable that I take offense to this statement?
Goose, I think you need to worry less about semantics and more about how your statements contradict your conclusions. You recognize that:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. |
and then immediately state:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating. |
but your admissions in the first quote imply the complete reverse of your conclusions in the second. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:53 am |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
Goose, I think you need to worry less about semantics and more about how your statements contradict your conclusions. You recognize that:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. |
and then immediately state:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating. |
but your admissions in the first quote imply the complete reverse of your conclusions in the second. |
Yeah, I've got to work on my English skills.
I assume that the contradiction that you're pointing out is that I said that the military usually isn't well informed of the situation, and then turned around and accused them of being lazy and ill informed? Yeah, I meant for that statement to read on a man joining the military, being lazy and ill informed of the people he will be serving and for what purpose he will be fighting.
If your point is that this statement:
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. |
means that the military is not responsible for it's actions, I don't think that's true. Should is more of a general guideline. For the proper functioning of a modern government, the military should obey the government. But that does not excuse it. A child should obey his parents, but a child is still held responsible for what it does, regardless of whose direction it was acting under. And if that parent is unfit, such as being an abusive alcoholic, the child should learn to kick its parent in the teeth. But I guess that last part of the analogy doesn't work too well for the military.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:57 am |
|
|
I don't see the contradiction?
It seems basically that he means to say: The military complex follows government orders with little or no questioning, yet they are (or at least should philosophically be) responsible for their actions as people with the power to corrupt and destroy.
Our nation in its entirity has a thing about 'responsibility' right now; actually stepping up to accept any just makes that person or organization look bad. If we all secretly ignore responsibility, then that must mean that responsible people are as bad as they admit and more! etc.
Attention spans = short, and motivations = emotional, so anybody accepting responsibility just sucks a massive shit storm of SEE? HE ADMITTED IT! before the mob gets distracted by a shiny and moves on to the next hit of pride, greed, fear, or what-have-you.
ALSO! I haven't read the whole thread, just the last couple posts, so if I am like totally omg way off, then just ignore.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
klikbeep
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:05 am |
|
|
| psiga wrote: |
Attention spans = short
ALSO! I haven't read the whole thread, just the last couple posts, so if I am like totally omg way off, then just ignore. |
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:13 am |
|
|
The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have an arm that unquestioningly obeys its sentient master but also has the free will to disobey. Each option carries consequences. If the arm is itself sentient and free, it is not adequately dependant upon the physically weak powers that control it to ensure that it will not eventually take over. If the arm is stupid and obeys without question, then it cannot be held accountable for its actions.
The latter is the better option, and this is one of the primary strengths of democracy. We choose and elect a commander for that arm. It is up to us to determine the moral character and intelligence of its commander. Unfortunately, the process for doing so fucking sucks right now thanks to big money and big media. The principle is good, though, because the arm is necessary and the other option is very, very bad.
And yeah, the issue of leadership taking responsibility is so hopelessly tied up in the bullshit of political strength and public image that it never really happens. Have you ever heard any kind of politican apologize for his own actions? But that's also kind of a necessary development. How can you design a society precluding the development of politics, a corruption of weak character, when politics is such a natural human phenomenon?
Last edited by internisus on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:18 am |
|
|
| I'll sleep on it and explain what's contradictory in the morning. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:21 am |
|
|
| klikbeep wrote: |
| psiga wrote: |
Attention spans = short
ALSO! I haven't read the whole thread, just the last couple posts, so if I am like totally omg way off, then just ignore. |
|
I considered leaving out the last line and just taking the bet that I'd be sufficiently on-topic, but decided to be responsible instead. Which is a "case in point" moment considering the rest of what I said. NON-LINEAR IRONY.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
aderack
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:56 am |
|
|
| Joe wrote: |
| The military provides many people a way out of working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives. |
...
There's a punchline in here somewhere. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
slipstream
hates LOTR films
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:10 am |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| slipstream wrote: |
| in addition to the whole killing people is morally wrong |
That's entirely subjective, and arguably short-sighted and emotionally-charged. |
Dracko, it's not arguably short-sighted. You're a sociopath.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:25 am |
|
|
Morality being relative and all that. Are the people being killed deserving of death? Are the people doing the killing deserving of the 'right' to kill? Who gets to decide who deserves what; this is what Popes and Presidents and the like are installed to do, but what happens if you disagree with them?
Isn't it nice to know what your tax money is going toward things that you disagree with on a personal level? If the war is the President's responsibility, and the killing is the Military's responsibility, then I suppose the funding is our responsibility? Is a 700+ billion dollar war something that we can accept responsibility for? Is it something that we can atone for?
These are all rhetorical questions. I don't really care about the answers. We shouldn't be placed in these situations of possible responsibility in the first place, as far as I'm concerned.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:46 am |
|
|
Predator Goose, you're completely ignoring that there are already international treaties about what soldiers can and cannot be ordered to do. Soldiers are actually SUPPOSED to disregard orders such as "kill all the Mexicans." When I say that orders should be followed, I mean lawful orders, such as "kill the enemy combatants."
Yes, it sucks when thousands of soldiers die in an unnecessary war. But replacing our democracy with a military dictatorship would cost millions of lives in government oppression and civil war.
Psiga, your questions aren't that hard to answer. If Democrats didn't pay taxes when Republians were in power and vice versa, the government has half as much money. I have no trouble paying taxes when Bush is president because I know plenty of people will give money to Obama's government who would rather not. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
psiga
saudade
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:35 am |
|
|
Please tell us, in excruciating detail, what to tell the lawyers, police officers, government agents, bank employees, etc, when one of us decides not to pay taxes "because there's a Democrat in the office."
Failure to succeed at providing a very compelling and, dare I even say it, legal solution will result in me thinking that you are an idiot. Be advised!
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
| zebadayus wrote: |
But there are a number of people on this forum who act like nobody should ever join the military, every time the subject comes up.
I guess that should be expected, considering this forum is filled with the "intellectual" and "artsy" crowd. |
Not totally true! I have been variously accused of "artsy" and "intellectual" (sometimes with the prefix "over-" attached), and I support the military. I was born the son of a Green goddamn Beret, was raised by a number of Special Forces officers, and was given a wonderful childhood.
Sometimes East German Communists even tried to kidnap me and blow up my school! (This, of course, only affirmed my childhood idea that the U. S. Army was the glove on the right hand of God.)
At any rate. Not all are anti-military.
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:58 pm |
|
|
| slipstream wrote: |
| Dracko wrote: |
| slipstream wrote: |
| in addition to the whole killing people is morally wrong |
That's entirely subjective, and arguably short-sighted and emotionally-charged. |
Dracko, it's not arguably short-sighted. You're a sociopath. |
If I indeed am, I suppose you'd consider that a bad thing? Not much room for debate, then.
People die and people get killed. Every single life on the planet is allowed to thrive by continued acts of violence upon its environment. This is simple reality. Not to mention entirely natural. Give me a single logical reason why a human life is so sacred that it deserves to die on its own terms without the influence of others (Hint: It never does). I'm not interested in confused emotional rhetoric, because that's never solved a wretched thing.
| psiga wrote: |
| Morality being relative and all that. |
Saying it's relative is tantamount to saying no absolute morality exists.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:17 pm |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| no absolute morality exists. |
This is probably correct, actually.
However, relevant morals exist. That which is widely relevant need not be absolute.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
108
fairy godmilf
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: oakland, california
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:26 pm |
|
|
hey guys just popping in to say thanks for the argument about arguments it really helped me get in the mood for bed
_________________
 |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| However, relevant morals exist. That which is widely relevant need not be absolute. |
What exactly do you mean by "relevant"? Simple situationism?
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:40 pm |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
| I'll sleep on it and explain what's contradictory in the morning. |
nevermind, i don't feel like it anymore |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
SplashBeats
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:52 pm |
|
|
| Eric-Jon Rössel Waugh wrote: |
| Joe wrote: |
| The military provides many people a way out of working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives. |
...
There's a punchline in here somewhere. |
Oh, Chucklebot, you are such a card.
I know quite a few people who wouldn't have been able to get a college education without the help of the military. There's plenty of room in places like the Air Force for intelligent, hard-working, broke-ass men and women. I mean, they aren't going to sponsor your degree in Philosphy or anything, but if you want to learn something useful, they'd be all for it.
| slipstream wrote: |
| You're a sociopath. |
Could we do without this? |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:04 pm |
|
|
| Joe wrote: |
| I mean, they aren't going to sponsor your degree in Philosphy or anything |
Oh. Now I feel better about having missed that opportunity. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
BEIGE
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:21 pm |
|
|
West Point actually does offer a major in art, literature, and philosophy.
Yes, actually, they will sponsor your degree in philosophy, or inter-cultural basket weaving, or even english. The major is irrelevant - what is relevant is that the Army (dunno about other branches) wants all officers to have some kind of college education. That is how I'm getting a full ride majoring in music composition.
This is through ROTC, mind you, not enlistment. I don't know how it works for that. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:42 pm |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have an arm that unquestioningly obeys its sentient master but also has the free will to disobey. Each option carries consequences. If the arm is itself sentient and free, it is not adequately dependant upon the physically weak powers that control it to ensure that it will not eventually take over. If the arm is stupid and obeys without question, then it cannot be held accountable for its actions.
The latter is the better option, and this is one of the primary strengths of democracy. We choose and elect a commander for that arm. It is up to us to determine the moral character and intelligence of its commander. Unfortunately, the process for doing so fucking sucks right now thanks to big money and big media. The principle is good, though, because the arm is necessary and the other option is very, very bad.
And yeah, the issue of leadership taking responsibility is so hopelessly tied up in the bullshit of political strength and public image that it never really happens. Have you ever heard any kind of politican apologize for his own actions? But that's also kind of a necessary development. How can you design a society precluding the development of politics, a corruption of weak character, when politics is such a natural human phenomenon? |
I think that literally, semantically, you are correct. I was using the word should improperly, colloquially. I forget that it is actually a derivative of shall, and implies more of a definite action to be taken.
So, I'd ammend my statement to say that the military should usually obey the government, and that there are exceptions that exist where they should oppose the government. Keep in mind that this opposition does not always take the form of direct opposition of immediate superiors and disregard for orders being given. It can often take other forms, such as speaking out against an administration's military policy while obeying it.
To use another analogy, though I know I'm batting 0 out of 1000 with my analogies, it is correct to say "citizens of a nation should obey that nation's laws." But there are times when it is not right to do so, when one should oppose laws.
Well, that will be my second to last point on the subject, as I'm wasting too much time at work on this. I'll answer Ebrey's post and then I'm going to quit this thread, so make sure to get the last word in.
Internisus, it's been fun. Joe, it has not been fun.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Predator Goose
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:53 pm |
|
|
| Ebrey wrote: |
Predator Goose, you're completely ignoring that there are already international treaties about what soldiers can and cannot be ordered to do. Soldiers are actually SUPPOSED to disregard orders such as "kill all the Mexicans." When I say that orders should be followed, I mean lawful orders, such as "kill the enemy combatants."
Yes, it sucks when thousands of soldiers die in an unnecessary war. But replacing our democracy with a military dictatorship would cost millions of lives in government oppression and civil war. |
You're right Ebrey, I am dismissing international treaties with my example. Do you know why? It's because I live in America. You know, that little country that decides to disregard things like international treaties when they're not convenient. Torture? We don't torture people, because we don't call it torture. How fucked up is that?
A soldier answers to his own nation, not to an international treaty. The only reasons those treaties work is because the soldier's country will enforce the treaty. Law is arbitrary, and the ones who make the law, the ones who hold authority over you, can change it when it's convenient. So when you say that a soldier is supposed to only follow lawful orders, he'll be doing so when he goes out to "kill the Mexicans."
_________________
I can no longer shop happily. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:28 pm |
|
|
Dracko,
I hadn't heard about situationism until you mentioned it in your post. I
checked out the Wikipedia article. You seem as though you know if its
summary is genial to the philosophy, so my understanding lies at your
censure.
The only aspect of situationism I'd go with is Joseph Fletcher's claim: "The
morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it
is performed." I don't think I'd support that in all circumstances, but it
seems to express well the impact that the context of an ethical decision has
on that decision's morality.
By "relevant morality," I only mean that we are often required to use power
in defense of a moral principle when that defense is also an attack upon an
equally important moral principle. (Reinhold Neibuhr is great on this
stuff.)
Example: a boy from a poor family needs to hold down a job selling
newspapers in order to help his family pay rent. He gets paid by commission,
so he needs to hold down a busy street corner. To secure the best corner, he
has to beat up and intimidate a competing paperboy.
The boy faces two conflicting moral principles, and one is more relevant to
him than the other. He can do what he must do in order to secure work and
help keep his family housed, or he can live non-violently. Both avenues
affirm the ideal of love. His decision between the two moral actions,
however, turns each one immoral.
The example isn't perfect, but I'm only bringing it up as a loose garment to
give a general shape to my meaning. Absolute morality would imply an
obviously correct solution to our problems, thereby leading to sure
judgment. Relevant morality--understanding the conflicting demands of two
moral decisions that preclude and impinge upon each other--leads to
discernment and appreciation for the impossibility of living in just
relation with everyone.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
internisus
shafer sephiroth
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:29 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
So, I'd ammend my statement to say that the military should usually obey the government, and that there are exceptions that exist where they should oppose the government. Keep in mind that this opposition does not always take the form of direct opposition of immediate superiors and disregard for orders being given. It can often take other forms, such as speaking out against an administration's military policy while obeying it.
To use another analogy, though I know I'm batting 0 out of 1000 with my analogies, it is correct to say "citizens of a nation should obey that nation's laws." But there are times when it is not right to do so, when one should oppose laws. |
I completely agree on both counts! And that happens! It's very important that this happens both among citizens and member of the military! So we're great! Good times!
Regarding the international/global world, moral responsibility, and the deplorable actions of the United States, my feeling is that the United Nations must become a far stronger organization than it is. It needs to be capable of overriding the will of its most powerful members, and it needs a clear constitution of ethics, pragmatism, and international courtesy.
When the United States came to the UN with the desire to wage war on Iraq, the UN and pretty much all of its members urged the US to stand down and allow the UN's people the time they required to check the relevant intelligence and to inspect Iraq for WMDs. However, the US refused, went and invaded, and lo, we know quite clearly that there were no WMDs there, that Iraq had no ties to 9/11 (used as an incendiary to generate US public support for the war), and that the intelligence founding the war was not only faulty, but partially forged as well. Now, the UN should have punished the United States greatly for this. There should, at the very least, have been sanctions or strict forced reductions to military or a diminished voice in the forum, but as far as I know nothing was done and the administration behind the war continues to govern without penalty.
I want to add, following Adilegian's post, that we can see with the benefit of hindsight that no moral good at all has been served by the Iraq war. There was no complex conflict between two moral ideals. It was absulutely bad.
In my opinion, and please don't laugh at me for making this analogy, the United Nations needs to become exactly what Babylon 5 was in that tv series. It needs a powerful, independent military, a clear ethical and pragmatic constitution outlining the scope of its authority over every member's individual actions, and the will to enforce its mandate. It needs to become the forum for a single, united global nation. People laugh at the UN right now, and for good reason, but it is an institution of the greatest possible importance and it needs to be built up accordingly. It seems to me that the US is the biggest impediment to that. |
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
slipstream
hates LOTR films
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:38 pm |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
Regarding the international/global world, moral responsibility, and the deplorable actions of the United States, my feeling is that the United Nations must become a far stronger organization than it is. It needs to be capable of overriding the will of its most powerful members, and it needs a clear constitution of ethics, pragmatism, and international courtesy.
When the United States came to the UN with the desire to wage war on Iraq, the UN and pretty much all of its members urged the US to stand down and allow the UN's people the time they required to check the relevant intelligence and to inspect Iraq for WMDs. However, the US refused, went and invaded, and lo, we know quite clearly that there were no WMDs there, that Iraq had no ties to 9/11 (used as an incendiary to generate US public support for the war), and that the intelligence founding the war was not only faulty, but partially forged as well. Now, the UN should have punished the United States greatly for this. There should, at the very least, have been sanctions or strict forced reductions to military or a diminished voice in the forum, but as far as I know nothing was done and the administration behind the war continues to govern without penalty. |
Here's where it's difficult for the UN. As an organization dedicated to world peace, it's not.... their first inclination to crucify a country, much less one of the most powerful nations in the world. And unfortunately for the United Nations, America is powerful enough and self sufficient enough to not really be affected by any sanctions, beyond the symbolic sting of not being the cool kid everyone wants to hang out with anymore. It would take a lot more to get sanctions, and even then it's iffy. Unfortunately, the UN remains very passive about judging other countries for their sins, so you get countries like Iraq becoming chairpersons of various human rights Organs.
I don't think the UN needs to become more powerful, we just need more leaders that are willing to look seriously at the flaws of their nations and be willing to change. People like George Bush et al are never going to take the language of the UN seriously. Being the source of "grave concern" and "strongly disagreed" with won't do anything to stop head strong asses of leaders.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
|
Adilegian,
Your analysis is certainly very interesting, and doesn't seem to contradict situationism that much. It just seems to insert the element or potential of choice, if I'm following your line of thought correctly.
However, I'm not liable at all to look at actions from an ethical standing. To take your example, it seems like a question of necessity is involved, and allowing moral sentiment to intrude (That is to say, not intimidating the competitor) is working against the paperboy's interests.
Such an outcome is simple stalemate and limited in scope. You may bring up integrity, but I'd put it down more to fear of social reprisal. In the long run, I've rarely seen integrity profit a person in the least.
But as far as discussions of ethics go, situationism and your own relevantism hold some logical strength and allow for intellectual toying.
The Iraq conflict is not bad because of moral failings. It is bad because it's just plain disorganised and wasteful for all involved, and will likely bring about even more problems than it claimed to intend solving.
| slipstream wrote: |
| I don't think the UN needs to become more powerful, we just need more leaders that are willing to look seriously at the flaws of their nations and be willing to change. |
Now how do you suggest the UN encourage that, considering how little authority it holds? For all the talk of idealism, no ideal can survive without it being permeated. And that requires force and power.
People aren't going to take the language of the UN seriously because the language of the UN is just plain weak.
_________________
|
|
| Filter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
