26 Mar 03
Our whole system of morality is based on prejudice. What we regard as a moral action is simply something which our instincts and our society guides us towards. Thus, our concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, and can in no way be regarded as absolute.
Hitler believed that he was doing
ight. So did Stalin. So did Hitler. So does Bin Laden. They thought that they were right just as much as we believe that we are right. And we have the arrogance to know for certain that we are right and they are wrong.
just an though...
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusSo there was nothing objectively wrong; wrong in the absolute sense, with Hitler's and Stalin's execution of millions of innocent people? Just because our judgements of right and wrong are based either on innate factors or education (or a combination of the two) it does not follow that we can't come to know that something is absolutely morally wrong. When you study math, for instance, you're being educated in the solving of particular types of problems. Does the fact that you learn how to do math imply that those things we claim to be mathematical truths are entirely subjective, or based on prejudice? Innate physiological structures enable you to determine that objects in the world have particular shapes, is the fact that this ability of yours is instinctual imply that the shapes of objects in the world are entirely subjective or matters of prejudice? Just because we come to know something in a particular way does not imply that what we come to know is purely subjective.
Our whole system of morality is based on prejudice. What we regard as a moral action is simply something which our instincts and our society guides us towards. Thus, our concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, and can in no way be regarded as absolute.
Hitler believed that he was doing
ight. So did Stalin. So did Hitler. So does Bin Laden. Th ...[text shortened]... ve the arrogance to know for certain that we are right and they are wrong.
just an though...
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrSo when it comes to Hitler its bad when you kill people, but when it comes to Saddam we should just stand by and whatch him kill innocent people? I dont understand you.
So there was nothing objectively wrong; wrong in the absolute sense, with Hitler's and Stalin's execution of millions of innocent people?
-Adam
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamYou don't understand? Really?
So when it comes to Hitler its bad when you kill people, but when it comes to Saddam we should just stand by and whatch him kill innocent people? I dont understand you.
-Adam
Sometimes the meaning is greater than the sum of all the words.
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamHow about when it comes to George Bush - should we stand by and watch him kill innocent Iraqi civilians?
So when it comes to Hitler its bad when you kill people, but when it comes to Saddam we should just stand by and whatch him kill innocent people? I dont understand you.
-Adam
I understand that civilian casualties of war are inevitable, but when the war is against international law and the wishes of a vast majority of the world's leaderships are these casualties simply "collateral damage" or really crimes of war?
26 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by UncleAdamI've already posted what I take to be an alternative to war that could pressure Hussein to stop the abuse of Iraqi people. In short it involves working with the UN and the international criminal court. Please pay attention to what I've written, that way you will not attribute to me views I do not in fact hold. Futhermore, this thread doesn't really concern the moral issues surroinding the Iraq war, but the reality of moral properties in general. So not only is your post misguided, in that it attributes a view to me I do not hold, it is also off-topic. If you wish to post such inanity, then perhaps you ought do so in the 'longest thread in RHP history'.
So when it comes to Hitler its bad when you kill people, but when it comes to Saddam we should just stand by and whatch him kill innocent people? I dont understand you.
-Adam
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrI disagree with the thought that we didn't do everything possible to avoid the war as we have been working disarm Saddam through the UN for 12 years
I've already posted what I take to be an alternative to war that could pressure Hussein to stop the abuse of Iraqi people. In short it involves working with the UN and the international criminal court. Please pay attention to what I've written, that way you will not attribute to me views I do not in fact hold. Futhermore, this thread doesn't really conce ...[text shortened]... h to post such inanity, then perhaps you ought do so in the 'longest thread in RHP history'.
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by kyngjJoe, it would be helpful if you stated the international law that the US is violating. There is a difference between the international law and the UN not authorizing the use of force. And should we care what the vast majority of the world's leaders think? War is not an election or popularity contest. We should care in term of alienating countries and hopefully promoting better economic relationships. But frankly the UN has about as much potency as a castrated bull on a cold morning. In Bush's thinking he's saying, "if you all can't deliver, I will." But maybe the best the UN can bring to the table is humanitarian relief and aid to this situation. I hope so. Kirk
How about when it comes to George Bush - should we stand by and watch him kill innocent Iraqi civilians?
I understand that civilian casualties of war are inevitable, but when the war is against international law and the wishes of a vast majority of the world's leaderships are these casualties simply "collateral damage" or really crimes of war?
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamYou are probably too young to remember, but that is exactly what the UN-sanctioned force sent in to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait did after the cease fire negotiated by Schwartzkopf (sp?) et al. was declared in Gulf War I.
So when it comes to Hitler its bad when you kill people, but when it comes to Saddam we should just stand by and whatch him kill innocent people? I dont understand you.
-Adam
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk, you're absolutely correct of course, I was just trying to point to the hypocrisy of justifying a war based on the killing of innocents, when the war itself is likely to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocents. While the war is not popular with other governments, I think the unilateral and aggressive nature of it is the reason for this unpopularity, so in some sense we're justified in criticising it on the basis of its unpopularity. The point of the UN is to crystallise the opinions of the world's countries into some sort of course of action that is agreed upon. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say the UN has no potency, it certainly managed to agree to a resolution that involved military force during Gulf War I, the difference now is that America has acted essentially alone, and this is what's making the war unpopular... alright, random, unfiltered rant over, it really doesn't matter what I say anyway, because nothing's going to stop this invasion now!
Joe, it would be helpful if you stated the international law that the US is violating. There is a difference between the international law and the UN not authorizing the use of force. And should we care what the vast majority of the world's leaders think? War is not an election or popularity contest. We should care in term of alienating countries and ...[text shortened]... the UN can bring to the table is humanitarian relief and aid to this situation. I hope so. Kirk
Joe
26 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reads as follows:
Joe, it would be helpful if you stated the international law that the US is violating. There is a difference between the international law and the UN not authorizing the use of force. And should we care what the vast majority of the world's leaders think? War is not an election or popularity contest. We should care in term of alienating countries and ...[text shortened]... the UN can bring to the table is humanitarian relief and aid to this situation. I hope so. Kirk
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Article 25:
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
For more, see http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html
The most relevant chapters about the Security Council are V, VI and VII.
You can draw your own conclusions. A particularly interesting question arises from the withdrawal of the second resolution - the US and UK presumably withdrew the resolution to avoid breaching Article 25 (since it was pretty clear that the decision of the Security Council would not have supported the use of force, at least not beginning at the time it did).
27 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957That seems to be a rather opportunistic definition. If the U.N. won't back our decision, you are saying it is an ineffectual organization. But if they had backed our resolution for the use of force on Iraq, you would probably be saying just the opposite. The primary role of the U.N. is to prevent and mediate conflicts, not to initiate them.
Joe, it would be helpful if you stated the international law that the US is violating. There is a difference between the international law and the UN not authorizing the use of force. And should we care what the vast majority of the world's leaders think? War is not an election or popularity contest. We should care in term of alienating countries and ...[text shortened]... the UN can bring to the table is humanitarian relief and aid to this situation. I hope so. Kirk
But the U.N. can, and has, authorized the use of force in the past. Two examples that come to mind are the Korean War, and the first Persian Gulf War. In both cases the use of force was authorized in response to a military invasion of one country by another. In the case of the Korean War, force was authorized after North Korea invaded South Korea, and in the case of the first Persian Gulf War, force was authorized after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
But this time around, Iraq has not invaded anybody. The U.N. recognizes that the use of military force should not be authorized lightly, and that it should always be as a last resort. Force has been authorized in response to military aggresions that a country has committed, not aggressions that a country might commit. As deplorable as the treatment of Iraq's people has been under Saddam Hussein, such actions have never resulted in the authorization of force by the U.N. in the past (to the best of my knowledge). Even during the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the U.N. was not moved to militarily intervene. The criteria for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq was simply lacking.
28 Mar 03
Originally posted by bbarrAlright, I'll take a stab at this;
So there was nothing objectively wrong; wrong in the absolute sense, with Hitler's and Stalin's execution of millions of innocent people? Just because our judgements of right and wrong are based either on innate factors or education (or a combination of the two) it does not follow that we can't come to know that something is absolutely morally wrong. When ...[text shortened]... ow something in a particular way does not imply that what we come to know is purely subjective.
The difference between moral judgments and mathematics is that in the latter, there is an absolute standard, and it is true for all cultures. Two plus two equaled four for both Hitler and for Gandhi. With the absence of a god, there is no absolute moral standard. That does not mean that man will live without morality. Far from it. Man will enact his own moral codes as best suits the species as a whole. But what man judges to be moral varies from culture to culture and from era to era. Some cultures will look upon cannibalism as being an accepted part of society, while others will look upon it with repugnance. So we do not say that cannibalism is wrong because there is an absolute moral standard that tells us so. We say it is wrong because we generally do not like the idea of being eaten, and therefore agree amongst ourselves that cannibalism should be condemned. But that condemnation has not been universal, and in different circumstances judgment may be suspended or overturned. Thus, what we have is moral relativism. It may be said that morality can not exist independently from man's conception of it.