the geneva convention:your opinion on this

[danyboy27]

its clear that many professional and non-professional army dont fallow it by the book, but i think its actually the ethical way of doing the war.

your opinion on this?

[Anti Freedom]

The point of war is to win, thus the Geneva convention is subject to the issue of whether it is beneficial to uphold the Geneva convention, pretend to uphold it, or anything like that.

[RGacky3]

Its a joke, people don't follow it, War is an immoral act as it is, to try and impoart morals on it makes no sense, it might soften it, but thats only if people follow it, and chances are the people making war arn't thinking with about having a clean war, they are thinking of wining a war.

[danyboy27]

so basicly, you dont believe ethics are a possible thing during a war?
if one day a conflict happen , will you fallow certain rules of ethics or not?

[Anti Freedom]

so basicly, you dont believe ethics are a possible thing during a war?
if one day a conflict happen , will you fallow certain rules of ethics or not?
Why would you? If some being has dared to become your enemy, destroy them in as efficient and effective manner as possible. If you fail to do that, you lose more resources yourself. If your opponent appears to be following some rules of war, you might play along so long as that situation is to your advantage, but never give a foe an advantage, they will use that to hurt you.

[danyboy27]

Why would you? If some being has dared to become your enemy, destroy them in as efficient and effective manner as possible. If you fail to do that, you lose more resources yourself. If your opponent appears to be following some rules of war, you might play along so long as that situation is to your advantage, but never give a foe an advantage, they will use that to hurt you.

so, to you the fallowing things are okay, if your ennemy is superior or not exactly playing by the rules:

-rape
-civilian killing
-forcing child to join the military
-Torture
-suicide bombing civilian target
-using civilian population has human shield

seriously, no matter how douchebag is your ennemy, there is no valid reason to do such things, except if you are a murderous fuck.

acting like a murderous fuck will make you no better than them.

[Anti Freedom]

so, to you the fallowing things are okay, if your ennemy is superior or not exactly playing by the rules:

-rape
-civilian killing
-forcing child to join the military
-Torture
-suicide bombing civilian target
-using civilian population has human shield

seriously, no matter how douchebag is your ennemy, there is no valid reason to do such things, except if you are a murderous fuck.

acting like a murderous fuck will make you no better than them.
The goal is to win. There is no notion of "better" or "worse". If we allow ourselves to be defeated by douchebag murderous fucks, are we to be congratulated on our morals? No, we will find ourselves raped, ourselves tortured, our goals crushed, our people slaughtered, and etc. Thus, there is no duty to the opposition, only a duty to our causes, our purposes, our goals. If that means terrible things to the opposition, then that means terrible things to the opposition, and they chose it by being the opposition.

[danyboy27]

The goal is to win. There is no notion of "better" or "worse". If we allow ourselves to be defeated by douchebag murderous fucks, are we to be congratulated on our morals? No, we will find ourselves raped, ourselves tortured, our goals crushed, our people slaughtered, and etc. Thus, there is no duty to the opposition, only a duty to our causes, our purposes, our goals. If that means terrible things to the opposition, then that means terrible things to the opposition, and they chose it by being the opposition.

so basicly, when a palestinian blow up a bus full of civilian or open fire in a synagogue, you think its actually a good thing?????????

[Anti Freedom]

so basicly, when a palestinian blow up a bus full of civilian or open fire in a synagogue, you think its actually a good thing?????????
There is no better or worse, the goal is to win. The palestinian is doing just that. I can make a stand one way or another on the existence of Israel, and judge the palestinians on that, but if I were in that situation I might easily do the same.

[danyboy27]

There is no better or worse, the goal is to win. The palestinian is doing just that. I can make a stand one way or another on the existence of Israel, and judge the palestinians on that, but if I were in that situation I might easily do the same.

by looking how much gain the palestinian got for randomly bombing the civilian area with homemade rocket made of car parts, i say i dont think this is a FTW situation.

after several suicide blast, the israeli just enclosed the palestinian in a Ghetto, i think they might decide to change their strategy one day, but the lattest novelty was to send some dudes using bulldozer to smash israeli civilian, its not working out verry well neither.

should i mention the palestinian didnt blew up a single israeli chopper/tanks in years?

[Anti Freedom]

by looking how much gain the palestinian got for randomly bombing the civilian area with homemade rocket made of car parts, i say i dont think this is a FTW situation.

after several suicide blast, the israeli just enclosed the palestinian in a Ghetto, i think they might decide to change their strategy one day, but the lattest novelty was to send some dudes using bulldozer to smash israeli civilian, its not working out verry well neither.

should i mention the palestinian didnt blew up a single israeli chopper/tanks in years?
Ok, then perhaps it is a bad tactic, but don't try to blend the issue of tactics and morals, they are separate issues, and I made that clear already.

[FreeFocus]

War between states is, and forever will be, a stupid, immoral, and wasteful endeavor which only brings sorrow and misery to humanity. I usually disregard notions of "patriotism," which is used to control people and really makes no sense whatsoever.

If it's an insurgency, insurgents should be attacking institutions of control/the state, not civilians. Rape is never acceptable, under any circumstances. Forcing children to fight and die is never acceptable, under any circumstances. Torture is something I don't support in most instances, but it will happen.

War is an activity that warps the psychology of those involved and the societies involved. If a strong ethical direction is not given (i.e., targeting only that which should be targeted - if you engage in wanton killing of everyone, what type of disgusting society will your actions yield?), you will have social degeneration, totalitarianism and chaos.

[danyboy27]

Ok, then perhaps it is a bad tactic, but don't try to blend the issue of tactics and morals, they are separate issues, and I made that clear already.


i was pointing out that acting like barbarians is a bad tactics itself, and will always be one.
when you act like that, people just dont respect you.

basicly, i think those guidelines are importants, that they should be fallowed in some way.

people might think respecting the geneva convention is a bad tactic, but its actually a verry good tactic in war, beccause with time, you come to gain respect from the ennemy.

[Rascolnikova]

i was pointing out that acting like barbarians is a bad tactics itself, and will always be one.

This is where we differ.

I would like to believe this, but I don't see adequate evidence for it.

For reference, this is my general stance on the matter, copied from the other thread:


but it seems to me that the un-armed, the non-military, are generally the ones making decisions that cause people to die.

Violence is an issue I'm extremely ambivalent on. On a theoretical basis I can accept it unflinchingly--if assassinating a few hundred un-armed oil executives would get shell (and the others) out of the Niger delta, I could in no way argue that that wouldn't save lives on balance.

In real life, it is possibly my least favorite thing, and I remain unconvinced that it's practical in all foreseeable cases which have been presented to me.
And this is something you said on that same thread (unfair restrictions, if anyone wants to look)

a corporation is not made of the people who run it, its a mad train running foward, no matter how much oil worker or executives you kill, all matter to them is profit, and shareholder wont care that they lost the whole executive, has long has they can still make money, they will invest in security, push the OPEC countries to have harder stances on their population, finance their dictatorship even more.
Attacking the military of saudi arabia on the other hand, would make a dirrect pressure on the problem. If you can make the military bleed dry beccause they are chasing you, loosing grip over their people, and eventually topple the bad recime, this would make the problem change.

if you play with violence, play fair, beccause if its possible for us to kill a fews executives, its possible for them to kill a thousand of civilian just in order to get the ones who did this.I'm not sure what constitutes playing fair in a game where the other side is constantly slaughtering the innocent.

If the world were generally known to be very dangerous for oil executives, maybe they would have a harder time finding people to do the job.

[synthesis]

Ok, then perhaps it is a bad tactic, but don't try to blend the issue of tactics and morals, they are separate issues, and I made that clear already.

I don't think ethics and tactics are ever inseparable, at least not in the long run. No matter how efficiently you might win one battle by training your people to be bloodthirsty killing machines, that reputation will eventually bite you in the ass.

Mandela said: "The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle." Historically, this is certainly true.


so basicly, when a palestinian blow up a bus full of civilian or open fire in a synagogue, you think its actually a good thing?????????

Behind all the sensationalist representation of that issue, there is very little that distinguishes this situation from many asymmetric battles of the past. The philosophy of "terrorism" as stated by "terrorists" is no different from the fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII - in a "total war," civilians are simply a part of the supply line, and killing them disrupts this line.

The only reason the Palestinians have not succeeded is because they have inferior firepower and military capability, not because there is a problem with their tactics or ethics.

[Anti Freedom]

i was pointing out that acting like barbarians is a bad tactics itself, and will always be one.
when you act like that, people just dont respect you.
Not really. You were pointing out that in a particular struggle, acting like barbarians wasn't effective. Part of the issue is that this struggle really is pretty one-sided in favor of Israel, thus I don't think that any tactic would really be that effective.

Historically though, it has been pointed out that the Geneva convention is often violated, and this still can get a victory. The Viet Cong for instance were known for their brutal tactics and they won.


basicly, i think those guidelines are importants, that they should be fallowed in some way.
Only if we find them useful. The major part of the comment was that morality for the sake of morality was meaningless.


people might think respecting the geneva convention is a bad tactic, but its actually a verry good tactic in war, beccause with time, you come to gain respect from the ennemy.
Not necessarily, not only that, but it depends on the battle. Frankly, if you are against a murderous fuck douchebag, then it hardly matters what tactics you use. If you are someone who respects the Geneva convention, then it is more acceptable, because if you don't abide then they might stop abiding.

[Anti Freedom]

I don't think ethics and tactics are ever inseparable, at least not in the long run. No matter how efficiently you might win one battle by training your people to be bloodthirsty killing machines, that reputation will eventually bite you in the ass.

Mandela said: "The oppressor defines the nature of the struggle." Historically, this is certainly true.
Well, yes, they are. One can act in a manner to get a better reputation without really being ethical. Think about corporate responsibillity. Are corporations really deciding to be "good"? No, they still have the same fundamental operating principle as always, but they are getting good publicity through a tactic.

Once again, the importance of this really depends on the circumstance. But really, it is assuredly an error to think that ethics cannot be faked, as they are faked all of the time.


Behind all the sensationalist representation of that issue, there is very little that distinguishes this situation from many asymmetric battles of the past. The philosophy of "terrorism" as stated by "terrorists" is no different from the fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII - in a "total war," civilians are simply a part of the supply line, and killing them disrupts this line.

The only reason the Palestinians have not succeeded is because they have inferior firepower and military capability, not because there is a problem with their tactics or ethics.
I agree.

[danyboy27]

Not really. You were pointing out that in a particular struggle, acting like barbarians wasn't effective. Part of the issue is that this struggle really is pretty one-sided in favor of Israel, thus I don't think that any tactic would really be that effective.

israel too resorted in many barbarian tactics, all resulting i more violence, and diplomaticly, its killing them, making it harder and harder to deal with syria on the Golan issue, or even Egypt on the border security.




Historically though, it has been pointed out that the Geneva convention is often violated, and this still can get a victory. The Viet Cong for instance were known for their brutal tactics and they won.

The vietcong where pretty much Beaten at the end of the Vietnam war, victim of their own barbary, many town elderly dennounced them to the south vietnamese and the us military, The phoenix project saw pretty good result against them, resulting in a huuge decrease of the videcong leadership in the countryside. On the other hand, the north vietnamese army did succeded in holding many cities from the american during a certain time, and this show of force greatly influenced the us politics. Of course they cheated and invaded the south during a surprise attack, but it was not really what i would call a major issue.







Only if we find them useful. The major part of the comment was that morality for the sake of morality was meaningless.

Not necessarily, not only that, but it depends on the battle. Frankly, if you are against a murderous fuck douchebag, then it hardly matters what tactics you use. If you are someone who respects the Geneva convention, then it is more acceptable, because if you don't abide then they might stop abiding.
If you are facing murderous fuck douchebag, and that you indeed fallow the code, you gain something called public opinion, and in the world of today it make all the difference.

Congo for exemple, right now there is a bunch of tutsi rebels working at overthrowing the governement. At first, its a pretty good idea, this regime is corrupt to the bone, But, when people started hearing about how the rebel force kid into joining the military and drug them, its kinda changed the whole perspective of the thing, there have been reports of rape too, another bad things. i am not even mentionning how the civilian population will be hostile toward the rebels sending their own kid to the frontline without even asking them.

i might be naive, but i do believe that being good will bring you good, eventually.

[synthesis]

Well, yes, they are. One can act in a manner to get a better reputation without really being ethical. Think about corporate responsibillity. Are corporations really deciding to be "good"? No, they still have the same fundamental operating principle as always, but they are getting good publicity through a tactic.

Once again, the importance of this really depends on the circumstance. But really, it is assuredly an error to think that ethics cannot be faked, as they are faked all of the time.That much is obvious. The point is that acting with total disregard for ethical standards is only tactically effective in the short term.

[danyboy27]

That much is obvious. The point is that acting with total disregard for ethical standards is only
tactically effective in the short term.

true that.

[Anti Freedom]

If you are facing murderous fuck douchebag, and that you indeed fallow the code, you gain something called public opinion, and in the world of today it make all the difference.
It doesn't make *all* the difference. It really depends on the conflict one is involved in. In any case, you are not making a case for ethics, you are making a case for kissing up to the standards of other people, a position I don't have a problem with. As my original argument stated, in war, you try to win, the Geneva convention is nothing unless it helps you.



i might be naive, but i do believe that being good will bring you good, eventually.
It depends on the situation. I believe that being smart in the use of power is more what will bring good. However, if there is a WW3, somehow, and somehow we are involved in it, I'll quickly say that the Geneva convention won't matter, holding to your word will help, but mostly to get people to surrender.

[Anti Freedom]

That much is obvious. The point is that acting with total disregard for ethical standards is only tactically effective in the short term.
Depends on the conflict, I'd bet a harassment campaign, a total war situation, or something similar can work without ethics relatively well. Mostly you will want to seem more ethical than your opponents, or to have a more noble cause though.

[Rascolnikova]

I re-state my earlier question: What does it mean to play fair in a game where the other side is murdering innocents all the time?

My approach to ethics is utilitarian and humanitarian. My ethics are the only reason I'd be in a conflict in the first place--my only motive for winning. The only way to violate them would be to fight for the less humanitarian side, or to do things that were tactically unsound and thus less serving of humanitarianism.

[RGacky3]

The only way to violate them would be to fight for the less humanitarian side, or to do things that were tactically unsound and thus less serving of humanitarianism.

Thats the argument many conservataives give defending the Iraq war.

[Anti Freedom]

I re-state my earlier question: What does it mean to play fair in a game where the other side is murdering innocents all the time?
There is no fairness, only a pursuit of victory.


My approach to ethics is utilitarian and humanitarian. My ethics are the only reason I'd be in a conflict in the first place--my only motive for winning. The only way to violate them would be to fight for the less humanitarian side, or to do things that were tactically unsound and thus less serving of humanitarianism.
And being without war ethics is the most utilitarian and humanitarian approach. The faster your enemy falls, the more quickly and less painfully they can be rebuilt. If you lie broken, then your cause lies broken, and if you serve humanity, then your cause dies. If you win, and win quickly, even if the other side is bloodied, then you can impose some order more capably and oversee a rebuilding effort much better. For the most part, excessive cruelties such as rape are not necessary, and even the Mongolian tactic of slaughtering an entire town is something they could justify with the gain of towns undamaged.

[Anti Freedom]

Thats the argument many conservataives give defending the Iraq war.
Yes, and the reasons they are wrong have a lot to do with their poor techniques and mindset.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Thats the argument many conservataives give defending the Iraq war.

It's not such a bad argument. Their main mistake is to assume that the United States is more humanitarian.

The foremost objective in a war is obviously not ethical behavior towards your enemy, but I do believe that it is always fundamental to not attack people who may not be or are not your enemies (attacking civilians, practicing torturous interrogation) and especially to not use cruel and frivolous violence (rape).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

My approach to ethics is utilitarian and humanitarian. My ethics are the only reason I'd be in a conflict in the first place--my only motive for winning.

Unfortunately, no conflicts in history that I can think of have had such motivations.


The only way to violate them would be to fight for the less humanitarian side, or to do things that were tactically unsound and thus less serving of humanitarianism.

This may be only an illustration of your approach to ethics, but it's not practical for analyzing real world conflicts, since none of them are fought with humanitarianism in mind. For example, it doesn't make sense to support the American invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, since it wasn't carried out on those grounds. It was carried on on purely political grounds, and that's how we need to view it. The question isn't whether more or less people would have died had Bush not decided to invade. The question is whether geopolitical relations between the West and the Mid East would have been more just had the US not invaded Iraq and toppled its government.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no fairness, only a pursuit of victory. A large problem with Communism is that while Communist geefully kill off God, they cower in fear of living in a world without him. They seem to always bring up "fair" and "good" and "ethics" and "moral" and such words that imply a higher authority.


And being without war ethics is the most utilitarian and humanitarian approach. The faster your enemy falls, the more quickly and less painfully they can be rebuilt. If you lie broken, then your cause lies broken, and if you serve humanity, then your cause dies. If you win, and win quickly, even if the other side is bloodied, then you can impose some order more capably and oversee a rebuilding effort much better. For the most part, excessive cruelties such as rape are not necessary, and even the Mongolian tactic of slaughtering an entire town is something they could justify with the gain of towns undamaged.
That was Truman's perspective when he dropped the Atomic bomb twice in Japan. A true horror in personal human terms--but hostilities ceased quickly with little damage to Japan's infrastructure and with minimal loss of civilian life, (beyond the two cities the bomb was dropped on.)

[synthesis]

A large problem with Communism is that while Communist geefully kill off God, they cower in fear of living in a world without him. They seem to always bring up "fair" and "good" and "ethics" and "moral" and such words that imply a higher authority.

Morality requires a higher authority; ethics do not. The notion of "good and evil" necessitates a commonly accepted set of morals, while the notions of "right and wrong" and "just and unjust" are individual decisions based on reason, personal experience, and the side of human nature that says to "do unto others as..." - a mentality that is obviously present in some more than others.


That was Truman's perspective when he dropped the Atomic bomb twice in Japan. A true horror in personal human terms--but hostilities ceased quickly with little damage to Japan's infrastructure and with minimal loss of civilian life, (beyond the two cities the bomb was dropped on.)

Maybe the biggest misconception about WWII ever. The Japanese were ready to surrender with one condition: that their Emperor (who was worshiped as a God) be allowed to maintain his post as head of state, even if in name only. The U.S. demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese refused, we dropped the bomb and wound up leaving the Emperor in place anyways.

We forced them into that position. Why? To show off our shiny new toy. This is not as simplistic as you might think. "Don't fuck with us," we said with that act, "we've got a fat-ass gun and we're ready and willing to use it."

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Contemporary historians postulate that the deployment of the nukes had nothing to do with humanitarianism, like the United States' involvement in the war itself, and everything to do with extending American hegemony, like the United States' involvement in the war itself. Clearly a response to the Soviet Union's growing military strength. In this respect, they were overwhelmingly victorious. Humanely, not so much I think. Kind of frightening that 60 years have passed and Americans still don't understand what happened.

edit: exactly what Kun Fanâ said

[RGacky3]

That was Truman's perspective when he dropped the Atomic bomb twice in Japan. A true horror in personal human terms--but hostilities ceased quickly with little damage to Japan's infrastructure and with minimal loss of civilian life, (beyond the two cities the bomb was dropped on.)

THat exact same defense could be made for 9-11, defending 9-11, the only difference is the A-Bombs succeded where 9-11 did'nt, but morally they are on the same level.

[Bud Struggle]

Morality requires a higher authority; ethics do not. The notion of "good and evil" necessitates a commonly accepted set of morals, while the notions of "right and wrong" and "just and unjust" are individual decisions based on reason, personal experience, and the side of human nature that says to "do unto others as..." - a mentality that is obviously present in some more than others.Call it what you will morality, ethics--without a God it's all completely arbitrary. Winners supply the rules for the vanquished. The well reason German nation in thee 30s and 40s thought the extermination of the Jews are being a reasonably good idea at the time. Was that reasoning faulty? In retrospect, yes--but is there a Good or Evil in the decision? That's another story. And again the "do unto others..." is a completely a arbitrary way to live one's life--some may choose to live that way, some others not so much. Either way it's a personal choice and nothing more.




Maybe the biggest misconception about WWII ever. The Japanese were ready to surrender with one condition: that their Emperor (who was worshiped as a God) be allowed to maintain his post as head of state, even if in name only. The U.S. demanded unconditional surrender, the Japanese refused, we dropped the bomb and wound up leaving the Emperor in place anyways.

We forced them into that position. Why? To show off our shiny new toy. This is not as simplistic as you might think. "Don't fuck with us," we said with that act, "we've got a fat-ass gun and we're ready and willing to use it."

Maybe a bit true in hindsight, but in his position as the head of state of a a warring nation the Emporer had to go. We wouldn't have let Hitler remain in power in Germany, would we? And then could the Emporer be trusted to uphold his end of the bargan for peace? It was much better for Japan that the whole slate was cleared and Japan could be rebuilt from the ground up. If we didn't totally defeat Japan and rebuild it ourselves we would have had ended up with a semidefeated (the Army never surrendered) country like Germany after WWI.

The occupation and the rebuilding turned Japan into a first rate nation and good ally of the United States. Was the droping of the bombs completely necessary? I don't know--but did the call turn out well for all countries involved--the answer has to be yes.

[RGacky3]

Was the droping of the bombs completely necessary? I don't know--but did the call turn out well for all countries involved--the answer has to be yes.

Not for the thousands (if not millions that died), if you can argue than then you can argue that 9-11 was positive, because it overthrew the taliban.

Also Historiaclly speaking, the motivation of the A-Bomb was the flex muscle, plain and simple, its not true in hindsite, that was the motivation, it was true back then as it is now.

With the logic your using, and act of terrorism can be justified, infact this A-Bomb i would say is worse terrorism because its only motivation was muscle flexing, not liberation, not peace, not any socail motive, simply geo-political power playing.

[synthesis]

Maybe a bit true in hindsight, but in his position as the head of state of a a warring nation the Emporer had to go. We wouldn't have let Hitler remain in power in Germany, would we? And then could the Emporer be trusted to uphold his end of the bargan for peace? It was much better for Japan that the whole slate was cleared and Japan could be rebuilt from the ground up. If we didn't totally defeat Japan and rebuild it ourselves we would have had ended up with a semidefeated (the Army never surrendered) country like Germany after WWI.But MacArthur wound up leaving the Emperor in power, as I said above. That kinda voids your whole argument.

Among most historians who are not ideologically motivated - either to prove innocence or bloodthirsty racism on the part of the U.S. - it is generally accepted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were signals of strength, not so much to Japan but to the rest of the world.


Call it what you will morality, ethics--without a God it's all completely arbitrary. Winners supply the rules for the vanquished. The well reason German nation in thee 30s and 40s thought the extermination of the Jews are being a reasonably good idea at the time. Was that reasoning faulty? In retrospect, yes--but is there a Good or Evil in the decision? That's another story. And again the "do unto others..." is a completely a arbitrary way to live one's life--some may choose to live that way, some others not so much. Either way it's a personal choice and nothing more. It's the best we've got. Unfortunately, I was left to my own devices regarding religion as a child, and came to the conclusion that if a God existed - at least, one that gave a shit about human beings and how they acted - then he would provide incontrovertible proof of his existence in order to "save" those of us who see no good reason to have "faith" in religious teachings.

Also, you don't think morality, in practice, is as much of a product of arbitrary interpretation as are ethics? Do you really think people will act morally just because of their belief in God?

I can't help but think of that infamous Crusader captain who said of a town that was part Catholic and part Cathar "heretics":

"Kill them all - God will know his own."

[benhur]

KF,

Can you explain what you mean when you distinguish between 'good/evil' and 'right/wrong', or 'morals' and 'ethics.' One may be religious, and the other secular, but they're both arbitrary, aren't they?

Religious people may abstain from killing for religious reasons (such as god forbids it etc.), whereas secular humanists may abstain from it because they feel it's wrong. But neither can prove that killing is wrong by providing objective evidence. So what's the difference between them?

[Anti Freedom]

I agree with TomK

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" - Friedrich Nietzsche

I also agree with benhur that there is no meaningful distinction between ethics and morality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
As the wiki article shows, the terms "ethic" and "moral" are used interchangeably, and theories of meta-ethics such as "divine command theory" exist. Now, we can then try to change our meta-ethics. I prefer Stirner's stance on the matter.

[synthesis]

KF,

Can you explain what you mean when you distinguish between 'good/evil' and 'right/wrong', or 'morals' and 'ethics.' One may be religious, and the other secular, but they're both arbitrary, aren't they?

Religious people may abstain from killing for religious reasons (such as god forbids it etc.), whereas secular humanists may abstain from it because they feel it's wrong. But neither can prove that killing is wrong by providing objective evidence. So what's the difference between them?

Well, what do you define to be "arbitrary"?

One definition is:

"Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle."

Neither are arbitrary in this sense. Tangentially, I think a lot of people underestimate the rational aspects of religion and its accompanying morality.

The other relevant definition is:

"Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."

And in that sense they are both arbitrary, albeit in different/opposite ways.

Systems of morality hide the fact that their implementations are ultimately the result of contextual interpretation. When a group of Christians say something is "good" or "evil" they believe themselves to be following the Bible in condemning it as such, and yet their views may not be directly or indirectly supported by anything the Bible says. In that sense, it is arbitrary.

Systems of ethics, on the other hand, hide the fact that their interpretations are influenced by context; they speak to some sort of inner sense of "what is right". When people are talking about "ethics", they want to be perceived as "thinking for themselves." But that "inner sense" is never void of context.

Is there such a thing as "objective" morality or ethics? Probably only this: You don't do shit if you don't think you can get away with it.

And finally, just because there may not be such a thing as "objective" moral or ethical systems does not mean that they don't exist subjectively. An idea doesn't have to be "objective" to have far-ranging effects on the objective world, for better or for worse.

[Rascolnikova]

Call it what you will morality, ethics--without a God it's all completely arbitrary. Winners supply the rules for the vanquished. The well reason German nation in thee 30s and 40s thought the extermination of the Jews are being a reasonably good idea at the time. Was that reasoning faulty? In retrospect, yes--but is there a Good or Evil in the decision? That's another story. And again the "do unto others..." is a completely a arbitrary way to live one's life--some may choose to live that way, some others not so much. Either way it's a personal choice and nothing more.

*sigh*

"To declare that existence is absurd is to deny that it can ever be given a meaning; to say that it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won. Absurdity challenges every ethics; but also the finished rationalization of the real would leave no room for ethics; it is because man's condition is ambiguous that he seeks, through failure and outrageousness, to save his existence. Thus, to say that action has to be lived in its truth, that is, in the consciousness of the antinomies which it involves, does not mean that one has to renounce it."

-Simone De Beauvoir

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/debeauvoir/ambiguity-3.html (http://www.webster.edu/%7Ecorbetre/philosophy/existentialism/debeauvoir/ambiguity-3.html)

[Rascolnikova]

This may be only an illustration of your approach to ethics, but it's not practical for analyzing real world conflicts, since none of them are fought with humanitarianism in mind. For example, it doesn't make sense to support the American invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, since it wasn't carried out on those grounds. It was carried on on purely political grounds, and that's how we need to view it. The question isn't whether more or less people would have died had Bush not decided to invade. The question is whether geopolitical relations between the West and the Mid East would have been more just had the US not invaded Iraq and toppled its government.

This is merely substituting a Justice/reciprocity ethic for a harm/care one.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ethics and morality involve universal laws of what is good and bad. In politics, good and bad are relative, meaning that ethics don't enter into it. What's good for some is bad for others. What's good for the American empire is bad for the rest of us, for workers, and that's why we oppose its actions. Has nothing to do with ethics or humanitarianism. Has to do with individual interest.

[Bud Struggle]

Ethics and morality involve universal laws of what is good and bad. And who made those universal law, God? Do you see the problem of a statement like that?


In politics, good and bad are relative, meaning that ethics don't enter into it. What's good for some is bad for others. What's good for the American empire is bad for the rest of us, for workers, and that's why we oppose its actions. Has nothing to do with ethics or humanitarianism. Has to do with individual interest.

Now that is right. Without a universal law giver--it's the law of the jungle. Currently we practice the law in a way that's a bit more sophisticated and refined than in the past. We eat our meat with forks, but we eat it none the less.

[Anti Freedom]

Now that is right. Without a universal law giver--it's the law of the jungle. Currently we practice the law in a way that's a bit more sophisticated and refined than in the past. We eat our meat with forks, but we eat it none the less.
What prevents it from being so with a universal law giver though? Why couldn't I cast aside a divine law with the same ease as a human construct? I mean, I will grant you that in order for ethics or morals to exist, a god must exist, but what can give this law meaning other than perhaps such brutal techniques as heaven, hell, and destroying sinful cities.

[Bud Struggle]

What prevents it from being so with a universal law giver though? Why couldn't I cast aside a divine law with the same ease as a human construct? I mean, I will grant you that in order for ethics or morals to exist, a god must exist, but what can give this law meaning other than perhaps such brutal techniques as heaven, hell, and destroying sinful cities.

Yea, but we are certain biological creatures with certain bioligical drives that have been pretty well demonstrated in humans as well as in other similar species. Capuchin monkeys--which are supposed to be the smartist ones, kill each other in greater numbers than their predators. We are higher up the food chain and obviously the killing of each other chain.

I don't know if anything is capable of being anything other than what it is. I think we can "pretend" to be something different for a while--and maybe do OK, but in the end re always revert to type.

I'm don't know if that answers your question. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. :)

[Anti Freedom]

I'm don't know if that answers your question. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. :)
I was trying to attack the notion that God could set up a morality that prevented the law of the jungle.