Use of chem, bio, or nuclear is ok if they have oil or threaten the jews. Us Americans love us that oil and jews.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I have. Been in a few fights. Now what?[/quote]
How many fights have you actually started?
Why do yo think your behavior is morally just?[/quote]
Does it matter how many?
Why do you think it is unjust?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Use of chem, bio, or nuclear is ok if they have oil or threaten the jews. Us Americans love us that oil and jews.[/quote]
I’ll assume that you’re speaking for yourself here, because you sure aren’t speaking for me.[/quote]
I think he is claiming the US is using chemical biological and apparently nuclear weapons in the middle east. Which is idiotic.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you think it is unjust?[/quote]
Because if everyone believed what you say you believe civilization could not flourish.
Justice requires peace and order and your behavior, largely instituted, does not provide that.
Country A has a ragtag militia force, ill equipped and armed. Country B has a large well trained conventional force. Country A militia resorts to homemade landmines, IED’s and human time bombs. Is that immoral given the circumstances? Is it immoral when people get blown up 50 years later for a war they were not even alive in? Is it perhaps more moral to use a predator drone strike?
Redo the scenario with a somewhat less ragtag nation, lets say libya, being invaded and beat down pretty good. In order to preserve power/and state would they not rationally use the weapons which their enemy most fears?
Success or an even more drastic failure could occur. One could capitulate such as the Japanese did, or they could face far greater retribution and strengthend resolve such as Germany experience at the hands of the twilight of WW2 against the Russians.
Its less morals, more game theory when it comes to warfare, an inherently immoral act on someones behalf from the start.
Or how about the influence of international opinion in an increasingly globalized and digitized age? Compare afghanistan to the Boer war or something of that nature. Was the world going to have as much input into the latters moral compass as the former? What do the aggressors of the supposedly more immoral acts have to lose in the way of credibility. Sure they may wipe out their enemy, but THEN what.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you think it is unjust?[/quote]
Because if everyone believed what you say you believe civilization could not flourish.
Justice requires peace and order and your behavior, largely instituted, does not provide that.[/quote]
What does the flourishing of civilization have to do with justice?
And pretty much everyone does. Even you insinuated that I should hurt those who try to hurt me when you asked how many fights I started.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you think it is unjust?[/quote]
Because if everyone believed what you say you believe civilization could not flourish.
Justice requires peace and order and your behavior, largely instituted, does not provide that.[/quote]
What does the flourishing of civilization have to do with justice?
And pretty much everyone does. Even you insinuated that I should hurt those who try to hurt me when you asked how many fights I started.[/quote]
???
A civilization with no notion of justice cannot exist. Even primitive civilizations had a primitive system of justice. Justice is how law is meted out and a society of violence cannot be a society of justice – forget the fact that society cannot even exist under these circumstances.
I was just trying to gage how much you really believe what you say you believe. It is one thing to say you believe initiating violence is good and another to actually follow through with it; hence the reason for me asking you how many times you have done it. Actions speak louder than words.
Weapons are amoral.
The people who use them are either acting morally or immorally.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Weapons are amoral.
The people who use them are either acting morally or immorally.[/quote]
Yes. Thread titles sometime confuse the real point of starting a discussion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Weapons are amoral.
The people who use them are either acting morally or immorally.[/quote]
Yes. Thread titles sometime confuse the real point of starting a discussion.[/quote]
I wasn’t being snarcky.
I think some people would say nuclear weapons are immoral, they should never have been made, and the world would be better off without them.
Just like some people think guns are evil, and ‘enable’ immoral behavior.
I believe in personal responsibility, and see these things all as tools, with an appropriate use, moral, use (even if we never encounter that situation: like with nukes), and when they are used immorally, it’s not the tools fault or responsibility… it’s the user.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Weapons are amoral.
The people who use them are either acting morally or immorally.[/quote]
Yes. Thread titles sometime confuse the real point of starting a discussion.[/quote]
I wasn’t being snarcky.
I think some people would say nuclear weapons are immoral, they should never have been made, and the world would be better off without them.
Just like some people think guns are evil, and ‘enable’ immoral behavior.
I believe in personal responsibility, and see these things all as tools, with an appropriate use, moral, use (even if we never encounter that situation: like with nukes), and when they are used immorally, it’s not the tools fault or responsibility… it’s the user.[/quote]
Would agree there are certain tools that render any use of them to be immoral?
Weapons that cannot be used to target specific individuals should have no use.
My test for morality is to ask a person weather or not they would be comfortable using a certain weapon system defending their own property (to actually engage the weapon not just keep it as a deterrent). If the answer be no then that weapon could not be used in any ethically consistent manner on someone else’s property.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Weapons are amoral.
The people who use them are either acting morally or immorally.[/quote]
Yes. Thread titles sometime confuse the real point of starting a discussion.[/quote]
I wasn’t being snarcky.
I think some people would say nuclear weapons are immoral, they should never have been made, and the world would be better off without them.
Just like some people think guns are evil, and ‘enable’ immoral behavior.
I believe in personal responsibility, and see these things all as tools, with an appropriate use, moral, use (even if we never encounter that situation: like with nukes), and when they are used immorally, it’s not the tools fault or responsibility… it’s the user.[/quote]
Would agree there are certain tools that render any use of them to be immoral?
Weapons that cannot be used to target specific individuals should have no use.
My test for morality is to ask a person weather or not they would be comfortable using a certain weapon system defending their own property (to actually engage the weapon not just keep it as a deterrent). If the answer be no then that weapon could not be used in any ethically consistent manner on someone else’s property.[/quote]
I would agree that there are probably certain tools that can only be used immorally. Torture devises and the like, that only exist to cause suffering.
However, while I see weapons of mass destruction as being both of limited use, and generally not worth the price (literally: of developing and manufacturing them), I can conceive of far-fetched scenarios where they are used morally.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you think it is unjust?[/quote]
Because if everyone believed what you say you believe civilization could not flourish.
Justice requires peace and order and your behavior, largely instituted, does not provide that.[/quote]
What does the flourishing of civilization have to do with justice?
And pretty much everyone does. Even you insinuated that I should hurt those who try to hurt me when you asked how many fights I started.[/quote]
???
A civilization with no notion of justice cannot exist. Even primitive civilizations had a primitive system of justice. Justice is how law is meted out and a society of violence cannot be a society of justice – forget the fact that society cannot even exist under these circumstances.
I was just trying to gage how much you really believe what you say you believe. It is one thing to say you believe initiating violence is good and another to actually follow through with it; hence the reason for me asking you how many times you have done it. Actions speak louder than words.[/quote]
This is not equivalent to what you were stating before. Initiating violence is a new condition.
But, you didn’t answer my question, does society define justice?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This is not equivalent to what you were stating before. Initiating violence is a new condition.
But, you didn’t answer my question, does society define justice?[/quote]
My mistake for not being clearer. Aggression is what I am talking about – the initiation of violence.
Society isn’t so much a thing as it is a process. Civilization is also a process but we are typically talking about societies with a notion of justice and right and wrong.
Justice is an abstract concept that means to right wrong. There are many wrongs that cannot be made right (in fact I would say most cannot be). It is hard to agree what justice is if we do not agree what right and wrong are.
What if I act aggressively at the threat of violence?
And how are we to agree what imaginary concepts like right and wrong?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What if I act aggressively at the threat of violence?
And how are we to agree what imaginary concepts like right and wrong?[/quote]
If you act aggressively at the threat of violence then you are wrong. You may only act defensively; after all, a threat is not going to hurt you.
I use a few ethical tools called reciprocity and the categorical imperative.
I treat others how they want to be treated in faith that I will get the same respect and I act in accordance that my actions would become universally acceptable. What are the consequences of everyone behaving a certain way? If we can imagine the outcome to be unacceptable then it should be obvious that those behaviors are wrong.
What if every time a nation became threatened by its neighbors (for whatever reason) and started a preemptive war over it? Wouldn’t that be chaotic to every nation surrounding them and wouldn’t that necessarily involve innocent bystanders that have nothing to do with their government’s actions?
It is only through reason that we can come to this state of mind.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What if I act aggressively at the threat of violence?
And how are we to agree what imaginary concepts like right and wrong?[/quote]
If you act aggressively at the threat of violence then you are wrong. You may only act defensively; after all, a threat is not going to hurt you.
I use a few ethical tools called reciprocity and the categorical imperative.
I treat others how they want to be treated in faith that I will get the same respect and I act in accordance that my actions would become universally acceptable. What are the consequences of everyone behaving a certain way? If we can imagine the outcome to be unacceptable then it should be obvious that those behaviors are wrong.
What if every time a nation became threatened by its neighbors (for whatever reason) and started a preemptive war over it? Wouldn’t that be chaotic to every nation surrounding them and wouldn’t that necessarily involve innocent bystanders that have nothing to do with their government’s actions?
It is only through reason that we can come to this state of mind.[/quote]
Nations are different I was speaking only on the individual level, because only individuals have rights.
So, if I were to pull out my .357 revolver, point it at your face and pull back the hammer, you wouldn’t do anything?
And ethics are entirely unreasonable.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What if I act aggressively at the threat of violence?
And how are we to agree what imaginary concepts like right and wrong?[/quote]
If you act aggressively at the threat of violence then you are wrong. You may only act defensively; after all, a threat is not going to hurt you.
I use a few ethical tools called reciprocity and the categorical imperative.
I treat others how they want to be treated in faith that I will get the same respect and I act in accordance that my actions would become universally acceptable. What are the consequences of everyone behaving a certain way? If we can imagine the outcome to be unacceptable then it should be obvious that those behaviors are wrong.
What if every time a nation became threatened by its neighbors (for whatever reason) and started a preemptive war over it? Wouldn’t that be chaotic to every nation surrounding them and wouldn’t that necessarily involve innocent bystanders that have nothing to do with their government’s actions?
It is only through reason that we can come to this state of mind.[/quote]
Nations are different I was speaking only on the individual level, because only individuals have rights.
So, if I were to pull out my .357 revolver, point it at your face and pull back the hammer, you wouldn’t do anything?
And ethics are entirely unreasonable. [/quote]
If we believe we have a right to act agressively on an individual level how far of a stretch is it that an individual would believe a nation has the same rights? It is ethically inconsistent. It cannot be right under one circumstance and incorrect under an other.
If you a gun on me it is with the intention to do me harm and that is beyond a threat – that is aggressive action. I take a threat to mean just works.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What if I act aggressively at the threat of violence?
And how are we to agree what imaginary concepts like right and wrong?[/quote]
If you act aggressively at the threat of violence then you are wrong. You may only act defensively; after all, a threat is not going to hurt you.
I use a few ethical tools called reciprocity and the categorical imperative.
I treat others how they want to be treated in faith that I will get the same respect and I act in accordance that my actions would become universally acceptable. What are the consequences of everyone behaving a certain way? If we can imagine the outcome to be unacceptable then it should be obvious that those behaviors are wrong.
What if every time a nation became threatened by its neighbors (for whatever reason) and started a preemptive war over it? Wouldn’t that be chaotic to every nation surrounding them and wouldn’t that necessarily involve innocent bystanders that have nothing to do with their government’s actions?
It is only through reason that we can come to this state of mind.[/quote]
Nations are different I was speaking only on the individual level, because only individuals have rights.
So, if I were to pull out my .357 revolver, point it at your face and pull back the hammer, you wouldn’t do anything?
And ethics are entirely unreasonable. [/quote]
If we believe we have a right to act agressively on an individual level how far of a stretch is it that an individual would believe a nation has the same rights? It is ethically inconsistent. It cannot be right under one circumstance and incorrect under an other.
If you a gun on me it is with the intention to do me harm and that is beyond a threat – that is aggressive action. I take a threat to mean just works.[/quote]
Not true, you cannot scale principal. God granted individuals rights. A collective is not even a real thing. There is nothing logically inconsistent.
What if I say I’m going to shoot you with a gun on my hip?