[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I like this song, which speaks, to me, of true morality. Push’s God as I understand Him (the God of the Holy Bible) is a jealous, territorial god with a punitive bent. If I anthropomorphize God, I see instead a wise and benevolent parent, however that is not the God presented in he holy books of the major religions. I’ve also expressed in the past that I have trouble with His allowance, assuming an involved God, of the hellish conditions that many innocent people endure. Hence my confusion regarding religion. Ultimately I have to largely reject that. But that does not require that I reject God. “Stand up when justice calls, and you hear the sound.”
[/quote]
You are much like my sister in the way she believes. However with her, at a certain point it becomes more holistic and she is able to see through the rigidity of organized religion. On the topic of homosexuality she doesn’t see it the same way as the Catholic Church, and isn’t keen on the way the Church would have them lead their lives and is aware that means she is a bad sinner, but she doesn’t give a shit.
With you, I don’t know if you were ever part of organized religion. It just seems like you believe in the general idea of God that is typical in the good ol USA. Roughly Judeo Christian but not affiliated with any particular Church.
The thing is, the various Churches have rigid ideas that aren’t like your concept of God. They know all there is to know already, and according to quite a few, you are going to hell unless you do x,y,z. That’s just the Christian ones.
You know who invented music? WE did, humans. Enjoying music and performing music is something we invented to connect with other people, and it was motivated by empathy.
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.
Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.
And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]
Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]
It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.
In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.
What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!
[/quote]
Exactly.
It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.
Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.
I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.
[/quote]
Where did I say all knowing entity? Knowledge isn’t something there seems to be a ceiling for as far as I know… The concept of something knowing everything there ever will be to know, and at the same time us having autonomy is pretty abstract.
I want to rely on what knowledge we have. I want any sort of rule to not be rigid and to be subject to change when we learn new things. Remember how I defined open mindedness? That is part of what I propose, that it be encouraged to change. It’s supposed to mirror science’s self critiquing ways, and mistakes are expected because we are always learning and the environments are always changing.
That is actually opposite of what the various religions say they do. But, getting religions to change takes a lot of time because they are intended to be rigid and unchanging. The word of God is perfect and unchanging, and in those books.
[/quote]
Where did you say it? Above:
[quote]It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
I can tell you that “empathy” is not universally present in human beings, and goes right out the window when one is hungry or threatened or when one’s offspring are.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to change my mind or pigeonhole my beliefs. I believe myself possessed of free will and as such am completely autonomous. I don’t have a need to decide whether one side or the other is right as I am comfortable where I am and am comfortable with both fundamentalist religious beliefs and atheism in others. YOU seem to be the one struggling.
Excellent deductive powers, Mr. Holmes. But did I not say exactly that several pages ago? (Not sure what “typical in the good ol USA” represents, but it sounds like world-weary mockery of people less er, educated than yourself. Have you indeed traveled far and wide and observed the customs and religious mores of other cultures?)
I am nothing like your sister, given that I have no fear or thought of sin unless I believe I have committed one. When that happens I fix what I can and regret what I can’t. I don’t thumb my nose at God and go about my sinning ways, I don’t conceive of God the way you apparently do. (Empathy FAIL, given that I have stated clearly my beliefs and yet you still can’t seem to mirror my neurons effectively.)
The thing is, you seem to have some rigid ideas of your own concerning religion and spirituality and people in general.
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.
Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.
And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]
Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]
It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.
In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.
What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!
[/quote]
Exactly.
It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.
Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.
I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.
[/quote]
Where did I say all knowing entity? Knowledge isn’t something there seems to be a ceiling for as far as I know… The concept of something knowing everything there ever will be to know, and at the same time us having autonomy is pretty abstract.
I want to rely on what knowledge we have. I want any sort of rule to not be rigid and to be subject to change when we learn new things. Remember how I defined open mindedness? That is part of what I propose, that it be encouraged to change. It’s supposed to mirror science’s self critiquing ways, and mistakes are expected because we are always learning and the environments are always changing.
That is actually opposite of what the various religions say they do. But, getting religions to change takes a lot of time because they are intended to be rigid and unchanging. The word of God is perfect and unchanging, and in those books.
[/quote]
Where did you say it? Above:
[quote]It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
I can tell you that “empathy” is not universally present in human beings, and goes right out the window when one is hungry or threatened or when one’s offspring are.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to change my mind or pigeonhole my beliefs. I believe myself possessed of free will and as such am completely autonomous. I don’t have a need to decide whether one side or the other is right as I am comfortable where I am and am comfortable with both fundamentalist religious beliefs and atheism in others. YOU seem to be the one struggling.
Excellent deductive powers, Mr. Holmes. But did I not say exactly that several pages ago? (Not sure what “typical in the good ol USA” represents, but it sounds like world-weary mockery of people less er, educated than yourself. Have you indeed traveled far and wide and observed the customs and religious mores of other cultures?)
I am nothing like your sister, given that I have no fear or thought of sin unless I believe I have committed one. When that happens I fix what I can and regret what I can’t. I don’t thumb my nose at God and go about my sinning ways, I don’t conceive of God the way you apparently do. (Empathy FAIL, given that I have stated clearly my beliefs and yet you still can’t seem to mirror my neurons effectively.)
The thing is, you seem to have some rigid ideas of your own concerning religion and spirituality and people in general.
[/quote]
Thanks again. I’m just going by facts in the world that are based on things that you seem to either ignore or fail to comprehend and the nature of the information I’ve shared with you.
I’m pigeon holing, so you believe I’m not being fair about my critique of organized religion? Why don’t you get specific?
You are pissed at me for thumbing my nose at God while you sin without fear, which to most here is also thumbing your nose at God. So, WTF? Obviously it’s personal.
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.
Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.
And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]
Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]
It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.
In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.
What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!
[/quote]
Exactly.
It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.
Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.
I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.
[/quote]
Where did I say all knowing entity? Knowledge isn’t something there seems to be a ceiling for as far as I know… The concept of something knowing everything there ever will be to know, and at the same time us having autonomy is pretty abstract.
I want to rely on what knowledge we have. I want any sort of rule to not be rigid and to be subject to change when we learn new things. Remember how I defined open mindedness? That is part of what I propose, that it be encouraged to change. It’s supposed to mirror science’s self critiquing ways, and mistakes are expected because we are always learning and the environments are always changing.
That is actually opposite of what the various religions say they do. But, getting religions to change takes a lot of time because they are intended to be rigid and unchanging. The word of God is perfect and unchanging, and in those books.
[/quote]
Where did you say it? Above:
[quote]It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
I can tell you that “empathy” is not universally present in human beings, and goes right out the window when one is hungry or threatened or when one’s offspring are.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to change my mind or pigeonhole my beliefs. I believe myself possessed of free will and as such am completely autonomous. I don’t have a need to decide whether one side or the other is right as I am comfortable where I am and am comfortable with both fundamentalist religious beliefs and atheism in others. YOU seem to be the one struggling.
Excellent deductive powers, Mr. Holmes. But did I not say exactly that several pages ago? (Not sure what “typical in the good ol USA” represents, but it sounds like world-weary mockery of people less er, educated than yourself. Have you indeed traveled far and wide and observed the customs and religious mores of other cultures?)
I am nothing like your sister, given that I have no fear or thought of sin unless I believe I have committed one. When that happens I fix what I can and regret what I can’t. I don’t thumb my nose at God and go about my sinning ways, I don’t conceive of God the way you apparently do. (Empathy FAIL, given that I have stated clearly my beliefs and yet you still can’t seem to mirror my neurons effectively.)
The thing is, you seem to have some rigid ideas of your own concerning religion and spirituality and people in general.
[/quote]
Thanks again. I’m just going by facts in the world that are based on things that you seem to either ignore or fail to comprehend and the nature of the information I’ve shared with you.
I’m pigeon holing, so you believe I’m not being fair about my critique of organized religion? Why don’t you get specific?
You are pissed at me for thumbing my nose at God while you sin without fear, which to most here is also thumbing your nose at God. So, WTF? Obviously it’s personal.
[/quote]
The facts in the world based on the video you linked? I’m not sure why you imagine that I fail to comprehend just because I don’t conclude what you do. Mirror neurons - okay! Empathy as a guiding moral system - not happening! I think your theory is full of holes.
Also, I’m not pissed at you for thumbing your nose at God. Go ahead! I don’t care whether you thumb your nose or refuse to acknowledge or imagine God as the malevolent enemy of a just and rational science! I simply don’t care.
As for my sinning without fear, no. I sin with great remorse IF what I’m doing meets my criteria for sin. The Catholic Church does not determine that for me any more than ISIS does.
I would suggest that you stop trying to think for others and instead devote that energy to trying to understand why they think the way they do. You’ll get further, Sir Empathy.
The thing is, you seem to have some rigid ideas of your own concerning religion and spirituality and people in general.
[/quote]
This is inevitably the case with the pious. He himself is an ardent believer and preacher and yet hypocritically denounces it in others.
Funny deal.[/quote]
I’ve given up trying to get any honesty out of him(it appears he’s ignoring my questions now anyway). It’s hard to see where ignorance ends and dishonesty begins with sev. You’ll never really find an honest atheist because of what atheism actually entails. smh comes close because he seems to understand the implications of atheism but if you push him to articulate his ethics he obfuscates. I don’t blame him because atheism inevitably entails either:
Nietzschean sovereign individualism - a kind of ethical fascism in simplest terms.
Or
“Legal positivism” - an ethics based upon current norms and mores; in simplest terms an ethics of democracy.
I shouldn’t need to point out that the norms and mores of the Weimar Republic gave way to the norms and mores of National Socialism. That’s the problem with an ethics based upon current norms and mores in practical terms.
The reality is that the individual can only relate to the Other in the context of a mediator(God). An ethics based upon the interests of the individual or the interests of the collective can only lead to extremely undesirable outcomes. It is actually fortunate that people like sev are philosophically dishonest. Because one of the things they are hiding(perhaps unknowingly) is that their ethics are actually secularised biblical ethics; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; do unto others as you would have them do into you. But they’re still dangerous because they actually do ground their ethics in either individual or collective interest. So you get arguments advocating abortion on group interest grounds - usually a Malthusian argument of limited and diminishing resources. The logical extension of group interest arguments is such things as “population control”, euthanasia and the “death panel” approach to healthcare etc.
I think in a way Bismark has shown some philosophical honesty in terms of ethics. In my thread On Ethics, he popped in and suggested that “rational egoism” could be a good ethical framework. That’s the most honesty I’ve seen from an atheist around here. Although smh actually seems to understand and acknowledge the ethical implications of his position which is pretty rare from an atheist.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I want to say that following this thread over the past several days has been a pleasure for me. Very interesting and informative from both directions.
SexMachine, your posts in particular have resonated with me. You have articulated and deepened my understanding of what it is I think and feel. Thank you.[/quote]
I’m glad I could help. I’ve thought about these things deeply both from an atheist and religious standpoint. My only advice to religious people would be don’t be afraid of doubt. Doubt is an essential aspect of faith. You can’t have faith without doubt. And my advice to atheists would be to understand and acknowledge the ethical implications of atheism. If you’re going to be an atheist drop all pretences and be honest. Secular humanism is not a philosophically honest position.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SexMachine, for a guy who’s not utterly convinced of the existence of God, you sure are sure of yourself.
Not a criticism. I’m just pointing it out.[/quote]
I’m one of the only posters here who’s not attempting to convert people or bring them around to my way of thinking. The only thing I’m demanding is philosophical honesty.
Sexy, on page 15, you stated that your ethical system is based on “intuitive moral laws” that operate as a “guide” or a “framework through which you can attempt to deal with difficult ethical decisions.”
I am still not clear how, exactly, essentially following your gut is an “ethical system” that is based on an objective set of god-given moral laws.
Ask Him to speak to your soul and lead you down the right path to the truth you say you’re seeking.
Don’t be flippant. Don’t be taunting. Don’t be a jack (no pun intended) ass.
Open yourself completely to Him. Have faith He will do His job and draw you to Him.
Don’t be impatient. Hang in there. Don’t necessarily put a time requirement on the process. Don’t give up. Search. You will find Him if your heart is sincere. He won’t turn you away.
That’s my best advice. I could probably rephrase it better or more eloquently but it will still boil down to the above.
[/quote]
This is EXACTLY, EXACTLY what I did to get Him to reveal Himself to me.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Sexy, on page 15, you stated that your ethical system is based on “intuitive moral laws” that operate as a “guide” or a “framework through which you can attempt to deal with difficult ethical decisions.”
[/quote]
Yep. My position follows from that axiomatic affirmation.
[quote]
I am still not clear how, exactly, essentially following your gut is an “ethical system” that is based on an objective set of god-given moral laws. [/quote]
It’s quite simple:
Objective moral laws do in fact exist.
And
These moral laws do not need to be learned or discovered. They are intuitively perceived and understood by man.
I believe that even idolatry can be intuitively understood. Idolatry is essentially giving another person, institution or deity authority to transcend these objective moral laws.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Sexy, on page 15, you stated that your ethical system is based on “intuitive moral laws” that operate as a “guide” or a “framework through which you can attempt to deal with difficult ethical decisions.”
[/quote]
Yep. My position follows from that axiomatic affirmation.
[quote]
I am still not clear how, exactly, essentially following your gut is an “ethical system” that is based on an objective set of god-given moral laws. [/quote]
It’s quite simple:
Objective moral laws do in fact exist.
And
These moral laws do not need to be learned or discovered. They are intuitively perceived and understood by man.
I believe that even idolatry can be intuitively understood. Idolatry is essentially giving another person, institution or deity authority to transcend these objective moral laws.[/quote]
My gut is telling me the following statement reflects immorality:
“Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so. The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.”
How do we resolve who’s gut is correct under your universal, objective ethical system?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My gut is telling me the following statement reflects immorality:
“Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so. The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.”
How do we resolve who’s gut is correct under your universal, objective ethical system?
[/quote]
Well technically it’s not “immoral” it’s “amoral”. This comes down to ethics in warfare. My position is that you should always try to apply ethics in warfare but that whenever ethical considerations stand in the way of strategic objectives they must be abandoned. Essentially it comes down to logic. Why are you waging war? You are waging war to achieve a specific objective. If that objective can be attained by ethical means then all well and good. If it can’t, then what do you do? Give up the objective? Then why are you waging war at all?
Essentially the enemy limits your capacity to act ethically. If your enemy forgoes ethics then they gain a strategic advantage. My position is that if your enemy forgoes ethics then you have no alternative but to do likewise. So I don’t advocate forgoing ethics except reactively in response to your enemy forgoing ethics. Example; European warfare in the 18th Century was “bracketed” warfare - the powers had limited objectives and sought to attain them under an ethical framework - non-combatants were respected, POWs were accorded certain rights etc. However, in The Second World War the Axis powers acted under no such paradigm. Non-combatants were not respected nor were POWs accorded any rights. The allies had no alternative but to forgo ethical considerations as the Axis gained strategic advantage and they constituted an actual existential threat.
So my position is that ethics should be adhered to whenever possible in warfare but that they must in some instances be subordinate to strategic objectives. You wage war to achieve objectives. If the overall objective is ethical and your enemy forgoes ethical considerations then essentially the ends justify the means.
My position on international relations and warfare may appear to be antithetical to my ethical position but it’s essentially Hobbesian - in the “state of nature”, ie the anarchic and lawless environment of international relations, man has a “natural right” to preserve his life, liberty and property by any means necessary.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My gut is telling me the following statement reflects immorality:
“Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so. The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.”
How do we resolve who’s gut is correct under your universal, objective ethical system?
[/quote]
Well technically it’s not “immoral” it’s “amoral”. This comes down to ethics in warfare. My position is that you should always try to apply ethics in warfare but that whenever ethical considerations stand in the way of strategic objectives they must be abandoned. Essentially it comes down to logic. Why are you waging war? You are waging war to achieve a specific objective. If that objective can be attained by ethical means then all well and good. If it can’t, then what do you do? Give up the objective? Then why are you waging war at all?
Essentially the enemy limits your capacity to act ethically. If your enemy forgoes ethics then they gain a strategic advantage. My position is that if your enemy forgoes ethics then you have no alternative but to do likewise. So I don’t advocate forgoing ethics except reactively in response to your enemy forgoing ethics. Example; European warfare in the 18th Century was “bracketed” warfare - the powers had limited objectives and sought to attain them under an ethical framework - non-combatants were respected, POWs were accorded certain rights etc. However, in The Second World War the Axis powers acted under no such paradigm. Non-combatants were not respected nor were POWs accorded any rights. The allies had no alternative but to forgo ethical considerations as the Axis gained strategic advantage and they constituted an actual existential threat.
So my position is that ethics should be adhered to whenever possible in warfare but that they must in some instances be subordinate to strategic objectives. You wage war to achieve objectives. If the overall objective is ethical and your enemy forgoes ethical considerations then essentially the ends justify the means.[/quote]
Your post in the other thread that I quoted–at least on its face–wasn’t limited to a defensive war or even war in general. You stated flatly that the U.S. should overthrow a government whenever it was in its interest to do so. But that’s neither here nor there for purposes of this thread.
My contention, for purposes of this thread, is that your position above is immoral–and not amoral–because my gut tells me so. Again, how do we objectively resolve whose gut is right?
Your basic point in this thread is that we can divine or learn universal moral ethical rules by listening to our gut. At least I think that’s your point. My point is, no we can’t. You and I can agree on a lot of things, but there is room to disagree, and there is no way for us to resolve our disagreements objectively.
Your other basic point is that human-constructed ethical systems are basically shit. At least I think that’s your point. My point is, listening to your gut is fine and all, but it isn’t really an alternative universal moral ethical system either. Your system isn’t a system at all and it is unfairly impossible to refute because you can’t explain objectively what the rules are.
My gut serves me pretty well. I agree with your point as far as that goes. But that doesn’t mean my gut guides me based on a universal moral code that is handed down by a divine law giver. Especially when gut feelings differ from person to person. I just don’t see how one follows from the other.
Assuming there is universal moral code that exists independent of all of us, I don’t see how the code is all that useful unless we can objectively agree on what that code is. Guys from ISIS will tell you the code commands us to cut off the heads of infidels. My gut tells me that’s bullshit. I’m pretty sure that’s bullshit. But, shit, they seem pretty committed to this belief. And I can’t prove that they are objectively wrong.
How are we better off with agreeing that there is one, true, objective moral code, if we can’t agree on exactly what that code says or commands?
I don’t want to misrepresent or strawman your positions. So I am open to correction if I have misconstrued what you are saying.
