Keeping the Peace

No, you explained how a person could put certain goals or outcomes over the price of a human life.That's not a position I disagree with. I'm responding to the idea that someone would trade a human life for nothing, for accomplishing no goal, and feel justified. That person puts no value on a human life, or rather, a human life is worth nothing, and I don't see how such a person could be considered moral. We took down a dictator, put him up for trial. I don't know what the civilian cost was. Do you? If it was more than Iraq so far I'd be very surprised. As far as I can tell we did almost the exact thing in Kosovo that we did in Iraq, only at a considerably smaller cost in human lives. Again, if someone doesn't consider that the ultimate goal of warfare than that person cannot be considered moral.

Only if the Iraqis were asking us to leave. But in that case, I'd say we should. Those are interesting points however not applicable as a defense. Iraq is not in and of itself critical to the world's oil supply. And if it was then we shouldn't have invaded at all as any disruption would have been fatal.I don't believe Crash was arguing that oil reserves should not have been secured, simply what priority they should have had, which would have meant perhaps a greater delay, but not an end to oil.The worst that could have happened is what Hussein did to them (and indeed it was something that planners were fearing). That did not end the world, and it wouldn't if it happened again.In the end not securing weapons first and achieving security imperilled lives and as a consequence put those oil supplies in greater danger anyway. I think its safe to say securing oil supplies for world consumption and safety was not the goal. They never suggested that was the reason and if it was they could have invaded far enough to get the fields and left the rest. You understand that is exactly what we did with Kuwait, correct?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Not over, in place of. If I was not clear then I apologize. Individual human life may have NO value as compared to large groups (like the survival of Xianity, or the US), or simply no value at all with moral action being the whole of good.They really can be considered moral actors, though you could say you would not consider them such from your point of view.I do not believe human life has inherent value at all. Any life will be valued based on personal judgements including quality of life. You looked up how many US military died, but are refusing to look up how many civilians were killed? That's interesting. It is likely to be less than in Iraq, but it was a much smaller nation. I'd be interested in why you think the same method we used in Kosovo would have been successful at all or with less loss of life.We actually attempted some strikes in that method with disatrous results, but that made sense. Unlike Milosevic, Saddam had prepared bunkers and vast resources for hiding from such an assault. The civilian toll would have had to be much higher before he would have had to give in... and would he? The guy was allowing them to suffer unduly under sanctions as is.I was of the idea that you did not agree that ends justify means. Was I incorrect? By the way, are you going to substantiate your "dictator" comment?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

But that's still not what we're talking about. I've already agreed, twice now, that you can weigh the lives of individuals against the good of the group and still be a moral person.But if you weigh the lives of individuals against nothing at all and still come out equal, or on the side of nothing, then you're simply an immoral person. "Sociopathy" is the clinical name for that condition. Holmes, how else would means be justified, except by their ends? Christ, who cares if he's a nominal dictator or not? Jesus, Holmes, you'll grasp at anything to disagree with me, won't you?

You didn't seem to make it past the ",or". For some human life itself may have no value with only moral action being the whole good. Well we could begin by asking when anyone you were talking to said anything about "against nothing at all"? It seemed to me you were taking a position against someone who would value something OTHER than human life as having more value.But that said there are still those who can weigh lives of individuals against nothing and find it is equal. Objectively why would they carry any weight? As far as sociopathy the problem is not just that the individual weighs lives equal to nothing, it is that they weigh lives and everything else as nothing, or more appropriately less than nothing or wholly less than themselves. This has to be a joke right? You have never heard the term "ends don't justify the means"? That's like pretty common. What that suggests is that means themselves can be judged, and should be judged on qualities besides what they produce.If ends justify the means then by all means the Iraq War was fantastic. It removed a dictator from power and he is at trial. Indeed it is equal to Kosovo if ends justify means. Gitmo and secret wiretaps are great if ends justify means.The Bill of Rights is based on the concept that ends alone do not justify means. You measure a means both by its ends AND/OR by deontological rule sets. Teleology is not the only form of moral and legal thought. No, I tagged that on because I had already addressed it and you repeated it. It was an incorrect hyperbolic comment. That's like saying Tal would be correct in repeating that WMDs have been found because IEDs can be considered nominal WMDs.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Given that the dog in the street is aware of this we must assume that the administration knew about it too. They would have known about anti-american feeling in the region would attract all sorts from the region for a shoot out. I don't think disarming insurgents from surrounding countries would prove easy before those insurgents arrived. And the kind of total blanket clampdown which would be necessary to prevent insurgency developing wasn't on without large scale invasion: which would have been politically unacceptable at the time. That the oil fields were secured as a matter of priority tells us simply that the oil fields were seen as a priorityThis is a short piece and gives us a look at how Iraq's influence on oil production was then (and still is) is strategically critical to the world economy. Of interest is that they are capable with development of producing 10% of world oil needs, lowering prices and enabling economic growth. That Haliburton were rolling in alongside the tanks is further indication of what the priorities may have been seen to be.Page not found – Federation Of American ScientistsAnd it is not that Iraq alone is the only significant thing. A controlling presence in the oil centre of the world is something attractive to others. If someone was going to have such presence then America might well have felt it might as well be them. Even with America out of Iraq I don't think you will be seeing the infrastructure in the region which supports such large scale presence disappearing anytime soon - if at all.Makes it difficult for anyone either in the region or external to it from getting the jump on AmericaWhich I think is the overall issue

But the whole is made of individuals. As the saying goes, "two nothin's is nothin'." To put no value on one individual life is to devalue all individual lives.So I literally don't understand what you're trying to tell me. The person you're describing would work for the good of the whole, apparently, but still have no compunction against gunning down some unlucky bastard out in the street for no reason.That doesn't sound like a moral person to me. That's the situation in question. The war planners decided to put the lives of the troops at needless risk, for no reason. They gained nothing they wouldn't have gained if they had stopped to secure the explosives.Thus, they set the lives of thousands of troops in the balance against nothing at all, and found the balance equivalent. Iano doesn't seem to have a problem with it.If the context of this discussion is a surprise to you, then I suggest a little remedial reading. No, but I've heard the expression "the ends don't justify the means." It's always used in the context of a specific case of means and ends.I've never heard it used, except by mistake, to refer to the idea that no ends are ever justified by their means. Of course I believe that means are justified, or unjustified, according their ends. How else would means be justified except by their ends? Are we using two different definitions of "justify"? No, the Iraq war was not fantastic, because the value of the ends was not worth the cost of the means. In this case the ends failed to justify the means, and so the means were unjustified.

Ah, my statement was written poorly. I did not mean the good of the whole, I meant that the only good would be moral actions. As an example honesty is a good action, and that has worth, while life itself has none. If they intentionally planned to put lives at risk for no reason at all, that is one thing. If as a result of their planning troops were put at risk for no reason, that would be another.As much as I disliked the war and am critical about its planning, I don't see any evidence that they actually planned to put lives at risk for the sake of putting them at risk. The omission of a "the" threw you? I already answered this. I even gave you an example of deontological rules within our legal code. If you don't know the difference between deontological and teleological justifications (or discrediting) then there is no point in further discussion. As opposed to Kosovo? I'd like to see your equation for that one.And frankly someone could very well say the ends were worth the cost of the means in Iraq. People have, including Iraqis. My opposition to the war existed before the tally was done. While it is true that some of that came from estimates that cost would outweigh benefit, there were also issues of human rights and national sovereignty which are not based on results.Is torture okay as long as the info we get is viable? Or is torture not okay under any condition because we put a value on limited gov't violence and degradation of humans, no matter what the gain?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Ok, then, now I just don't understand what you're trying to get across here. This paragraph doesn't communicate anything meaningful to me. Explain to me how those aren't the same thing? That's not what I'm saying. I'm asserting that their plan didn't keep troops out of needless risk because they didn't care to keep the troops out of needless risk.It's apathy we're talking about, not malice. They're equally bad in my mind but let's just be clear what we're talking about. I would say that the ommission of a definite article does change the expression, because it takes it from the specific - the definite - to the universal.You still don't understand. The expression is meant to be read as "these ends don't justify these means", not "no ends justify any means." When means are justified, it is because they were justified by their ends. How else would they be justified? You've hinted at deontological rules but looking back I don't see any legal examples. Try not to put words in my mouth. Did I say that I believed Kosovo was justified? I don't know if it was or not. I don't particularly care. The info we get is never viable, which is why the ends of interrogation don't justify the means of torture. If torturing someone to death saved the lives of every person in a city, then that end would justify those means. "The ends justify the means" is another way of describing "the lesser of two evils."

Oh, wait, were you talking about the Bill of Rights?Ok, well, I see it completely differently; the Bill of Rights is a code that documents exactly what ends are required to justify certain means. For instance, the Fourth Amendment tells us what standard of evidence is required before the end of solving or preventing crimes justifies the means of violating your privacy and security by searching and seizing your property, etc.In other words, the Bill of Rights proves to me that some ends to justify some means, and that whether or not certain means are allowed to proceed depends entirely on whether or not the ends justify them.

Moral actions are of value, and not individual actors. Whether life goes on forever, or is ended abruptly is meaningless. Whether many live or die is meaningless. The performance of an action or achievement of a goal are the only things with meaning.I gave as an example maintaining honesty, but it could be daily prayer, or it could be discipline to achieve the perfect sword stroke... all consideration of human life being less or nonexistant. A person that knows that they are choosing to risk the death of others for no other reason, is different than one who chooses to risk the death of others for what turns out to be or what may be considered, something of little or no reason. It is about knowledge and intention. I see the difference though I'm not sure that they'd agree with that assessment. I'm not even sure if I can agree. I really do think people like Bush and Rumsfeld care whether troops were kept out of as much risk as possible, but within the framework of achieving certain goals and on a certain schedule. I do not think general security was their highest priority, which to my mind is negligence though not apathy. I will answer your second post here as you were correct that it was my reference to the Bill of Rights. Though some may contain limits, not all do. In practice some may have gained limits, but that is more about how people choose to interpret what was written to grant power to the gov't, rather than dealing with intent of the right. There is also the question of rights which will come into conflict and so rules for limits have to be in place for such a situation.Discussion of these rights are as inalienable and usually not in terms of resulting in some better end, so that's why they are valued. They are of value in and of themselves and so can negate means, regardless of ends.But I don't want to get hung up on a discussion of the Bill of Rights itself. They are an example. If you don't believe the actual list is of a deontological rule set, just imagine the same list but with no limits. That would be a deontological system. You may also have rules promoting or justifying actions. You implied that Kosovo had some positive quality that was absent from Iraq, and it was based on the lack of US deaths. I was questioning this in light of your argument that human life is of value. You did suggest that Kosovo was justified because it reached an end of a leader in jail. The same is true for Iraq. We return then to my point. Is it just safety of US soldiers or is it of protection for all those within the theatre of conflict which is of importance? The practical argument is that not all information obtained through torture is viable, and at a certain point we cannot be sure what to trust. There can be a lot of poor data produced via torture. The idea that no viable information has ever been obtained by force is incorrect.But that is not the only argument against torture. When people argue against it on the grounds of civil rights, or its violation of human dignity, that has NOTHING to do with its ability to draw facts.I might add that torture does not have to simply be for information. It can be for obtaining something, like money, or access to something of importance. That is not left in doubt, yet torture may still be considered off limits. To you maybe, but not to everyone. That's not quite accurate if you mean the lesser of two bad results. Evil can be defined by the very commission of an action. Thus (using torture as an example) torture is not allowed no matter how many lives may be saved as intentional commission of an immoral act is itself considered such a great evil that no obtainable result can be weighed against it.In the case of the Iraq War, and wiretapping, and Gitmo there is a definite violation of proscriptions which has nothing to do with whether something greater could or were achieved by them.I will take it that you do not use that form of moral argument, and rely solely on teleological/utilitarian criteria.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

It's not clear to me how an action could have moral value beyond the effect it would have on an individual actor.I mean, murder is wrong because it kills somebody, and therefore is an immoral action. Therefore someone concerned only with moral actions would still not commit murder, and therefore value the life of a human being. Right. Ok, I don't believe that the administration had any intent in protecting the troops or winning the war. Well, Iano pointed to illusory "goals" as well, but he wasn't able to tell me what those goals were. Apparently you're more charitable than I am, because you're willing to assume the administration had some goal in mind post-invasion, but I don't see any indication that was the case. I'm just going to come out and tell you that I don't understand word one of what you're saying here. I was sort of hoping that if I could get you to talk about it more, I would understand; but I simply don't. Your use of the word "deontological" means nothing to me, and won't, I suspect, without delving into philosophy, which I don't care to do.Can you just quickly summarize what you're trying to refer to, here? I wouldn't say that's the basis, but an indication of the deeper difference - Kosovo wasn't run by a bunch of cock-ups. That's the positive quality. I sued Kosovo not as an example of the perfect war, but of a less incompetent one. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'm no military scientist so it may be that I don't know how to judge competence in this regard. Sure. I don't make those arguments myself because I don't find them meritous. If the choice was between torturing someone for information or watching a city blow up, hand me a waterboard and a car battery. I mean it's not even a difficult question for me.But I oppose torture because that hypothetical situation never occurs. The choice is never between torture and a lost city, because torture wouldn't save the city. I don't see how torture would even be considered in these situations. If you want money, open his wallet, not his vein. If you want access, get his keys, not his confession.If you mean you need to torture him to learn where the money is, or what the password is, then that's information, which is what we were talking about in the first place.Or, if you meant "give me money or I'll torture your wife" kinds of situations, I dunno. I hadn't thought of that until just now. I'll have to think about it to arrive at my own moral stance on the issue. Just off-hand I question the practicality of those measures, I guess. Everybody has to come to their own sense of morality, and what exigencies justify what actions. Well, inaction is itself a kind of action, and so an ommission of action that kills many could be viewed as similarly culpable as a direct action that kills many. In fact that's something we have coded into our legal system.Like I said, I would find the choice between a direct action that harms one and an inaction that dooms many to be a simple choice indeed.

I gave more than one example and none of them were murder. They do not have to rely on what effect it has on an actor. You are presenting this as an example of how you reason. That's fine but it does not undercut the reality of others that reason differently. Okay, though I disagree. I'm sure they really thought they would win and knew how to do it. They were just so wrong and negligent in not questioning their own hype. It is philosophy so if you don't care it really won't be of interest to you. However it would be useful if you want to understand what other people are saying sometimes (and I don't mean just me).As short as possible: Teleology means that value is derived from results or conclusions. Thus... like you suggested... murder is bad because it results in someone being killed. Deontology means that value is placed on action irrelevant to outcome. An easier example for this (to example) would be honesty. Though someone might end up in pain, or even killed, a person could value honesty such that they will not lie... ever.There are also moral systems which do not create labels of good and bad, and never justify anything (in that way), especially based on ends. But that is more complex. It was pretty bad. It is arguably not as bad as Iraq, though that could be related to scale. In terms of warfare it was pretty screwed up. Like I said we decimated a convoy of people we were trying to protect, and repeatedly hit (intentionally targeted even) patently civilian centers. Okay. you don't use them and like them. But others do and use them. Moreover they are valid, though would not seem to be to a utilitarian (using teleological morality).Make no mistake, I am not questioning the validity of your system, just explaining there are other valid systems out there. It is a practical impossibility to judge one system using another. They will almost always find the other wrong or wanting. No argument against that. Some may some may not.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I was just extrapolating from your reasoning. But I still don't see how someone who doesn't consider murder a moral question to be moral. Again, I believe that such a person would best be described as a sociopath. I'm absolutely certain that they knew they didn't know, and didn't care. They knew they had no idea about how to accomplish the stated goals and were not concerned about it. Are all deontological systems arbitrary? It would seem like they would have to be.

good point, but like I said, oil is wothless because we could find another source to live on.

---

"Finding the answer is not a requirement, it is merely an option in the life of your choice."