Keeping the Peace

To answer this direct question. Theoretically Individual human lives might be less important than survival of the whole, or perhaps a moral objective is more important than human lives. That would still allow someone to be moral.While I agree with your position that the Bush administration was incorrect in its handling of operations and securing oil rather than safety of troops (not to mention civilians) so that SECURITY was top priority rather than potential MONEY, I am at a loss to understand your point about Kosovo.If you were against Iraq, the Kosovo conflict should have been just as odious. It was just as much a violation of a nation's sovereignty with no threat posed to the US. The reason we lost no one was because we conducted it in the most cowardly fashion a nation could conduct its business.We bombed people. We bombed wholly innocent people. You say we took down a dictator but he was in fact the elected official and we did not kill him at all. I don't believe any one of the people accused of atrocities were killed. We destroyed civilian structures and civilians in a sort of uber-siege until the gov't gave in.Not sure if you remember the bridge full of civilians wearing targets in demonstration against our bombing their populations centers.If you value human life, perhaps you should find out how many human lives we took in our campaign. We even managed to bomb a convoy of people we were supposed to be helping (whoops!). And after the collapse of the gov't we did nothing to put security into place for those people, and lawlessness and revenge killings were common.Both Kosovo and Iraq stand as examples of really horrific use of power by the US, followed by gross negligence in providing security.Its possible Germany's bombing raids into Spain in support of that gov't resulted in no casualties on the german side. I'd be sort of put out thinking of the spanish airiraids as more "humanitarian" than when they'd physically invade and incur losses of their own troops.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-08-2006 02:22 PM

---

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

If I thought Iraqis would stop being killed if troops pulled out, I'd be for withdrawing troops. Unfortunately as bad a job as we are doing, it really could be worse for THEM. They do not have security available for infrastructure and the population.Since we invaded and destroyed their security systems, no matter what losses we take, it is important that we not leave until they are back up and running.I was 100% against the war. This is one of the reasons why. But since it happened, there is an obligation.

---

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

Crash you need to take a break because you totally misrepresented my post to you.In one post you said that a person who did not value human life could not be moral. I was explaining how such a person could be. I didn't even mention you or suggest what I thought you thought.I then went on to discuss your (in another post) use of Kosovo as an example of a more humanitarian (or safe/successful) approach to warfare than Iraq. At best it was suggesting that you were misinformed about Kosovo, and at worst that you were viewing success based on sacrifice of US personnel compared to all that are lost in order to achieve a goal.

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well they won't be in your system, but they can be in their own and they would not have to be sociopathic. One might look into other cultures where murder was not inherently "wrong". They were able to function and create large and successful civilizations.I myself do not view murder as an absolute moral question to be sure, and questions which are raised are not always connected to ends. All moral systems are arbitrary. They are all subjective. A deontological system may seem more arbitrary to you because it does not have a connection to an end result, which is something that you value. However the value of an end result has the same objective quality as the value of an action... none.I myself find teleological systems a bit more compelling as ends can simply be general things which most people will understand and desire, like happiness.

---

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

I took your comments to be about devaluing human life such that killing a person was not inherently a moral issue.As an example, the culture of feudal Japan did not value human life itself. What we would call murder did not actually exist. There were contexts which could make killing another morally wrong or a crime, but the taking of life itself was not an issue. On the contrary, taking life, including one's own was capable of gaining moral worth.But perhaps a better example would be the Yanomamo indians. While some may get upset at the taking of life of someone they value, the taking of life itself was not a moral issue for them... unless it was of gaining moral worth, via prestige.There are more, but these are two nice representative samples.

---

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

How could I be wrong when I said exactly what you went on to say? I started by stating that I took what you were ORIGINALLY talking about, to be the devaluation of human life itself such that killing was not a moral question.To THAT point, I am quite right. Human life itself meant nothing and killing was NOT a moral question based on life. The moral questions arose based on things like duty and position (class), not whether someone ended a life... even "unjustly". Indeed your description falls apart at some of the highest levels of power. There would essentially have been no "unjust" killings by the Emperor, or those that served him directly.So I stated exactly what I was addressing and I was right. If your entire point was that a person who does not follow social custom regarding what is a "just" or "unjust" killing would be immoral and a sociopath, then I am even more confused.This appears to be another case where ad hoc (or really post hoc) reasoning has caused you to shift what is being discussed over posts, so that an originally incorrect statement is shifted to something that may be right but has no connection to the original position, except similar terminology. As I said you may find people upset by others being killed, or there being criminal concepts due to someone being killed. However, that is different than people or a society holding human life ITSELF valuable, and thus create prohibitions. You should check out the Yanamamo culture as it has even less of a distinction.{Following AbE:
To remind you of what I have been discussing, the following is from your post #34... If you cannot see that this fits feudal sentiment regarding "individuals" in Japan, I am puzzled as to what you meant by the above statement. You did not qualify that "individual" does not have to mean all individuals and only mean "some that you feel are important to you". If the latter is true then your discussion of this in respect to what happened in Iraq is completely mismatched.}This message has been edited by holmes, 02-11-2006 09:28 PM

---

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

No I'm not. If you look at what I said I specifically state that they did not have the same concept of murder as we have. I understand the difference between the concepts that you are wanting to make, but it is a shift away from the original point you made.Originally, you did not say you were fine with some individuals being classified as different and so acceptable to be killed. Yet somehow this now seems okay with you? In any case... Ahem, you are discussing only one issue and that is the eta. There was more killing allowed than just that. Anyone beneath one's station could be killed or ordered to kill themselves. It could be at whim. Moral worth could be gained by killing onesself, and moral worth totally lost if one refused to do so when custom demanded it.The tales of Musashi was not of a man cutting through eta. His opponents were not less than men. If they were then his actions would not have been accomplishments. He would have received no fame.The samurai who killed themselves after their master was killed were not less human, and indeed gained stature in their suicide.Feudal Japanese society generally worked under a concept that life itself was illusory and meaningless, duty and perfection being the most important values. I'm tired of your self-posturing. I don't have time to waste on this anymore. If you don't drop the attitude, I'm bowing out. Stick to straight arguments of facts and logic.You started with a position that individual human life should not be thought of as equal to or less than nothing. I was discussing some that do. You have now shifted to some qualifier that it is okay as long as they think some individuals are less than human??? And have ignored the fact that the eta were not the only people able to be killed without criminal charges being brought, and that suicide was not only acceptable it could gain one worth.

---

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