Terrorist are winning.

[IDMclean]

I am going to try and simplify this, because at current we are discussing to many things, to many concepts for information to be optimally managed.

 

Let's start with ethics and morality. First off is there objective morality? Or is morality subject to change? Can what is moral one moment be not moral the next moment? If so why and how then do we create objective (institutionally applicable) legal systems if everything shifts around constantly?

 

My observation that it is not possible to build an objective system off of a subjective paradigm of fundamental principles. This would be the logical equivilant of saying that one has no axioms, that one only has theorems. Which is nonsensical, as theorems come from axioms. Well law comes from ethics, and morality. If morality is purely subjective, then morality can not be axiomatic and can not be used for the basis of an objective system. Nothing can be built under that paradigm. Anything that is built by such a system will fall apart by it's own shifting inadequecies.

 

Our system is nothing of the such. As you know from your study of law, our law is based on objective, universally agreeable principles and laws which are found to violate the letter, or intent of the axioms, are thrown out. If not immediately then eventually through the review process.

 

As such, I would think we could agree that morality then is objective, at it's foundation. What then is the trick is to find new (or old) axioms and make them into cornerstones.

 

It has long been held, universally, that violence of any kind is immoral. Jesus: "Love your enemy as you love your self."

 

It is easily self-evident with little study of just about any given religion that Non-violent conflict resolution, ahimsa, or whatever it maybe named under the given religion is one of the main pillars of the religious system.

 

Source: The Mind Of Mahatma Gandhi

 

Character of Non-violence

Non-violence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.

In the last resort it does not avail to those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love.

Non-violence affords the fullest protection to one's self-respect and sense of honour, but not always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them. Non-violence, in the very nature of things, is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains and immoral acts.

Individuals or nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to last man) their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the possession of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on force for its defence.

Non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts.

It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind. (H, 5-9-1936, p236)

 

I take extra interest in Gandhi, because his profession, and study was in english law. He was a lawyer, and he ultimately helped bring a nation back to independence from british rule. Through the non-violence.

 

This is all so important because it is by buying into the game of violence at any point, for any reason that we become slaves to the means and ends of violence. It is an unwinnable state. From war, and from Terrorism, nobody can win.

 

This is because these methodologies are an admission of defeat. By engaging in violence, whether for defensive purposes, or aggressive purposes. For any reason what so ever, is to lose.

 

This is simple to observe if you can take a neutral position, and examine it dispassionately. I am not saying do not defend yourself if attacked by a maniac, however in the majority of circumstances, you have in some way brought that maniac into proximity to yourself, and have provoked him into violent action.

 

In the case of the world, what my observation is. Once war has broken out, it is proof of the failure of the involved parties to resolve the issues that lead up to the war. That is the world has failed in it's civil, legal, and moral duties. As was the case for America and the other nations of the world.

 

So, if you want me to take sides. I will not. Neither the USA nor the Terrorist's causes are justifiable. I do not support violent resolution, because it is not resolution, for exactly the reasons outlined in the ways of meeting oppression. violence even on the national or global scale is not justifiable. Necessary? Surely, in some rare cases. Justifiable? No. Violence above the means (9/11, 5000+ dead; OIL or OIF, 22235 American; 51814 Iraqi Civilians) is not defense. Any more than shooting a man dead is defense.

 

There is a threshold where defense becomes criminal. Even you know that, Sebby. It is the responsibility of any citizen, or any country to minimize harm done. This is what I refer to as the principle of least harm.

 

You comprehend what I am getting at here? These are simple, basic ideals that every person lives by and must for a society, either of a nation, a community or a world to live and prosper by.

 

We should not resort to violence as the first recourse. Violence is a last resort measure after all other options have been considered and tried; even then violence must be purportional to the slight. As you can see from the figures, they are not. They are lop sided.

 

Anyway you wish to spin it, Sebby, in my eyes, and my observation. America comes out to be just as bad, if not worse than the terrorist that we seek to undermine the authority of.

 

That is my point in all this. We do not undermine the authority, or legitimacy of the terrorist by responding to their violence in kind. We would if we used diplomatic means. If we tried other measures. If we went on living our lives at the end of 9/11. Adjusting as necessary, but not perpetuating the violence.

 

That is what Violence does. Is perpetuates itself. You can not cure Violence with violence. Only compassion can do that. This can be proven with a minor examination of history. When has violent action ever resolved the issues that led to it? When has war ever led to lasting peace? When has Injustice ever led to justice?

 

War, terrorism, and injustice

These improprieties can not be their own cure. They are the disease.

[adjective]

Well law comes from ethics, and morality.

 

This is wrong. I commend to you the work of HLA Hart who explains the problem inherent in this assertion far better than myself. While law and ethics may overlap, there is nothing intrinsic that declares they are related phenomena. E.g.: There is no moral imperative to drive on the right side of the street--you'd find yourself in quite a quandry in Britain if you did so.

 

So much for that. I'll grant soft positivism (that morality is a criterion for a law's validity).

 

Moving on, I find that the vast majority of your position is distilled here:

 

I am not saying do not defend yourself if attacked by a maniac, however in the majority of circumstances, you have in some way brought that maniac into proximity to yourself, and have provoked him into violent action.

 

I find deep flaws here. Suppose you're locked in a room with the maniac (which, in the global "community," I find to be a fitting analogy). Sooner or later, the maniac will be provoked by something you do because he is irrational. Your provocation may have not inspired rage in a normal person--but it did here. Because of your inability to forecast the future, you're suddenly morally obligated to not defend yourself?

 

Or, to give some leeway, suppose the person _is_ rational. You have a hamburger and he has no food--and hasn't for some days. The human drive to ensure your own survival will lead him to attack you to get your hamburger. Do you have to passively sit by and let him either take your hamburger--putting you in his previous state--or let him kill you while you nonviolently protest his taking of your hamburger?

 

What is going to be the actual outcome?

 

I jest a bit, of course, but this does point to the deeper problem of your arguments. I'll conflate terrorism and war for argument's sake. The terrorists and the U.S. see themselves as threatened and believe that the other has displayed its designs to destroy the other. In the international "system" (which is a bit of a contradiction of terms), they are going to act in such a way as to ensure their own survival.

 

What has happened isn't a competition of scarce resources (the U.S. has all resources in abundance), but a competition of ideologies. Go back to Sparta and Athens--the war was different, but the ideas behind it were the same. Those leading the charge believe that their ideas will be erased from the face of the earth by the other (which, honestly, wouldn't be such a bad thing), that there have been designs to wipe out something dear to them, and this is the inevitable outcome.

 

Like I said before, I agree with you more than it might seem, but you're working with an incomplete palette. Humans are not as nice as your paint them to be unless there is a sovereign power to hold them in line--thus why we have international disputes. Thus why, before nations, there were wars between cities. Thus why, before cities, there were wars between tribes. And so on. We need a proper understanding of the troublesome creature that _is_ the human being before we can reasonably prescribe how to best ensure peace.

[adjective]

Well law comes from ethics, and morality.

 

This is wrong. I commend to you the work of HLA Hart who explains the problem inherent in this assertion far better than myself. While law and ethics may overlap, there is nothing intrinsic that declares they are related phenomena. E.g.: There is no moral imperative to drive on the right side of the street--you'd find yourself in quite a quandry in Britain if you did so.

 

So much for that. I'll grant soft positivism (that morality is a criterion for a law's validity).

 

Moving on, I find that the vast majority of your position is distilled here:

 

I am not saying do not defend yourself if attacked by a maniac, however in the majority of circumstances, you have in some way brought that maniac into proximity to yourself, and have provoked him into violent action.

 

I find deep flaws here. Suppose you're locked in a room with the maniac (which, in the global "community," I find to be a fitting analogy). Sooner or later, the maniac will be provoked by something you do because he is irrational. Your provocation may have not inspired rage in a normal person--but it did here. Because of your inability to forecast the future, you're suddenly morally obligated to not defend yourself?

 

Or, to give some leeway, suppose the person _is_ rational. You have a hamburger and he has no food--and hasn't for some days. The human drive to ensure your own survival will lead him to attack you to get your hamburger. Do you have to passively sit by and let him either take your hamburger--putting you in his previous state--or let him kill you while you nonviolently protest his taking of your hamburger?

 

What is going to be the actual outcome?

 

I jest a bit, of course, but this does point to the deeper problem of your arguments. I'll conflate terrorism and war for argument's sake. The terrorists and the U.S. see themselves as threatened and believe that the other has displayed its designs to destroy the other. In the international "system" (which is a bit of a contradiction of terms), they are going to act in such a way as to ensure their own survival.

 

What has happened isn't a competition of scarce resources (the U.S. has all resources in abundance), but a competition of ideologies. Go back to Sparta and Athens--the war was different, but the ideas behind it were the same. Those leading the charge believe that their ideas will be erased from the face of the earth by the other (which, honestly, wouldn't be such a bad thing), that there have been designs to wipe out something dear to them, and this is the inevitable outcome.

 

Like I said before, I agree with you more than it might seem, but you're working with an incomplete palette. Humans are not as nice as your paint them to be unless there is a sovereign power to hold them in line--thus why we have international disputes. Thus why, before nations, there were wars between cities. Thus why, before cities, there were wars between tribes. And so on. We need a proper understanding of the troublesome creature that _is_ the human being before we can reasonably prescribe how to best ensure peace.

[IDMclean]

Suppose you're locked in a room with the maniac (which, in the global "community," I find to be a fitting analogy). Sooner or later, the maniac will be provoked by something you do because he is irrational. Your provocation may have not inspired rage in a normal person--but it did here. Because of your inability to forecast the future, you're suddenly morally obligated to not defend yourself?

 

Suppose you use a rhetorical device, and purpose a fallacious Parade of horribles to make a pessimistic point without evidence to support the claim? In this case, Sebby, I woul think you are stretching the analogy beyond it's scope. There is historical evidence that people cooperate more often then they fight, that they do the right thing more often than not. That we are here and we are alive. That we have what we do is support for that. Take it or leave it, but people are far more caring and compassionate than some would like to think.

 

Mad persons who want to kill are not only rare they are the exception even amongst the rare ones, amongst 6 billion people.

 

In short Sebby the picture you paint of a terrible landscape where everyone is essentially in a perpetual state of desposism, is far from the real picture. The mad persons are not the norm, but the exception. There are far fewer of them then the rational reasonable human beings. That is there are more humans than brutes. Once again I will defer to Gandhi or MLK Jr. on this. I highly suggest you research their writings and their doings.

 

I don't have time at the moment to reply more in full. However consider my point, as I have yours.

[sebbysteiny]

Firstly, KAC, I was not the author of the last 2 posts, good though they were and as happy as I would be to take credit for them.

 

My reply is as follows.

 

In trying to concentrate the debate, I will state which points I agree with and which points I disagree so that no more time is wasted on points we agree.

 

Let's start with ethics and morality. First off is there objective morality?

 

In my view, yes and no. No there is clearly no objective morality. But I think that some moral views are so unanimously agreed that they are, in practice, objective.

 

Or is morality subject to change?

Clearly yes.

 

If so why and how then do we create objective (institutionally applicable) legal systems if everything shifts around constantly?

 

Good legal question. The general answer is, it can't. The law is fundamentally different from morality. Yes, the law often tries to codify the morality of the time, but it takes an Act from the Legislature before any law is changed.

 

For this reason, there are all kinds of strange laws not yet repealed that are still technically effective. And every now and then, some of these laws are brought back.

 

The judges can also 'interpret' statutes in a way that conforms better with present morality, but they cannot do this at will if it means going against the decisions of previous judges.

 

Every now and then, the judges call for a change in the law on moral grounds, but this call is often ignored for decades, and the case before them is decided in favour of the law of the day, and not the morality as seen by the judges.

 

But against this, our jury systems do allow for changes in morality because a jury will be unlikely to convict somebody if they do not feel has actions were, at least in some way, immoral. And since the morality of the jury is generally a good representative of the morality of the populace of the day, the jury can act as a fudge between the law and the morality of the day.

 

But even if morality does shift, ultimately, one needs a change in the law before it becomes illegal.

 

So you can say something is immoral in your view, but you cannot allege it to be illegal simply because, despite the overwhelming interpretation of the legal system experts, you believe it to be illegal.

 

Now, addressing your suggestions for a change in the law. I think they are non-sensicle. War may be bad, but if you make war illegal, then you are calling almost every leader and state on the planet 'illegal', which kind of defeats the purpose of law. What are you going to do? Begin an inditement for every leader ever to have ruled a country who has given his permission for violence, either by military or through crowd control etc. Your ideas weem to me to be completely unworkable and therefore a complete nonsense as far as I can see.

 

And even if one does make 'war' illegal, it would have to be one of the lowest of petty international crimes on a par with a parking ticket. The idea that it could ever be as serious as terrorism is both completely unworkable and morally bankrupt in my view.

 

And in law, an unworkable principal represents a critical flaw.

 

As you know from your study of law, our law is based on objective, universally agreeable principles and laws which are found to violate the letter, or intent of the axioms, are thrown out.

 

As above, this is not true. The law remains supreme over morality in the eyes of a court. Sometimes laws are held 'unconstitutional' but only when the objective understanding of the constition directly conflicts with the law, as the constitution is an overriding law. In UK, we have no constitution (writen), so the courts do not even have this power.

 

It is easily self-evident with little study of just about any given religion that Non-violent conflict resolution, ahimsa, or whatever it maybe named under the given religion is one of the main pillars of the religious system.

 

Is it? It is certainly not the case in Islam. Nor in Jeudsims. Nor in even Christianity. The right of self defence supersedes any duty to 'love your neighbour' even in Christianity. If somebody is about to punch your cheek, yeah, there may be a non-violent solution of turning the other cheek. But if the person had a stabbing sword, turning the other cheek is no longer a viable method of non-violent self defence.

 

I take extra interest in Gandhi, because his profession, and study was in english law. He was a lawyer, and he ultimately helped bring a nation back to independence from british rule. Through the non-violence.

 

You can't judge all of history and morality by one example. This is surely a very large scale hasty generalisation. There were a number of factors which led to non-violence being the most effective solution in the specific case of India. Non of these factors applied to, say, Nazism or Saddam Huisain's Iraq. I would love to know how you suggest non-violent protests against a nuclear missile on its way to New York or a regime that is doing everything to make that happen to bring about the second comming of 'Mohammed'.

 

This is because these methodologies are an admission of defeat. By engaging in violence, whether for defensive purposes, or aggressive purposes. For any reason what so ever, is to lose.

 

I completely disagree with this statement.

 

Once war has broken out, it is proof of the failure of the involved parties to resolve the issues that lead up to the war.

 

That's right. War is a failure for diplomacy. But that does not mean war is a failure.

 

Diplomacy lost in the war against terror as soon as Al Quaeda developed a power base. I would love to hear your view in how we can diplomatically deal with an organisation that wants to see you, and every other person on this planet a) convert to Islam, or :) die. If you demand the freedom to live life however you wish to without being subject to an extreme form of Islamic law, then an agreement with these genocidal maniacs is impossible.

 

So, if you want me to take sides. I will not.

 

I don't really mind. Personally, all I would like is that you consider my arguments.

 

There is a threshold where defense becomes criminal. Even you know that, Sebby.

 

Not under the law or according to my sense of morality. The only times a man who is attacked may be convicted is if the act goes beyond the ambit of self defence.

 

And this is not objective, it's subjective. The defendant must have believed that his actions went beyond lawful self defence. A man hitting a person 50 times on the head with a baseball bat will be held innocent if the guy was shocked and genuinely believed his life was still in danger. A man who does the same thing but, after the 2nd hit, wanted to settle a grudge too would be found guildty of murder.

 

It is the responsibility of any citizen, or any country to minimize harm done.

 

Since when? The primary responsibility of a country is to the safety of its own citizens. Reducing any further harm is a secondary consideration. This is just another way of phrasing a nations basic right to self defence.

 

We should not resort to violence as the first recourse. Violence is a last resort measure after all other options have been considered and tried; even then violence must be purportional to the slight.

 

Violence is a last resort. Correct. From this, the real question is, have the other options been considered and, where possible, tried? I think you will agree that against Saddam, diplomacy had been tried for decades and no results known at the time suggested they had been effective. Would another round of diplomacy have changed things? This is moot. There was a strong case either way.

 

So what next, if not diplomacy? By your own admission, war. But, as you pointed out, it must be proportionate. (Question, why? QP if you can answer it)

 

So was the violence proportionate?

 

As you can see from the figures, they are not. They are lop sided.

 

Alas, this reasoning seems to me to be very spurious. You can't do morality by numbers. It simply makes no sense. Instead, morality is done by acts, and the acts must include BOTH the actus reus AND the mens rea. A war can be a completely proportionate method of self defence if the threat was percieved at the time to be real and present.

 

That is what Violence does. Is perpetuates itself. You can not cure Violence with violence. Only compassion can do that. This can be proven with a minor examination of history.

 

That's true, but not if you take a major examination of history. If you look at it in any way other than a superficial way, it seems to me that violence CAN cure violence. Compassion is almost completely useless against bad people.

 

When has violent action ever resolved the issues that led to it?

Since when is 'resolving the issues that led to it' an object of war. The object of war is to assert your version of the issues on the other side by force.

 

When has war ever led to lasting peace?

 

Hmm, where do I begin? Romes complete distruction of Carthage. Rome's conquering of Greece and the rest of the Roman Empire etc.

 

Alexander the Greats conquest of much of Asia.

 

The unification of China.

 

The American Civil war.

 

The destruction of Napolians army at Waterloo.

 

WW2

 

How about those for starters?

 

When has Injustice ever led to justice?

 

Almost every peace agreement has required one side to give up claims they consider just. Without letting go of this injustice, one can never achieve peace, which I believe to be the ultimate justice.

 

How about the peace treaty of WW2.

 

Germany was not made to pay for the destruction it had caused. The allies belived rightfully that it was more imporant to focus on the greater justice of peace in Europe than the injustices committed by Germany during the war it started. Enough was finally enough. Forget the past and move on. That's the ultimate justice.

[Freddy]

War is not moral. Warfare of the kind you are talking about requires not only violence but necessitates killing. Which is my point. In my eyes our standing army is not only immoral, but against the intent of our founding document. Our (America's) consititution has a part under the powers of congress strictly forbiding a standing army, which those in Washington D.C. has conviently ignored, and the public has forgotten.

You believe that? Based on Article II: Section 8, Clause 12, which states:To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

Congress has the power to raise an army, but the appropriation may only be for 2 years. However, wars do not last for only two years. Sometimes they are shorter but usually are much longer. What the clause means is that to support an army for a longer period a new appropriation is needed. That is why Congress appropriates money for the Department of Defense each fiscal year. During WWII 16 million Americans served in the US military. Appropriations were drasticly reduced once the war ended in September 1945 as millions of those servicemen went back to civilian life. Good luck in your crusade against the US military industrial complex! You will need it.

[sebbysteiny]

In response to Freddy's post.

 

Thank you Freddy for clearing that up. The research is a QP.

 

But KickAssClown. I am disapointed in your decision to use selective quotation.

 

You said, to justify your position that using an army is illegal for America,

Our (America's) consititution has a part under the powers of congress strictly forbiding a standing army, which those in Washington D.C. has conviently ignored, and the public has forgotten.

 

Based on that half quote, I guessed at an alternative explanation that funds must be refinanced every two years.

 

But your quote did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

Based on Article II: Section 8, Clause 12, which states:To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

When one reads the whole of the section, it becomes not just clear, but completely undeniable that my interpretation of the law is correct and that yours is not. America has the right to raise and support an army.

 

I am extremely disapointed at your misleading quote which I can only think was a delibrate and fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts to suit your own opinion.

 

That kind of dishonesty should get a neg rep but for the fact that I do not give neg reps out of principal.

 

However, I appologise if you posted the above untruth accidentally in that you had not actually read the document.

[wine]

So uh, any terrorist attacks yet?

[Freddy]

From sebbysteiny's post.

"In response to Freddy's post. Thank you Freddy for clearing that up. The research is a QP."

 

You are welcome.

 

In a commentary of US standing armies I was reading it stated that Congress must every two years decide if the US should continue with the army because of the appropriation clause. Could you imagine that is still going on in 2006? Also, in my searches this standing army constitutionality issue is a favorite of the Libertarians.

[IDMclean]

Alright then. So we have established the main contention between our views Sebby, the fundamental disagreement.

 

It arise from a difference of doctrine. I know for certain that Morality is objective. The morality of an individual maybe subjective, however morality, Like the laws of man, and the laws of physics, is objective and must be. Surely a person can ignore the principles, and bend the rules to their liking, however they will not get the same results, as such the morality they portray is not the objective it is subjective.

 

This is a distiguishment that must be made. As is the distiguishment of opinion, belief, knowledge, and informed observation.

 

This is analogous to me, as saying a particle you have is an electron when all it's properties match that of the objective definition of the proton. The difference then is in the definition and expression. The axiom and the theory. The Experiment and the interpretation.

 

The difference of doctrine is no small thing. By the doctrine of moral relativism you open yourself to a can of worms. Who is to say that the laws you live by are the right ones? Who is to say your cause is just?

 

No legal system can be created and maintained on such grounds. The reason is no axiom can be formed for a proper system of ethics to arise. No axiom, no theory. Simple as that.

 

Why is this so? Logic. See Laws are rules of a social contract. In our case we have many layers of social contracts. Of which logical consistency and fairness are part and parcel of. Morality, and Ethics form the basis of the fairness assessment. I would not live for or partisipate in a society in which I did not have a fair chance of making a living.

 

Our founding fathers I would think are like wise, from what I have read of history, and of the founding documents. In fact as I have been taught it in school, our country arose because there was injustice in the system.

 

You surely see what I am getting at here.

 

How can you say anything definitive if you have no definitive basis? How can you create just rules for me or anyone to live by, if you, yourself, are not regulated by a system of rules?

 

Of that I would say all that can arise is despotism. Arbitrary rule of the mightiest. Something I know for a fact our founding fathers sought to avoid, though knew to be inevitable even with the US constitution.

 

If Moral relativism is a truism, if we can make no objective basis, then I must ask. How do we decide (make a definitive choice) between justified warfare, and genocide?

 

Moral relativism is like saying we have no metric. Nothing to measure by, that you can measure the same thing twice and it will be different depending on who is measuring it. That is something I can not abide by.

 

In short how can you make a consistent formal logical system without:

Definitions, axioms, laws, and theorems?

[sebbysteiny]

I appoligise for accusing you [KAC] of deceit. I just looked over at a past post and noted that you posted the whole clause in there.

 

Regarding your last post. I cannot agree with it for two reasons.

 

Firstly, I do not believe in moral relativism. But at the same time, I can't deny that some elements of morality do change with time.

 

So my model is that there is a large chunk of morality that overlaps with almost all people. Mainly, human rights. This means, to all intents and purposes, there is objective morality complete with axioms, theorums etc.

 

But at the same time, there is an element that is subjective that changes with time and location.

 

And further, I do not think this really matters much regarding why you perceive terror to equal war. You seem to me to have completely ommitted Mens rea from your reasoning so I cannot accept it. If you include Mens rea, then you will have more chance in convincing me.

 

Instead, you seem to be relying almost entirely on morality by numbers which is a premise so dodgy I am more likely to swallow the excuses of an SS guard saying he was 'just following orders'.

 

Secondly, Law is completely objective (at least, it's supposed to be). And law is not morality. They are completely separate. You can be morally correct and still, according to the law, go to prison. So if I were you, I would stop making bizaar commentry on the law as it is probably the weakest part of your argument and only serves to put people off everything else.

 

So I counter propose what our differences are here.

 

1) You completely ignore Mens rea.

 

2) You strongly believe the premise of morality by numbers.

[IDMclean]

Sebby, as I have said I have considered Mens Rea.

 

Did America know that the action of war would lead to the harm and/or death of thousands? I would say, yes, yes America did.

 

Did America know that harm to it's own citizens or the citizens of other countries is immoral and in most any case illegal, expecially when the punishment exceeds the crime? To this once again I would say that yes, yes, America did.

 

I would say based on analysis of pre-war, and war America that America pre-meditated mass murder, and that they did in fact commit the act, and therefore have commited the crime both in their heart, head and actuality.

 

Willful blindness is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

 

This to me sounds like what happened with the evidence of WMDs. As I understand it, consistently America has had the evidence, and has ignored it. We went to war under false pretenses and for other reasons. Did you know the original name for our war was "OIL: Operation Iraqi Liberation" It was latter changed to "OIF: Operation Iraqi Freedom".

 

The amount of waste in terms of infrastructure funding is massive. This goes on and on, and if you wish to know more you need but look at the other side of the argument.

 

I realize that what I have termed Morality is not merely morality. Though I use the terms interchangably, what I mean is Ethics. The model of Ethics that I abide by is one that relies on several real world laws to derive the morality of an action.

 

Of which the Equivalence principle must hold (laws of ethics are invariant to frame of reference). I do infact use Ethics by the numbers because I do not accept things which can not be quantified and qualified.

 

I admit that Ethics is something that maybe harder to model mathematicly, but we are reaching the point where ethics can be reduced down to formal systems.

 

This however would seem a better topic for another thread, Where would we talk about Morality, Ethics and The System? Philosophy or Social Sciences?

 

I'll stop there, we have much to discuss and this thread is not meant for the sum of it.

[sebbysteiny]

I'll stop there, we have much to discuss and this thread is not meant for the sum of it

.

 

I'm sure it was the intention of the thread owner to discuss the morality of our response to terror.

 

I am glad that you agree on our fundamental differences.

 

First, I'll discuss the mens rea of going to war and then the mens rea of terror.

 

Did America know that the action of war would lead to the harm and/or death of thousands? I would say, yes, yes America did.

 

Agreed. America knew its actions would lead to thousands of deaths, though nobody forsaw the extent of Iraqi terror on its own citizens under the guise of 'resistance'. These forces were not forseen and are the main cause of most of the bloodshed.

 

Further, when you go to war, you do so knowing that you will cause the following:

 

the death of many innocents in collateral damage;

the death of many combatents;

accidents leading to the death of innocent people and / or friendly forces;

the loss of some of your soldiers;

the abuse by some of your soldiers of enermy civilians or combatents;

war crimes committed by isolated soldiers or units.

 

No army has ever been able to exist and be used without all the above happening.

 

So the mens rea includes knowledge that all the above will be caused by the decision to go to war.

 

But on the other hand, that is not the actual intent of the war.

 

The actual intent of war is the self defence of your citizens. And according to the right of self defence, a nation always has the right to defend themselves even if they cause the above circumstances.

 

So a war declared for reasons of self defence, whether pre-emptive or not, has the intent of self defense despite the secondary consideration of the above bad consequences.

 

So if the war was INTENDED to be for genuine self defence, then America is as innocent as the man who killed his attacker who was about to kill the mans children. Any country that does not wish to see its citizens die can have this mens rea making the mens rea incompatible with criminality.

 

The mens rea of terror is not so forgiving.

 

Intent to kill innocent people;

for the purposes of insiting terror;

in pursuit of a goal, political or otherwise.

 

This is the primary intent, and not a secondary consequence. Only a criminal organisation can have this intent.

 

This to me sounds like what happened with the evidence of WMDs. As I understand it, consistently America has had the evidence, and has ignored it. We went to war under false pretenses and for other reasons.

 

The point as I understand it is that the weapons of mass distruction were a common goal through which the international community agreed.

 

It turned out there were none. But was this 'willfull blindness'? Not in my view. It was not just American and British intelligence that concluded Saddam had WMD but the intelligence agencies of most countries including those those against the war. This includes: Israel, France and Russia.

 

It seems to me clear that Saddam intended to pretend he did have WMD's and his bluff worked .... too well.

 

 

Secondly, I wish to test to premise that morality by numbers can be done.

 

Disprove these obviously obsurd statements.

 

Driving kills more people than brutal murderes. Therefore driving a car is more ciminal than brutally murdering.

 

3 people attacked a man with a knife. To save himself, he killed all three of them. Because he killed 3 people whilst not defending himself would have only killed 1 (himself), this man is a criminal and used disproportionate force.

 

A man slipped over on a bannana skin and landed on a lighter. He sparked a fire that caused the death of thousands. He therefore is a mass murderer and deserves a life sentence or death penalty.

 

Morality by numbers really does not make any sense as a meaningful premise.

[IDMclean]

The actual intent of war is the self defence of your citizens. And according to the right of self defence, a nation always has the right to defend themselves even if they cause the above circumstances.

 

Alright, as I have said previously. There are different classes of war. The type that I am talking about is War of Invasion, which is what we; the USA and allied forces, have commited upon the Iraqi and Afganistan nations. This is not a war of defense, as we were not attacked by these nations. This is a war of aggressive invasion. It is retaliatory rather than defensive.

 

In fact, arguably the people whom we were attacked by were the CIA. The people, and the resources used to attack us were trained in part or in full by the CIA, and funded in part or in full, directly or indirectly by the CIA. Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were both lackies (and with classification, could possibly still be) of the CIA. Saddam was put into power by a CIA backed coup. Osama Bin Laden was trained and financed by the CIA.

 

See it's not just the war of invasion, but the events leading up to the war. We funded, and trained for all intents and purposes the very terrorist that we are fighting. For the purpose of terrorism.

 

 

Now to address your psuedo-ethical questions:

In all three cases you use kill in different ways (Equivocation).

 

Driving kills more people than brutal murderes. Therefore driving a car is more ciminal than brutally murdering.

 

The first is incidental.

 

I would suggest reading: Commuting Tomorrow

 

In short, more people die in car crashes than are killed in brutal murders. Your wording is imprecise which creates a issue of a non-issue. Loaded Question, Equivocation, and Not even wrong, in my observation. :(

 

3 people attacked a man with a knife. To save himself, he killed all three of them. Because he killed 3 people whilst not defending himself would have only killed 1 (himself), this man is a criminal and used disproportionate force.

 

This one is much harder to judge. There is a definite lack of information from which to make a judgement from. How did he kill them? Why, if he was able to kill all three, did he not use less lethal force? Why did he not simply remove himself from the situation prior to the use of violence, either on his part or the other's part? How do we know for certain that he did not attack the three men? Who are the witnesses and what is their side of the story?

 

Like I said, definite lack of information, so I can not make a judgement on an incomplete case such as that. Define further the exact (within reason) details of the situation, otherwise I consider it a "he said she said" in which what is known is that he killed three men, as to whether they attacked him or he them, is immaterial. The fact is he exceeded his authority, and yes, is criminal in that (specific) case. Without further proof that is the only judgement I can make from the case above.

 

A man slipped over on a bannana skin and landed on a lighter. He sparked a fire that caused the death of thousands. He therefore is a mass murderer and deserves a life sentence or death penalty.

Once again, you use weaslely goodness to attempt to make your case. If the circumstances show that it was accidental, then he would not in this case be guilty of anything other than failing to yeild to the banana :D. Also this like the other two is possibly of the class of loaded proposition and parade of horribles.

 

In all three cases you use exaggeration and impercision to make mountains out of mole hills.

 

Your above argument looks suspiciously like a strawman of my argument. I would suggest you review it, and your tact for possible comprimise of integrity.

[sebbysteiny]

I'm glad to see that we now seem to be talking the same language.

 

Alright, as I have said previously. There are different classes of war. The type that I am talking about is War of Invasion, which is what we; the USA and allied forces, have commited upon the Iraqi and Afganistan nations. This is not a war of defense

 

That's a good paragraph. It shows me you agree that wars conducted for self defence, whether pre-emptively or not, are completely different from a moral perspective to terror and other war crimes.

 

You have also said that 'wars of invasion' are a different catagory, which I will agree. Infact, I will be stronger and say that a war incorrectly declared may amount to a war crime if it was deliberate unprovoked aggression.

 

You then said 'there are different classes of war', which I will agree. The two we have mentioned are: wars of self defence; and wars of invasion.

 

I think we will also agree that the significant difference between these two types is mens rea (ie the intent of the war at the time).

 

So it seems to me that we actually agree on the principals here. Where we disagree is on the facts. I hold that the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of self defence.

 

The problem I find now is that is is completely obvious that at least Afghanistan, which was invaded in the wake of 9/11 and was owned by a regime that sheltered the perpertrators, was so blatently an act of self defence and therefore in my view, significantly more legitimate than the terror that hit America.

 

In fact, arguably the people whom we were attacked by were the CIA. The people, and the resources used to attack us were trained in part or in full by the CIA, and funded in part or in full, directly or indirectly by the CIA.

 

I find this principal unworkable. Every nation or organisation to which America has been allied will have had some level of guidence 'or training', and probably some level of funding. Infact, America funds more governments and organisations through military and economic aid than any other country.

 

According to your principal, America thus loses all rights of self defence against these governments and organisations simply because they miscalculated their friends.

 

I think the mistake of our fathers in funding these nut cases to help us survive the cold war should not compell us to make the mistake of not crushing these nutcases now when we can see them for who they are. So I think this is irrelivent.

 

Instead, all we want to ask is: what were the real motives for George Bush (and his allies) in declaring war. As far as I'm concerned, the only event other than the war that is important is 9/11.

 

Driving kills more people than brutal murderes. Therefore driving a car is more ciminal than brutally murdering.

 

Your wording is imprecise which creates a issue of a non-issue. Loaded Question, Equivocation, and Not even wrong, in my observation.

 

Wow. A lot of complaints. But I don't understand any one of them. It's not loaded since it makes no pre-suppositions that affect the issue, other than the phrase 'driving kills people' being equivilent to 'people die from driving'. This seems to me to be the same criticism as equivocation.

 

But I see no distinction at all between those phrases, so perhaps you could explain where you believe these phrases differ.

 

Perhaps I can say 'more people die from driving than from brutal murders. Therefore drivers are greater criminals than brutal murders.

 

And I can't see where 'not even wrong' comes up.

 

My answer to this apparent dilema is obvious. It's all about mens rea. The mens rea of the two are completely different. One requires a criminal mind, one requires the desire just to get somewhere.

 

But the important thing is that morality by numbers is completely misleading and rediculous in this example. It does not matter how many people that die, only the act that caused their deaths and the mens rea attached to it.

 

3 people attacked a man with a knife. To save himself, he killed all three of them. Because he killed 3 people whilst not defending himself would have only killed 1 (himself), this man is a criminal and used disproportionate force.

 

You are trying to dispute the facts of the question. I don't understand why. It is the issues that are raised that matter, and not the witness statements and scientific evidence that caused these facts to be beyond dispute.

 

If you really wish me to create some scenario which brings about these facts, sure, but I'm not sure this is necessary.

 

Again, the distinction is mens rea. Morality by numbers is completely unhelpful here.

 

A man slipped over on a bannana skin and landed on a lighter. He sparked a fire that caused the death of thousands. He therefore is a mass murderer and deserves a life sentence or death penalty.

 

If the circumstances show that it was accidental, then he would not in this case be guilty of anything other than failing to yeild to the banana

 

That's exactly how I see it. The issue is, again, mens rea. What's interesting is that you, like me, seem to think that the numbers are a complete distraction to the real issues, which is the act.

 

The point I'm making with these examples is that it is the act that matters always in morality, and the numbers of suffering is almost completely irrelivent regarding morality.

[IDMclean]

Alright Sebby, today we are going to talk a little bit about life, death and killing.

 

People die all the time. What they die from is immaterial. Death is the fact. They have died, and that is all that needs to be said about it. What relevance does this have? Death is descriptive of a state of being/notbeing. It makes no link to the cause of death, which could be many things. Some of them intentional, some not.

 

Killing, killed or kills. All are descriptive of an action, or courses of actions that result in the death of a given individual. It is colloquially acceptable to use kill and die interchangably, however there is, what I see as self-obvious, a distinction between the two, that in a formal capacity must be considered. In the evaluation of ethics, death can not be given a value judgement. Not by itself. Nobody is guilty of any crime when an old person finally dies of cumulative illness (malfunction), brought on by the degregation of their physical and mental state.

 

When a person dies, that is not a moral crime. A choice of an external legally reconizable entity forced upon an individual or group of individuals. See why killing is immoral is that it deprives an individual of their right, freedom, privilage, and/or power of the choice to live.

 

For that very reason, self-defense is moral, in that it is the preservation of the right to that choice. A person can at any time choose not to defend themselves, and allow themselves to be brought to death. It is a possible, moral, choice. This is because it is a choice.

 

In my observations of ethical systems, for a constructive society, where the goals are to build a better tomorrow (that isn't the techincal definition of the objectives of a constructive society, but it will do for the scope of this thread.), moral warfare is one in which the only casualties are those who have choosen to fight and die (not that they will die, only that the can, and have choosen to risk it).

 

The current Iraqi war can not be considered moral under this, because as I have shown before, the number of civilian deaths is considerably higher than zero. 50,000+ higher than zero infact. Of these deaths I am willing to bet a few had made the choice to fight and die, though the majority most likely did not and were "collaterial damage".

 

It is important to note that I call the choice fight and die, this is deliberate to denote that in such, one can not kill those who have already submitted to death. As they have explicitly made the choice to allow the possibility of external, artificially caused death in the act of fighting (much like boxers I will note).

 

However, as I have said before. There is a difference between self-defense and retalitory killing. In self-defense death should only occur, caused by the defender, only as an accidental case. In the case of war of defense, the objective is to disable the invading force, not destroy. Same goes for Civil Self-Defense.

 

The goal is to disable (death is a possible way of disabling in war) the offender, so they maybe brought to justice, not kill, or cause the death of. The whole idea of self-defense is reduction of harm first to the defender and second to the offender, though the offender does open themselves to the possibility of moral harm.

 

Retaliatory killing, as I have said before is immoral, in that it ignores justice, and disallows the pursuit of justice upon the offender.

 

I found a rather informative article that complements my point of view, War is Wrong.

 

**********************************************

 

So your presupposition (regarding cars) arises from your equivocation of kill and die. Which renders the entire proposition null [math]\emptyset[/math] or Not Even Wrong, because it can not be falsified (for systematic ethical consequence) under those premises.

 

3 people attacked a man with a knife. To save himself, he killed all three of them. Because he killed 3 people whilst not defending himself would have only killed 1 (himself), this man is a criminal and used disproportionate force.

 

Your case of the man with a knife. Killing the three people. Without witnesses, like the people he killed, the truth as to whether he was the offender or defender can not be ascertained. As such in order to evaluated (for criminality) that one, there would have to be the possibility that the man being considered can be guilty (legally and ethically) of the crime of murder.

 

However as I said, as your senario stands for the man with a knife, the answer to your question is presupposed.

 

Furthermore your proposition presupposes that someone must die in the senario given (the portion that presuppose this, is bolded). I will admit that it is possible for a senario to arise underwhich someone is so hopped up on something that anything short of systematic failure would not stop them. Like PCP for instance. However that senario is extremely rare and would be the fallacy of parade of horribles. Both for Appeal to Probability, and Appeal to Emotions.

 

As always, I enjoy our conversations. Keeps me on my toes.

 

Keep on laughing.:Clown:

[Rebiu]

The op's intent was do dialogue on wether the War on Terror is being won or lost. The morality angle is a strawman you grabbed onto because you could not stand up to the arguments suggesting we are loosing.