the moral case for intervention

[uglypeoplefucking]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

Libyan intervention has to be done - leaders cannot be allowed to behave as Gadhafi is. i know, leaders get away with it all the time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be prevented when and where it can be.

governments should not be permitted by other governments to engage in the mass slaughter of their own citizens - that shouldn't be as controversial as it apparently is among the many Americans lamenting US action.

[HexHammer]

It's all about politics, oppotunism and benefits.

If you look back in histroy, there has indeed been many interventions, but many also have failed, because there was 2 enemies instead of just 1 or more.

Gadaffi has oil, that's a huge motivator, but in other cases there are no benefits to intervein, and you may even be seen as an invasive problem.

So invasion is a delicate matter, and one must be very careful about it.

[uglypeoplefucking]

this is not an invasion, tho.

what's not clear to me is what the US stands to gain in terms of oil if Gadhafi is replaced - this whole thing about how it's all oil raises that question - Ghadafi never really stood in the way of the US' oil interests, right? if he falls, does the US really stand to gain such an advantage with regard to Libyan oil that it is worth a military campaign?

i don't think it's really the oil in this case. it's the US again taking the lead as the world's military superpower, and doing so IN AID of the Arab street. hearts and minds - an entire generation of young Libyans. when that kind of PR opportunity goes on sale, you're best advised to buy.

besides it's the morally right thing to do.

[Humpty]

Any government that permits the mass slaughtering by another government of its people should be slaughtered.
(just teasin baby)

Anyway, who's "the rest of the world"? Who is that? Everyone else? Like every individual? Every politician? Who?

[uglypeoplefucking]

states capable of intervening, and the UN definitely. China and Russia, for instance, are in the wrong here for opposing action.

[Humpty]

a state isn't a person.

[glosh 123]

[quote][/quote] Blockheads with reason wicked wits abhor but fool with fool is barbaorus civil war. Pope

[Humpty]

if ur trying to quote someone, i think you got it wrong haha.

[xzc]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

There's a, "because" missing here. You've basically said with power comes obligation, but you've not said why. I have the power to save a few dozen starving African kids, but I choose to use those excess funds to renew my xbox live membership and pwn some n00bs. Why is it incumbent on me to solve someone elses problems whenever I have the resources to do so? Don't I have some rights to leisure and entertainment, or am I entitled to only what I absolutely need, and everything else atop of that I'm supposed to give to those who have less than what they need? Fuck any morality that says that.

[anon]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

There's a, "because" missing here. You've basically said with power comes obligation, but you've not said why. I have the power to save a few dozen starving African kids, but I choose to use those excess funds to renew my xbox live membership and pwn some n00bs. Why is it incumbent on me to solve someone elses problems whenever I have the resources to do so? Don't I have some rights to leisure and entertainment, or am I entitled to only what I absolutely need, and everything else atop of that I'm supposed to give to those who have less than what they need? Fuck any morality that says that.

Fuck any morality that says "should". But "could" is a different story.

[uglypeoplefucking]

a state isn't a person.

i'm not sure of your point ...

[uglypeoplefucking]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

There's a, "because" missing here. You've basically said with power comes obligation, but you've not said why. I have the power to save a few dozen starving African kids, but I choose to use those excess funds to renew my xbox live membership and pwn some n00bs. Why is it incumbent on me to solve someone elses problems whenever I have the resources to do so? Don't I have some rights to leisure and entertainment, or am I entitled to only what I absolutely need, and everything else atop of that I'm supposed to give to those who have less than what they need? Fuck any morality that says that.

so the soldier who stands idly by while some other guy in his platoon rapes a civilian girl has no moral complicity? fuck any morality that says THAT.

[Humpty]

a state isn't a person.

i'm not sure of your point ...

my point is you're saying to blame "countries" and "governments".
that doesn't mean anything.

[xzc]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

There's a, "because" missing here. You've basically said with power comes obligation, but you've not said why. I have the power to save a few dozen starving African kids, but I choose to use those excess funds to renew my xbox live membership and pwn some n00bs. Why is it incumbent on me to solve someone elses problems whenever I have the resources to do so? Don't I have some rights to leisure and entertainment, or am I entitled to only what I absolutely need, and everything else atop of that I'm supposed to give to those who have less than what they need? Fuck any morality that says that.

so the soldier who stands idly by while some other guy in his platoon rapes a civilian girl has no moral complicity? fuck any morality that says THAT.

I'm from a neutral standpoint when it comes to morality. It's up to you to make the moral case for intervention. So far you've appealed to a general principle ('when one can help, one should')by relying only on specific scenarios where that principle is sentimentally agreeable, i.e., this civilian girl rape case, but you've not justified the principle. Principles are usually supported by some value.What is the good that is served by this principle?

[xzc]

if the rest of the world is able but doesn't intervene to prevent the mass slaughter of of a people by their own government, then the rest of the world is morally complicit - inaction is in many instances just a form of abetting.

There's a, "because" missing here. You've basically said with power comes obligation, but you've not said why. I have the power to save a few dozen starving African kids, but I choose to use those excess funds to renew my xbox live membership and pwn some n00bs. Why is it incumbent on me to solve someone elses problems whenever I have the resources to do so? Don't I have some rights to leisure and entertainment, or am I entitled to only what I absolutely need, and everything else atop of that I'm supposed to give to those who have less than what they need? Fuck any morality that says that.

Fuck any morality that says "should". But "could" is a different story.

I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

[uglypeoplefucking]

a state isn't a person.

i'm not sure of your point ...

my point is you're saying to blame "countries" and "governments".
that doesn't mean anything.

why not? states are sovereign entities making decisions about what and what not to do

[uglypeoplefucking]

I'm from a neutral standpoint when it comes to morality. It's up to you to make the moral case for intervention. So far you've appealed to a general principle ('when one can help, one should')by relying only on specific scenarios where that principle is sentimentally agreeable, i.e., this civilian girl rape case, but you've not justified the principle. Principles are usually supported by some value.What is the good that is served by this principle?

the good being served would, i suppose, be the lives and freedoms of innocent people being persecuted and threatened by a dictator

[Arcturus Descending]

xzc wrote:

I'm from a neutral standpoint when it comes to morality. It's up to you to make the moral case for intervention. So far you've appealed to a general principle ('when one can help, one should')by relying only on specific scenarios where that principle is sentimentally agreeable, i.e., this civilian girl rape case, but you've not justified the principle. Principles are usually supported by some value.What is the good that is served by this principle?

You equate intervening and stopping a man from raping a girl and perhaps destroying her life as so much sentimentality?
How about the principle that human life has value and that 'to do no harm' transcends one's own view of what morality means?
Also, to do no harm can mean to take responsibility in an active way, to save human life.

As uglyfucking people wrote: the good being served would, i suppose, be the lives and freedoms of innocent people being persecuted and threatened by a dictator

...In this case, "to do no harm" would mean to "do" everything which is humanly possible to prevent people from being persecuted and threatened by a dictator. "To do no harm" means to do what we did when we went in and rescued the jewish people, etc. from the concentration camps and death. To stand around 'doing nothing' can cause just as great harm as doing something harmful. And too often we come to reap what we have sown...or what we have not sown...

xcz wrote: I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

No, you're wrong...unless I'm misunderstanding you here. There is no such thing as 'should'. Morality ceases to be a morality when we finally come to awareness/understanding and the realization of the true meaning of "to do no harm" and that "human life has value". Morality can be very subjective...but I think that these two phrases bring us closer to the truth.

[xzc]

I'm from a neutral standpoint when it comes to morality. It's up to you to make the moral case for intervention. So far you've appealed to a general principle ('when one can help, one should')by relying only on specific scenarios where that principle is sentimentally agreeable, i.e., this civilian girl rape case, but you've not justified the principle. Principles are usually supported by some value.What is the good that is served by this principle?

the good being served would, i suppose, be the lives and freedoms of innocent people being persecuted and threatened by a dictator

It sucks, I"ll give you that, but how and why do the problems of people living on the other side of the globe become mine?

[anon]

I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

I don't. I think "should" is possibly immoral.

[xzc]

xzc wrote:

I'm from a neutral standpoint when it comes to morality. It's up to you to make the moral case for intervention. So far you've appealed to a general principle ('when one can help, one should')by relying only on specific scenarios where that principle is sentimentally agreeable, i.e., this civilian girl rape case, but you've not justified the principle. Principles are usually supported by some value.What is the good that is served by this principle?

You equate intervening and stopping a man from raping a girl and perhaps destroying her life as so much sentimentality?

No, I did not equate anything.

xcz wrote: I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

No, you're wrong...unless I'm misunderstanding you here. There is no such thing as 'should'. Morality ceases to be a morality when we finally come to awareness/understanding and the realization of the true meaning of "to do no harm" and that "human life has value". Morality can be very subjective...but I think that these two phrases bring us closer to the truth.

1. All moralities pose a should. There are many instances of "shoulds."
2. To moralize means to tell people how to be and not to be.
2. Where are you getting this stuff about doing no harm? Take me through your journey from not being aware of this principle to you coming to see it as true, or right, or whatever you want to call it.
3. A subjective morality will have a very tough time making a case why anyone ought to do anything at all.

untab

4. You just noticed I mentioned 2 twice. Also you are now breathing and blinking manually, and you just realized your tongue takes up a lot of space in your mouth. Oh, and your jaw has weight. Think about it.

[xzc]

I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

I don't. I think "should" is possibly immoral.

Maybe it is immoral. So, I guess people should stop saying it?

No? Then what matters that it's immoral?

[anon]

I think a morality ceases to be a morality when it stops saying, "should."

I don't. I think "should" is possibly immoral.

Maybe it is immoral. So, I guess people should stop saying it?

No? Then what matters that it's immoral?

I don't quite understand what you're saying. The only things I'd go out of my way to tell you I think you shouldn't do, are extreme actions. I don't think you should beat your wife. I don't think you should kill your neighbor. But is that morality? If so, who gives a shit about it? It's just a bunch of rules we make up, and hire policemen to enforce them.

[xzc]

I don't quite understand what you're saying.

I'm saying all moralities pose a "should." That is their entire purpose. All the complicated principles and values and arguments moralities deal with are so that in the end they can say you should do this or that. The should is transcendent. From the perspective of these moralities you have to do what is right. It is not up for consideration. Allah is not suggesting you do this or that. He's commanding. Do it...or else. Same shit with atheistic moralities that draw on moral facts and principles, except they're not at all convincing. All they have to threaten with is the fact you'll be, "bad" in some cosmic fashion, but as I argue in my thread on this issue, that does not matter at all.

This is the nature of normative ethics. Descriptive ethics is not really philosophy. It's handled by the field, but it's more like sociology or psychology or anthropology with a philosophical bend. I mean, what Hume or Ayer or Nietzsche did is relevant to moral philosophy, but they were not moralizing. They were describing how morality (a field in philosophy) exists and came to exist.

untab

Hume was actually moralizing, but half-assedly.

[uglypeoplefucking]

It sucks, I"ll give you that, but how and why do the problems of people living on the other side of the globe become mine?

you're totally right, they don't become your problems, and no one expects you personally to do much about them, but that doesn't mean your government shouldn't be doing anything. i'm talking about how states should act, not how you should act.