no, that claim was yours… I merely illustrated when you said “True power is mastery of the will in furtherance of good choices.” you were putting the cart before the horse…
and here I agree with Hobbes… I have always maintained that freewill was a nice illusion necessary for moral consequence (in accordance with Hume) but it is not logically permitted…
the freedom to be as you are created to be… there is no freedom in that… true freedom would demand being beyond that which one was “created” to be…
justification through Aristotleian ignorance?
and it is pure hubris to believe that the bacteria lacks the freedom of will to decide how it acts to survive when by some miracle of biology humans have channeled it…
which cell group to attack next? which one? mmm question for whom?
We have no ‘true’ freedom? Or rather we have enough to be powerful but not moral? Power is inherent in the act as chosen by the will. To act one must be free enough to act. Otherwise what you would call power is simply position… nothing more. What we would consider moral and immoral is meaningless. It is not even decided by the so called powerful, it is decided by the universe that determines where each man stands in relation to all other men and things. It is to curl into a ball and lick the bootheels of Moira. It is not to struggle to survive, merely to accept that one exists. Continued existence requires more than tacit acceptance, it requires choice… thus we have a will and we have the power that comes from it.
If you can demonstrate how bacteria is capable of thought to the degree that it can make rational decisions, I will gladly amend my statement.
I did not say that bacteria lacks a will. I said, basically, that it lacks a mind capable of allowing it to make better, more informed, moral choices. You show me the bacterial version of a moral exemplar and I will again amend my words. I do not doubt that bacteria has a will, never once did I say nor do I seriously think you would argue that bacteria possess the congnitive processes capable of making moral decisions. If that truly is your contention then I must ask that you attempt to prove it. And again, all this aside, it may be for human beings the most harmonious thing possible is to not kill bacetria. This is according to our finite knowledge. If we had infinite knowledge we would know moral truth with complete and inarguable certainty, but then we would all be gods, and not have these sorts of discussions.
This seems to be your hobgoblin since you joined ILP (no offense meant). I will respond to this seperately, at a later time.
What would you have serve as a foundation? I take it you rule out empirical evidence?
No
again,
When you show that bacteria is capable of rational thought, that they can, for example, appreciate and follow the principles of logic and therefore can be reasoned with as human beings can (well, some of us anyway ) as it concerns moral matters then I will amend my statement. Since empirical evidence will not suffice for you, and since I must insist that it is rational thought that seperates humanity from bacteria, this will require you to either claim bacteria capable of such thought or to claim (as I think you want to do) that humanity is no different from bacteria (perhaps Humanity is not capable of rational thought… which would lead me to ask if my logic prof is an alien).
Another point
How can one have a preference to believe something without the will to do so? We prefer to believe that we have free will because our will is at least free enough to allow that preference (I mean preference as a choice, not as some kind of mood or fuzzy feeling). If there is no logical reason to assume we have freewill, there is no logical reason not to assume it. The will may or may not be manifest with experience, but it is most certainly manifest with existence. Don’t believe me? You are even free enough to choose to end the existence you have. If even this is determined explain to me how we can “prefer” to believe anything…
Exactly
You had wrote earlier…
Note the word decide. Which I take to mean involving some cognitive process. AS I can state it no more plainly:
I do not doubt that bacteria has a will. It is my contention that anything living possesses a will to survive. This will varies in intensity in human beings. I have no idea if it varies amongst individual bacteria. The will to survive grants the power to act so as to further one’s survival. That is the myopic view. The macroscopic view should include not only one’s own particular family but one’s species as well as other species and things that contribute to or impact our survival.
Unlike bacteria (as far as has been demonstrated to me) Human beings possess an additional ability to reason and think critically. This, in itself, can serve as a tool for the will to better increase the chances for survival. What is moral then, if we may call it that, are the acts we, through exercise of our wills and informed by reason, promote best and hopefully increase our chances for survival both as individuals and as a species. Our faculty for reason, being a part of us, and we, being finite creatures, is ultimately finite itself. There will be occassions when even when acting morally (as I have described it) we have limited or damaged our chances or our offspring’s chances in the future. The inverse may be true also. At best, however, genocide is still wrong as its practice denies life to others who may serve as no threat to our own survival and the practice itself creates conditions wherein our own survival may be threatened and it creates precedents and ill will that may endanger us or our offspring in the future.
yes, it is… produce this “mind” for us… (human or otherwise)…
you have to show it does not have rational thought… it does as you admit appear to make choices that sustain itself, that could be interpreted as being acting rationally…
your logic prof may indeed be an alien…
yes, the logical reason not to assume it is the logical truth that there is no necessary connection between events.
as I said, it is an illusion…
and this appeal to ignorance is fallacious… you have assumed that bacteria lacks that which you have not perceived, or that which you may have indeed perceived but misinterpreted…
are you certain that you want to adopt that moral standard?
especially that which is “informed by reason”?
survival as the ultimate standard bearer?
I have no problem with this, nor would Thrasymachus…
enjoy the flick, but look at your conclusion again…
genocide is wrong because of logical reasoning…
logical reasoning is wrong because of its finite nature…
but genocide is still wrong… (just because it could be wrong)
Clearly, this is what I deserve for trying to piece together an ethical theory from an odd assortment of various ontological, epistemological, political, and ethical theories. Still, something about it appeals to the skeptic in me, so, give me some time to think it over as well as your counter arguments and I will get back with you.
Edit: None of this was meant to distract from the original point of the thread. On what grounds does one secure the claim that Genocide is always wrong, that there is never no true moral justification for it? I would think it is an important question, and not so divorced from human history as to be disregarded.
Technically if you break it down, (im trying to see all sides here. Understadning is the name of the game). but, technically if you murder and entire race, to prevent them from becoming a threat to you, and you do it with out superfluous civilian casualties (relocation, camps ext.)
it is no different than killing a man coming into you’re house at night.
“the ends justify the means.”…and as horrible as it is, its true.
and economically it is VERY easy to justify a genocide. especially one where the victim at hand is a poor underdeveloped country, with a small army, and mild gold exports. (not to mention delicious paklavah)
One can justify anything if one wants to do so. Look at politics and economics. Tremendous inequalities, incredible unfairness, lots of unnecessary pain and misery (I’d rather be dead than be perpetually miserable, not that poor people are perpetually miserable) but it is justified each and every day…
Most leaders have to drag, people en masse are inherently conservative (the Titanic theory of history)
No I’m not. you claim he was a sadist, I claim he was a megalomaniac. The two are vastly different. You are saying that Stalin positively enjoyed the murdering and the persecution and the rest whereas I’m saying it was simply the means that were necessary to achieve his aims.
I don’t think you are particularly careful with your use of language but I’ll let you off because you are young.
If that were true they wouldn’t be shared by others, which they are, ergo…
As a theorist? What? Stalin wasn’t a theorist…
You are aware of communism, aren’t you? It is designed to obliterate the middle class, or more precisely the capitalist class (which at the stage in history at which Marx was writing meant the middle class)…
Well, the 20-40 million Russians helped us win the war, I don’t recall any tales of Josef taking up arms…
Morality has no place in politics. Politics is the art of the possible, not the just. That’s one reason why there’s a seperation between the executive and the judiciary institutions…
Not at all. Just because I carry an amusing line from Stalin in my signature doesn’t make me a Stalinist. Stop trying to pick a fight or I’ll make you regret it…
You’ve no idea what you are talking about, have you?
) as it concerns moral matters then I will amend my statement. Since empirical evidence will not suffice for you, and since I must insist that it is rational thought that seperates humanity from bacteria, this will require you to either claim bacteria capable of such thought or to claim (as I think you want to do) that humanity is no different from bacteria (perhaps Humanity is not capable of rational thought… which would lead me to ask if my logic prof is an alien).