The reasons for war
michael falconer
out of bed the wrong side and said, to heck with it, lets invade Iraq!
So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not? Whats
wrong with invading other countries?
Surrender Monkey
news:bve83h$rjl07$1...@ID-139795.news.uni-berlin.de...
> does anyone know why we decided to invade the country of Iraq? Maybe TB
got
> out of bed the wrong side and said, to heck with it, lets invade Iraq!
Perhaps TB got out of bed and said, "to heck with it, lets liberate Iraq!" A
worthy cause?
> So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
Whats
> wrong with invading other countries?
Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
Where you get your morality from can be defined by your beliefs,
experiences, own judgement and the society you live in. We all form our own
moral judgements, even those who seek guidance from their God or Gods. For
some reason we all seem to have a free choice. So the answer to your
question of 'whats wrong with invading other countries?' is simply nothing
and everything.
What answer does God give through the Bible?
Surrender Monkey II
Gareth McCaughan
[Michael Falconer wrote:]
> > So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
> > Whats wrong with invading other countries?
>
> Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
wrong.
> Where you get your morality from can be defined by your beliefs,
> experiences, own judgement and the society you live in. We all form our own
> moral judgements, even those who seek guidance from their God or Gods. For
> some reason we all seem to have a free choice. So the answer to your
> question of 'whats wrong with invading other countries?' is simply nothing
> and everything.
It looks as if you're attempting to deduce from "we all form
our own moral judgements" (which is clearly true) that some
form of moral relativism is correct. I can't imagine how that
inference is supposed to work.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Surrender Monkey
"Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:87ad44g...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> "Surrender Monkey" wrote:
>
> [Michael Falconer wrote:]
> > > So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
> > > Whats wrong with invading other countries?
> >
> > Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
>
> No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
> it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
> are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
> realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
> wrong.
>
One person may argue that Capitalism is immoral because it exploits people.
Another may argue that Capitalism is moral in that it defines a higher
order; a society with rules by which we the majority can benefit and live in
relative safety. To both their position is an actual fact, but by your
argument neither is right or wrong as the answer changes depending on whom
you ask.
In the eye of the beholder they are right and the other is wrong, it does
depend on their viewpoint.
> > Where you get your morality from can be defined by your beliefs,
> > experiences, own judgement and the society you live in. We all form our
own
> > moral judgements, even those who seek guidance from their God or Gods.
For
> > some reason we all seem to have a free choice. So the answer to your
> > question of 'whats wrong with invading other countries?' is simply
nothing
> > and everything.
>
> It looks as if you're attempting to deduce from "we all form
> our own moral judgements" (which is clearly true) that some
> form of moral relativism is correct.
Are you suggesting that morality is only relative within the perception of
the individual? From this you could deduce that as long as someone lives
within their own morality then anything that they do cannot be immoral.
Surrender Monkey II
Gordon Hudson
news:bve83h$rjl07$1...@ID-139795.news.uni-berlin.de...
Apparently George Bush told him to.
Laurence Jupp
> Hi Gareth,
>
> "Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87ad44g...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>> "Surrender Monkey" wrote:
>>
>> [Michael Falconer wrote:]
>> > > So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
>> > > Whats wrong with invading other countries?
>> >
>> > Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
>>
>> No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
>> it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
>> are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
>> realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
>> wrong.
>>
> One person may argue that Capitalism is immoral because it exploits people.
> Another may argue that Capitalism is moral in that it defines a higher
> order; a society with rules by which we the majority can benefit and live in
> relative safety. To both their position is an actual fact, but by your
> argument neither is right or wrong as the answer changes depending on whom
> you ask.
I think your argument must be incomplete as it seems to me that, as it is
written above, it can just as easily apply to the question of whether
or not the earth is flat. Certainly some people claim that it is not
flat because of Magellan and those pictures from space and other people
claim that this so-called evidence is nothing but illusion. Your
argument appears to be that an absence of consensus implies that the
problem is subjective but I assert that this might just mean that some
people are right and others wrong. I think you need a better argument if
you wish to show that there is no objective morality.
BTW, do you really hold to a complete moral subjectivism? For example,
do you believe that whether or not it is right or wrong to kill and
torture people for fun depends upon the person you ask? Is there really
nothing intrinsically wrong with cruelty - it's just that I don't happen
to approve of it? And surely moral subjectivism implies that there is no
such thing as moral improvement. If, for example, a person repents of
his murder and torture and spends the rest of his life helping the needy
then we cannot say that this is an objective change for the better as
good and bad are simply points of view. According to some people,
helping the needy might be much worse than murder and torture. All we
can say is that the person's morality has changed.
--
Laurence
Gareth McCaughan
>> [Michael Falconer wrote:]
>>
>>>> So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
>>>> Whats wrong with invading other countries?
>>>
>>> Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
>>
>> No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
>> it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
>> are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
>> realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
>> wrong.
>
> One person may argue that Capitalism is immoral because it exploits people.
> Another may argue that Capitalism is moral in that it defines a higher
> order; a society with rules by which we the majority can benefit and live in
> relative safety. To both their position is an actual fact, but by your
> argument neither is right or wrong as the answer changes depending on whom
> you ask.
I need to make a distinction here. There are two ways in which
the answer to a question can depend on whom you ask. Firstly,
people don't always get things right. If you ask lots of people
"Who was the 3rd president of the USA?" you will probably get
a variety of answers, even among those who think they know; but
of course this is a matter of fact and not only of opinion.
Secondly, some questions don't have factual answers, usually
because they don't have clearly defined meanings that can be
separated from individuals' perceptions or preferences. For
instance, "Who made better music, Haydn or the Beatles?" or
"Is that coloured thing over there blue or green?" (if it's
some sort of turquoise-y colour).
So, just because you get different answers to a question by
asking different people it doesn't follow that there's no
right answer. Some of them might be wrong.
Now, as to capitalism... Each of your hypothetical people has
given a composite answer to the question "Is capitalism moral?".
The second halves of the answers, which I'll paraphrase as
"Capitalism leads to exploitation" and "Capitalism provides
a stable basis for society", are almost certainly things that
are true or false even though there will doubtless be
disagreement about them. The first halves, "Capitalism
is immoral" and "Capitalism is immoral", may or may not
be either true or false. They might be neither even if
some sort of moral realism is correct, because "capitalism"
is a rather broad term; perhaps some forms of capitalism
are good and others bad.
> In the eye of the beholder they are right and the other is wrong, it does
> depend on their viewpoint.
If there's no way to answer the question that doesn't essentially
depend on someone's viewpoint, and if those viewpoints vary a lot,
then there is no right answer to the question.
>>> Where you get your morality from can be defined by your beliefs,
>>> experiences, own judgement and the society you live in. We all form our
>>> own
>>> moral judgements, even those who seek guidance from their God or Gods.
>>> For
>>> some reason we all seem to have a free choice. So the answer to your
>>> question of 'whats wrong with invading other countries?' is simply
>>> nothing
>>> and everything.
>>
>> It looks as if you're attempting to deduce from "we all form
>> our own moral judgements" (which is clearly true) that some
>> form of moral relativism is correct.
>
> Are you suggesting that morality is only relative within the perception of
> the individual? From this you could deduce that as long as someone lives
> within their own morality then anything that they do cannot be immoral.
No; I thought you were suggesting that. (If you weren't, then I
don't understand what you meant by "So the answer ... is simply
nothing and everything".) It looked to me as if you were trying
to deduce that "morality is only relative within the perception
of the individual" from the fact that different people have
different ideas about morality; I don't think that deduction
is justified.
Four Kilo
<gareth.m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>"Surrender Monkey" wrote:
>
>[Michael Falconer wrote:]
>> > So who can we invade next? Korea? Syrai? Iran? After all why not?
>> > Whats wrong with invading other countries?
>>
>> Whether it is wrong or right depends on your moral viewpoint.
>
>No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
>it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
>are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
>realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
>wrong.
Realism or absolutism?
You see, it might be wrong under ONE circumstance and right under
another. Hard and fast rules always get humans in trouble.
One of the things Jesus came to do was to break down the concept that
it was absolute, and always this way or that.
Confusing I know but...
Gareth McCaughan
may possibly be something like Zvi Sabbatai, wrote:
[I said, concerning invading Iraq:]
>> No; that is not possible. If moral realism is correct, then
>> it's right or wrong and that's an actual fact about how things
>> are; it doesn't change depending on whom you ask. If moral
>> realism is incorrect, then it simply isn't either right or
>> wrong.
>
> Realism or absolutism?
> You see, it might be wrong under ONE circumstance and right under
> another. Hard and fast rules always get humans in trouble.
I was taking it as read that the particular instance in view
was the invasion of Iraq, which, if moral realism is correct,
was presumably either right or wrong. (I suppose it might
happen to be exactly balanced in between.) It's quite true
that something more vaguely specified like "invading another
country" might not be morally decidable without a lot more
information.
Would "Hard and fast rules always get humans in trouble" be
a hard and fast rule, by the way?
Phil Saunders
news:bvja3n$lpf$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
710 Reasons. Although I may have that upside down and backwards :-)
Phil
Peter Davey
> Would "Hard and fast rules always get humans in trouble" be
> a hard and fast rule, by the way?
Generalisations are always wrong, Gareth.
--
Peter Davey
(I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.)