15 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaOne possibility is that one or more of Stalin's core moral values are faulty in some way.
But what is the basis of your value judgment behind these things?
Every single system needs to be embodied with a value judgment.
For instance, if I am of the general opinion that people are rather nasty and out to get me, I am going to make decisions that are far different than if I am of the opinion that [i]people are generally good and deserve ...[text shortened]... simply has a different realm of moral judgment and a different set of starting values than you?
For example, he probably thought that killing people for some sort of perceived higher purpose was permissible.
You might respond by asking me to prove that my values in this respect are superior to his, which I can attempt to do, to a point...but I will end up at some foundational moral axiom, such as "suffering ought to be avoided if possible".
16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemBut if there is no objective morality... How can someone have a faulty core moral value?
One possibility is that one or more of Stalin's core moral values are faulty in some way.
For example, he probably thought that killing people for some sort of perceived higher purpose was permissible.
You might respond by asking me to prove that my values in this respect are superior to his, which I can attempt to do, to a point...but I will end up at some foundational moral axiom, such as "suffering ought to be avoided if possible".
Isn't it quite normal to say that killing people for a higher moral purpose is permissable? Indeed, this is the entire premise of war.
Something tells me that you would not have opposed a war of liberation against duh Nazis.
16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @pudgenikJust suggest stuff to them... give them options and info. They'll make the right decisions most times.
i cant totally agree with you, because in all things, there always seems to be a stick in the mud.
I guess you can think of it this way. one mans garbage is another mans gold.
the American Revolution. to the british, a terrible war they lost, to the americans, a great victory. to the Americans, it was forced, and very positive.
In my own children, ...[text shortened]... she is beautiful) (kids wont hear dads as much as they hear from others, what does dad know) lol
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaThe fault finding is subjective, that's how.
But if there is no objective morality... How can someone have a faulty core moral value?
Isn't it quite normal to say that killing people for a higher moral purpose is permissable? Indeed, this is the entire premise of war.
Something tells me that you would not have opposed a war of liberation against duh Nazis.
It's more normal that it should be. War is justifiable only in self defense. My sense is that most wars aren't morally justified and that most people override their own moral judgment and support those wars anyway.
The war against the Nazis was for self defense and thus justified.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemIt has been a long while since I have dealt with this topic, but the philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out that most wars, even 'wars of offense,' are almost always defensive by nature. Stephen Pinker also agreed with this very much.
The fault finding is subjective, that's how.
It's more normal that it should be. War is justifiable only in self defense. My sense is that most wars aren't morally justified and that most people override their own moral judgment and support those wars anyway.
The war against the Nazis was for self defense and thus justified.
If an enemy exists at your doorstep that is capable of inflicting grievous harm on you, it is not enough that you entertain some tentative balance. You have to push for an advantage. Pre-emptive war is logical, because "offense is the best defense" (Sun-tzu).
Much of the wars in history were things naturally coming to a head because the growth and prosperity of peoples were stifled by one another.
Capitalist economies have ocnvinced many people that "all boats rise together" and that it is not a zero sum game, but as the economies the world overall cool, and growth really comes to be seen as finite... the faith in this idea is vanishing, and we are returning to more classic mindsets about growth and resources -- a mindset in which we are not necessarily all friends.
17 Sep 18
That just is to say... "Wars of defense" as the only justifiable wars is not realistic, unless we include very liberally that most wars are "wars of defense" and they can't be prevented...
And even still.. No idea how this is "objective" truth, and grounds from which we can criticize people who differ.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaSurprisingly, I don't agree...but since it seems we're not actually offering any justification, I'll leave things at that.
That just is to say... "Wars of defense" as the only justifiable wars is not realistic, unless we include very liberally that most wars are "wars of defense" and they can't be prevented...
And even still.. No idea how this is "objective" truth, and grounds from which we can criticize people who differ.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokalia"But if there is no objective morality... How can someone have a faulty core moral value? "
But if there is no objective morality... How can someone have a faulty core moral value?
Isn't it quite normal to say that killing people for a higher moral purpose is permissable? Indeed, this is the entire premise of war.
Something tells me that you would not have opposed a war of liberation against duh Nazis.
Their moral code is evaluated by the majority and if it differs from the consensus then it is deemed wrong.
Where do you get your morality from?
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaThese last 2 paragraphs seem like an admission that war is aggressive by nature rather than passive.
Much of the wars in history were things naturally coming to a head because the growth and prosperity of peoples were stifled by one another.
Capitalist economies have ocnvinced many people that "all boats rise together" and that it is not a zero sum game, but as the economies the world overall cool, and growth really comes to be seen as finite... the ...[text shortened]... ic mindsets about growth and resources -- a mindset in which we are not necessarily all friends.
If you disagree, can you make a distinction between self defense and aggression as motivations?
Have there been ANY historical wars that you would deem unjust?
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemJustification, on any level, is largely absent on this forum. Still doesn't stop people from imagining they are actually winning points. Sad
Surprisingly, I don't agree...but since it seems we're not actually offering any justification, I'll leave things at that.