Moral Rights

[Pleiades]

I have been interested in a phenonema recently. Its that people assume that the have the right to do something for someones own good. Which of course infringes on the other person rights. Maybe I should give an example :- the most common in the past seems to have been religion. Certain religions assumed they had the right to convert people for their own good as they obviosly had inferior beliefs.
This seems to have now extended to the political arena . Some countries now think that they have the right to save others from their "non democratic" forms of government. In the past you could have explained this as an invasion to just gain power over another country (eg NAZI's in europe or English in India ,USA in Japan). But isnt the Invasion of a country to impose your form of Government on them a contradiction on the whole idea of a Democracy .(allowing the people to decide). Its it just as bad as religious bigotry and overriding peoples right to the basic human freedom of determining there own road to spirituality/political maturity.
:beer:
THERFORE THE QUESTION
Is it moraly acceptable to either interfere / impose your (more advanced) political or (more moral) religious views on another country or person?

[Starfisher]

I will never live for the sake of another man or allow another to live for mine.

Who is John Galt?

[Langy]

I think we don't invade countries to impose democracies, we invade countries to impose virtual democracies using platforms that we like, and screw them if the people don't vote for the right people, we'll nullify the vote again and again until they vote for the right people.

Kind of like what we did before, such as (I believe) in Japan.

[Dyntheos]

I think we should only invade those countries that need democracy AND have lots of oil reserves that are potentially threatened due to non democratic governments running the place.

[Starfisher]

I hope someone gets my reference and thinks it through soon so I can go to sleep.

[SquidDNA]

Didn't he climb to the top of a mountain and never leave? Or I thought he sailed into the middle of the ocean. It was something like that.

No man is an island. It's about determining whether the effects of one person's behavior on another person (you) are acceptable. Only past the point of acceptability do you have the right to impose limits on someone else's behavior. Society itself is an attempt to agree on what those points of acceptability are, as Vaar reminded us on the gun thread (Social contract and all.)

Imposing limits on someone for their own good is, of course, beyond this.

[Dyntheos]

He has a web page called "waiting for John Galt" that well..never loaded. I think his server is screwed, but the irony was not lost as I closed the page while it was still trying to load.

[Pleiades]

hmm Some form of Scottish philosopher explorer .. but you had better explain it

[Retroboy]

To answer the question, as asked:

Political reasons, no.
Religious reasons, no.

For social and humane reasons, and for protection of your own way of life - yes, certainly. Some legitimate reasons for an invasion might include creation of stability to avoid their population from dying of famine, prevention of destructive hazards such as irresponsible environmental treatment that threaten your own country's population, or of course, pre-emptive self defense, such as the role of Canada in WW2.

-- Retro

[SquidDNA]

I could have sworn, actually, that he was a character in an Ayn Rand novel.

[Dyntheos]

Who is Ayn Rand?

[Langy]

She's a writer. The only novel I know of that she wrote was 'The Fountainhead.'

[Pleiades]

Retro .. sorry please explain the Canadian WW2 reference

[Langy]

I think he means Canada wasn't directly under attack, and so helped Britain & Co fight the evil nazi demonspawn in order to avert said demonspawn attacking Canada. EDIT: And so it was pre-emptive self defense.

[SquidDNA]

Or the activation of a defensive alliance?

[Mac_Bug]

As part of the commonwealth Canada was obligated to go to war whenever London declares it and for all intended purposes since the Queen of England is still the head of Canada I'd say we're still under obligation to do so despite being now independent of the british parliament.

[Pleiades]

Not sure .. I think that we now only have to go if we wish to if its them attacking someone .. but if they are attacked we are obliged to. (I wonder what happened in the Falklands war)
I think our PM used the alliance .. mutual defense provision of the AN(Z)US treaty for us helping chase the perps of 11/9
In theory I think America's alliances with England should have had them in WW1/WW2 years before they did .. but I am not sure

[Nurizeko]

I have been interested in a phenonema recently. Its that people assume that the have the right to do something for someones own good. Which of course infringes on the other person rights. Maybe I should give an example :- the most common in the past seems to have been religion. Certain religions assumed they had the right to convert people for their own good as they obviosly had inferior beliefs.
This seems to have now extended to the political arena . Some countries now think that they have the right to save others from their "non democratic" forms of government. In the past you could have explained this as an invasion to just gain power over another country (eg NAZI's in europe or English in India ,USA in Japan). But isnt the Invasion of a country to impose your form of Government on them a contradiction on the whole idea of a Democracy .(allowing the people to decide). Its it just as bad as religious bigotry and overriding peoples right to the basic human freedom of determining there own road to spirituality/political maturity.
:beer:
THERFORE THE QUESTION
Is it moraly acceptable to either interfere / impose your (more advanced) political or (more moral) religious views on another country or person?

no.

[Smaug]

I think it's wrong to impose someone elses views on someone. It makes me so angry when someone tell me what i should think and believe.

[Retroboy]

Smaug, but what if your neighbour believes it's culturally okay for him to beat his wife? :yech: As far as he's concerned, others that might stop him from doing this are imposing their will on him.

The line between "imposing your will" and "imposing your desire to protect those elements of societies that can't protect themselves" can be extremely blurry under some circumstances.

-- Retro

[SquidDNA]

"You can't infringe upon my right to infringe upon the rights of others!"

[Smaug]

Retro: ofcourse you have to follow the law, and things that is inhumane and against human rights is wrong. And this is a common agreement in our society.

In my earlier post I was based on a more sane and common situation where one impose his thoughts, will and beliefs on another.

[Retroboy]

Aah. You used the word "always", hence my reply.

-- Retro

[Moe]

Smaug: Well, what about different societies, in other countries perhaps?

[Accaris]

No one has any "rights;" that phenomenon is an ideal born out of humanism and simply doesn't hold weight in a real socio-political context, despite what hundreds-of-years-old pieces of parchment would have one think. The leaders of a nation should maintain the ability to make decisions based on necessity, functionality, or the analyzed naturality for the system in which they govern. If this means trodding on someone's "rights" for the health of the nation, so be it. Sentimentality should take a back seat.

In regards to how a group in power might affect other countries or populations, stepping outside the boundaries of one's own nation--unless in response to acts of aggression--is rarely necessary. Hiter's eredentism was disastrous for Europe, and Charlemagne's fanaticism helped extend the dark ages for several hundred years, for example.

[Retroboy]

...but Alexander the Great significantly advanced the progress of the human state in the world through his sweeping aside national boundaries, so there are also examples of where warfare has net positive impacts (granted, these are considerably fewer in number).

"Rarely necessary" is an accurate term. However, the question is about morality, not necessity. Regardless of the level of necessity, is it ever morally acceptable to invade?

-- Retro

[Accaris]

"Rarely necessary" is an accurate term. However, the question is about morality, not necessity. Regardless of the level of necessity, is it ever morally acceptable to invade?


You're talking about invading another nation, right? Its hard for me to disregard the necessity of invading and think only in "moral" terms. If we're talking about the mere act of invasion then no, that doesn't twinge my sense of morality; however, the resulting consequences of the invasion might (or might not.)

[Beelzebuddy]

Who is John Galt?John Galt is a fictional character in an incredibly pretentious novel that pretends to make its point by ignoring the downfalls of the author's system, ignoring the benefits of the "evil" system, and pretty much blaming all the corruption and evil in society on the lack of greed present in the world today. Apparently though, businessmen make great lovers. Happy?

There are two ethical strategems used in deciding moral decisions. Read up on ethics if you want detailed info, but here are the two basic approaches: Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) and The hierarchy of Rights, which I can't find a wiki page for but basically ranks human rights: someone's right to life trumps someone else's right to privacy, but it's never acceptable to kill one man to save another. I'm sure you all can google it.

[Darkhorn]

the fact of Euthanasia comes in to this topic is it right to end some ones life to help them u have the right to live and there for the right to die but is some one helping u a crime i think not

[Thalasion]

I know i shouldnt touch this topic with a 10 foot barge pole, but..... There is know black and white, yes or no, that line between right and wrong is just so blurry as to be impossible to define.

[Darkhorn]

so u r saying if i was to kill your mum (by the way has she started uni yet) that wouldn't be ronge

[SquidDNA]

Darkhorn, explain to me, in English using actual words, how killing Thalasion's mom fits anywhere into this thread.

[Darkhorn]

well going by human rights and then the right to live or die take in to it Euthanasia helping some one die and if that is right or rouge or be it against or with the human rights acts and then Thalasion said but there is no such thing as right or rouge so i was trying to give an example sorry if it went a small bit off topic

[Beelzebuddy]

Your writing makes my head hurt. I hope to God you're foreign.

You know, you can find places to check your spelling and grammar online, or use Word or OpenOffice. Please.

[Thalasion]

First off, Spellcheck! Back to topic, there are some things that are obviously right or wrong. Here enjoy this little chart;

Right - Wrong

invadeing
nazi germany - iraq(both of them)

self defense - killing my mum(dont know if shes started uni yet, ill find out on sunday
when i visit her)



Oh and hes 100% british.

[Darkhorn]

Thalasion u have a good point but that Contradicts your earlier statement

[Thalasion]

No i just phrased my earlier post badly, what i meant was when you get complex things like invadeing contreys, it becomes very hard to draw the good/bad line.

[Darkhorn]

that much is true and i think we r going slitly off topic

so the right to die is it aloud or not

[Dyntheos]

Darkhorn do not post in this thread again, or until you finish English writing lessons, that lift your spelling and grammar to a level that resembles that of a seventeen year old.

[Handarazuur]

Now who am I going to lambast?

In my opinion (because I have it, obviously), if a country wants to go in a particular direction, or worship a particular religion, and we don't particularly agree, we should do nothing. As long as their customs or beliefs or systems of government do not interfere with ours in the long-term, who are we to say theirs is wrong?

That's why this invasion of Iraq leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Okay, I'll admit, Saddam had to go. Even without possessing weapons of mass destruction, he was still responsible for the deaths of quite a large number of people, and was a very unsavoury character in the modern world. Still, can we safely say that introducing a democratic system will make things better?

[Alpha_1]

This seems to have now extended to the political arena . Some countries now think that they have the right to save others from their "non democratic" forms of government. In the past you could have explained this as an invasion to just gain power over another country (eg NAZI's in europe or English in India ,USA in Japan). But isnt the Invasion of a country to impose your form of Government on them a contradiction on the whole idea of a Democracy .(allowing the people to decide). Its it just as bad as religious bigotry and overriding peoples right to the basic human freedom of determining there own road to spirituality/political maturity.

Your reasoning is flawed here. The US attacked and invaded Japan because they would not surrender after WW2. Because of their 'god emperor' government they could or would not accept defeat. It was not because a democracy was going to be forced or 'suggested' to them, it was because they didn't know when to say uncle.

Had you use USA- Iraq I'd have had no problem with your statement, using Japan however was a flaw in your arguement.

[Pleiades]

Your reasoning is flawed here. The US attacked and invaded Japan because they would not surrender after WW2. Because of their 'god emperor' government they could or would not accept defeat. It was not because a democracy was going to be forced or 'suggested' to them, it was because they didn't know when to say uncle.

Had you use USA- Iraq I'd have had no problem with your statement, using Japan however was a flaw in your arguement.aha that was intended to trap a non student of History.
I wasn't refering to WW2.. I was refering to the Naval invasion of medieval japan to force them to open their ports to trade with USA. Which at that time was very agressively expanding it markets at the point of a gun ... Something it learnt from the British Empire.

The attack on pearl harbour was intended as a pay back for the insult and humiliation suffered. History repeats any student see the lesson I am trying to show re Iraq ..

Sorry I got you (a moderate) and not one of the Gung Ho brigade.

[Starfisher]

I could argue that all morals are relative, that there is no absolute right and wrong and all sorts of fun, disruptive stuff. But unfortunately, I have a lot of work to do and will be going home this weekend with plans to do something other than sit in front of a computer. Damnit.

Someday...

And yes, John Galt is a character in Atlas Shrugged, a novel in which Ayn Rand takes a thousand pages to tell us that socialism is bad and that industrialist tycoons are gods. Still, despite the books fundamentally flawed arguments, there are a few gems in there. Namely, the first thing I posted in this thread. There are people in desperate need all over the world, yet why should we help them? Because they ask us too? What do we gain from it?

Why should we intervene in Sudan? Why shouldn't we do something in Iraq? Intervening in the Sudan gets us nothing at all except a burden of aid and perhaps a source of cheap labor. Deposing Saddam gets us oil, in the long run.

Of course, a lot of people have to die, most of whom have no choice in the matter and no chance to escape.

America could, of course, basically say "Fuck you." and just do what it wants. The rest of the western world would take so long to formulate a response that by the time it acted America would already own, or own through proxies, the majority of the oil in the Middle East. It would be dealing from a position of power and despite all the posturing and treaties would remain in control of the oil.

Again, a lot of people would have to die.

So that's the balancing act, basically. This president probably saw the oppurtunity to make the grab while having very few, from a historical perspective, American casualties in the process. At least I hope that's his motive. A logical, calculated power move is far preferable in my opinion to a moral crusader.

Which brings us to the crux: Just what are you going to do about it?

[ÜberJumper]

If you disagree with the bully, expect to get punched in the face.

If you're the bully doing the punching, expect that you may just cut your knuckle on the punks teeth.

For those of you that haven't figured it out yet, the most powerful get to set the rules.

[Alpha_1]

Ah, in that light I understand.

However I'm one who believes the US needs to take all the food, money, troops, and hardware and send it home. Once we eliminate hunger, need, and crime from our shores perhaps we would have a solid ground to stand on when providing help where asked.

But other governments want that money and power that goes with it so that isn't going to happen.

[Starfisher]

How would we eliminate need without eliminating sloth and the welfare state? Unless everyone is willing to earn their lives they don't deserve them and are just dragging on the rest of us who do.

[Xenocide]

Wow, Uber that coming from a fellow Canadian....

In any case the application of morals to the realm of international power politics is something that is not only difficult but in some ways pointless.

Earlier someone brought up the Canadian participation in WW2 as an example of pre-emptive self defense. While we can argue whether or not this was a case of PESD it does not end there.

Let's assume that entering into WW2 on the side of Britain was a moraly "right" decision. Does that mean that Canada's participation in the Allied Combined Bomber Offensive*** (see note at bottom) is also morally right, by extension? The bottom line is that what we do as a nation or international community will be judged right or wrong not by slippery morals but by history itself.

I think the problem in our modern age is that we have become obsessed with the idea of a benign or bloodless war, and thus have lost the national or international fortitude to pursue a conflict to its proper end.

In the case of Germany, the Allies made a partial peace (armistace) with a partially humbled enemy in 1918 and were forced to fight them again 20 years later. That time Germany was totally and absolutely defeated as a nation capable of making war, whether it was morally right or not.

Today a coalition led by the US has defeated the Saddamite regime in Iraq. They have not, however, properly occupied the country in a manner that would a llow stability, peace and a civil society emerge thus facilitating a transition to democracy.


***(an operation that flattened or rearranged 60 major German population centres, resulted in untold loss of civilian life and has been since proven to have served no real strategic advantage.)

[Paladin]

All moral choices are aesthetic when you get down to it.

Yes, that's from Interview With the Vampire, and yes I'm too lazy to check the actual quote.

-Paladin

[ÜberJumper]

Xenocide... just stating the facts.

Those (be it an individual, a group, etc) with the most power (physical, economic, popular etc) in a given situation are in charge.

[Xenocide]

Nah its just that alot of self-righteous Canadians don't like saying that kind of thing. It sounds to "American".

[Starfisher]

I always thought Americans were thought of as arrogant for saying arrogant stuff. Not stating facts.

hmm...

[DaZep]

I agree with Uber. Whoever has the biggest stick is morally right. If you don't agree, you may find yourself on the recieving end of said bigger stick.

But

The thing about sticks is, you can always make a bigger one.

[ÜberJumper]

Or try to take the stick away.

If the person is physically strong, don't get involved in a test of strength for example

[OldManLugnutz]

There are no 'moral' reasons for invading a country, that is until its finished. If the situation in IRAQ was better, people would be saying "It was a good idea to go with war with them" because it turned out alright. But it didnt, that's why everyones' having ago at Bush, he took a risk at it didnt go well. It wasn't right to go to take that much of a risk (about the weapons) without a clear knowledge of how well it would go. He could have waited until he was sure, those who would have died under Saddams torture died all the same, except by US/UK bombs.

Saying that, at least he tried to make the world a safer place by getting rid of Saddam, and if more countries had helped the occupation would be going better (if we used a UN security force it would, those trained to occupy, not troops trained to fight and kill).

The bobming of Dresden in WW2 by British forces was wrong because thosands of civilians died. But if those deaths were soldiers the guilt would have been easier to bear.

So going back to my first point, no-one can say whether a war was wrong or right until its over. So unfortunately, the end seems to justify the means.

[Retroboy]

I agree with Uber. Whoever has the biggest stick is morally right.No.

Whoever has the biggest stick has the best ability to impose their morals, and as per the other popular quote, gets to write the history books. This does NOT make them morally right - that's a decision that is measured differently by different people.

When the strongest bully in the playground steals your lunch money, he is NOT automatically morally right, even from a majority perspective. That's way too simplistic.

-- Retro

[Kheturus]

I will never understand moral relativists. In fact, I can't think of a more absurd viewpoint.

There is an absolute basis on which to base your ethics. The fact that all intelligent people acknowledge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proof of this.

As far as invading countries goes. It is moral to do so if there is a severe and recognizable danger to your own country that cannot be avoided unless you take military action. The other possible reason is if human rights are being so grossly violated that stepping in and starting a war is the only way to stop it. It was on the first premise that the US went to war with Iraq, and the second which it used as a back door. We can see now that the first premise didn't exist in Iraq, and I think that a lot of people would like to debate whether people are better off in Iraq now. I personally think they are, but I also think that there are many better places in the world where the US could have started a 100 billion dollar war in the name of human rights.

[Xenocide]

Its fun to pretend that the framework we have built under the United Nations since the end of WW2 can form the basis for moral judgements. The problem is that the UN as a collection of envoys from various national governments is at least as corrupt if not more corrupt than than your average goverment.

Moreover the declaration of human rights is usually applied to international situations (such as genocide in Africa) by two groups:

1) Bleeding heart, saviour of humanity types; looking to weep over the monumental injustices of human existance and decry the need for such wanton waste of precious life.

2) A government which in order to fufill its goals uses the human rights framework provided by the declaration as an acceptable means to interevene in a situation where it would be otherwise unpalatable by the public/mass media/international community.

To one group the declaration is a useful rhetoric tool, the other it serves as an excuse to whine about the folly of man.

In the world of International Political Law the rule is 90% politics, 10% law.

[Accaris]

I will never understand moral relativists. In fact, I can't think of a more absurd viewpoint.

There is an absolute basis on which to base your ethics. The fact that all intelligent people acknowledge the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is proof of this.



Saying that "all intelligent people" recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is completely laughable. On what horribly skewed (and painfully subjective) information are you basing that assumption? The declaration of human rights is a decidedly liberal, globalist, American-inspired political declaration that was created as an extreme reaction to the events of World War II. I'd say 99% of the leaders who "believe" in its tenets (or rather, ackowledge them for the press) have personally violated over half them in their policies. What did people believe before it? I guess they just weren't ethical. :Slap:

[Paladin]

There is no morality, absolute or otherwise. There is no right and no wrong. There is strong, weak, survival, death. There's a matter of how much you personally can stomach, but like I said, that's purely aesthetic.

The world is made up of predators and prey.

-Paladin

[TheDeadlyShoe]

A large portion of the "food aid" sent by the US is in actuality cheese that would otherwise spoil. God only knows why we make tens of millions of dollars of cheese more than we can ever actually use.

Double Post

Kheturus, you bemoan the evils of 'Moral Relativism' and then engage in a bit of it yourself. That, of course, demonstrates the folly of condemning it.

[DaZep]

No.

Whoever has the biggest stick has the best ability to impose their morals, and as per the other popular quote, gets to write the history books. This does NOT make them morally right - that's a decision that is measured differently by different people.

When the strongest bully in the playground steals your lunch money, he is NOT automatically morally right, even from a majority perspective. That's way too simplistic.

-- Retro

Morallity is subjective. From the bully's point of view, he is right.
So was Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam and George W fucking Bush. :D

[Pleiades]

Hmm I am very pleased class .. very good discusion



I for one do believe there are absolutes .. like not killing people.. protecting children etc , we all feel a moral outrage by the events in Russia.

I could give several reasons for this

. a biological imperative .. we all wish to protect our genes and off spring

.. a universal and absolute trueism . If all the religions we have invented have certain shared concept doesn’t that make that concept universal to our species

… or taking the religious side .. the concept is universal because it comes from god



Take your pick … I actually go with the biological one (that’s today .. tomorrow I will be different)



I hope we are more than Predator and prey .. there is much more in the hierarchy of our needs than Kill or be Kill

[Moe]

Each person has his own individual set of personal moral values. This set is hierarchical, i.e. some values are more important to you than others. While you usually share a lot of values with other people in your family/town/country, the position of those values on each person's list is a little different. They differ from person to person and on a larger scale from country to country.
These values also change due to outer circumstances. When you get lost in a desert food and drink suddenly become more important. After a hurricane shelter might suddenly be your prime concern.
There might be a few values shared by most people in this world, like the value of preserving your own life. However, this too may change due to certain external influences, an example would be a parent giving his/her life to save their child, or somebody deeming it necessary to become a martyr.

I don't know if a common subset of values exists for every person, but I am fairly certain that if such a subset exists, that those values do not take up the same position on each individuals' personal "top 100 of moral values."

[Retroboy]

From the bully's point of view, he is right. That's an assumption, and I have a specific case where it's an incorrect one, and I bet there are lots of others.

I remember sometimes picking on other kids in my school years for entertainment value, while fully realizing it was wrong and that I'd have to stop under other circumstances. I'd bet a lot of bullies have other emotional factors or needs that override their morals in the short term, but they still acknowledge that what they are doing is not "right", even according to their own standards.

-- Retro

[Pleiades]

Right on Moe Thats what I was alluding to " Maslows Hierarchy of needs" .
If Your upper needs ... survival is fulfiled you them move down/up pyramid to others food /shelter etc. We are not just Kill or Killed .. we are higher than animals.

But what about one of my central tenetes that people with their Political systems are just like people with their cars / religions . They need to convert people to their beliefs to confirm thier own choice. That trying to convert people to democracy is just as bad as trying to convert peopel from budhism to christianity. The might makes right stuff is really only a side issue. Capitalism is only better than socialism if measured against the ideals of capitalism (wealth > social good) . Christainity is only better if measured against its ideals (religion as institution vs the individual road to Enlightonment)

[Moe]

Well, trying to convert people to democracy isn't necessarily good, however trying to prevent genocide might be. This is because the former is just a set of our values, whereas the wish to live and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever you want to call it, seems to be a common value for most people, therefore maybe justifying intervening into a Nazi-like society.

[Retroboy]

There's also the political pressure TO respond to such situations. From what I understand, the Jewish population of the United States has a powerful presence in american politics, and many of them have some interest in the doings in the middle east, which undoubtedly influences american policy with respect to that region. Ditto the fundamentalist Christians, with their leanings that may include things like helping starving coutries or responding to humanitarian situations.

Governments don't really have morals, but in democracies, their constituents do.

-- Retro

[Pleiades]

My premise is that its not right to even invade a Nazi or Genocidal regime unless asked . But humanitariam aid is ok . However if any regime goes out side their borders they are fair game.
But noone has tackled the religious side.

[Retroboy]

The question then becomes - "who asks"? iirc, in WW2 and with respect to the concentration camps, nobody was listening.

And (with the exception of a slight reference on my part) nobody has tackled the religious side because it's pretty much universally agreed that invading another country for purely religious reasons is unacceptable.

-- Retro

[charlesesl]

Excellent thread.
For a pure moral perspective, it is never right to impose one's view on others. People's ethic is determined by their surroundings, so what is right for one group of people is wrong for anther.

However, in the real world this is not what it is all about. Ever country justify their invasion as a liberation. And since the west have a natural tendency of thinking themselves as "the superior" this kind of view is accepted by the public.

My personal pholosophy is to just live and let live.

[Vaarok]

I've personally found that it is often best to be slightly on the offensive, since people tend to encroach upon the passive wether they know it or not. Just enough to remind people you exist and have your own opinions that may not be theirs.