Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
Precisely.
All pretense of morality is baseless so long as we operate within a flawed moral system.
-
*sigh*
This is a semantics argument and therefore meaningless. Fine. You can define a nation as a body of people. But a nation has a history that the body of people do not - namely, the nation existed before the body of people that currently inhabits it. Moreover, the conditions by which the current body of people live are direct results of that history. The same is true of the rest of the world that the nation affects.
If a nation is reborn each time a new generation comes, then you'd have a point. But this is patently untrue. The life span of a nation is far longer than that of a single generation, and the history of a people defines that people and their identity. You can't simply take the goods of that history and ignore the bads. Again, though you might not be personally responsible (and indeed I regret ever taking this analogy to the personal level), it's absurd to assume that moral systems are time-independent. Just because something occured in the far past does not mean its repercussions do not define the modern world. As such, any moral system that assumes innocence-by-birth and, at the same time, exists in the context of a world that does not give equity of birth - is inherently flawed and unrealistic.
For this reason, when the UK (for example) argues against imperialism by developing nations, even while it is reaping the benefits of its own imperialism, it is hypocritical to those nations' eyes. If you can't see that this is a legitimate classification, then you have to ask yourself this - why should any nation obey moral laws when it's clear that by disobeying them, you can benefit yourself and still be righteous after but a single generation?
Such is the argument made by the self-righteous conquerors of the world: history will justify the winners. It will erase the losers. I cannot accept any system as moral, that does not have an argument against this claim.
-
That's ridiculous.
By your definition, any body of people forms a nation. If that's the case, I declare the Obsidian Forum Community as a nation. Now where's my army?
-
A nation is, however, a body of people.
I don't agree and I've made the argument as to why elsewhere.
It's reductio ad absurdum to assert that nations are just bodies of people. That just about ignores everything one should know about a nation.
-
The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?
You, as a person, can't. Your nation, however, can. The intersection with you lies in nationalism. If you're a nationalist, which means that you identify with your nation, then you can (and indeed I argue it's your obligation) to feel guilt over your nation's deeds. If not, then there's no connection.
When US nationalists deny other nations the right to do what the US did a hundred years ago in order to get to where it is now - that's a form of hypocrisy. You might argue that the moral incentives have changed, but when moral incentives are defined by the victors - that' s a hard argument to make.
-
That's shame, as I said.
However, that's not guilt.
and I agree it's better than the alternative
How can you feel shame over what you didn't commit?
-
Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing. That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right."
No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting.
So who runs the court of nations?
Again, might makes right.
-
The only moral impasse occurs when you use your logic, because all nations on the earth would be guilty of something despicable. What happens then?
Acknowledgement, regret, and thereby progress?
Better than the alternative.
-
again, how far you wanna take this? a thief put his kids through college with money he stole from peoples. you want the great grand children of the thief to pay reparations?
nuts.
Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing. That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right."
If a moral system cannot explain the hypocrisy of nations, then I could hardly call it a realistic system under which to make correct rational decisions.
-
see a grimy homeless guy begging on corner and some people "feel" guilty for not being poor. people "feel" guilty that their brother or sister ended up in prison, and they ended up as a doctor or lawyer. people "feel" guilty for all kinds o' things that often ain't their fault.
HA! Good Fun!
Fair enough, I misinterpreted you. Let's go back to the argument of whether their nation is guilty, then.
-
that is asinine reasoning. hypo: Joe Smith is a mass murderer. he gets away with murder and then dies quiet and peaceful of old age. azarkon then wants to hold great grandchildren of Joe Smith responsible, 'cause if not the grandchildren, then who, right?
bah.
Does Joe's grandsons reap the benefits of Joe's murders? If so, then the same moral impasse is reached.
Why should they benefit from his crimes and yet not be held accountable?
-
Hypocrisy is the condition of being guilty of an action, thought, or attitude and yet arguing for the opposite among others. If you believe that Americans can be guilty, then they certainly can also be hypocritical.
-
If the criminals' descendants are not accountable, then who is? God? Nature? History?
You end up in a moral impasse - clearly a crime has been committed, but no justice can ever be done. A moral system that espouses such scenarios as necessary conditions is inherently problematic. It encourages its own violation, as people feel grievances that they cannot address but by comitting more crimes.
As such, I tend to see the nation as a broader and more historical entity than a collective of individuals; this view is more on par with what is reflected in reality, as people, when rationalizing their choices, tend not to talk about nations as groups of individuals but as historical entities.
-
and you would be correct if you did so. maybe you feel bad for what your father ofr grandfather did, and maybe you wanna make it right for those people your grandfather wronged, but the day they start sending the children and grandchildren of war criminals to prison for the sins of their relatives is the day you may have a point.
Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is.
I do not believe that a nation, from the perspective of morality, is simply a group of living individuals. Such a view ignores history, and in the process fails to explain why two groups vying for supremacy can, simultaneously, be justified. As such, it fails to explain the basic underlying psychology behind why many people feel justified in taking another's land, even while the possessors of said land feel justified in defending it.
In essence, I don't think the world operates by a realistic moral system. A system of morality that assumes innocence by birth, and yet acknowledges the fact that the actions of one generation echo through all of history, is inherently unrealistic. You cannot expect people to operate by the rules of such a system, because its rational application specifies that to gain an advantage, all one has to do is commit crimes and maintain them for one generation's time.
In fact, that's exactly what happens, but such a stance is clearly immoral and defeats the point of having moral safeguards in the first place. It's no wonder that the Western mind is, today, more unprepared than ever to face reality.
-
well now here is where we disagree. is it hypocrisy for US to impose morality on others it did not observe as it rose to ascendency? perhaps, but Gromnir weren't alive back when the US were committing genocide. like it or not, the US has power to influence on a global scale, and if we simply allow bad things to happen the world over simply 'cause some old dead white guys did similar things 100 years ago or for fear of being called hypocrites, then we would be something far, far worse.
It's still hypocritical. If I invaded my neighbor's house and kicked his family out on the streets, and then decided that my children has the right to that house and that it's evil for my neighbor's children to take it back because kicking neighbors out of houses is no longer moral under my watch, I can see why his children would get seriously pissed for being forced to live on the streets for something I did a generation ago. Doesn't mean that my children are wrong to defend the house if attacked, but my moral justification just got alot weaker.
Sure, I can argue that my children aren't responsible for my sins, but if they benefit as a result, while others suffer for the same reason - what can I say about my morality? That might, in one life time, makes right for all eternity? Clearly this isn't going to fly, so what we actually get is, indeed, a viscious cycle of people getting kicked out of houses, and a depreciation of moral values.
What is it about human nature that has compelled us for so long to follow this one path? For how much longer is this going to be the case?Some argue that it's the basic instinct within every living organism.
Sometimes I think that as a race, humans are being tested to see if we can coexist harmoniously.Nah. Nature isn't so righteous. Whether we coexist harmoniously with each other, wipe the other out, or are mutually wiped out - doesn't really matter. If every human being died tomorrow, the world would still go on.
The choice, if it exists at all, lies with man.
-
Fact of the matter is that power talks and might makes right. What liberals have concoted in the Western moral consciousness - ie indigenous right to land, etc. - are justifications ex post facto - much as any people in the ancient days would assume their own rights to the land of their dwelling, except on a larger scale and applied "universally." The truth is that the West, and indeed any powerful civilization/empire, will do what is in its current best interest. For a nation that has already established its preeminence, that means keeping the status quo - and that means moral justifications against anything that might threaten it. For example, other countries that want to rise to superpower status in a similar fashion (that is - through imperialism and conquest). Just the same, for any nation that is not currently in a position of preeminence, the only real choice is to change the status quo - either economically (China, Russia) or militarily (Iran, NK, etc.) More often than not, this requires breaking with the rules set by the currently ascendant powers, as those rules are bound - necessarily so - to preserve their own interests.
The history of the world is writ in blood and is in no way "fair." Most people recognize this. What people no longer recognize is that the same rules that governed men of old govern us now, and that nothing essential has changed except the name of the victor and the methods he employ to control the losers. Yesterday it was outright imperialism in the form of the European Empire. That method became obsolete when Europe collapsed under WW2. Today it's American neo-imperialism in the form of economic control, corporatism, and the "subtle" hand of political influence. Tomorrow it'll be something different, but changes in ideology and methodology do not change the underlying fact, which is that if you're weak, prepare to be exploited.
It's sheer hypocrisy to deny other nations the right to do as the West did in its ascendance (conquest and imperialism), but that's the compromise life gives ya - either we control the world or we are controlled by it. The neocons, to which much of the current administration's policies can be attributed, identified correctly the American Problem: how do you make the 21st century a New American Century as opposed to, say, a Chinese Century, an Indian Century, or doggone it a Multi-polar Century? It's better to control history, they reasoned, than to be controlled by it - and that's what got us to where we are now.
-
Who knows, somebody might succeed some day. Evolution in action...
Indeed. And that's actually a good argument for why so-called "rogue" states (or any state that is not part of the American nuclear umbrella) feel compelled to develop advanced weapons capabilities. Our ex-Secretary of Defense once asked the question - why should countries like China expand their military capabilities, when no one threatens them? His implication, of course, is that those countries are developing their arms because they intend to threaten others. But the real answer is that every country is a threat to every other, and so long as there exists an imbalance of military power wherein one people has the ability to wipe out another without them having the ability to do the same, there will always be a push for more and bigger weapons.
It's the basic instinct of survival.
-
Very well: if you believe that we owe allegiance to a country, rather than to a government, is it so preposterous to say, then, that if a person believes that a war is against the principles upon which the country is founded, they should evade the draft associated with said war?
What do you gain by serving in a war that you believe is the antithesis of what your country should stand for? By the same token, how do you know that when someone resists the draft they are doing so out of laziness or selfishness, as opposed to doing so on principle?
Yes, it is more cowardly by far to escape the draft by fleeing to another country, than it is to resist the draft by allowing yourself to be arrested. Yet, given the alternative of serving in an evil war, either of these would be preferrable. In the former, at least you're not part of the problem, while in the latter, you're clearly part of the solution.
As I've said, it's easy to criticize rules and motives when one is warm, safe, well-fed and on the inside looking out. Those rules and motives may not seem so sinister when one is cold, frightened, hungry and on the outside looking in.You claim that I misconstrued your comments as being patronizing, yet this thought here is precisely what I'd consider the epitome of a patronizing attitude - ie you imply that those who disagree with you are children of priviledge ignorant of the depravity by which the rest of the world lives, and whose comments should therefore be brushed aside as mere naivete.
If that isn't the impression you wanted to give, then I suggest you respect opposing viewpoints without assigning preconceptions to the people behind them.
Moreover, though you might think that it's necessary for the government to do what it's doing in order to maintain the luxurious American way of life, that is far from being a given. With the gap between rich and poor ever enlarging, I'd argue that much of what the government does today serves to benefit only a small segment of American society, who exploits not only the rest of the world, but American citizens, towards the maintenance and increase of its own priviledge. Does "jobless economic recovery" mean anything to you? It should, because it's a symptom of what's happening.
If the government really wanted to benefit society in general, there are much better ways to spend money than on either the War in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan, both of which will do more harm to us in the long run than investing in, say, education or employment. If I did not believe this, I would not be arguing with you. And of course, even beyond these arguments of what's the best thing to do for America, there's the more pressing moral question of what's better for the world. It maybe that, in some twisted way, the American way of life demands other people's suffering. If this is the case, then duty to one's country men might have to play second fiddle to duty to mankind - if this were a cut and dry matter, I'd be working towards the destruction of American priviledge right here and now. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, this is not a given and I'm not convinced that the whole world can't live like the average middle-class American if the right policies were adopted.
-
So how do you express your displeasure with a government that has made a decision you disagree with? Do you become active in your society, joining organizations that fight for political positions you agree with? Do you (if you were drafted, which is the topic of this thread... ) put your money where your mouth is and serve your time in the brig rather than in a war you don't like? Or do you merely sit back and take what you want from the country, using the "I disagree with the government" excuse to avoid giving anything back in return?
I'm curious - what exactly do you take away from your country? Your sense of an individual owing the greater society makes little sense given that in a capitalist society, the doctrine of enlightened self-interest governs the way things are run. People do not establish policies because they have a sense of duty towards you; they do so because it benefits themselves and allows for mutual existence. The wealth of the first world nations does not come from a group of altruistic ancestors who wanted to better your lot; the wealth of first world nations come from people who wanted to better themselves and their own children. It is to your lineage, if anyone, to which you owe your allegiance.
From this perspective, the only people who do not contribute to society are those who live off of welfare with no reason for doing so. Anyone else, be it worker, business man, artist, or scientist - contributes to society by virtue of self-interest, since their works increase a society's wealth and its assets. As for the increase of social progress, why you'd have to go to the activists, intellectuals, and movement leaders, many of whom do - indeed - speak out against the war. Thus, if there indeed exists a debt to which you owe society, this debt is paid by virtue of your living as a productive individual. Therefore, the duty of military service not in defense of country is an extraneous requirement that must be justified on a case to case basis.
I do not expect to change your mind, of course. Your patronizing attitude towards ulterior viewpoints makes it obvious that that you hold your values with the same constancy as I hold mine. Truly, our values are more the product of tradition and upbringing than rational discussion, but I am curious, nevertheless, as to the reason behind feeling such a sense of duty towards your community. It is a good attitude to have, normatively, and I'd otherwise support it - but it seems that in your case the vehemence is turned more towards the people than the government, which is highly odd since it's the community that you owe a duty to, not the government (which, after all, is supposed to be representative of the people; though, these days, it's more a coterie of elite, power-hungry politicians than anything else). No one can possibly leech off of the government, because the government's coffers come from *you*.
And the community's will, in this case, has been expressed - the Iraq War sucks and we want a change of government. How you can possibly call these people lazy and spoiled is beyond me. What must they do in order to be "worthy" of their society? It is, after all, their society - not the government's - and seeing as it's a society built upon greed and (enlightened) selfishness, I can't see how you could possibly argue that what they're doing is wrong.
-
If I were drafted, I would serve my country to the best of my ability. I wouldn't line up civilians and slaughter them, but I am not naive to the realities of war. If one is not willing to fight for one's country, well, there are a lot of countries out there. Choose another one.
I'm deadly serious. When a country is at war, real war, its citizens shouldn't have the luxury of deciding whether they will participate or just take the benefits that others will bestow upon them through their own sacrifice. I hate the Iraq war. I believe it to be a massive mistake. Yet people I care about are serving there, and doing their level best to perform their duties, whether those duties are trying to enforce security in the midst of chaos (yes, yes, a chaos that wouldn't exist if they hadn't been sent there in the first place, but that is a discussion for another thread) or rebuilding schools and hospitals and trying to get decent water and electricity to ALL of Iraq, not just the Baathist areas in and around Baghdad, which was the only place Saddam offered these nice little perks of civilization.
Maybe it's old school, but JFK was right. People who only take the good stuff from their country without being willing to give back to it, whether they refuse to give back under the guise of "personal morals" or just plain lazy selfishness, should find another country, one that they care enough about to be part of society rather than just a drain on it.
That argument only applies if you chose to join a country, as opposed to being born in it, and having no choice as to whether you can leave it (people in the US are often unaware of how priviledged they are in this respect, being able to generally freely move between the US, Canada, and various EU countries).
And even if you do choose to join a country, that argument would only work if the war in question was a war in defense of those aspects of that country that you joined it for. It's one thing to fight a war in defense of the place you chose as home and of the qualities that made it your choice, another thing altogether to invade some other people's home in an effort to force your values upon them.
Sorry, but nations exist for the benefit of the people; there is no nation without the people, and JFK is dead wrong if, by what he said, he meant that people should serve the country unconditionally. People should give back to the community around them - to the people with whom they share the world. People should not give back to corrupt, war-mongering governments utilizing lies and deceit to safeguard their own interests.
Truly, I find it ironic, at times, the contradictions that exist within American society. On one hand, you have this whole individualist framework that condescends upon collectivism - that, indeed, believes that what a person is is wholly the result of his or her own efforts; yet, on the other, when it comes to military service it's all "serve your country - it's your duty." Why? If, in a capitalist society, it's every person for themselves and what a person accomplishes is solely the result of his or her struggles, then what does said person owe to his or her country?
Nothing - that's my view. People should fight in defense of their freedom, their happiness, and their way of life; they should not fight out of some abstract sense of duty. Ideological democracy is one of the most dangerous inventions of modern nationhood, for it confuses loyalty to one's country with loyalty to the government of that country. When a country is under threat not by outside forces, but by its own power-hungry elite, then it is most certainly not your duty to serve in the demolishing of other people's homes - and your own rights.
Indeed, it is your duty to do otherwise.
-
No, but it could be argued that everyone who participates in the war, forced or otherwise, elongates and reinforces it. Even if you're just a medic, your presence allows other soldiers to fight, which means that you're indirectly fighting, even if you don't engage in it.
But then, one can also argue that anyone in a country that goes to war is, in part, responsible for its perpetuation as if the people in said country decided to no longer support the war, it'd be - ideally - over. This is what brings about the notion of total war, where in a major war, everyone fights and are, therefore, targets.
My advice for a unpopular war is to evade the draft, preferrably without adding to the prison overcrowding problem if you can help it - unless you also want to make a statement, and think that it'll be heard. Fighting for your country without believing in it isn't worth the sacrifice, and if said war does become unpopular afterwards it's likely society won't even remember that you performed a duty. From an individualist's standpoint, duty to a government ends when said government ceases to represent your interest; your own mileage may vary, but there's a line for everyone that, when crossed by a government, should absolve you of duty.
-
After KOTOR 2, the following development postmortem was posted http://gamedeveloper.texterity.com/gamedev...r/sample/?pg=38
Are we going to get something similar for NWN 2? I would really like to hear dev responses to some of the major player complaints with respect to the game, as it's been the general impression that unlike KOTOR 2, NWN 2 had plenty of development time...
-
I think his point is that modders should skip NWN 2 and either go back to NWN 1 or mod Oblivion, instead.
Problem is... NWN 1 is dated, the Oblivion engine is largely incapable of storytelling and party mechanics (the most important aspects of the NWN franchise), and NWN 2 is not nearly as bad a game as he makes it sound.
-
You've expanded your initial post. At first you made the flat statement that if a soldier disagreed with a particular mission, he/she should simply "quit the service." That statement was ludicrous, since most people understand that one does not simply "quit the service." That is called going AWOL and is a court-marshal offense. It appeared to me you expected soldiers by the tens of thousands to simply present themselves for court marshal and spend a few years in the brig before you would personally support them.
That is still true. Support and respect are two different things. Soldiers make their decisions as necessary and I'll respect those decisions if they're reasonable; doesn't mean I will support what they're doing - and hence them - in a war.
The only way to get my support is to not fight in the war - ie to quit the service, regardless of the consequences. That does not mean that only soldiers who quit the service & face court marshal are worthy of my respect, or that I think that this is practical or reasonable for them to do - it's simply the fact of the matter in terms of how much I can support soldiers in a bad war.
Though, to be fair, people don't usually join the military during peacetime because they support/disagree with a future war, and by the time they can make that decision it's too late. But that's the problem with keeping around a professional army. I assume that soldiers who partake in such service know what they're getting into - and have weighed the moral consequences. I assume, with even more certainty, that people who choose to enlist in the army after the war's started are confident that their moral choice is correct. That is why I cannot support them - because I do not think that they're fighting for the right reasons (at least in the case of Iraq).
It's true that many soldiers block out the whole "killing people" aspect and focus on the "helping people" side of things when deciding whether to join the war, however. This is unfortunate, as it's the reason good people fight in bad wars. But then again, the Army is not the Red Cross - people should've been aware of that when joining.
Ah, of course. Being female, my pesky emotions just keep cropping up. Thankfully there is usually a big, strong, emotionless-and-therefore-superior male around to publicly point out such flaws.
Who said anything about gender? Males are just as capable of allowing emotions to get the better of them, and if you think I meant anything other than what I said, think again. Gender does not factor into it, nor this discussion.
Why does US, Canada, and Mexico own North America?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Realpolitik is the reality. The question is how we can define a way of acting that is consistent with that reality, while being an improvement over it. My argument is that only the victor willingly follows the system of morality we have now. For the defeated to follow it, there must be some account for historical wrongs and a guarantee against it being twisted by victor's justice.
Can you come up with a moral system that, when followed, can satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered? If not, then it's hard to claim any moral objectivity with regards to foreign policy. Yet, moral subjectivity (more commonly called moral relativism) is widely regarded as being unacceptable.