Why does US, Canada, and Mexico own North America?

[Azarkon]

That's shame, as I said.

 

However, that's not guilt.

 

and I agree it's better than the alternative

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can you feel shame over what you didn't commit?

[kumquatq3]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So who runs the courts of nations?

 

Again, might makes right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Better than the alternative.

[kumquatq3]

That's shame, as I said.

 

However, that's not guilt.

 

and I agree it's better than the alternative

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can you feel shame over what you didn't commit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel shameful that the US put Japanese-Americans in interment camps. I didn't do it tho. neither did my ancestors (first generation).

 

The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A nation is, however, a body of people. If three generations on you assign guilt to a nation, you assign guilt to it's people.

[kumquatq3]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not hypocrisy, because the people have changed, the people make the government.

 

So if the people that are objecting are innocent of such actions, they can't be hypocritical

[Azarkon]

A nation is, however, a body of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[kumquatq3]

A nation is, however, a body of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't disagree more. It always comes back to the people.

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

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?

[kumquatq3]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Am I gonna have to hold your hand and walk you through it?

 

No, those people must first want to be a nation.

 

 

Everything else is secondary and meaningless without the people behind the nation. Land, laws, etc etc, It's all nothing without the people behind it.

 

 

EDIT: Land isn't even necessary. There are plenty of so called "nations" that arn't tied to a body of land.

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

*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.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

You know what, it's agree to disagree time, except to say that "history" does not "define that people and their identity". Their actions do. I suppose the break is right there.

[Cyric]

The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You, as a person, can't. Your nation, however, can. The intersection

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vae Victus

[Azarkon]

Precisely.

 

All pretense of morality is baseless so long as we operate within a flawed moral system.

[Pop]

I don't get your definition of realpolitik as a "moral system". If anything, realpolitik requires the lacking of any moral considerations. But I don't really know if acting on what's "right" by our own standards is really an option. If that were the case, we'd be "liberating" North Korea and Iran, and thus putting ourselves at some risk of nuclear attack, which isn't very wise.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Pop

[kumquatq3]

Precisely.

 

All pretense of morality is baseless so long as we operate within a flawed moral system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Morality is baseless, as it is subjective! Hence the majority "rule" on it, as you have been saying.

 

Since you are imperfect, just by being human, you technically can never never be sure your morals are correct.

 

Hence it falls to the groups to define right and wrong.

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

I don't get your definition of realpolitik as a "moral system".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[kumquatq3]

also, will this board learn that dropping Latin phrases does not automatically win an argument or make you smart?

[kumquatq3]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Cyric]

You know what, it's agree to disagree time, except to say that "history" does not "define that people and their identity". Their actions do. I suppose the break is right there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That is a contradiction in terms. History is essentially the catalogue of actions perpetuated by individuals / groups of individuals/ nations in the past.

 

These actions/histories have cascading effects. They dictate if you will; the current state of reality.

 

Besides one mans justification is another

[kumquatq3]

You know what, it's agree to disagree time, except to say that "history" does not "define that people and their identity". Their actions do. I suppose the break is right there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That is a contradiction in terms. History is essentially the catalogue of actions perpetuated by individuals / groups of individuals/ nations in the past.

 

In the past, correct. I was pointing out that the statement could not be correct and as far as I can tell, you seem to agree.

 

While history may influence the present, it does not do so nearly to the point of eliminating free will.

 

By this I essentially mean the descendants of a people who in the past have been conquered, will always seek to rectify the weaknesses of their ancestors.

 

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

[Azarkon]

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective."

 

But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective.

[Cyric]

also, will this board learn that dropping Latin phrases does not automatically win an argument or make you smart?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The purpose of the Latin phrase I provided was relevant to the statement it was appendaged to. In no way did it infer aspects of intellectual superiority over others participating in this discussion, on my part.

 

I am free to express my self in as long as I do not directly insult anyone.

 

There is certainly no need for your agitation / implied inferiority just google the Latin phrase if you can't understand it.

 

Peace.

[Pop]

also, will this board learn that dropping Latin phrases does not automatically win an argument or make you smart?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're talking about realpolitik, it's a term that is german in origin. Even if it was latin, I don't see how it's being used to win any argument or make anyone look smarter. We should be winning arguments using our reason, not our language.

 

*edit - Ah, n/m.

 

Nevertheless, I'm still a bit confused as to this whole discussion. I'll have to look back on it from the beginning. Gimme a few.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Pop

[kumquatq3]

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective."

 

But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Claim to be? I claim to have a Lotus in my driveway, that doesn't make it so.

 

Neither does declaring something unacceptable make it untrue.

 

 

The only way for morality to have a base is for it to be agreed apon by a group with the ability to enforce it. It's still subjective, however.