22-02-2003 06:52									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

	22-02-2003 06:53									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: There is nothing that is ethically big in a decision to accept or refuse the draft.

Certainly there is. You are refusing to be forced to go kill people who have done nothing in particular to harm you. That is very ethical, and very moral.

	22-02-2003 06:53									#33
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel You're generalizing with no basis. Look, it's cute that you support the anti-waronIraq movement, but we're talking generally, here.

Is my post not speaking in general manner, comrade? There are heros from the realm of combat as well, for example Guevara is a hero who relied on fighting to accomplish his goals. But inevitably, minor heros who used peace to better the world are far greater than even the most noble of the heros who were misled into using violence, such as the Guevaras and so forth.

	22-02-2003 06:56									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

Military victories are never truly ethical. They may be ethical insofar as they create a world that is probably superior to the one that would have been present were they defeated. But ultimately, they are intrinsically inethical in that they relied on force of arms to accomplish their means.

	22-02-2003 06:56									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

I don't see military victory as ever being "ethically positive". It's all just war games.

	22-02-2003 06:58									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Military victory is ethically positive IF AND ONLY IF the victor is the power who was attacked without provocation, and IF AND ONLY IF the victory came about without immoral coercion, such as forcing people to fight or pay for the war.

	22-02-2003 06:59									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: But inevitably, minor heros who used peace to better the world are far greater than even the most noble of the heros who were misled into using violence, such as the Guevaras and so forth.

So there have been both, but you cannot generalize and say that people that are using military means are unethical, and those who are using peaceful means are ethical.
The fact is that these are two different axis, since in many times, the use of force is what is required.

quote: Certainly there is. You are refusing to be forced to go kill people who have done nothing in particular to harm you. That is very ethical, and very moral.

even if it is a war of self defence?

I'll continue tomorrow. goon night.

	22-02-2003 07:01									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: even if it is a war of self defence?

Correct. Self defense is only OK if it is voluntary - no one is forcing you to defend yourself or others, and if you aren't forcing others to pay for your decisions.

	22-02-2003 07:15									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Military victory is ethically positive IF AND ONLY IF the victor is the power who was attacked without provocation, and IF AND ONLY IF the victory came about without immoral coercion, such as forcing people to fight or pay for the war.

So if the U.S. was invaded, it would be unethical for it to raise taxes to fund military defense?

	22-02-2003 07:15									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Azazel So there have been both, but you cannot generalize and say that people that are using military means are unethical, and those who are using peaceful means are ethical.

Ah, but comrade, by their nature they are completely different things. They not moral shades of grey, they are black and white. War and peace, there could hardly be greater polar opposites. Even if one side is fighting for a cause that is probably for the betterment of humanity, and the other is fighting for one that is probably to the detriment of humanity, the "good" side is not morally justified in defeating the "bad" side through violence. There is always a way to subdue forces of evil through nonviolent means. I know that thinking such things in this world is probably a good way to get locked up in a mad house. But I can assure you that it's true. An absolute "turning of the cheek" philosophy, a philsophy of peace without compromise is the only truly moral thing for humanity. Being the good guy in a war may be of relative moral superiority, but it also is inevitably immoral.

quote: The fact is that these are two different axis, since in many times, the use of force is what is required. even if it is a war of self defence?

Mr. Floyd may argue that a war of self defence is morally justified. I say that no war, under any circumstance, whether of a defensive nature, or against a clearly evil foe is morally justified. The common arguement is that Germany and Japan HAD to be fought, or the world would be ruined. Obviously Germany and Japan were bad, bad countries bent on world domination. But there is always a way to win without fighting. Anything and everything is possible at all times. Moreover, when you are on the side of peace, you have on your side a force much greater than any army.

quote: I'll continue tomorrow. goon night.

Good night comrade.

	22-02-2003 07:22									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: So if the U.S. was invaded, it would be unethical for it to raise taxes to fund military defense?

Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions.

Monkspider,

quote: Mr. Floyd may argue that a war of self defence is morally justified. I say that no war, under any circumstance, whether of a defensive nature, or against a clearly evil foe is morally justified. The common arguement is that Germany and Japan HAD to be fought, or the world would be ruined. Obviously Germany and Japan were bad, bad countries bent on world domination. But there is always a way to win without fighting. Anything and everything is possible at all times. Moreover, when you are on the side of peace, you have on your side a force much greater than any army.

I agree with most of what you say, but surely you wouldn't argue that it is immoral to defend yourself or another, right? Likewise, in the case of Hitler, it would not be immoral for an American to voluntary join the RAF in order to fight mass murder, so long as that American did not force any other Americans to fund his choices.

Now, there's the additional argument that ENGLAND shouldn't have even been fighting Nazi Germany, and I would certainly agree with that. Therefore, it was also immoral for the UK government to tax its own citizens to support the war, or to support the American volunteer.

However, I CAN envision a situation in which it would be OK for the American to go overseas. If Nazi Germany had attacked Great Britain, and the British were conducting the war morally (ie, no taxes, no draft, no price controls, etc.), then it would be OK for an American to volunteer, and be funded by voluntarily donated British money, or, obviously, his own.

	22-02-2003 07:29									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions.

You're the president of a Libertarian paradise that is everything you have ever hoped for in a country. Suddenly, an evil communist dictatorship invades your country with a superior military. The only hope of winning is by raising your military, and you don't have enough money.

You appeal to the people. They, being libertarians, tell you to go away, taxes are evil.

So, you'd let your paradise fall to the communist dictatorship?

	22-02-2003 07:30									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions. Monkspider, I agree with most of what you say, but surely you wouldn't argue that it is immoral to defend yourself or another, right? Likewise, in the case of Hitler, it would not be immoral for an American to voluntary join the RAF in order to fight mass murder, so long as that American did not force any other Americans to fund his choices. Now, there's the additional argument that ENGLAND shouldn't have even been fighting Nazi Germany, and I would certainly agree with that. Therefore, it was also immoral for the UK government to tax its own citizens to support the war, or to support the American volunteer. However, I CAN envision a situation in which it would be OK for the American to go overseas. If Nazi Germany had attacked Great Britain, and the British were conducting the war morally (ie, no taxes, no draft, no price controls, etc.), then it would be OK for an American to volunteer, and be funded by voluntarily donated British money, or, obviously, his own.

I applaud your peaceful nature David. But no war, including one of self defense or against someone as evil as Hitler is morally justified. There are always peaceful means to accomplish the same ends. As I said, anything and everything is always possible at all times. While it may seem preposterous to suggest that Hitler could have been defeated without violence, I need remind you that without violence there would have been no Hitler. If there were no World War I, there would have been no Hitler. If the Versailles treaty were more concillatory, and not so vengeful, there would have been no Hitler, and even once Hitler conquered France and seemed unbeatable, there is always ways to win without the use of violence or murder. We are just not used to looking for them.

	22-02-2003 07:54									#44
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Boris,

quote: You appeal to the people. They, being libertarians, tell you to go away, taxes are evil.

That is not what would happen. Faced with invasion, people would certainly voluntarily donate to defense.

monkspider,

Let me ask you a basic question. If someone comes up and physically assaults you, personally, do you believe it is immoral to defend yourself?

I suspect that our difference of opinion is that you're a pacifist, and I am anti-coercion, which is almost, but not quite, the same WRT war.

	22-02-2003 07:59									#45
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd monkspider, Let me ask you a basic question. If someone comes up and physically assaults you, personally, do you believe it is immoral to defend yourself?

David, defending yourself is fine, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Blocking a punch, or running away are the best things to do.

	22-02-2003 08:10									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I vote for those who fight, so those of you who are coward can be coward.

	22-02-2003 08:11									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd That is not what would happen. Faced with invasion, people would certainly voluntarily donate to defense.

That is what happens, in this scenario. You don't think it hasn't happened before where people haven't acted with selfishness, even though it ultimately would be to their harm?

We'll just say that some do, but not enough to meet your war needs. Now, what do you do?

	22-02-2003 08:13									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by monkspider David, defending yourself is fine, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Blocking a punch, or running away are the best things to do.

If someone is attacking your girlfriend, with the intent to kill her, and you are standing too far away to intervene in time, but there is a gun and you would have a clear shot at the man without risking her, are you telling me you'd not take the shot to try and stop him from murdering her?

	22-02-2003 08:18									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: David, defending yourself is fine, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Blocking a punch, or running away are the best things to do.

What if you are cornered, or someone is trying to mug you? Personally, I see no problem with anything necessary to defend oneself, up to and including smashing their face into the street.

	22-02-2003 09:06									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If someone is attacking your girlfriend, with the intent to kill her, and you are standing too far away to intervene in time, but there is a gun and you would have a clear shot at the man without risking her, are you telling me you'd not take the shot to try and stop him from murdering her?

That's such a play on emotions Boris, and you know it!
There are always means to prevail without violence, even in the most extreme of situations such as this one. I could pull the old "what's that?" distraction trick, giving my girlfriend time to flee, or the old "your shoe laces are untied". Who knows? These examples may be silly, but there are truly infinite ways. Of course, the best thing to do, instead of waiting for these things to happen, is to try to build a world free of violence by encouraging love, peace, and understanding.

	22-02-2003 09:16									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The ultimate pattern to follow for these situations is Jesus. He was beaten, insulted, spitten upon, nailed to a cross yet he demonstrated nothing but love, righteousness and human maturity. He blesses His executioners with a boundless love as they brutally take His life, and He prays, "God, forgive these men!" They are children at play, unaware of the truth. "They know not what they do."

That level of maturity is THE paradigm that we should all strive for.

	22-02-2003 09:19									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I seem to recall Jesus chasing the moneylenders out of the temple with a whip. Was that non-violence?

	22-02-2003 09:25									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Gandhi was a hero, and he chose not to fight. Mordecai Anielewicz was a hero, and he chose to fight. So stop the generalizations.

Exactly. Are you a hero because you are wiling to give your life to defend your values...
Or are you a hero because you are willing to give your life to defend unpopular values...

	22-02-2003 09:33									#54
	Suffering from ads?

What is a hero. Is there (can there be ) a universal definition ?

	22-02-2003 09:40									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think a true hero is someone who acts, with morality and fairness, on behalf of a just cause.

	22-02-2003 09:42									#56
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I seem to recall Jesus chasing the moneylenders out of the temple with a whip. Was that non-violence?

Interesting point Boris, here is what happened.
6) The courts had been converted into marts of trade, and men were selling lambs and doves for offerings in sacrifice.
7) And Jesus called the priests and said,
Behold, for paltry gain you have sold out the temple of the Lord.
8) This house ordained for prayer is now a den of thieves. Can good and evil dwell together in the courts of God? I tell you, no.
9) And then he made a scourge of cords and drove the merchants out; he overturned their boards, and threw their money on the floor.
10) He opened up the cages of the captive birds, and cut the cords that bound the lambs, and set them free.

So essentially a temple had been turned into a market, so Jesus drove out the capitalists, overturned some tables, and let some animals free. It would appear that Jesus did find a nonviolent solution to this problem in that no one was harmed. Jesus was perhaps a bit stern with them in the same way a father might discipline a son. However, it was done with love, and ultimately helped these people learn an important lesson.

	22-02-2003 09:46									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Driving people out of a building with a whip, overturning tables in the process, is an act of violence. If a father went after his son with a whip, I'm willing to bet you'd consider it violence.

Does the violence only apply to human beings? Or other living things, too?

	22-02-2003 09:50									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by JCG I think a true hero is someone who acts, with morality and fairness, on behalf of a just cause.

I'd agree to that definition. Will others ?

	22-02-2003 09:58									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Even biblical scholars believe there is a case for violence in self-defense:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html

quote: THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth ("The LORD of hosts"--Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints--nor even Jesus--are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14). Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense. Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others. Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

	22-02-2003 10:04									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Driving people out of a building with a whip, overturning tables in the process, is an act of violence. Does the violence only apply to human beings? Or other living things, too?

Ideally, all living things. Unfortunatly, not killing that giant spider in the bathtub is a difficult test for even the best of us.
Since humans do have a certain degree of preeminence above other species, a certain background of killing animals purely for purposes of food is acceptable. So long as it is not done wastefully. Hunting for sport and so forth is immoral.

Back to the temple question, Jesus harmed no one, he simply disciplined them in a stern manner. Jesus didn't attack anyone with the whip. He freed some animals, which is always good. He overturned tables, which is harmless. And he drove them out of a temple. Consider this, if you came home one day, and there were some weird guys selling watches in your apartment, so you grabbed a bat and chased them out. That wouldn't be violent, since violence, by it's definition, implies harm to someone else, it would simply be stern. In short, Jesus' didn't harm anyone, he taught them an important lesson, and saved some animals.