Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

[Carinthium]

Since in practice War Crimes Tribunals are pulling law out of their metaphorical asses anyway, no legal training would be required to figure out what to do in them. The questions here are really ethical ones anyway.

The scenario is acting as one of the judges trying each of these defendants at a War Crimes Tribunal.

Meta-Scenario:
A Federal country, Maristan, has a constitution in which all powers not delegated to the Federal Government explicitly are given to the states. The country has about an 80% majority of people considered to be ethnic Marists, with 20% consistent of the minorities put together.

Racism by the Marists against the others is a long-standing tradition, to the point it makes the 1960s South look saintly by comparison- although the Reformist movement (which would agree with Western cultural norms on such things) exists, it's popularity is comparable to the Australian Greens- basically a minor party not very noticable. A gradual transition was in process towards ordinary Western values for approximately a generation, chiefly occuring amongst the rich and academia of the country- however the racism is still as bad as described.

Maristan's traditional enemy is Karaks, a "proper" Western nation on its borders. Maristan is not a member of the United Nations.

One of the states, Durakstan, decided to begin a policy of genocide against the minority groups in the region (totalling about 200,000 people). Durakstan had a 95% majority Marists, which is why they did it and not other states. Because this was entirely legal under the Constitution as ruled by the Courts, by literal meaning, and by intentionalist interpretation, they were not stopped. In response, Karaks invaded and exploited internal tensions to conquer Maristan. Many Maristani generals defected, contributing to the defeat.

Several possible "defendants". (NOTE: Obviously there are a few cases that are far more clear-cut. Assume that these are the most controversial of all the cases)

A: The Prime Minister of Maristan. When told about the genocide, the Prime Minister considered intervention but soon afterwards faced a Court ruling that the extermination was entirely legal. He then decided that, whatever his views on the matter, he would not act to stop it despite disagreeing with the measure.

The ruler of Karaks sent an ultimatum to the Prime Minister. He knew that the Prime Minister had sufficient support amongst the armed forces that if he wanted to he could stop the genocides and get away with it politically- he thus threatened to declare war unless the Prime Minister did so. The Prime Minister had previously been planning to attempt political negotiations with Durakstan to try and stop the genocide. Under the circumstances, he replied that as Prime Minister, he would not pull a coup de tat against his own country, in defiance of democracy and the Constitution. The war started accordingly.

The Prime Minister's defence is that he did not directly influence the genocides. He played a major role in the war effort to ensure they took place, however- soldiers under his command defended the extermination camps from attack.

B: The Premier of Durakstan. The Premier did not want the extermination to take place at all, but lacked the support in Cabinet. Threatened with being deposed and his career ruined, he decided to let the majority in Cabinet have their way. However, he refused to play any direct role in the genocide and never made an active decision to contribute to it happening.

C: The Minister of Minorities in Durakstan, directly in charge of the extermination. Ironically the leader of the Reformist Party, he knew that the extermination would go ahead no matter what he did because of his party's relatively minor role in a Coalition government. He thus decided to cooperate and did everything he could to make the killing as painless as possible, a fact he is at pains to point out.

D: A soldier known by the popular name of the Great Butcher. Notorious for overseeing the extermination of over ten thousand people, the Great Butcher was in fact conscripted into the role. By military law, refusing to obey an order carries the penalty of being burned alive (reduced to shooting at the discretion of a superior, but only in emergency and battlefield cases). The Great Butcher is at pains, of course, to point this out. He ended up exterminating far more effectively than others due to a natural talent for the job, however. The Great Butcher claims he acted to the best of his ability because his immediate superiors were well aware of his administrative talents and would see through any attempt to hold back.

E: The head of the Supreme Court of Maristan. He played no role in the genocide except to rule that it was legal. However, by an intentionalist interpretation OR a literalist interpretation OR an interpretation based on Maristani common law up to that point, he was right.

F: The lawyer who acted for the State of Durakstan. Relevant in this case because, despite the Head's insistence, the Supreme Court almost ruled the genocide illegal (most likely for reasons of compassion). This lawyer put massive pains and effort into this case, primarily out of the feeling that it was his duty as a lawyer to do his best for his client no matter what the circumstances. It is primarily thanks to him that a majority of the Maristan Supreme Court was swayed to genocide.

If you were a judge or otherwise in an posistion to influence the case, what would you think of each of them? And how would your rulings change if the state of the law was as it was prior to World War II, rather than it's modern variant?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you were a judge or otherwise in an posistion to influence the case, what would you think of each of them? And how would your rulings change if the state of the law was as it was prior to World War II, rather than it's modern variant?

Here we go.

The Prime Minister of Maristan. When told about the genocide, the Prime Minister considered intervention but soon afterwards faced a Court ruling that the extermination was entirely legal. He then decided that, whatever his views on the matter, he would not act to stop it despite disagreeing with the measure.

Long prison term. His troops defended the death camps, but did not otherwise participate, not did he directly participate in the genocide. However, the acceptance of the genocide itself, and his participation in the war make him culpable.

B: The Premier of Durakstan. The Premier did not want the extermination to take place at all, but lacked the support in Cabinet. Threatened with being deposed and his career ruined, he decided to let the majority in Cabinet have their way. However, he refused to play any direct role in the genocide and never made an active decision to contribute to it happening.

I presume he voted against it, and used what ability to act that he did have to sway others even if he lacked support. I would put him through the equivalent of a de-nazification program and release him.

D: A soldier known by the popular name of the Great Butcher. Notorious for overseeing the extermination of over ten thousand people, the Great Butcher was in fact conscripted into the role. By military law, refusing to obey an order carries the penalty of being burned alive (reduced to shooting at the discretion of a superior, but only in emergency and battlefield cases). The Great Butcher is at pains, of course, to point this out. He ended up exterminating far more effectively than others due to a natural talent for the job, however. The Great Butcher claims he acted to the best of his ability because his immediate superiors were well aware of his administrative talents and would see through any attempt to hold back.

Public hanging.

E: The head of the Supreme Court of Maristan. He played no role in the genocide except to rule that it was legal. However, by an intentionalist interpretation OR a literalist interpretation OR an interpretation based on Maristani common law up to that point, he was right.

He was right, yes. However, he forgot one part--and perhaps the most important part--of all legal philosophy. The laws exist to protect their citizens and ultimately are subservient to that end. All political legitimacy flows from this--that the citizens relinquish some of their liberty in exchange for the stability and protection offered by a government. Any structure of government has oversights, or places where the law does not permit action. However, in those cases, in the interests of Justice, I accept that a judge must sometimes make new law. Ultimately, it is the Judiciary that serves as the final guardian against a government abuse of power--something that a genocide is by definition--short of rebellion.

He ruled correctly based on the law, but he did not do his job. He shall be imprisoned for a moderate term, and then have his license to practice stripped.

F: The lawyer who acted for the State of Durakstan. Relevant in this case because, despite the Head's insistence, the Supreme Court almost ruled the genocide illegal (most likely for reasons of compassion). This lawyer put massive pains and effort into this case, primarily out of the feeling that it was his duty as a lawyer to do his best for his client no matter what the circumstances. It is primarily thanks to him that a majority of the Maristan Supreme Court was swayed to genocide.

See above for the supreme court head

[Carinthium]

Now I have the time to go on this website again, I figure I may as well start arguing about this. I'll consider myself bound to not to change the hypothetical, as that's cheating.

In each of these cases I will act as the metaphorical defence lawyer in the metaphorical court of Stardestroyer.net public opinion- I'm too indignant about these responses to do otherwise.

In all these cases, although I would advocate not punishing them at all I will point out as a 'mitigating factor' anyway that these people are from a highly racist culture. To stand up for a minority is not in their instincts any more than it would be for a member of the Old South.

A:
Look at things from the Prime Minister's perspective here. I think we can infer from the scenario so far, even without me changing it, that the Prime Minister's actions were influenced by his anger at the state of Durakstan. Whether running the trials or not, Durakstan therefore does not have clean hands in this scenario. Maybe the international community are the ones doing it, but either way in the minds of the public the trials are likely associated with Durakstan.

Is what the Prime Minister so wrong he should go to jail for it? If hypothetically he had overruled the Court under such circumstances, that would be not only going back on his word, not only commiting treason, but probably putting an end to Maristan's democracy and replacing it with dictatorship. Whether the Prime Minister considered this or not, it is so.

Let us compare the Prime Minister to a hypothetical alternative Prime Minister who took the alternate route despite a lifetime of dedication to the Constitution. Such a Prime Minister would have metaphorically lost his soul! He would be a hypocrite, a moral coward(he's gone against his own values merely because of the queaziness of a little genocide and ), a traitor(obvious), and would have put an end to democracy. A proper morality does not lead to a posistion where no matter what a person does he is contemptible.

The Prime Minister's actions were reasonable. Your Honours, he should be let off.

B: Your de-Nazification program will either change this man's values or it won't. If it won't be, it is a pointless waste of time. If it will actually changes them, it will most likely be a case of Brainwashing.

Such camps, based on historical de-Nazification camps, morally condemn actions in the strongest terms without actually giving a decent case for breaking them. In terms of philosophical arguments, they are contemptible.

The Premier's actions were reasonable. Your Honours, he should be let off.

C: Ignored. Does this mean you would let him off?

D: Say person A puts a gun to person B's head and orders him to shoot person C's head. Is it so wrong for Person B to do so? That is the situation the Great Butcher was in. Maybe he was lying, but the facts should be checked rather than a mere assumption made- if he was truely acting under durress, there is no case.

The actions of the so-called 'Great Butcher' were reasonable. Your Honours, he should be let off.

E&F: Since we disagree on legal philosophy, I will point out the horrible precedent being set here. We should remember that Maristan does not have a culture like ours- we cannot be sure any individual has a conscience with values similiar to our own.

Given that, remember the horrible precedent we are setting here! Karakstan is probably going to set up a Western-style democracy in Maristan, but insist on a power of judicial review. However, these actions will not only create resentment towards the new Maristan reigme (which will have to be enforced on Karakstan arms given what the democratic process has already done), but make martyrs of two men who were only doing their jobs.

Let's look at this situation closer. I think we can infer indirectly that the lawyer probably took some sort of oath to uphold the law, and the judge almost certainly did. They were both probably raised with values saying that one should uphold what the law actually says- the alternative may not even have occured to them. Because each of them would have made the oath with the intent to uphold the actual law, had they ruled otherwise they would have broken said oath and been contemptible accordingly.

In addition, punishing them now will create a precedent of judicial activism. In a country of racists this is not a good thing- a tradition of upholding the law would likely be much better. Otherwise we get Dredd Scott and similiar court cases, or alternatively we get a permanent Karakstan occupation which will be resented and lead to constant gurellia warfare.

Your Honours, these two men are innocent. Let them off.

-------------------------

Finally, since you will not be persuaded by the general argument that it is unjust to punish somebody for a crime they were not aware was a crime, even when such is a usurpation of Maristan's sovereign power, let me point out that punishing these men will create great resentment against Karakstan, which is Maristan's traditional enemy. This could easily lead to a gurellia war to stop the reigme.

Karakstan is not overwhelmingly powerful- it could easily lose said war. As a result, there is a risk that the minorities, resented as collaborators, could be exterminated when Karakstan is finally expelled. Without concessions to Maristan's traditions of rule of law, it is likely that Maristan will become analagous to the Deep South- except only worse, as it is independent.

[Carinthium]

Two things.

1- Some typos early on. Sorry about that- I got Durakstan and Karakstan mixed up.

2- Incidentally, to claim that the Prime Minister would have been culpable had he done nothing any more than a general who sits back passively and doesn't participate but doesn't commit treason is utterly absurd. It is not the Prime Minister's role to deal with things like this, any more than it would be the General's.

If you want to claim he would have been culpable for sitting back and doing nothing only to that level, your argument is more credible but it has probllems. Take a hypothetical version A'.

A': The Prime Minister, faced with a moral dilemna, despite knowing perfecctly his generals would be willing to commit treason for him and stop the genocide with very little bloodshed, resigns instead of acting.

A' would be innocent, I hope we can all agree. It follows from that the version of the Prime Minister who stays in office and neither supports nor opposes the genocide (A'') is also innocent, as they have both done nothing whatsoever.

[Simon_Jester]

Two things.

1- Some typos early on. Sorry about that- I got Durakstan and Karakstan mixed up.

2- Incidentally, to claim that the Prime Minister would have been culpable had he done nothing any more than a general who sits back passively and doesn't participate but doesn't commit treason is utterly absurd. It is not the Prime Minister's role to deal with things like this, any more than it would be the General's.

The Prime Minister is in charge- he is not just a random government functionary, he's supposed to be running the government. Therefore he is responsible for the actions of his subordinates on general principles; think rule-utilitarianism, and bear in mind the advantages of a rule like "superiors are normally responsible for the actions of their subordinates."

. But one of the Prime Minister's jobs is to control his country and assess what it is doing. If the Prime Minister tells you "my generals kept death camps a secret from me!" then at best the Prime Minister is showing that they were grossly irresponsible about carrying out their own duties, which enabled genocide.

At worst, the prime minister is simply lying- one reason certain defenses don't work very reliably in court is that they are often proven to be lies, and therefore there are very strict and rigorous tests applied to confirm that the defense is true... which makes it hard to argue the defense successfully, just as there are a lot of assault and battery cases where the plaintiff cannot successfully argue self-defense. Often, neither party can successfully argue self-defense, because the standard of what constitutes "self-defense" are rather high.

Here, it would be entirely logical for the court to start by assuming that the prime minister knew what was happening, and then require him to prove that he was misled and lied to systematically.

A' would be innocent, I hope we can all agree. It follows from that the version of the Prime Minister who stays in office and neither supports nor opposes the genocide (A'') is also innocent, as they have both done nothing whatsoever.

If someone is dying of thirst on your front doorstep, you are not morally "innocent" if you 'do nothing' and choose not to give them water. There is such a thing as a crime of omission

[eyl]

I don't see how, in such a situation, "it wasn't my job" is substantially different than "I was just following orders"

[Carinthium]

Simon_Jester, would you at LEAST agree with me that the Karaks were rash and stupid under the circumstances? That's pretty much an empirical fact from the avaliable information.

A:
I specified already that Maristan is a federal country. The essence of a federal country is that sovereignty is NOT something which ends in one person with whom the buck stops- it is divided between the federal government and the states. The Prime Minister has no more jurisdiction over the actions of the states than a general. In addition, there is no reason to assume that the camps were run by the army- State Police could easily have run it. That was the assumption I made.

Not being a rule utilitarian, I know how it works but don't care.

B: This is actually a point on which we disagree. If you are obliged to give them water in that situation, it implies the water was never your property in the first place, which is absurd. I wouldn't normally use such an argument, but it seems an extenstion of your sort of moral reasoning.

But the situation is different here. Under the circumstances I would have establish, the Prime Minister would be required to:
-Commit treason against the state
-Go back on his word (most likely the Prime Minister has made election promises he would have to break)
-Destroy democracy in his own country (This follows from the situation)
-Become a hypocrite and subvert his own moral principles (see Williams on seperating a man on his projects for further details on why this is so bad, but it should be obvious on it's own)

I deliberately designed the Prime Minister to be a sympathetic character who defends genocide- it didn't work out that way, but that was the plan. The Karaks rashly forced his hand without considering the cultural situation, and created a situation where the outcome was inevitable.

To develop this further, take a hypothetical individual A''. A'' is a version of the Prime Minister who has promised to uphold the Constitution, made various election promises etc, but is so horrified at the thought of genocide that he goes back on his own principles and performs a coup, commiting treason and becoming a dictator. I would maintain that I have established enough that this would be the only alternate option bar resignation.

A'' is an individual who would get so mad I would be tempted to murder him out of anger if he were real. Why?

-He is a traitor to the Constitution. He didn't have to run for office- that was his own choice. By choosing to run for office he implicitly agreed to uphold the Constitution.

-He has destroyed democracy by commiting a coup. He has destroyed the indepednence of the judiciary, and destroyed the right of the people to vote, and thus created a far worse government all for the sake of a mere 200,000. This is emotive rashness.

-A'' is a whiny idiot. Why is this? Because he has not actually got any rational argument for why he should suddenly break his ethical principles- he has done so for purely emotive reasons. This is the essence of moral cowardice- allowing emotions to sway you away from your principles.

A, the original Prime Minister, keeps his moral integrity because he kept to his principles at all costs. People who would make the choice to become A'' despite having been constitutionalists beforehand have sacrificed every piece of integrity they had. A'' has pretty much, metaphorically speaking, destroyed his own soul.

I don't see how, in such a situation, "it wasn't my job" is substantially different than "I was just following orders":

The difference is that "I was just following orders" means you actively perform the deeds. "It wasn't my job", if true, means you had no role whatsoever. The Prime Minister is morally equivalent to a general who decides not to perform a coup.

Presumably in the name of sanity you would at least allow that common soldiers and civilians aren't obliged to risk their lives performing a coup to stop genocide.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon_Jester, would you at LEAST agree with me that the Karaks were rash and stupid under the circumstances? That's pretty much an empirical fact from the avaliable information.

A:

I specified already that Maristan is a federal country. The essence of a federal country is that sovereignty is NOT something which ends in one person with whom the buck stops- it is divided between the federal government and the states. The Prime Minister has no more jurisdiction over the actions of the states than a general. In addition, there is no reason to assume that the camps were run by the army- State Police could easily have run it. That was the assumption I made.

That is not a federal country, that is a loose alliance of sovereign polities.

I would ask you the following question: from the perspective of an outsider, is Maristan a country at all?

No, seriously, think about it.

If one of the 'states' of Maristan starts doing something that harms my country, can I complain to the federal government of Maristan and have my complaint actually affect anything? Or will I get back the reply "dude, we can't even stop them from butchering babies and impaling them on spears, let along get them to shut down that factory that's pouring poisonous smoke over the border into your country."

If a foreign country's citizens get caught up in these death camps, how does the foreign country get them out? Do they talk to the central Maristani goverment? Do they talk to the individual province that's holding them? Do they just... broadcast a message in the general direction of Maristan titled "to whom it may concern?"

Part of the concept of 'sovereignty' is that the sovereign authority is the one foreigners can negotiate with. If the central government's control is so feeble that it can't stop its own citizens from being massacred under color of law by the provinces... I question whether it's worth negotiating with, or taking seriously.

And for purposes of international diplomacy, your oh-so-federal "Maristan" is no more a country than "South America" is- it's a collection of states which occasionally talk to each other, but with no overall governing authority of any importance.

And yet, when I invade Maristan to bring an end to the cruelty and evil of one of its component states, the other states fight me! Clearly, they are just as complicit in this, and are accessories to murder, and should be treated as such.

If the responsibility for soveriegnty is as dispersed as you claim, then while the Maristani government may not be responsible for the actions of one of its provinces... it cannot then become responsible for the military security of that province once foreigners invade it. You cannot be responsible for protecting your citizens from foreign invasion, while not being for protecting them from mass slaughter at the hands of their fellow citizens.

Not being a rule utilitarian, I know how it works but don't care.

Would you kindly explain why rule utilitarianism is irrelevant to decisions about how government is or should be structured? Or explain why it is not proper that government leaders be held accountable for the actions of their subordinates?

B: This is actually a point on which we disagree. If you are obliged to give them water in that situation, it implies the water was never your property in the first place, which is absurd.

Is it not at least as absurd to assert that "this water is my property" overrides "someone else will die if they do not get the water?"

To develop this further, take a hypothetical individual A''. A'' is a version of the Prime Minister who has promised to uphold the Constitution, made various election promises etc, but is so horrified at the thought of genocide that he goes back on his own principles and performs a coup, commiting treason and becoming a dictator. I would maintain that I have established enough that this would be the only alternate option bar resignation.

Good on him. He acts to protect the citizens- if he did not act to protect the citizens, he would be failing a fundamental duty. A government which ignores its obligations to protect the citizens might as well not exist; it's as useless as a screen door on a submarine.

A'' is an individual who would get so mad I would be tempted to murder him out of anger if he were real. Why?

-He is a traitor to the Constitution. He didn't have to run for office- that was his own choice. By choosing to run for office he implicitly agreed to uphold the Constitution.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Nor a "murder those other guys" pact. A constitution which results in thousands of innocent people being slaughtered should be rewritten until it no longer has that result.

-He has destroyed democracy by commiting a coup. He has destroyed the indepednence of the judiciary, and destroyed the right of the people to vote, and thus created a far worse government all for the sake of a mere 200,000. This is emotive rashness.

It is only rashness if he does not, for example, reform the government and restore democracy once the system has been modified so that it will not randomly slaughter thousands of innocent people.

-A'' is a whiny idiot. Why is this? Because he has not actually got any rational argument for why he should suddenly break his ethical principles- he has done so for purely emotive reasons. This is the essence of moral cowardice- allowing emotions to sway you away from your principles.

The opinion that innocent people should be protected from random slaughter is not an emotive reason. It is a very practical reason. If moral codes do not protect innocent people from random slaughter, pillage, and misery, there is no reason to have such codes in the first place!

Any code which fails to protect the innocent from random slaughter, pillage, and misery is pointless, and needs to be taken down for maintenance, repaired and modified, not mindlessly adhered to while civilization implodes around your ears!

A, the original Prime Minister, keeps his moral integrity because he kept to his principles at all costs. People who would make the choice to become A'' despite having been constitutionalists beforehand have sacrificed every piece of integrity they had. A'' has pretty much, metaphorically speaking, destroyed his own soul.

You appear not to understand what "moral" means.

[Carinthium]

On Federalism:
Maristan fits the federal ideals which America was originally built on. It also fits the ideals which exist purely in theory (ignoring the practical situation) in Australia, America, and I'm given to understand Canada. In all of these, although the federal government has indirect influence in practice in theory they have no control whatsoever over state policies and even genocide could happen.

Sovereignity is divided- that is the whole point of federalism. Maristan's federal government may not be sovereign over issues outside it's jurisdiction (no federal government is, by definition), but it has other areas of sovereignty over which it is completely and utterly sovereign.

You have some implicit assumptions here about ethics which in this case you claim override the explicit Maristani Constitution. There is nothing absurd about a government obliged to defend the states but not obliged to protect it's citizens (good example: Holy Roman Empire post-1648).

In this particular case, the Prime Minister controlled the army and so the states had only police forces. He WANTED a diplomatic solution, but the Karaks declared war on Maristan so he fought back using the resources of all of it.

On Rule Utilitarianism:
Rule utlitarianism is so far from human moral instincts it cannot be justified on such grounds. Meta-ethically it is indefensible.

In general I like to have government leaders held accountable for their subordinate's actions. However, this is overriden in my set of principles by the principle Don't Make Up Laws and Apply Them Retrospectively.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it not at least as absurd to assert that "this water is my property" overrides "someone else will die if they do not get the water?"

Doesn't feel absurd to me. Some points:

-The idea that people have moral obligations to help outsiders to their tribe (which this person probably is) is not something from the start of human history but a later development.
-This person and I (most likely) have no pre-existing relations. What favor has he done for me?
-The logical conclusion of these sorts of policies is that a human can never be free. I'll create another philosophical construct, Z, to illustrate a point.

Z is a superhero with great powers. Not only is he effectively omnicisent about anybody dying on Earth of any cause, but whenever anyone is dying in the world, he can save one person at the cost of 1 second at his time no matter what the cause. However, because of this Z has effectively lost all freedom under your model- he is obliged to keep saving people for the cost of 1 second until he has no time left at all.

Good on him. He acts to protect the citizens- if he did not act to protect the citizens, he would be failing a fundamental duty. A government which ignores its obligations to protect the citizens might as well not exist; it's as useless as a screen door on a submarine.

This is a piece of meta-ethics on which we disagree. The Prime Minister has promised, either explicitly or implicitly, to Uphold the Constitution. He has never promised to Protect the Citizens. To claim that one overrides the other presumes a pre-existing duty you have not established.

Could we at least agree that he'd have a severe dilemna if he'd sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and both he and popular opinion interpreted such oaths literally?

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Nor a "murder those other guys" pact. A constitution which results in thousands of innocent people being slaughtered should be rewritten until it no longer has that result.

Remember, the Constitution was NOT established explicitly for that purpose. It was merely ALLOWED under the Constitution.

I doubt you'd care, but the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that no Constitution can be a Constitution- that is, a document that is sovereign in that it dicates the rules for how government functions. By your system, whenever a Constitution results in results unacceptable to you it must be overriden. Do you admit this is a logical consequence?

If you do, then I have a new problem for you. Let me define a term- Ethics'. Ethics' represents not Ethics as we understand it, but what in the minds of the culture is just and right. Ethics' is constantly fluid and changing- therefore the laws of the land would be constantly fluid and changing.

The ultimate result of this is that Rule of Law would be impossible- the explicit rules of the Constitution would be subordinate to a set of constantly changing ethical rules.

It is only rashness if he does not, for example, reform the government and restore democracy once the system has been modified so that it will not randomly slaughter thousands of innocent people.

And based on the facts established about Maristan, how the hell is he supposed to do that? The Prime Minister will have already created massive resentment against himself, people wanting him assasinated (he's commited treason), etc etc. If you're in his posistion, presumably he's accused of being a murder and made martyrs of the state leaders.

Any politician who runs, particularly in the state who made the genocide, is going to do so on a platform of punishing the former Prime Minister and putting things back the way they were to the extent possible. Then, once they have sovereign powers, they will start reforming the Army so they can put things back.

What choice does the P.M have but to overthrow democracy for the sake of a minority?

The opinion that innocent people should be protected from random slaughter is not an emotive reason. It is a very practical reason. If moral codes do not protect innocent people from random slaughter, pillage, and misery, there is no reason to have such codes in the first place!

Any code which fails to protect the innocent from random slaughter, pillage, and misery is pointless, and needs to be taken down for maintenance, repaired and modified, not mindlessly adhered to while civilization implodes around your ears!

Some meta-ethical assumptions here. Could you clarify how your meta-ethics gets to these conclusions?

Let me elaborate on the sort of code A probably had. I can't say this for certain, but it is a probabalistic conjecture from the known facts established in the first post. Keep in mind that the Prime Minister does not share your meta-ethics.

-My first principle is that an individual has a duty to keep their oaths. An oath is a sacred thing, above all others.

-I am the Prime Minister of Maristan. I have sworn (NOTE: Slight alteration, but easily possible) to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, this is my Sovereign Duty above all others. I am also supposed to do as good as I can for the people, so that is a secondary principle.

-This massacre is a very sad thing. As a good Prime Minister, I want to stop it if at all possible. But if I do so by breaking the Constitution, not only will I have done more harm than good (it's only 5% of the state's population, after all), but I will have committed treason and broken my Oath.

-The Karaks have threatened to declare war? If I wish to stay as Prime Minister, then the only course avaliable for me is to defend the borders as under the Constitution. I do more good than harm as Prime Minister, so I want to stay.

Given these meta-ethical principles, A'' is a complete hypocrite.

Simon_Jester, I might point out that your very language suggests some degree of emotion has come over. Doesn't this work as evidence against you?

You appear not to understand what "moral" means.

In return, I'd accuse you of letting your emotions dictate your morality instead of your reason.

Do you agree with me that A'' has no moral integrity left? He has let his emotions dictate his actions and outright ignored his own moral code. The consequences of people ignoring everything else and focusing purely on their emotions to decide their actions in society would be catastrophic! Surely as a rule utlitarian you must object?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you're a Rule Utilitarian, I'll give you a new hypothetical involving figures X, Y, and Z. This one is similiar- X is he Prime Minister, Y is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Z is Chief of the Army. All three swore oaths to uphold the Constitution, originally intended for these oaths to be interpreted literally (they hadn't considered the possibility of genocide at the time), and were understood by popular opinion at the time to be taking literal oaths.

Since this is a new hypothetical, I'll strengthen it by saying that the Constitution forbids retrospective law and that Maristan has not signed up to any conventions on war crimes.

As before, a State government commits genocide. Y rules this genocide illegal despite knowing full well the Constitution says it's legal, and lies to the people by giving an explanation that is completely wrong (and he knows it) for why it is legal. X and Z then work together to use force to stop the State, capture its leaders, and execute them for War Crime trials.

However, in this scenario the Army is outraged at these events, form a coup, and restore democracy. X, Y, and Z are all held on trial (although Y is only put on trial for failing his duties as a judge, as the law permits). You are the trial judge? Would you really let them off?

The consequences of doing so would be catastrophic. A country already vulnerable to coups would become more vulnerable, the precious principle clearly valued in Maristan that the Constutition must be upheld at all costs would be dealt a severe blow, and Maristan would be on the way to become a banana Republic. Do you admit this is likely from the established facts? Then why don't you care?

[Carinthium]

I know this is a little petty to point out, but those who don't at least consider my Prime Minister in Version A to be a sympathetic character (under the hypothetical he actually existed) have no right to be considered to have a Lawful Alignment in D&D terms- considering his actions to be pure heniousness embodies Chaoticness.

[LaCroix]

A constitution is no holy object given by gods - it is a legal framework to organize a society. It was written by people, who are fallible. If such a document permits the killing of people for no reason, which the prevention of is the bare minimum requirement for a state's code of law, there are only two options.

A) Someone has made a mistake. The realization of this grave error in their legal framework should cause the people in charge (the Premier Minister) to halt these (irrevocable) procedings by force, if necessary, and an immediate correction of that mistake.
B) It was made intentional. (As it was in your case, as it was the known intention of the writers to give no legal protection at all to any non-Marists.) This means if someone in charge deciding to let things proceed instead of coming to the conclusion that the writers of the document have made the mistake of codifying their asshole opinion, and not using option A listed above, it is agreeing with that intent, and thus complicit.

Prime Minister A has realized that the constitution is allowing that slaughter. A check by the supreme judge revealed that this is true, and it was the intention of the creators of that constitiution. Instead of using his political power to halt these atrocities until they could correct that obvious flaw in the basis of their society, he chose to let things procede, and had not even started legal procedures to fix that flaw in the constitution. Guilty.

edited: garbled grammar

[Carinthium]

LaCroix, I'm not sure if you're a deontologist or a utilitarian. My grounds for proceeding are different in each case.

-If you're a utilitarian, what do you have to say to my arguments about the severe consequences should the Prime Minister do as you suggested? Remember that the minority concerned, although 200,000 people, are merely 5% of a single state. There are, probably, at least three states in Maristan, meaning a highly conservative estimate would say less than 1.25% of the population.

-If you're a deontologist, then the argument is a bit more complicated. See below.

------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, you need a reason to reject the deontological principle that, in the posistion of Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has a duty to uphold the law or at least not interfere in it's proper conduct. This principle makes intuitive sense- the Prime Minister has, after all, made a commitment to do so.

A deontological system in breaking promises is a moral wrong but in which you can break a promise, even to stop genocide, is really utiltarianism in disguise and so absurd. A deontological system in which breaking a promise is a moral wrong and commiting genocide is also a moral wrong faces a grave dilemna if it is not to become crypto-utiltarian- how can you reconcile these two facts and yet still call yourself deontological?

In my case, it is NOT that there were no legal protections to non-Marists. The idea was based on the letter of the Australian Constitution. The only way, according to the Aussie Constitution (or the American Constitution for that matter), to infer an obligation of government not to commit genocide is the arbitrary assumption that such is implicit within the document- there is nothing within the letter to say so. My original conception (although this isn't 'canon', so to speak), is that the writers were sufficiently legalistic that, having not thought of it, they would believe it was within the government's powers automatically.

Remember, The Prime Minister was planning to use political negotations to stop the genocide. The reason he decided not to do so was (probably) a mix of sheer anger at being told to commit treason and overthrow democracy (understandable- treason is a great moral wrong for a Prime Minister, as if overthrowing democracy), and fear that the Constitution he had promised to uphold would be destroyed.

You also must accept, without your system becoming utiltarian, that although it is a moral wrong to overthrow democracy it is not a moral wrong to do so under these circumstances. This is a very hard philosophical balance to make, and frankly I don't think any construct you can create would do it.

I disagree, naturally, with your claim that there is a requirement for a code of law to protect its citizens. But I don't need to go into that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Let me make a historical argument. In theory, if somebody were to raise the possibility of genocide being commited in the creation of the American Constitution (the Australian Constitution is an unusual case), the Founding Fathers would probably laugh at the absurdity. However, if pressed they would admit that in the Constitutions they wrote there would be no protections against genocide, explicitly or implicitly. Checking historical documents will prove me to be right.

What am I trying to show through this? That there is a grey area between "Intended for genocide to be permissible" and "Intended for genocide to be impermissible".

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Since you don't seem to understand the opinions of an actual Deontologist, let me spell them out for you. The Prime Minister's reasonings was that the Law is the Law, whether he likes it or not, and that it is his duty to Uphold the Law whether he likes it or not. That is NOT THE SAME as approving of the law. If the Prime Minister could prevent the genocide legally he would have.

Do you deny that if the Prime Minister commited a coup to prevent genocide he would be guilty of treason? If you are a deontologist at least, this should concern you. If it doesn't, you are either a utilitarian or a crypto-utilitarian being dishonest with yourself in which case refer to my consequence-based arguments.

[LaCroix]

LaCroix, I'm not sure if you're a deontologist or a utilitarian. My grounds for proceeding are different in each case.

-If you're a utilitarian, what do you have to say to my arguments about the severe consequences should the Prime Minister do as you suggested? Remember that the minority concerned, although 200,000 people, are merely 5% of a single state. There are, probably, at least three states in Maristan, meaning a highly conservative estimate would say less than 1.25% of the population.

The country has about an 80% majority of people considered to be ethnic Marists, with 20% consistent of the minorities put together.

Thus, by not responding to the slaughter, the Prime Minister is risking a major civil war, and mass civil unrest at least - or do you think all the minorities will just sit back and chill if they are told "Don't worry, it's legal for us to slaughter you..." Which is a "severe consequence" of NOT stopping the slaughters.
Coincidently, not stopping it lead to a war, and Maristani casualties, and foreign control over the coutry, which is also a severe (and quite forseeable) consequence of not stopping the slaughter.

All in all, not stopping the slaughter has put his country in a worse situation than stopping it.

And what would be the "severe" consequences of stopping it? There would be a few more words in a piece of text, and no dead people. If the people do want the ability to slaughter foreigners, then, in the next elections, they can choose to elect someone else, who will strike that bit of restricting text out of their constitution, and can have their bloodbath, anyway. They only loose a bit of time, but the minorities can move out of the country during that time.

Same result (a country without minorities), but the minorities aren't dead. Better solution by any utilitarian measure.
Also, simply slightly interfering and having the people deported instead of killed would have been a better solution than the slaugther, even if we discount the war that broke out.

-If you're a deontologist, then the argument is a bit more complicated. See below.

------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, you need a reason to reject the deontological principle that, in the posistion of Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has a duty to uphold the law or at least not interfere in it's proper conduct. This principle makes intuitive sense- the Prime Minister has, after all, made a commitment to do so.

A deontological system in breaking promises is a moral wrong but in which you can break a promise, even to stop genocide, is really utiltarianism in disguise and so absurd. A deontological system in which breaking a promise is a moral wrong and commiting genocide is also a moral wrong faces a grave dilemna if it is not to become crypto-utiltarian- how can you reconcile these two facts and yet still call yourself deontological?

In my case, it is NOT that there were no legal protections to non-Marists. The idea was based on the letter of the Australian Constitution. The only way, according to the Aussie Constitution (or the American Constitution for that matter), to infer an obligation of government not to commit genocide is the arbitrary assumption that such is implicit within the document- there is nothing within the letter to say so. My original conception (although this isn't 'canon', so to speak), is that the writers were sufficiently legalistic that, having not thought of it, they would believe it was within the government's powers automatically.

Remember, The Prime Minister was planning to use political negotations to stop the genocide. The reason he decided not to do so was (probably) a mix of sheer anger at being told to commit treason and overthrow democracy (understandable- treason is a great moral wrong for a Prime Minister, as if overthrowing democracy), and fear that the Constitution he had promised to uphold would be destroyed.

You also must accept, without your system becoming utiltarian, that although it is a moral wrong to overthrow democracy it is not a moral wrong to do so under these circumstances. This is a very hard philosophical balance to make, and frankly I don't think any construct you can create would do it.

I disagree, naturally, with your claim that there is a requirement for a code of law to protect its citizens. But I don't need to go into that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, let me make a historical argument. In theory, if somebody were to raise the possibility of genocide being commited in the creation of the American Constitution (the Australian Constitution is an unusual case), the Founding Fathers would probably laugh at the absurdity. However, if pressed they would admit that in the Constitutions they wrote there would be no protections against genocide, explicitly or implicitly. Checking historical documents will prove me to be right.

What am I trying to show through this? That there is a grey area between "Intended for genocide to be permissible" and "Intended for genocide to be impermissible".

Point 1. Deontology assumes that each action has an intrinsic value of good or bad. If "killing" is not given a bad value, the system is worthless.
Furthermore, any deontological system that does not distinguish between minor wrongs (like breaking an oath) and greater wrongs (like killing somebody for no reason) is worthless. I abhor a morally absolute deontology for the fact that is the most egocentric ethic, ever. It doesn't matter if there are lot's of wrongs committed because I committed no wrong, even though me committing a wrong would have prevented all this. In my opinion, deontology is incompatible with being part of a society, and being a strict deontologist is in itself, a wrong.

In moderated deontology, stopping someone to kill people for no reason might be wrong because of his oath (I might even be generous and call it a top-level wrong, just because you seem to see a constitution as something divine), but killing 200000 people is equal to 200000 top-level wrongs. 200000 is vastly greater than one, so it would have beeen his duty to commit that wrong in order to prevent these others.

Point 2. A Constitution that gets changed is not destroyed, it is changed. If the Prime Minister's love for a piece of written text that allows "wrongs" is greater than the prevention of thousands of "wrongs", then he is commiting a "wrong" as well, see above.
Also, again, if THE PEOPLE (not just the few people who happened to be in charge and wrote that piece of text) do want the ability to slaughter foreigners, then, in the next elections, they can choose to elect someone else, who will strike that bit of text out of their constitution, and can have their bloodbath, anyway. The constitution can be changed back.

You are suffering the delusion that the constitution embodies the will of ALL PEOPLE. It is simply the opinion of the dictators in charge at the time of writing. You do not need to build a slippery slope that leads from "amending the constitution" directly to "democracy destroyed, FOREVER!" Changing a constitution is the most democratic thing in the world.

And to cover your claim of historical absurdity:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The people are to be provided justice, civil peace and freedom. This forbids genocide on principle, as it is unjust, disrupts civil peace, and definitely affects their freedom.

[Carinthium]

On Utilitarianism:
Remember, it is a SINGLE STATE GOVERNMENT which is committing these slaughters. NOT all the State Governments. In addition, because the minorities have votes they do have some degree of protection. A civil war is a risk but by no means inevitable.

You seem to be making an absurd set of assumptions- that the Prime Minister can use illegal means to amend the Constitution, use the support of the Army, NOT be seen to be performing a coup, and then get on with buisness as usual. This is absurd- the Marists at least will probably act like a civilian populace in any cuontry in which democracy is abolished.

Unless the Prime Minister is a moral purist (in the sense that, despite the fact he has just overthrown his own ethical system, he now acts purely according to another ethical system), he will have to declare a dictatorship for fear of his life. Otherwise the people will simply have him executed for commiting treason.

Even if the Prime Minister is a moral purist, he has put an end to the Rule of Law. In a country like Maristan, this probably means dictatorship will come anyway. The army has already committed one coup- what's to stop them committing more coups in the future? Next time a government does something the army doesn't like they will probably commit another coup using the first coup as a precedent. This creates a slide into banana republic territory.

Remember here that Karaks, a Western country on the borders, is the traditional enemy of Maristan and follows the sort of values you talk about. Karaks is to Maristan as Britain is France, roughly speaking. Therefore, these reforms are likely to be even more resented then they would be otherwise. If you are planning for them to be abolished quickly, this means you've destroyed rule of law. If you are planning for them to be enforced, it's even worse.

On Deontology- Point One:
Your so-called "moderated deontology" is a form of consequentialism (I erred slightly in calling it utiltiarianism) disguised as deontology, not utiltarianism. Since such a system ultimately refers to the consequences, it is for practical purposes utilitarianism. Any holder of such a system I would rightly accuse of being a crypto-utilitarian.

In case it isn't obvious, I am the sort of absolute deontologist you discuss. It is not egotism, but duty to do what is right. Ends do not justify the means is the principle of people like me.

On Deontology- Point Two:
Ends Don't Justify the Means is the difference between deontological systems and consequentialist systems. Though I can respect one or the other, being one and pretending to be the other is philosophical dishonesty.

The Constitution's core principle is that it is an absolute, sovereign document- it dictates the rules, nothing more. In practice, the Prime Minister would have established a new precedent saying that arbitrary ethical whims (which change with the culture) stand above the written laws. This means the Constitution is no longer an absolute sovereign document and therefore may as well not exist as for practical purposes it's a mere scrap of paper.

If you disagree with me, realise that Karaks, a country on the border, is typically Western and therefore we can infer has the Supreme Court or equivalent ruling arbitrarily on issues. The "Karakisation" (remember the Britain-France similarity in the traditional enemy status) of the country is likely to include a Supreme Court which in the future says what it likes. This means the Constitution has been destroyed, not merely amended, for it no longer is a Constitution. Instead you have an informal Constitution on the matter of Great Britain, in practice.

You are suffering the delusion that the constitution embodies the will of ALL PEOPLE. It is simply the opinion of the dictators in charge at the time of writing. You do not need to build a slippery slope that leads from "amending the constitution" directly to "democracy destroyed, FOREVER!" Changing a constitution is the most democratic thing in the world.

We have different ideas in our heads of what it means for something not to be a dictatorship. To you, it means that The People get what they want, as you outlined above. To me, it means that there are a set of rules which are absolute- anything else is the dictatorship of human beings.

I suffer no delusions- I simply use a different definition of what it means for a dictatorship to exist.

The people are to be provided justice, civil peace and freedom. This forbids genocide on principle, as it is unjust, disrupts civil peace, and definitely affects their freedom.

I never said the Founding Fathers would not be opposed to it. Remember, the question is if they would concede it was CONSTITUTIONAL. They would have to concede that it was.

[LaCroix]

I provided you with the utilitarian reasons he would have to interfere in the slaughter. You ignored it and started telling me that it is illegal. Which doesn't matter if the utilitarian logic demands that you do it. By utilitarian logic, he would have to stop it, (and the fact that according to your own text, several generals defacted instead of resisting the invasion, implies that they would have backed him) consequensces be dammned, because it was the right thing to do by utilitarian logic. Period. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant to a pure utilitarian view upon the case.

Also, it doesn't have to be illegal to amend it. He could stop the slaughter because of the importance of the question, and then demanded a direct referendum of the people on this.
That would have cause the following:
Democratic decision if the people want other people slaughtered, instead of just the people currently in the parliament
Time for the minority to flee.
Democratic, and a preferable option under utilitarian ethics.

I've said everything that can be said about absolute deontology. It is a system that is in its core incompatible with society, and only has a limited use in philosophy. Actually, moral absolutism is a minority in deontology, as far as I know.
Even Kant would agree that preventing the slaughter were the right thing, as he argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person.
Frances Kamm's "Principle of Permissible Harm" also states that one may harm in order to save more if and only if the harm is an effect or an aspect of the greater good itself.

Bringing up strawmen that doing the right thing, even by deontoloists, would cause a civil war, which would be (somehow) worse thatn having a civil war and an invasion, doesn't help.

And about the Founding Fathers:

I never said the Founding Fathers would not be opposed to it. Remember, the question is if they would concede it was CONSTITUTIONAL. They would have to concede that it was.

However, if pressed they would admit that in the Constitutions they wrote there would be no protections against genocide, explicitly or implicitly. Checking historical documents will prove me to be right.

Now you went from permanently shifting the goalposts to outright lying. What kind of absolute deontologist are you?

[Carinthium]

On Utilitarianism:
The fact it undermines the Rule of Law must be taken into account from a utilitarian perspective because the Rule of Law is all that keeps the country from the sort of dictatorship seen in banana republics. Maristan does not have a pseduo-democratic tradition like, say the modern U.S.A or Australia, so without a formal Constitution it will likely collapse into pure dictatorship.

Your scenario would at the best barely avoid a civil war- although admittedly I didn't think of pure utiltarian logic when I started this, and it works better by that. However, you should admit at least that killing the State's leaders is a very bad idea by this system.

On Deontology:
The numbers of deontologists are irrelevant- what is relevant is that a deontological system where principles are judged by their consequences and are not absolute principles but relative principles is clearly consequentialism in disguise. Even if you have the latter but not the former, at best it is mere pragmatism.

On Civil War:
The 80% of people who are Maristani ethnically are going to react very badly if you formally overthrow the state. There is no reason to suspect that this would be any different from how the Australians or Americans would react if democracy was overthrown in their countries. Given the numbers, this would be a far more severe civil war than an uprising by minorities.

In addition, even if victorious the consequences afterwards would be far worse due to resentment, accusations of treachery, etc.

On the Founding Fathers:
Where have I lied? There is nothing I've said that is untrue there. There is no contradiction either- in both cases I was describing only whether they would consider it constitutional or not to commit genocide, NOT what they thought of genocide as a political option or how moral or immoral they would consider it to be.

[LaCroix]

On Utilitarianism:
The fact it undermines the Rule of Law must be taken into account from a utilitarian perspective because the Rule of Law is all that keeps the country from the sort of dictatorship seen in banana republics. Maristan does not have a pseduo-democratic tradition like, say the modern U.S.A or Australia, so without a formal Constitution it will likely collapse into pure dictatorship.

Your scenario would at the best barely avoid a civil war- although admittedly I didn't think of pure utiltarian logic when I started this, and it works better by that. However, you should admit at least that killing the State's leaders is a very bad idea by this system.

I don't see why it would be necessary to kill them, but even if it absolutely were, utilitarism would still demand to take their lives to save 200000 lives.

On Deontology:
The numbers of deontologists are irrelevant- what is relevant is that a deontological system where principles are judged by their consequences and are not absolute principles but relative principles is clearly consequentialism in disguise. Even if you have the latter but not the former, at best it is mere pragmatism.

I challenge you to explain why a bit of consequentialism and/or utilitarism in connection with deontology is a bad thing- after all, most mayor deontologists include a consequentionalistic or utilitaristic caveat for the simple reason that moral absolutistic deontology is unworkable in reality.

On Civil War:
The 80% of people who are Maristani ethnically are going to react very badly if you formally overthrow the state. There is no reason to suspect that this would be any different from how the Australians or Americans would react if democracy was overthrown in their countries. Given the numbers, this would be a far more severe civil war than an uprising by minorities.

In addition, even if victorious the consequences afterwards would be far worse due to resentment, accusations of treachery, etc.

Why would they react badly at someone preventing a genocide and a civil war (which would erupt as soon as the genocide starts)? Every single Maristani wants to kill everyone else sullying their country? You seem to forget that you are the only moral absolutist, here. Most people would go "Yeah, killing them all went definitely too far, even if it might be legal..." It's not as if now somehow, all Maristanis would get killed. Nothing changes, except some crazy assholes are not allowed to kill other people.
There would be some assholes complaining, but they would be the minority. Yes, his political career might be over after the next elections, but that could happen every time. You are again drawing a slippery slope that is only possible because of your own moral absolutistic worldview.

On the Founding Fathers:
Where have I lied? There is nothing I've said that is untrue there. There is no contradiction either- in both cases I was describing only whether they would consider it constitutional or not to commit genocide, NOT what they thought of genocide as a political option or how moral or immoral they would consider it to be.

[/quote]

You said they they would have to admit that there are no protections against genocide in The Constitution, explicitly or implicitly. I proved the opposite with an excerpt from the actual text in which they made it clear that this document has the intent to provide justice, civil peace and freedom to all. This is at least implicit, a prohibition of genocide, which is per definition unjust, and disrupting civil peace and freedom. You made up some flimsy excuse instead of conceding that claim.

[Carinthium]

A- Alright then.

B- The principle that moral systems are answerable to some abstract idea of what is 'workable' is a meta-ethical premise often invoked but very rarely given any justification. The problem is that a system which mixes deontology and utilitarianism is confused- either moral rules are absolute or they aren't. I can see no concievable argument for them being slightly absolute.

C- Remember the following:

i- Racism against minorities is worse than racism against blacks in the 1960s south.
ii- A democratically elected government ordered this genocide.
iii- The Supreme Court ruled the genocide legal.
iv- The Constitution was broken through a military coup.
v- The Prime Minister commited treason.
vi- The Premier wanted to PREVENT the genocide, but his hand was forced by his Cabinet. This implies a significant amount of support for genocide, at least amongst the upper classes. Similiarly, the Supreme Court judge would not have ruled as he did unless there was enough support for legalism that the upper classes must approve.

If the upper classes approve of something, it's most likely unless it contradicts the interests of the lower class that they at least passively accept, and most likely support because the upper class influences the lower class to what they want.

I was pointing out the problem with your proposal for arbitrarily rewriting the Constitution at this point- you may as well have suspended it given that these are the actions of a dictator, so you'll be seen as a dictator by the populace. Demanding a referendum would reduce this problem but not eliminate it.

D- There is a difference in the eyes of many between saying something is morally wrong and saying it is against the Constitution. You contend that the Founding Fathers would have their own document interpreted by their INTENTIONS. I would disagree- at the very least Jefferson, at the time of writing, would claim it was very dangerous to put their intentions as a code of interpretation.

[Simon_Jester]

Ultimately, Carinthium, I think you need an actual, serious answer to the following criticism of your position:

You take a very strong position against "treason," and appear to view it as a more serious crime than "mass murder." Many would see it as reasonable to 'betray' your country (i.e. stage a coup) to save innocent lives, as a matter of principle. They might even see that as a higher form of loyalty than mindlessly tolerating the evils of the current government.

You also seem to have no objection to just... letting disasters happen. Many people find this repugnant, and believe that they (and others) have a powerful duty to do something to save other people from death.

And yet you claim that your ideas of ethics are basing all of your opinions and claims and prescriptions on "human instincts," despite the fact that many people's instincts run very much the opposite of what you describe.


On the one hand you want very absolutist ideas like "changing the government without mass popular consent is worse than letting thousands of people die, because changing the government is Always Wrong!"

On the other hand you want very relativist ideas like "it doesn't matter what you think the rules should be, what matters is that this country over here abides by its own rules, and trying to stop them from doing so is Reckless!"


You constantly pigeonhole other people's ethical arguments, and dismiss the ones that don't fit your worldview- "I am not a rule utilitarian" leads you to totally ignore the idea that maybe we should have rules that produce good results in society, without you so much as trying to explain or justify it, and then you make automatic assumptions that I must think XYZ because "I am a rule utilitarian." Do you really think that normal people rely totally, 100% of the way, on a single format for constructing ethical arguments? Because that really isn't normal- I and most people I know are quite capable of grasping that there may be more than one valid format for an ethical argument.


So you have absolute principles that you use to defend relativism. And you use "human instincts" to condemn actions that everyone you talk to instinctively thinks are wrong. And you repeatedly pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you in ways that make it very hard to believe you really understand what we're talking about.

This makes you seem either deeply hypocritical, or deeply ignorant- you seem profoundly confused about the foundations of your own ideas. Sort of like you know what the words mean, and have a superficial grasp of the format of argument used in, say, "XYZ deontology." But that you don't actually have any sensible way of fitting it all together and synthesizing your theoretical dreams with reality.


What say you to this?

[Carinthium]

It would be a different matter if the Prime Minister actively committed genocide- but that's not what he's doing. He's doing his duty- the genocide is an incidental evil he accepts as a necessary consequence. This is very similar to Augustine's ideas, if you're curious.

If people are obliged to stop disasters, then it means they are not free to live their own lives. The latter trumps the former.

My argument about changing the government without mass popular consent was rhetorical. I do care about that, but because it's Unconstitutional. My view is that it is an objective moral wrong for a government to act in a legally unconstitutional way, whilst passively accepting genocide is not.

It doesn't matter what ordinary people do- what matters is valid and invalid arguments. If you want to go into your case for rule utilitarianism over deontology, you're going to need to lay out your argument in more detail.

As I explained via PM, I take human instincts to their logical conclusions even if not intuitive. This is the same approach that would lead to abolishing slavery through "All men are equal"- it is making morality actually rational, as opposed to arbitrary whims.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm reminded of some things Straha said to you about six months back, about the way that ignorance causes people (you in particular) to behave in these debates. I quote that at some length at the bottom.

But to take that as a basis- what I perceive is that you are ignorant of many important facts and the complex relationships between ethical concepts like duty, loyalty, and integrity. It's not just that you don't know things, it's that you have a formal, seriously considered and deliberate policy of not knowing these things, of refusing to allow yourself to consider them, of remaining forever unaware of them and forever in denial that there is anything to be aware of in the first place.

So you interpret the facts in a certain way, you interpret evidence and premises in a certain way. And when everyone around you says "no, this is a stupid way to interpret the premises," you reply "no it's not" and refuse to even think about whether your choice of how to frame the issue might be distorting your conclusions.

And then you wonder why everyone thinks you're a giant ball of crazy and pointless.

*

You fall into the old enlightenment-humanist trap of ignorance being an absence of knowledge. It isn't. Ignorance is a position, a stance that is informed and held for its own reasons. This is why everyone is frustrated in this thread, people who are well-versed, professionally trained, and even professionally employed in these fields are offering up facts and explanations about why you are wrong and you smacking them down out of hand on faulty facts. When we try to explain that these facts are faulty you either duck the question or simply disagree without warranting your explanation which drives us (and the people reading this thread who aren't posting) to exasperation.

Put another way, your ignorance and unwillingness to admit you might be wrong is preventing you from seeing that you are wrong, and makes you look stupid to everyone who does have common sense.

This ignorance dove-tails nicely with:

...

The reason [Straha] never defended any personal stance on how to view the world in that thread is because a competing framework debate with you is impossible if you can't articulate your own premises for the world in the first place, and if you can't defend them. This rears its ugly head here when you try to have a discussion about the interests of nation-states here.


When people like me, Simon, and PeZook approach this thread we realize that the question that needs to be answered first is 'What is the goal of a modern nation state?' ... You never engage on this discussion of premises instead preferring to hidey-hole back into your [own assumptions]. We have all offered multiple historical examples of [how these assumptions don't match reality]. For us that shuts down the thread, nation-states do not act like you want to have them act and any discussion thereof would be like talking about water-breathing Kangaroos. Cute, but an act of pure fantasy and not one tied to any real world considerations.

What makes the debate super-frustrating here is that you... refuse to engage on this framing issue either ignoring it, misunderstanding the discussion, or responding to it with "well yeah, but what if they did act like this!". Rather than try to have a discussion of framing you have a discussion of flights of fancy and then get indignant when we point that out. Then your ignorance kicks in and plays goalie and prevents you from realizing just how little you know instead letting the little bits of pieces of understanding that you do have try and inform a holistic worldview that's simply completely in error, and more disturbingly for us makes it seem like you personally endorse genocide and some really creepy fascistic shit.

[Carinthium]

It is not that I am ignorant, but that as a matter of principle I cannot take such things into account. If I did, I could rightly be accused of emotivism. If I am an emotivist, I am a failure as a philosopher.

For what it's worth, originally my stance was broadly the sort of thing you discuss. However, I was persuaded out of it by that argument. To say in more detail the argument that talked me out of your posistion:

Philosophy is about rational arguments, not emotions- it's very purpose is to make things rational. To do ethics and yet ignore conclusions because they are counter-intuitive is stupid.

I tried to argue with this position a lot but found that for all my efforts I kept losing the argument. So I changed my posistion.

[Carinthium]

For reference, since I did make one very obvious mistake (assuming people would sympathise with my Prime Minister A character), requesting help on what I did wrong. In order to try and understand where I went wrong, I will create a hypothetical variant S designed to be sympathetic (if admittedly in a heavy-handed manner).

-S was raised in a legalist family devoted to the cause of defending democracy and the Constitution. He not only swore to defend the Constitution as Prime Minister, but promised his mother on his deathbed he would do so.

-When the genocide started, S considered a coup but was guilted into staying the course by his father using his late mother's memory. But at this point he is still reluctant and considering resigning to avoid the dilemna.

-Going over their options, S and his advisors gain intel such that, if victorious, Karakstan would punish even the judge of the Supreme Court for his ruling deity his sworn oath (Remember how seriously most cultures take oaths) to uphold the Constitution. S flies into a rage at this. His anger becomes even greater when he is told that EVEN IF HE RESIGNS, he will be held responsible for not committing a coup and tried by the Karaks once they inevitably win the war.

-During the war, S's actions do not deviate from A but his motives do. His sheer anger at the Karaks, combined with his constitutional upbringing and family ties, lead to his actions.

Have I got it right this time? Or is this not enough?

[Carinthium]

Responding to Straha (after some though, admittedly)- I take the Machievallian posistion that either you're purely good, you're purely self-interested, or your actions are so inconsistent you're beneath contempt. If America chooses good they should stop a lot of things. If they choose evil, follow my strategy.

I gave legitimate counter arguments- the occasional mistake, but everyone makes mistakes. Straha does not have enough evidence to give such absurd claims.

[LaCroix]

My view is that it is an objective moral wrong for a government to act in a legally unconstitutional way, whilst passively accepting genocide is not.

That is the point you don't get. Having this view makes you, by any objective means, an evil person.

And concerning "S", his different motives don't matter. He has the means to stop an evil thing by making a (in relation to the consequences) small sacrifice. Resigning would mean he ran away instead of acting. Resigning, or any other action that doesn't prevent the slaughter means that he is allowing the wrongs to be comitted. And thus, responsible for the consequences. The fact that he now (during the war) also acted out of spite, actually make his ethical position even worse.
Especially since it is the only logical response to hold the judge responsible for condoning the act. According to legal philosophy, the Supreme Judges ethical and legal duty would have been to rule the slaughter unconstitutional, on ethic principles, thus amending the faulty constitution.