Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

FAN: Discuss various fictional worlds that don't qualify for SF.

Moderator: Steve

Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

EDIT: Some people might accuse me of advocating genocide. I am not advocating ACTIVELY aiding genocide- to me that would be a very different dilemna. However, I am approving of A and S's actions in the specific hypotheticals they are in.

Your metaethics seems to be that humans should simply do what they feel and encode them into principles- then if they clash, rather than dropping the contradictory principles the principles should be reconciled as much as possible. The problem with that is that some principles of intuitive morality simply don't fit if looked at objectively.

Out of curiousity, Lacroix, do you at least concede that a hypothetical Prime Minister who does as you suggest is a vigilante Prime Minister?

S's anger was righteous anger- the Karaks were acting, if out of reasonable motives, as inconsiderate fools ignoring what they likely knew about Maristani culture. In fact, I'd be willing to speculate merely on the information I specified (even I would not be sure) that for the Karaks this was a mere pretext to go to war and they were actually acting out of greed. If so, S's anger becomes even more justified.

The point I was trying to make clear by adapting A into S was that either of them, if they stop the genocide, would have to sell their soul. This means they will have to live with the guilt of their actions, S in particular, for the rest of their lives. No matter how you look at it, this is a massive personal sacrifice. S, from what I have specified, almost certainly would never get over the guilt of commmiting treason if he followed that path.

I know plenty of lawyers, and gave them the Supreme Court judge situation. There was very little consistency of opinion, unlike the consensus you seem to be claiming that the judge must be punished. Some legal philosophers, I grant, would agree with you- but there are many opinions out there, and it is a minority of the whole who would.

I'm not sure what I'd do in A's posistion, but I would never, on principle, surpress a state in such an unconstitutional way. Because I don't like genocide, I would try to resign if that were a way out- but with the Karaks acting the way they were in S's scenario, yes I would act S did and make those belligerent assholes pay.

Can you AT LEAST agree with me that the Karaks are partially to blame for the situation? From the facts in the A situation, and definitely the facts in the S situation, this pretty much follows.
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5193
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by LaCroix »

But approving of that actions makes you an advocate of genocide, as long as it isn't you who has to actually do it.

To answer your metaethics question, I propose you a scenario. You are not an american citizen. On holiday in the USA, on September 10, 2001, you met a guy called OBL, and during a talk, in which you swore a most solemn oath not to divulge anything he would tell you, he tells you that he plans to have some people fly airplanes into a specific building, killing thousands, next morning. He gives you all the details about the plan. An hour later, the FBI shows up and tells you they know he told you his plans, but they need the details to stop it. Would you break a solemn oath to save lives?
We all know that according to your metaethics, you wouldn't. Because you lying is a wrong, and not personally commiting that is more important that saving innocent lives taken by someone else. And because of your strict adherence to that single code of ethic that only sees black and white, and only cares about yourself, you are unable to understand that ethic systems are not a simple thing that you order out of a catalogue. People always use more than one system to test a scenario, just like a scientist would use more than one test to proove a theory. We then apply the solution that the majority of moral systems we adhere to proposes as the most ethical. Or in case of a draw, the one we deem most important. We have repeatedly shown you that utilitarianism and consequentionalism, both, show that using deontology to solve this dilemma is applying the wrong tool.

A Prime Minister who overthrows a regime (any State that supresses part of its people to the point that they can be legally killed is a regime) that is allowing genocide could be called a vigilante, using the strict meaning of the word. But vigilantism is not per se a bad thing. In this case, he is a rebel, liberator and a hero.

Your "sell their soul" and "live with the guilt" comments are completely insane. Only your twisted view of only aplying one set of ethics (which is coincidentally, the least "ethic" one of all, since it is pure egocentrism) could come up with such a result. Everyone else would live with the knowledge that they have done the right thing, and be proud of it.

On the Karaks I can't agree with anything you said. This is again, your twisted worldview speaking.

"You should not intervene because of your ignorance for our culture" is an invalid argument if it means "we will kill everybody not being our culture group".

Country A is starting to kill minorities. Country B protests, country A replies that this is legal according to their laws. Country B intervenes to protect people. Completely logical train of actions, and all blame lies solely at the feet of country A. You could rationalize that some of the killed people would be ethnic "B", but that doesn't matter, since they still are people, which would suffice to start this chain of events. No greed, no ulterior motives. It's all in YOUR mind, projected on other people.

You also still have not given an answer to my question. Why is a modicum of consequencialism mixed into deontology (as it is proposed by almost all deontologists I know) a "BAD" thing? Because egocentrism is "GOOD"? Because you are unable to work with more than one system of ethics? Because an ethical system is not supposed to work in society?
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

On Metaethics (including your final question):
You're a moron. No seriously- you're a moron.

Assuming moral nihilism is out of the picture (and that's a big if, but we'll go with it), and assuming virtue ethics is out of the picture (much more plausible), there are three real possibilities remaining. Consequentialism is correct in some form, Deontology is correct in some form, and both of them approximate the truth but do not reach it.

The third is the one you seem to be advocating, but falls apart because it is impossible that such a system could be objectively True in any sense. Your current mixture is an incoherent mess which as a system to live by cannot stand on it's own, and there is no way to turn your ramblings into a single coherent system with the clarity that is necessary for proper philosophy.

On Your Osama Bin Laden Hypothical:
Your hypothetical is one of those situations in which I would be very careful and would probably have refused to make the oath in the first place. But IF I'd been a bloody idiot and made it, yes my actions would be as you said.

If this went to trial, I would quote Bernard Williams (he's a more prestigious philosopher in the eyes of academia than I am) on seperating a man from his projects. Since I'm screwed anyway, I would not only not plead guilty but refuse to plead and spend my time denouncing the Court. If the United States actually kept it's own Constitution I'd feel about this, but it doesn't.

My argument would go something like this (summarised for brevity, and probably thought through a lot better in the hypothetical). This would not persuade, but it is nonetheless valid.:

Your law is an invalid law. Your entire system is invalid. The United States has contradicted it's own Constitution, time and time again. It is impossible for you to claim what I did was wrong because it was illegal. Both by the intent of the Founding Fathers and the letter of the Constitution, the very law you use to convict me is illegal.

If you are trying to act on pure ethics, then go ahead- act on pure ethics. But if you do that you are not a judge but a vigilante, just as the so-called judges at Nuremburg were not judges but vigilantes.

My best guess is that you will argue for a Common Law theory. But Common Law is not Law at all- it is prejudice pretending to be law. A common law system runs, metaphorically speaking, on pure injustice- a series of ex post facto decisions, one after another. It is is unjustice incarnate.

And what does that leave you, oh tyrant pretending to be a judge? If you are a deontologist, then why do you not take William's argument seriously? If you are a utilitarian then I grant your actions fit the principle, but in the name of your very Principle of Utility I ask that you be honest about it! (OOC: I'm trying to screw the system over here, and would admittely lie my ass off about this one. Having the "judge's" career fall apart thanks to me would be very fitting, if unlikely.)


Most right-wing Americans would disagree with me. But the sensible ones, believers in the idea that the Constitution has been greatly corrupted, would at the absolute minimum write articles defending my actions.

On the Guilt Question:
Look at S again. No seriously, look at him. He is a man of honour. Even if you don't like men of honour, it is the only scenario which fits the actual fits. For A this is less clear but still probable given that he had a golden opportunity to use the genocide as a pretext to become dictator and didn't take it.

Although they are not perfect comparisons, men of honour are far more similiar in their psyche to idealised medieval knights or idealised samurai than they are to people like us (I greatly respect men of honour but, on further reflection, I don't qualify in my mental resilience despite my best efforts). The Prime Minister has betrayed everything he held dear- of course he's going to live with the guilt for the rest of his life!

On Vigilantism:
In this case, what kind of example is the Prime Minister setting? A Prime Minister embracing the actions of a vigilante means that he is saying people are not obliged to obey the law. And if they aren't obliged to obey the law, then knowing human nature you're going to get all sorts of inane rationalisations for disobeying the law for selfish reasons. This contributes to the slide of society into chaos. Remember that Maristan is used to a system by which the Constitution is absolute.

Let's imagine a scenario. Say the Prime Minister stops the genocide. A series of similiar precedents occur time, in which States attempt to do things that to Karak viewpoint would be grossly immoral, this time backing them by force, fighting a civil war, and losing. The first time, a State passes a law by which the punishment for killing people of minority races is a fine of $20. The next time, they try to make different punishments for individuals depending on their race. The time after that, they attempt to remove the vote from women (let's say- it's plausible enough). Each time, they know what will happen but have the forces so decide to say Bring It On and use the new law as the metaphorical gunshot to start the fighting.

Each time, there is going to be a rise in the amount of vigilantism as the government gives a green light to these people (remember, Maristani is NOT culturally western) to do so in the name of justice. If the government attempts to surpress the resulting vigilantes, they will look like hypocrites. Characters like my hypothetical R would then become inevitable.

-R is a revolutionary who believes it is Unjust and Evil to have private property instead of total Communism. R is a courageous man by nature, so he rises up, raises a revolt, and manages to start a civil war himself. Ultimately, R is defeated, captured, and put on trial.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that R is in no way a hypocrite in his actions, and he genuinely, truely believes in his cause. Even if he is not a hero, he has the amount of courage if nothing else that heroes are meant to have.

Under these circumstances, though I don't agree with R it is hard to think of him harshly. The government set a precedent that it's okay to ignore the laws if you feel they're not right. If they claim their ground for what is right is better, R can use his own arguments (Stas Bush could supply these in far more detail than I could) and the question will never be truely settled in the realm of debate. R and the government are on a morally even footing.

On the Karaks:
Let's look at things from the Karak's perspective at the start of what thanks to them deserves the name of the Genocide Crisis, and I think we can both agree fitted the nature of a diplomatic crisis initially, as if reviewing events after the fact, and look at their options.

That the Maristani Prime Minister was a strict Constitutionalist should have been avaliable in their diplomatic info. That he was having a moral crisis was not hard to infer. Had the Karaks decided to try and think of some legalistic technicality they could prevented the genocide without war. I'm not saying it was definitely there, but it was clearly worth a try. Not doing so indicates they were most likely blinded by anger or just looking for a pretext for war.

To protest was understandable, in and of itself, without a threat of declaring war. If the Karaks had tried to find a legalistic solution first under the circumstances, then although I wouldn't agree with them I could at least see where they were coming from. What they did caused unnecessary deaths when they had other options avaliable.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

To clarify on the R Scenario, there are two possible variants of R. I'm ignoring 'deluded' and 'willfully ignorant' because that is incompatible with 'in no way a hypocrite' which is already specified.

R1: R1 is genuinely ignorant of how bad Communism is, say because there is no USSR in this universe. Remember that in this posistion we are dealing with trying R1 for his crimes, not whether or not we fight against him.

R2: R2 knows how bad Communism is, but believes that there is a deontological obligation for people to share- if people refuse to do that, he will enforce their moral obligations by force. This example is a very close parallel to the abomination that the Maristani government has become by this point- imposing your own moral views on the populace law be damned.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

On the Karaks, addendum:
In general, practically every reigme in this world is selfish and evil. Look at the things they do to each other in spying alone and you see a hint of this- based on what we know of the amorality the United States (I don't need to even bother explaining the Soviets) has committed and it's allies went along with it follows.

Therefore, any sovereign reigme is Evil Until proven Otherwise. A cynic (I think Stas Bush, opposed to capitalist reigmes as he is, would likely agree with me) would agree at least that it is more plausible to suggest the Karaks were planning to take advantage of the situation to serve their own political and economic interests in my scenario than it is to suggest they acted genuinely out of moral outrage. So would scientific studies demonstrating human selfishness the norm and truely moral behaviour the province of a small minority.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Thanas »

Carinthium wrote:On Metaethics (including your final question):
You're a moron. No seriously- you're a moron.
He is not the shithead who keeps making apologies for genociders, so regardless of his alleged moronitude, he at least got that going for him.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

One should not make a mixup between how good people are and how intelligent people are. I'm insulting his intelligence here for failing to see that picking and choosing between moral systems makes philosophical ethics pointless.

EDIT: Also, I'm not defending active genocide. I'm defending aiding and abetting genocide under a set of narrow circumstances.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Thanas »

Carinthium wrote:One should not make a mixup between how good people are and how intelligent people are. I'm insulting his intelligence here for failing to see that picking and choosing between moral systems makes philosophical ethics pointless.
Everybody picks and chooses according to circumstances, which is what you are failing to understand. You want to know why? Because there is not one set of ethics that are applicable to all circumstances aside from some very generic and very wide-reaching moral premises.
EDIT: Also, I'm not defending active genocide. I'm defending aiding and abetting genocide under a set of narrow circumstances.
As if that makes you any less of a shithead.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

Then why even bother with philosophy? Why not simply do what feels right and ignore philosophy alltogether? What you are effectively saying is to cast Reason out of ethical deliberations alltogether and go with mere emotional responses.

Why? Because, other than gut feelings, you have no actual way to resolve any ethical questions.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Thanas »

Carinthium wrote:Then why even bother with philosophy? Why not simply do what feels right and ignore philosophy alltogether? What you are effectively saying is to cast Reason out of ethical deliberations alltogether and go with mere emotional responses.

Why? Because, other than gut feelings, you have no actual way to resolve any ethical questions.
Holy Strawman, Batman.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

Thanas, do you admit that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a purely rational (in the ordinary sense of rational- in more detail, completely epistemically justified using a version that fits the correspondence theory of truth) ethical theory within the limits you have spelled out?

IF so, then it follows that to an extent your ethical theory is arbitrary- if it lacks rationality/epistemic justification, what else could it be? And if your theory is, even partially, your arbitrary whim, then I have no reason to consider it true at all. If your theory is partially whim, you lose.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Thanas »

Carinthium wrote:Thanas, do you admit that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a purely rational (in the ordinary sense of rational- in more detail, completely epistemically justified using a version that fits the correspondence theory of truth) ethical theory within the limits you have spelled out?
IF so, then it follows that to an extent your ethical theory is arbitrary- if it lacks rationality/epistemic justification, what else could it be? And if your theory is, even partially, your arbitrary whim, then I have no reason to consider it true at all. If your theory is partially whim, you lose.[/quote]

Regardless of that - any system is imperfect. That is why ethics are general guidelines, not specific instructions on how to act in every circumstance.

And quite frankly, the fact that a genocide-apologist considers my ethical system to be imperfect is quite the compliment.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

You assume that ethics is like science- merely approximating some sort of perfection you can't even articulate. I'm going to make a few guesses here- my apologies if I get them wrong, as I'm using the philosophical principle of charity to try and interpret your remarks in the way which makes the most possible sense:

You are (I'm guessing) of the viewpoint that the fundamental purpose of ethics is to encode human intuitions on what is Right and Wrong and create a coherent system about how these fit together. I would have called this stupid once, but if you say that ethics is not an objectively real thing but an encodification of how to fullfill our existing moral desires this makes sense.

If so, the problem here is that you are ignoring the possibility of something like CEV- that perhaps our moral intuitions are so contradictory that such a reconciliation cannot take place. This leaves the conclusion that we should prioritise the intuitions we consider most important over the ones we consider less important.

This is in fact what I've done. I've taken the intutions I understand to be at the core of human desires and taken them to their logical conclusion. To use a metaphor, take the historical process on the interpreation of "All men are equal." I am the person who actually calls for Universial Sufferage, whereas you're the one talking about active and passive citizens.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Thanas »

Carinthium wrote:You assume that ethics is like science- merely approximating some sort of perfection you can't even articulate. I'm going to make a few guesses here- my apologies if I get them wrong, as I'm using the philosophical principle of charity to try and interpret your remarks in the way which makes the most possible sense:
I'd rather you'd use the principle of humanity but that would assume you have ethics. As you try to absolve genociders, this is questionable at best.
You are (I'm guessing) of the viewpoint that the fundamental purpose of ethics is to encode human intuitions on what is Right and Wrong and create a coherent system about how these fit together. I would have called this stupid once, but if you say that ethics is not an objectively real thing but an encodification of how to fullfill our existing moral desires this makes sense.

If so, the problem here is that you are ignoring the possibility of something like CEV- that perhaps our moral intuitions are so contradictory that such a reconciliation cannot take place. This leaves the conclusion that we should prioritise the intuitions we consider most important over the ones we consider less important.
No, it does not. It does not follow that in case of conflict or collision one set of ethics is to be discarded. One has to carefully weigh the circumstances in such a situation. And any ethic system which actively absolves genociders is a wrong one. I fail to see how you can even argue with a straight face that people should get to walk free for actively aiding and abetting genocide.
This is in fact what I've done. I've taken the intutions I understand to be at the core of human desires and taken them to their logical conclusion.
No, you have not. I fail to see how any of your conclusions are logical, they instead seem to be contrivances and absurd reductions.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5193
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by LaCroix »

@Carinthium: You know what, I'm bowing out here. And no, I'm not conceding, it is just that any argument about ethics with someone like you is absolutely pointless, since you are obviously completely unable to understand human behaviour. And even though you are the only one with that opinion, and everybody else basically agrees, you are incapable of grasping the mere possibillity that you might be wrong.

There is one quote that desribes you pretty well: "Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view."
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

The principle of humanity is too vague to be actually used judging from a brief checkup.

You appear to be advocating for making compromises between conflicting ethical principles. The problem with this is that compromise is a vague, feeling-based approach- as a result there are several valid solutions to a given ethical problem rather than one.

This means that ethics, the purpose of which is to solve ethical dilemmas, has failed to do its job. What is the answer to an ethical dilemna? No fact of the matter. People would rightly consider such ethics foolish and pointless as they can use their gut feelings anyway.

Intuition- A person should not break their promises, explicit or implicit.

From this, everything I've been arguing in this thread follows.

You might ask why this principle trumps "Don't kill innocents". The answer is that "Don't kill innocents"
is a modern cultural construct. Primitive tribes have no problem with killing outsider innocents. Same with the many ancient empires you, Thanas, are no doubt aware of.

You could fall back to "Don't kill innocents of your own tribe". This is stronger ground, but falls apart on close inspection. The ethnic divide in Maristan combined with the racism makes it very clear the minority involved is not part of the Prime Minister's tribe or the State's.

In addition, there is the intuition (as if further argument was needed) "People should not be punished when they have committed no crime." Therefore, it follows that if the PM's actions were legal (they were) they should not be punished. There is also the intuition "A government that commits vigilante actions is a hypocrite" and "A hypocrite's rules should not be respected if said hypocrite breaks them".
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Do you have any... remotely sane reason for saying that a moral principle is LESS significant because cavemen violated it?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

If morality is cultural, we get cultural subjectivism by default and finding an answer to ethical dilemmas becomes impossible. The only solution left is to go with basic human intuitions unaffected by culture, which means caveman morality.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

If nobody responds within a day or so, I'm going to declare victory.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Why haven't you tried to derive basic moral principles from first principles, rather than relying on the ethics of cannibal tribesmen as the cornerstone of ethics for large technological civilizations?

I mean, to me that seems like a huge, obvious set of possible solutions. Solutions which are much more likely to produce positive results than "assume my personal private opinion of what caveman morality looks like is the basis for all proper ethical systems."

And yes, I said "your personal opinion." Because I would bet money that the same willful ignorance that blinds you so effectively in discussions of politics and philosophy also applies to anthropology- that you don't know as much as you think you do, and are very good at blocking out or ignoring any input that might change your opinion.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

I've JUST EXPLAINED why I treat the morals of cavemen as having priority over the morals of other cultures. Admittedly I estimate, but if you don't have a nitpick of any estimates I've made so far you don't have a case.

I DO use first principles, such as Any Hypocritical Action is Automatically Morally Wrong. Said principles are, however, rooted in instinctual human morality.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Simon_Jester »

No, Carinthium, you did not explain why you treat cave-ethics as having priority. You explained that you treat cave-ethics as having priority. There's a difference.

Now, if I had to guess why you think that they have priority, from what hints you've given, I'd go with the idea that you adhere (consciously or subconsciously) to the old exploded notion of the "state of nature." You start with the image of ancient peoples as having no culture and no circumstances, allowing you to paint their ideas as
human intuitions unaffected by culture, which means caveman morality.
But this is ridiculous, because "we live in a cave and cower from saber-toothed tigers" is just as much a social and cultural context as "we live in skyscrapers and complain about paperwork." You cannot automatically find the 'real' values of human beings just by looking at what human beings do in the most primitive possible conditions.

Moreover, even if you could find such 'real' values in this way, you would need to prove that primordial 'pure, culture-free' humans have the values you think they do. It is not enough to simply assert that they value X and Y but not Z.

Further beyond that, even if you could prove that, you would need to list a complete set of these values, because as it stands you've gotten a lot of mileage by saying "X is a primordial value and therefore important, Y is not and therefore is unimportant," without providing any real justification or set of rules for why X qualifies and Y doesn't.

If you can't list the primordial values you think matter, comprehensively so that they become a legitimate subject of the debate, then your argument becomes nothing more than an exercise in goalpost-moving.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

Admittedly cavemen are an imperfect example, but because humans evolved in a caveman environment it is the closest approximation we can get.

Your argument is a massive increase in the burden of proof to the point of ludicrousness. This is an internet debate, not a university. I could make similiar claims against your ideas of what Westerners think right and wrong, and you would be unable to prove them to that standard.

If you have no evidence to suggest that I am wrong, then you don't exactly have a case. Theoretically, if you don't have evidence and I don't either, the argument is automatically a draw for lack of substance.

However, I can provide good argumentative evidence- racist instincts (which are a part of primitive morality), and the sheer number of wars in which people of other tribes were butchered, for a start.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Carinthium wrote:Admittedly cavemen are an imperfect example, but because humans evolved in a caveman environment it is the closest approximation we can get.
Closest to what? Closest to what humans do in the absence of external constraints? Closest to what humans desire, for themselves or for others? Closest to what self-reflective and philosophical humans would choose to do based on learned argument and logic?

None of these is accurately described by a Stone Age way of life.
Your argument is a massive increase in the burden of proof to the point of ludicrousness. This is an internet debate, not a university. I could make similiar claims against your ideas of what Westerners think right and wrong, and you would be unable to prove them to that standard.
I am not the one trying to prove an extremely controversial claim.

If you are so unreflective that you cannot so much as list the things you call "fundamental human instincts" that you claim justify your ethics, and so ignorant that you cannot even begin to justify why you call these things "fundamental," as opposed to "circumstantial," you have very little in the way of a case.

Check your assumptions, or you will achieve nothing but proving and re-proving your own ignorance.
If you have no evidence to suggest that I am wrong, then you don't exactly have a case. Theoretically, if you don't have evidence and I don't either, the argument is automatically a draw for lack of substance.
In which case, seeing as how your position is one opinion coming from a person everyone else thinks is a lunatic, I'd say you lose by default. You've staked out a controversial claim, deliberately so as far as I can tell- if you can't defend it, that should be a learning experience for you.
However, I can provide good argumentative evidence- racist instincts (which are a part of primitive morality), and the sheer number of wars in which people of other tribes were butchered, for a start.
Evidence for what? What is the list of 'primordial instincts' which you consider the foundation of ethics?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Hypothetical- A War Crimes Tribunal (RAR)

Post by Carinthium »

A- The closest to how humans 'naturally' act. External constraints do exist which affect how humans behave, but firstly you could argue for ignoring these constraints because they are the constraints humans evolved to deal with (hence the human genetic code is 'designed' around them), and secondly there is little evidence to suggest "contamination" of human values in such an environment anyway.

B- The controversialness or otherwise of a claim is not evidence. A believer in the correspodence theory of truth cannot consider it evidence without coming into ludicrous hypocrisy.

I'm not the one asking for a double standard here.

C- I can defend it about as well as you can defend the claim of Western moral supremacy implicit in your condemnation of genocide. Not a single culture other than the modern West considers genocide a unique evil over and above mass slaughter, and not a single culture other than the modern West condemns mass slaughter to the extent the West does (although even that has it's limits as we know).

D- I have less an exhaustive list and more a definition. By my argument, a primodormal instinct is one which exists in humanity that is a result not of culture but of the human's genetic code. It is a moral instinct if it is one which determines what said human believes is right or wrong.

Some things I am not sure fit the definition, some things I think don't but I'm not sure. Those aren't the sort of things under discussion, however.
Post Reply