[pbleighton]

"as proof of subjective morality, you state "It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible."

taking that as a true statement, make your case for subjective morality... read mike's post first"

1. It is a true statement.

2. Mike's post didn't address this argument at all.

3. The argument is so self-evident that your request for a "case" is totally disingenuous, but here it is: slave ownership is universally condemned by Christians and Christianity today. It is condoned in the Bible, Biblical arguments were used to support it for centuries (and those arguments were largely accepted), and now it is wrong. Morality changes, and is therefore subjective.

I thought I could squeeze a little bit of intellectual honesty out of you. Well, I've been wrong before, and I will be wrong again.

Peter

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2006, 01:25 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 4 2006, 08:35 AM, said:

It is not only about war - but as I said at the beginning of this thread. The problem with US is basically their double moral standards.

arrgghhh... you stated earlier that of *course* morality is subjective, now you rail against the u.s. because of it's double moral standards... i take that to mean that they say one thing but do another... however, under your view of morality, both the saying and the doing are moral and immoral at the same time

the u.s. says "we believe in national sovereignty," and attacks iraq... the statement itself is moral to whomever thinks it is and immoral to one with a different opinion... the act is immoral to one and moral to another, thus both - or neither, is right - or wrong

one who affirms a subjective morality can't argue anything based upon that morality unless intellectually honest enough to grant a 50/50 chance he's wrong

Quote

the people of USA has never mandated their government/president. Much too low turnout to legitimate a democracy.

i don't understand your logic... are you saying that people in a free society should be forced to vote? or are you saying that because a certain percentage of people exercise their right not to vote, the election should be declared null?

to vote in a nat'l election here, one must meet age and citizenship requirements.. that is all... if they choose not to vote, they presumably do so of their own free will... the fact that they choose not to vote shouldn't negate the election

Not so difficult Jimmy. Ask around your many minority groups - especially the black ones. They have a story to tell you.

Regarding double moral standards you only need to read the reports published by US based Human Rights Watch.

[Gerben42]

Quote

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

You're getting the idea. It's very logical. If there is a good reason to attack someone the UN will approve. If there a bad reason (Iraq for example) then they won't.

Quote

2) Geneva Convention only applies to Armies not people not in uniform, Please read it, this makes no sense. When does the Geneva Convention not apply, are you saying never?

As Hrothgar already set now there are people of which the US says: they do not fall under US laws for "common" criminals and also not under prisoners of war so we can do anything we want with them, like putting them into horror places like Abu Grahib or Guantanamo. This has to stop!

Quote

3) Where should we put the prisoners, this makes no sense, we should not have any prisoners in prison?

In prison yes, but not torture them.

If you want to know why many people in Europe and also the rest of the world has a problem with the US government, it's this double moral standard they are using as described in the last 10 posts or so.

Therefore, I conclude that Pres. Bush should be impeached for attacking Iraq on false evidence and for allowing prisoners to be tortured in "prisons outside the law" like Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay.

If you are a US citizen and think that human rights should apply to everyone, tell your representative to vote for impeachment.

[Walddk]

Sometimes I find it hard to believe that Claus and I are from the same country. He is obviously entitled to his opinion and views, but I want you to know that they don't express the views of the majority of the Danish population.

Sure, we don't all agree with everything that has happened and is happening in the USA and in places where the United States is involved, but let me emphasize a couple of things:

- Americans are best at solving USA's problems.
- Danes are best at solving Denmark's problems.

By reading Claus' posts one could get the impression that USA is hell and that Denmark is heaven on earth. This is rubbish.

In my opinion, Claus does neither country a favour by expressing his extreme views, and fortunately no-one takes them seriously. I suggest that Claus travels to London, finds a box to stand on and enlightens the world at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.

Roland

[Sigi_BC84]

mike777, on Apr 4 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

International law prohibits assaulting foreign countries if not for self defense, if I understand it correctly.

So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There was no such threat coming from Iraq.

--Sigi

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 4 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

2. Mike's post didn't address this argument at all.

sure it did... he said,

mike said:

Relative Morality, some called it Humanism, look to imperfect humans to make these very tough decisions. The argument is out of imperfection, what is right and just can be learned on a relative basis.

Quote

3. The argument is so self-evident that your request for a "case" is totally disingenuous, but here it is: slave ownership is universally condemned by Christians and Christianity today.  It is condoned in the Bible, Biblical arguments were used to support it for centuries (and those arguments were largely accepted), and now it is wrong.  Morality changes, and is therefore subjective.

your reasoning is very circular... you can't point to a thing you've concluded to be subjective morality and use that very thing as a premise in your argument...

what makes your example one of subjective morality? iow, which of the two states of affairs, the owning of slaves or the condemnation of slavery, is moral? i say that you can't state that either is moral, for certain, in a world where morality is subjective... you state you can, so show us... is slavery immoral? if so, upoin what do you base that view?

Quote

I thought I could squeeze a little bit of intellectual honesty out of you.  Well, I've been wrong before, and I will be wrong again.

outside of the ad hominem nature of this statement, there's another problem... others are reading these posts (and probably wishing they weren't) who know that all you've said is:

1) a certain group once said that slavery was moral
2) that certain group now says that slavery is immoral
therefore, morality is subjective

huh?

i haven't seen that you have been able to reconcile your belief that either of those views is immoral with subjective morality

[helene_t]

Jimmy, it sounds to me as if your reasoning goes like this:
- either moral is subjective or it's objective
- if it's subjective then nothing can be said about moral issues, other than "In my humble opinion ....."

But there is a grey scale of objectivity, ranging from highly debately (how many lab animals is it acceptable to sacrifice to achieve some scientific progress with no direct, evident value for health care?) to not-realy-debatable (slavery is wrong).

So when somebody says that "this and that is imoral" then it should read, in the context of a philosofy that denies absolute morality, as "the imorality of this and that is barely debatable", i.e. all reasonable persons would agree that it's imoral.

If ethics was an exact science , we would allways, when saying something "is" imoral, specify exactly which ethical paradims we believe to lead to the imorality of that something. But that is not feasible. Even if something is, at a deep philosofical level, subjective, it sometimes makes sense to talk in absolute terms, at least if we are confident that the reader understands the essential part of the message.

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

is slavery immoral? if so, upoin what do you base that view?

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Binding prescription for all memberstates of the UN.

Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.

3.

(a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
() Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court;

() For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:

(i) Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;
(ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;

(iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

(iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

[csdenmark]

This just for evidence of poor record for USA but not only USA. Really looks like USA has chosen very bad company.

Link to Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch World Report 2006
U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide
(Washington, D.C, January 18, 2006) – New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreatment have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006 .

Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause. But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch

Printer Friendly Version

Also Available in


Related Material

Human Rights Watch’s 2006 World Report
Report

Free Email Newsletter

Contribute to Human Rights Watch


The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior U.S. government officials. The policy has hampered Washington’s ability to cajole or pressure other states into respecting international law, said the 532-page volume’s introductory essay.

“Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive.”

Roth said the illegal tactics were fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees.

U.S. partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances. The European Union continued to subordinate human rights in its relationships with others deemed useful in fighting terrorism, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

Many countries – Uzbekistan, Russia and China among them – used the “war on terrorism” to attack their political opponents, branding them as “Islamic terrorists.”

Human Rights Watch documented many serious abuses outside the fight against terrorism. In May, the government of Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of demonstrators in Andijan, the Sudanese government consolidated “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur, western Sudan, and persistent atrocities were reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Chechnya. Severe repression continued in Burma, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Tibet and Xinjiang in China, while Syria and Vietnam maintained tight restrictions on civil society and Zimbabwe conducted massive, politically motivated forced evictions.

There were bright spots in efforts to uphold human rights by the Western powers in Burma and North Korea. Developing nations also played a positive role: India suspended most military aid to Nepal after the king’s coup, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forced Burma to relinquish its 2006 chairmanship because of its appalling human rights record. Mexico took the lead in convincing the United Nations to maintain a special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Kyrgyzstan withstood intense pressure from Uzbekistan to rescue all but four of 443 refugees from the Andijan massacre, and Romania gave them temporary refuge.

The lack of leadership by Western powers sometimes ceded the field to Russia and China, which built economic, social and political alliances without regard to human rights.

In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that U.S. mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to “a few bad apples,” but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership.

Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that “waterboarding,” a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a “professional interrogation technique.”

“Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift,” said Roth. “The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate.”

The Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 contains survey information on human rights developments in more than 70 countries in 2005. In addition to the introductory essay on torture, the volume contains two essays: “Private Companies and the Public Interest: Why Corporations Should Welcome Global Human Rights Rules” and “Preventing the Further Spread of HIV/AIDS: The Essential Role of Human Rights.”

[keylime]

What science is there to global warming? The same scientists who cried foul is now saying "we don't know if it's happening".

Quite bluntly, some of us in this thread has either never been poor and/or homeless, or has forgotten that in this country, you have every chance to further yourself with hard work, prayer, vitamins, and sometimes, frequent wrestling episodes.

Living in Canada for 2 years, made me appreciate how crucially important citizenship is, and how lucky I am to have been born here. Contrary to the reconquistas that don't belong here, I fly my flag PROPERLY and with honor to the men and women I served with, and who serve this country everyday.
Does this mean Canada was a "bad" country? Of course not - the Canadian people were incredibly kind and loving towards me and my friends above the 49th parallel are deeply dear to me. However, what I am saying is, citizenship matters.

With all the Bush bashing in this forum, I'm surprised that we conservatives haven't decided to pile on France and Germany. Then again, we don't pile on. :-)

[mike777]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 5 2006, 05:31 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 4 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

International law prohibits assaulting foreign countries if not for self defense, if I understand it correctly.

So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There was no such threat coming from Iraq.

--Sigi

Thanks to you and Gerben and I think you have stated your position quite clearly, thanks.


"So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There..."


In your position if you live in the Southern part of Country A and the Northern Part of Country A attacks you and your family and neighbors then the USA can do nothing without the UN voting it is ok. No matter how evil. So If 400,000 people die, millions displaced, young boys and girls raped but the UN never votes year after year, we are wrong. IF the UN votes No too bad to your family. I see no logic and I am not swayed that the UN is to be trusted in its judgement but many disagree for some reason.

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

I think Helene has hit the nail on the head with morality, many people do say Morality is objective not relative otherwise it is IMHO. That is not to say we who believe in Objective morality are not sinners, confused or better than those who disagree with us. We are searching and learning and just plain wrong and confused often . We sure need to do a better job living up to what we claim we believe in and have more empathy with others for starters. How can anyone listen to us unless we do better.

[csdenmark]

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 05:50 PM, said:

IF the UN votes No too bad to your family

So it is in Dafur. Here also USA takes the NO-position.

Other examples of such might be Eritrea, Angola and Myanmar.

[Sigi_BC84]

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in a some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

Well, basically I say that international law should be recognized by every and any country, no matter how big or powerful -- this is the ideal, but unfortunately laws are there to be broken, also on the international level.

The US are powerful enough to be able to step over international bodies like the UN if they assume it's beneficial to them. The last euphemism they have used in that regard was "coalition of the willing".

If the UN are too slow in their reaction to certain world events, the problem should be solved by attempting to modernize the UN instead of rendering it worthless by performing continuing unilateralism.

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

keylime, on Apr 5 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

With all the Bush bashing in this forum, I'm surprised that we conservatives haven't decided to pile on France and Germany. Then again, we don't pile on. :-)

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

Or at least that little comment that the whole coalition in Iraq are responsible for the problems in general, Denmark and Italy incl.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Roland

[csdenmark]

Walddk, on Apr 5 2006, 08:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Roland

No Roland I fear it is a fact but I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

[Sigi_BC84]

Walddk, on Apr 5 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Insulting maybe, but I must admit that I was inclined to respond along similar lines...

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

Digital Tradition Mirror
What Did You Learn in School Today

Listen to Pete Seeger: What did you learn in school today




What Did You Learn in School Today
(Tom Paxton)

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

Copyright Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc.
SOF

Thanks to Mudcat for the Digital Tradition!

Visit the Tom Paxton web site

[the saint]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 5 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in a some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

Well, basically I say that international law should be recognized by every and any country, no matter how big or powerful -- this is the ideal, but unfortunately laws are there to be broken, also on the international level.

The US are powerful enough to be able to step over international bodies like the UN if they assume it's beneficial to them. The last euphemism they have used in that regard was "coalition of the willing".

If the UN are too slow in their reaction to certain world events, the problem should be solved by attempting to modernize the UN instead of rendering it worthless by performing continuing unilateralism.

--Sigi

The problem with the UN is that too many ccountries hide behind it and use it for their own vested interest. The security council is hidebound to stalemate with China and Russia continually blocking the US for their own needs. Take Darfur for instance, China wouldn't bring the Sudanese government to heel. Why? Something to do with the massive Oil contracts they just signed. WTF do millions of lives matter so long as the red party gets what they want?

The UN should act for the greater good. Is it any wonder nations have to go over the top of it when it allows tin-pot dictators to play Bertie Big-Bol****s on the world stage, when they should be shot for the incredible number of crimes against humanity and despicable corruption instead.

React to world events? I've seen corpses move faster. Unless of course there is a free lunch going.

Which brings me nicely to FIFA and the IOC...

(And breathe.... )

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Apr 5 2006, 08:01 AM, said:

Jimmy, it sounds to me as if your reasoning goes like this:
- either morality is subjective or it's objective
- if it's subjective then nothing can be said about moral issues, other than "In my humble opinion ....."

But there is a grey scale of objectivity, ranging from highly debately (how many lab animals is it acceptable to sacrifice to achieve some scientific progress with no direct, evident value for health care?) to not-realy-debatable (slavery is wrong).

So when somebody says that "this and that is imoral" then it should read, in the context of a philosofy that denies absolute morality, as "the imorality of this and that is barely debatable", i.e. all reasonable persons would agree that it's imoral.

yes helene, that's pretty close to my views... let me try to clarify... my objection to peter's post concerned his calling a certain thing, in no uncertain words, "immoral"... yet he insists there is no such thing as an objective morality, thus no standard by which to make the statement...

now then, if there is NO such thing as objective morality, then all morality is subjective (assuming it exists at all)... here are your choices as i see them, feel free to tell me where i'm wrong (logically wrong, that is)

1) morality is objective
2) morality is not objective
3) morality does not exist

if a morality is "barely debatable" then it is, of course, somewhat debatable, and the degree to which it is either of those is itself debatable... would you agree? that reduces all (subjective) moral arguments to the (as i said before) "r2, mknot" category

to be able to logically state that a thing is immoral, one must have some standard by which that judgment is made... it doesn't matter to me what the standard is, but it either exists or the statement cannot be made (again, from a philosophical/logical point of view)

Quote

Even if something is, at a deep philosofical level, subjective, it sometimes makes sense to talk in absolute terms, at least if we are confident that the reader understands the essential part of the message.

that might be true... however, a statement can make sense while at the same time be blatantly illogical..

while you and i might agree that slavery is immoral, the slaver might disagree... and in a world of subjectivism, neither would be (could be) wrong... claus quoted something concerning human rights which he, presumably, was setting forth as a way to judge a thing moral or not... but that simply begs the question - whose morality was he quoting and why is it any more moral than another's?

mike was right (again) when he said:

Quote

That is not to say we who believe in Objective morality are not sinners, confused or better than those who disagree with us. We are searching and learning and just plain wrong and confused often . We sure need to do a better job living up to what we claim we believe in and have more empathy with others for starters. How can anyone listen to us unless we do better.

as far as the UN goes ... nevermind

the saint said:

React to world events? I've seen corpses move faster. Unless of course there is a free lunch going.

or oil for money ... or was that food? (if you're the son of ... nevermind)