#193503 - 17/12/2003 02:56
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: Liufeng]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Saddam was an evil man and if he didn't tell us about his weapons program and allow inspections then we would do it by force
Ummm... he did tell us about his weapons program -- he said he didn't have any WMDs. And guess what? There weren't any.
There were plenty of inspectors in Iraq for years, and they couldn't find any WMDs, and frankly I'm not surprised that Saddam finally got pissed off and said enough is enough and kicked them out. (As it turned out, this may not have been the smartest move he ever made...)
I have said this on more than one occasion on this bbs, but it still bears repeating:
Even if it could be conclusively proven that Saddam Hussein fornicated with animals and ate babies for breakfast, he was still the legitimate head of a sovereign nation, and the United States of America had neither legal nor moral authority to invade and destroy that country.
I'm still pondering about what U.S. law he violated that gave American armed forces the right to "place him under arrest." When did he or anybody acting under his orders ever attack the U.S. in any venue outside the physical borders of Iraq?
Jim Hogan said it very well when he talked about the irony of saving our way of life by getting rid of it. Al Quaeda knocked over a couple of skyscrapers and killed several thousand people. That damage is trivial compared to the destruction wreaked upon the very foundations of this country by John Ashcroft, George Bush, et. al.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193504 - 17/12/2003 08:20
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Even if it could be conclusively proven that Saddam Hussein fornicated with animals and ate babies for breakfast, he was still the legitimate head of a sovereign nation, and the United States of America had neither legal nor moral authority to invade and destroy that country. Rest assured that I've not forgotten this statement! It's one I've thought a lot about since you first made it (in response to my post in fact).
First, before delving into this, I don't want to get sidetracked (which sort of happened last time), so I'd like to clarify your viewpoint. You are saying that a leader of a nation has the sovereign right to do what he will, and that no other country has the authority to try and stop him for committing grievous human rights violations. If this is accurate, then we’re assuming (only for the sake of conversation) that the U.S. went into Iraq for the sole purpose of dealing with human rights violations and there is no issue of political agenda, money, vendetta, or anything else. I realize this probably isn’t an accurate reflection of your viewpoint overall, but I’m trying to trim the issue down to exactly your statement above.
Having said that, to explore your statement it seems to me that I can understand it from three different perspectives (or perhaps a combination of them):
1. As the sovereign head of state, Saddam had the right to do as he wished and we should not have imposed our moral code upon him. To this I’d say that your moral code appears to value the rights and privilege of one person’s position over many people’s basic human rights. That is a stand I could not take, even if I grant for the sake of argument that morals are relative. I refuse to value a position or title above the rights of people who are so grievously being abused as those in Iraq were under Saddam’s regime. What he did to those people should have been stopped; his moral code should not receive a "free pass" because of his position.
2. Strategically it is important that we allow a head of state to rule as he or she will, as attacking a country over differences in a moral code weakens our position to deal with world leaders. I don’t really think this is your position, but I do see a case here that if we don’t give world leaders a “special” status which affords them certain leniency, then it makes it difficult to deal with them on a diplomatic level. I think this would be a hollow argument, however, when placed along side the atrocities that Saddam was committing. I couldn’t imagine telling someone whose family member just gotten viciously slaughtered before his or her eyes that this was a protected right in the name of “diplomacy and politics.”
3. The U.S. as a nation is not a governing body above Iraq, and therefore had no standing in which to carry out judgment upon it. The UN, however, had that right and could have exercised it. This argument I could buy if the UN were a stronger governing body. It isn’t, and I’m not sure that it can be. If there were in existence a governing world body that would take responsibility to police the world I think the U.S. should defer to it. However, the UN is not that body (though I realize there is probably much room for debate on this point), nor does that body seem to exist. So in such a vacuum a strong country like the U.S. has little recourse beyond taking on the responsibility itself.
Of course, in the real world the whole issue between the U.S. and Iraq is more complicated than whether a nation has the right to go in and pull down a regime committing human rights violations. There is the question of motive, as well as questions about other, more dangerous nations and the cooperation of other countries. But if these and other issues didn’t exist, I’d say the U.S. would have been morally justified in attacking Iraq in order to end the human rights violations that were going on there.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193505 - 17/12/2003 21:46
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
To this I’d say that your moral code appears to value the rights and privilege of one person’s position over many people’s basic human rights
Not quite... but sort of. I'm trying to say that the sovereign rights of a country's leadership (and by extension, of the entire country) are not subject to the wishes and desires of other sovereign nations, unless those other nations are directly threatened or attacked. Any other policy starts us down a very dangerous and slippery slope. If our Iraq policies are justified ("Saddam was a really bad guy who was really mean to his people, so lets go over there and kill him and while we're at it let's blow up the whole damn country"), then why can't other nations decide to knock down a few of our skyscrapers in the name of Allah, and in the process get rid of a few of those despicable infidel heretics who are trying to force their false religion and preposterous political system upon them? (Note: this is not my point of view; I am just trying to demonstrate through exaggeration a potential outlook that is almost certainly held by millions of people on this planet.)
.
.
2.Strategically it is important that we allow a head of state to rule as he or she will, as attacking a country over differences in a moral code weakens our position to deal with world leaders.
I think it is far more appropriate that we demonstrate our own moral worth through the way that we treat our own citizens and the way that we deal with other nations. I just cannot see how blowing up a country that did nothing to harm us, and killing thousands of its citizens in the process, can enhance our image with the citizens of any nation, nor give us credibility in dealing with other world leaders. Back in the previous century, this was known as Gunboat Diplomacy, and while it may have worked in the short term, it didn't win us very many friends in the long run.
.
.
3.The U.S. as a nation is not a governing body above Iraq, and therefore had no standing in which to carry out judgment upon it. The UN, however, had that right and could have exercised it
And chose not to.
So the U.S. acted unilaterally, ignored the U.N., and started a war with no more provocation than the idea that Saddam Hussein wasn't a very nice guy. Well, he wasn't a nice guy, and unquestionably the world is a better place now that he is out of power. But how would you feel if some foreign nation started blowing up things in this country because they didn't like the way our government was contributing to the deaths of its citizens? It seems like a ridiculous argument, maybe it is, but the U.S. government contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually by subsidizing the tobacco industry. Not even Saddam can match those numbers. While I deplore our government's participation in this area, I certainly would not welcome attacks from outside the country whose intent was to protect us for our own good.
.
.
I’d say the U.S. would have been morally justified in attacking Iraq in order to end the human rights violations that were going on there.
Maybe (and to me it's a big maybe) morally justified. But not legally. And if we disregard the laws that are against our interests and intents of the moment, what does that say about our own morality?
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193506 - 17/12/2003 23:23
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
> I’d say the U.S. would have been morally justified in attacking Iraq in order to end the human rights violations that were going on there.
Whose morals? Morals is the ultimate subjective term, and if we say that our personal moral beliefs supercede laws, any society degenerates into anarchy. To some zealots, their personal moral code says that flying into buildings or shooting abortion doctors is moral. I wonder how many dictators and despots were absolutly sure of the moralness of their cause?
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193507 - 17/12/2003 23:36
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: ninti]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Morals is the ultimate subjective term On this we will have to somply disagree. Following this guideline, there are no such thing as morals, as we are each free to interpret them in any way we see fit. And if some morals are not absolute, then why are there laws? If I deem it moral to steal from you, or kill you, who are you to judge me? Without morals, whoever has the most physical power can set the laws in their favor, and subjugate whomever they please.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193508 - 17/12/2003 23:53
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: lectric]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Without morals, whoever has the most physical power can set the laws in their favor, and subjugate whomever they please.
How sadly true.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193509 - 18/12/2003 00:15
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: genixia]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Unfortunately yes, those in power often do make mistakes. Such is the danger of living in the spotlight. I often make mistakes. The trick is, if I get the wrong type of creamer, the wife gets mad for a few minutes, and life goes on. When there is great power, the decisions that have to be made carry much greater responsibility. Sometimes the correct course of action is one that is unpleasant. For example, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible decicions, but may well have been the correct one. Who knows how many people would have been lost if WW2 had dragged on for two or even twenty more years? Yes, it cost lives. Even those of innocents. But how are lives to be measured? By the sheer quantity? Quality? Innocence? The one thing that I do know is that I do not know. As such I am glad not to have the terrible burden of responsibility. I couldn't even begin to understand how difficult it is to make decisions on things as benign as balancing the budget. What is worth more, healthcare for the elderly, welfare for those in need, education, defense, roads, infrastructure? I'm sure there is gross waste in some parts of government, but how can one tell by looking at a giant spreadsheet?
I know I'm ranting a bit, but it seems awfully easy for people to tear down those in power when that's an awfully easy thing to do from the comfort of your living room. It's exceedingly easy to coach a football game the night after it's been played. Unfortunately, it isn't so easy when you're sitting in the hot seat and everyone is gunning for you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193510 - 18/12/2003 00:16
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Morals is the ultimate subjective term
Without morals, whoever has the most physical power can set the laws in their favor, and subjugate whomever they please.
Ah, the rub, I think, is that you are both right. True, laws could/can be nothing but a tool for the secret police to round up and torture people if the laws lack a foundation in "morals" or some sort of democratic/benevolent consideration of the common wealth.
But they *are* subjective, except (generally) insofar as groups of people adopt a divine sponsor for their morals and then they can become frighteningly absolute. The problem there being that you can and do have many differing sets of absolute morals floating around, some of which instruct the zealous to fly airplanes into buildings, shoot doctors, or unapologetically blow up federal buildings. I think we'd all agree that "that ain't moral!" but would have a hard time convincing folks who differ with our morals to a smaller or larger degree. Chop off somebody's head for the crime of sodomy? The Law and Morality at work hand in hand, wouldn't you say?
We sorry-ass moral relativists fall into the trap of wandering around, constantly mumbling vaguely about the "golden rule", "the greatest good for the greatest number", and something about individual well-being depending on societal well-being. For this we always get accused of being Democrats and (shudder) liberals.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193511 - 18/12/2003 00:25
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: jimhogan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
I can agree with that. While I personally believe there is an absolute right and wrong, I am no where near arrogant enough to say that I know what it is. And you're right. Moral relativists tend to get lumped into the New Age / L Ron Hubbard wacko groups while moral absolutists tend to get grouped into the right wing conservativist / religious zealot wacko groups. In reality, our morals are more than likely very similar, but our means of reaching them are very different.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193512 - 18/12/2003 07:58
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: ninti]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Whose morals? Mine of course! If you’d like to borrow them for a while, I’m sure we could arrange something . . . 
Seriously though, I don’t think there’s anything wrong my stating “The U.S. would have been morally justified”. It is a statement of my moral position, and that is surely something to which I’m entitled. In fact, I can even enforce my moral code onto other people if enough of the population agrees with me; that’s where we get laws in the first place. Certainly you’d probably agree with the statement: “The police are morally justified in arresting those people who rape five year old girls,” even though this is just your “subjective” moral opinion.
Morals is the ultimate subjective term A statement with which I disagree profoundly, but as this is the way society has come to view morals I must at least agree to it for the sake of argument. Still, as I mentioned above, when a group of people in a democracy (or a strong single person in a less democratic society) feel a particular way about some moral issue, they generally get what they want. Generally this works well, but sometimes things don’t end up well for the minority. And after all, the minority isn’t “wrong”, just different- even those who feel there is nothing immoral about rape or murder.
if we say that our personal moral beliefs supercede laws, any society degenerates into anarchy. Except that it is our personal moral beliefs that create the laws. Laws are ultimately the mixing and mashing of our morals together to some up with something we can all live with. The only problem is that sometimes there aren’t reasonable compromises, and that’s when things get ugly.
I value my moral code over the law and will obey it if the two are ever in conflict. What’s more is that I’m certain you probably feel the same way. If somehow a law got passed that all of our wives belonged to the president to do with as he pleased, I’ll bet more than a few would stand up against the “law” and fight back- violently if necessary. Yes that would be anarchy, but it’d also be the “right” thing to do.
To some zealots, their personal moral code says that flying into buildings or shooting abortion doctors is moral. I wonder how many dictators and despots were absolutely sure of the moralness of their cause? Probably lots. But I believe some people’s moral codes are superior to others, so this doesn’t pose a large problem to me. This is where I throw up my hands and say "I can't argue the moral relative viewpoint in this case".
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193513 - 18/12/2003 08:51
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
except (generally) insofar as groups of people adopt a divine sponsor for their morals and then they can become frighteningly absolute. Almost right, but not quite. IF (and it's a big "if" to an atheist- well actually a “not”- but I digress) there is such thing as moral absolutes then there's only one set that's right. Simply saying "I believe God thinks . . . " doesn't make it true. But it also doesn't make it false either. If people are going to appeal to a higher power, they should not assume that every one else should accept their words simply because they attach the word “God.” My moral code is completely defined by my religious beliefs, but it can also be discussed intelligently and flows from some very solid premises. What is key is that my viewpoint is open to being questioned, and I don’t expect everyone to hold it. That doesn’t make it relative, though: I believe I’m right, and that belief is on dependent on what you believe. And if there IS absolute truth, it IS right whether either of us agree with it or not.
Jim, the rest of this isn’t aimed at you (not that the previous stuff was- however that was at least based on one of your comments). It’s just some thoughts about moral relativity and objective truth.
I think a large problem with moral relativism is that it treats all moral codes equally, which on the face of it isn't true (unless moral's are simply illusions, in which case all moral codes are equally bankrupt). I have to say, if I were and atheist (and I don't say any of this to put anyone down), I think I'd probably have to reject the notion of morals all together as empty and meaningless. Any discussion of right vs. wrong would be moot as there would be no meaningful outcome of any action. What I think I would do is simply whatever felt right, whether it was consistent with my previous actions or not. I know that's a pretty bleak picture and maybe I'd see things differently on "the other side," but from this vantage point (of believing in absolute truth) that's how it all appears to me.
The strange thing to me is that I really see two options: reject morals as illusory, or seek the one objective truth. What I can’t understand is the idea (the very popular one) that people hold of: “there are many different valid moral codes defined by the individuals who hold them”. That to me is just a clever restating the first option in a way that sounds a little more comfortable. People have these feelings that they call “morals” so they have something to hold onto and believe there is such a thing as “good”, but beyond providing a level of comfort these “morals” don’t do much as they can’t even be valued against other morals (since they’re all equal).
Ok, I’ll stop rambling for the moment. I need to get some work done!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193514 - 18/12/2003 09:56
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The problem with this moral relativity BS is they don't stand for anything themselves, except "let's try to understand the point of view of the murderers" Just do what you think is right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193515 - 18/12/2003 11:45
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I have to say, if I were and atheist (and I don't say any of this to put anyone down), I think I'd probably have to reject the notion of morals all together as empty and meaningless. This is terribly offensive.
You're implying that because I don't believe in God, Allah, or whoever that my life is meaningless and that I cannot hold any moral values without relating them to some supreme being. This seems to be a viewpoint held by a lot of religious (and ``religious'') people, and it is just wrong.
Just because I don't believe in God (and let me just abbreviate to God -- no offense intended to any non-Judeo-Christians reading this) doesn't mean that I don't hold certain values as sacred. The most important moral rule to me is the Golden Rule. Or the Hippocratic Oath. Or whatever version of it you want to recite. The fact that many different cultures with different religions have come up with the same ideas implies the existence of morals that are set in humanity, not in some external force. So the idea that because I don't believe in God puts me on the same level as a sociopath is offensive.
I also find it offensive for the religious folks, as it also implies that the only reason you're following this moral code is to gain a reward or avoid a penalty. After all, if the morals are absolute as defined by God, then God made them up arbitrarily. The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193516 - 18/12/2003 12:04
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
I have to say, if I were and atheist (and I don't say any of this to put anyone down), I think I'd probably have to reject the notion of morals all together as empty and meaningless. Any discussion of right vs. wrong would be moot as there would be no meaningful outcome of any action. What I think I would do is simply whatever felt right, whether it was consistent with my previous actions or not. I know that's a pretty bleak picture and maybe I'd see things differently on "the other side," but from this vantage point (of believing in absolute truth) that's how it all appears to me. Bits of that sound right to me and bits don't. Morality to me is about acting for the maximum benefit of humankind; I don't expect or look for any "meaningfulness" to it beyond that. It's about people being happy. What's the meaningfulness of that? Well, people like being happy. End of story.
So morality is "empty and meaningless" in the sense of having no results beyond its worldly results -- but it's just those results that make it important to me. What's right or wrong can be judged, though, by its effects, or likely effects, on human happiness. And yes, I do whatever feels right for human happiness; sometimes this is inconsistent with my previous actions due to the normal operation of learning from mistakes.
And I think there are different kinds of forces that impel people to act for the maximum benefit of humankind. Some, like parental love, are innate and a product of evolution -- creatures who care for their offspring are bound to outcompete those who don't. Others are not innate; often, these are society-oriented morals such as obedience to authority, which can't be expected to be innate as social change has been too rapid over the past few thousand years to have affected evolutionary change.
Maybe that's just because I reckon that "human happiness is a Good Thing" is an Absolute Truth, though, so I'm not really in the opposing camp (lacking any absolute truths) which you're describing.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#193517 - 18/12/2003 12:08
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/10/2000
Posts: 4931
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
Excellent post! If I tried to say it better, I would have failed miserably.
_________________________
-Rob Riccardelli
80GB 16MB MK2 090000736
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193518 - 18/12/2003 12:33
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
This is terribly offensive. Please accept my apologies then. I really was not intending to be disrespectful at all, but I realize that doesn’t make it OK I don’t have time to fully get into this any more, but I feel bad having to leave the conversation this way.
The only thing I want to point out is that I tried to make it clear that all of that was my view from where I stand now, and that perhaps I’d see things differently if I didn’t believe what I do.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193519 - 18/12/2003 12:51
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery. Unless the Master is perfect in every way. Then it becomes far more inviting than relying on flawed humanity.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193520 - 18/12/2003 12:56
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I cannot say anything more than that you're wrong. Slavery is wrong irrespective of the quality of the master. It may be inviting, but it's wrong.
Now who has the moral absolute?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193521 - 18/12/2003 12:56
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
OK, I kind of understand both sides of this story. What Jeff I believe was trying to relay is that morals based solely on what you "feel" are worthless. Off the wall example, but consider a two lane highway being reduced to one. Traffic flows MUCH more smoothly for all involved if people just merge when they are told. But no, there's always some [censored] that tries to push it to the limit and cut in front of everyone in line, screwing the works for everyone. In other words, personal morals have little value if not measured against anything else. Even if these morals are only measured against happiness for mankind, they still become a valid set of morals.
As to diety based morals being a type of slavery, this is also a wrong assumption. The idea is that God knows better for us than we do, and we'd be a lot happier in our daily lives if we do what's suggested. If one looks at the bible in a critical way, you will find that the vast majority of the morals pushed in the bible are just a good idea. The closer you can align yourself to the teachings of the Bible, the happier you tend to be. It's not a matter of subjugating yourself to someone else's will for the sake of them walking all over you. it's the belief that doing so will bring you a long, happy, peaceful life.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193522 - 18/12/2003 12:58
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I didn't really mean that you offended me. The concept, to me, is inherently offensive. You are welcome to believe what you want, but it's important to note that other people have wildly different ideas, even if their ultimate code of morals comes out being the same.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193523 - 18/12/2003 13:04
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
There's a difference between following the philosophy espoused in the Bible (or one of them -- is it ``an eye for an eye'' or ``turn the other cheek''?) and begin caught up in the religiosity. If you believe that you're doing these things because it'll make you (or the rest of us) happy, then that's one thing. But if you're doing it because it's what your master says, that's something else altogether.
It's the difference between teacher and master and it's significant. I'm not judging which you consider God to be. However, much of the rhetoric used by religious folks in general tends toward viewing Him as master, regardless of the speaker's actual intent.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193524 - 18/12/2003 13:12
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Oh, right. 
Sometimes I take things too literally, and I try very hard not to be offensive. But when I believe something that is conceptually offensive, there’s not much I can do. In any event, I’d really like to respond to your post because there are a few things that I’d really like to clarify about what I believe. At the moment, however, I don’t have enough time to explore the issue fully, so I’ll leave it where it is.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193525 - 18/12/2003 14:35
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 20/01/2002
Posts: 2085
Loc: New Orleans, LA
|
Those precepts are both in the bible. The difference is that the former was in the mosaic law, before Christ. The latter was by Christ and was talking about relationships, not law.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193526 - 18/12/2003 14:59
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
You're implying that because I don't believe in God, Allah, or whoever that my life is meaningless My belief is more along the lines that if there is no God or ultimate end goal to humanity, then all of our lives are meaningless, regardless of who believes what. The converse is also true. If there is a God or some end goal to humanity, than all of our lives carry meaning, regardless of whether we believe it or not. Like a variable within an equation that is cancelled out, if ultimately we affect nothing, than whatever we may experience here, be it joy or pain, I don’t see of any ultimate consequence. The variable need not carry understanding to be meaningful; it must only affect the outcome. I should note that this isn’t a religious viewpoint; it’s a very secular one and much ink has been spilled by philosophers about it Just because I don't believe in God (and let me just abbreviate to God -- no offense intended to any non-Judeo-Christians reading this) doesn't mean that I don't hold certain values as sacred. The most important moral rule to me is the Golden Rule. Or the Hippocratic Oath. Or whatever version of it you want to recite. And I don’t disagree. Many people hold to things as sacred, and as was pointed out earlier this can very well suffice as “absolute truth”. If your view is that all things are subject to the Golden Rule, then this is the moral that rules all others, at least as far as you are concerned. It is the premise on which your arguments are based, and you don’t feel that this is a subjective standard. You feel that all people should treat each other as they themselves wish to be treated.
For myself, however, were I in a position of a loss of faith I don’t believe I could adopt an “absolute truth” such as the Golden Rule. The reason for this is the purposlessness I was talking about earlier. I'd do things I felt were right (mostly because it makes me happy to help others), but there would never be an instance I did something difficult to appease some external rule. If it was difficult to treat someone as I'd want to be treated, I'd probably not do it for the simple fact that in the end none of it mattered anyway. Is that attitude offensive? Well yes, I think it is actually. But I honestly think that faith in something bigger than myself is the only thing that keeps me from descending into such gross selfishness. The fact that many different cultures with different religions have come up with the same ideas implies the existence of morals that are set in humanity, not in some external force. I'd argue exactly the opposite. I think the fact that we've all come up with similar ideas implies that there is something greater than us that put it there. So the idea that because I don't believe in God puts me on the same level as a sociopath is offensive. As I said before, belief in God isn't the issue. The really issue is whether there is any ultimate meaning to existence, and I see God as giving us meaning. If there is no real point to human existence then the sociopath may be the most enlightened of all of us. I also find it offensive for the religious folks, as it also implies that the only reason you're following this moral code is to gain a reward or avoid a penalty. You misunderstand me. I follow a moral code out of thankfulness to God for what he's done for me and a desire to bring him honor and glory. In a Christian worldview there is no good work that can make up for the penalty of making a mistake, nor is there any mistake that can thwart God's grace. After all, if the morals are absolute as defined by God, then God made them up arbitrarily. That doesn't necessarily follow. I don't believe that God has made up anything arbitrarily. Everything that is "good" is because of who He is, not a meaningless code of conduct. The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery. I don't have much to say in response to this, except that we are coming from vastly different points of view here. Call it what you will, but there is no more empowering, freeing, and loving thing in my life than God.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193527 - 18/12/2003 15:14
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Wow. I can't imagine living your life. I don't think I can even go so far as to agree to disagree. Your points make so little sense to me (while I'm sure they do to you) that they're as far from me as folks who think it's okay to massacre thousands of people by crashing a plane into a skyscraper. That doesn't mean that I don't think your viewpoints are more inherently moral -- I do -- only that I don't understand the road you took there any more than theirs.
Knowledge is my religion, if you will, and the idea that I can help future generations learn more, even if it just means supporting those who are supporting those who are learning, is what makes my life meaningful. I'd much rather humanity truly learn where it came from, or at least aspire to, than accept simple stories as truth.
I'd also argue that the path is the meaning. I don't know why we're here, and I won't pretend that there is a reason. But we are, and as long as we are, we should try to make it as pleasant a stay as possible.
I'm not even sure I have a point. It's just bizarre to me that an intelligent person can accept these notions. To me, it's like believing in the Tooth Fairy. (I'm sure I'm now being the one that's offensive. I just don't get it.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193528 - 18/12/2003 16:06
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Well, this means either one of two things. A. My views really are just too different for you to understand. OR B. I'm feeling pretty sick, operating on very little sleep, and having a generally bad day and therefore not communicating well. Probably a mixture of the two I'm afraid.
(And I'm not offended)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193529 - 18/12/2003 16:15
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
No. I think it's rather the former,
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193530 - 19/12/2003 01:58
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: lectric]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Following this guideline, there are no such thing as morals, as we are each free to interpret them in any way we see fit.
I couldn't have said it better myself. However, I would have placed exactly the opposite meaning on it that you did! (You meant it as a demonstration of just how preposterous such a situation would be; I would mean it as an example of demonstrable fact.)
Let's try a few examples of just how grey an area morality can be.
We'll start out nice and easy... am I being immoral by eating sausage and eggs for breakfast? I have a friend of Jewish faith who would think so, and he is a person whose intelligence and education is beyond reproach, and his standards of morality are impeccable by virtually any standards.
Or... do you allow your wife to leave the house with her face uncovered? If so, I can show you a highly intelligent, educated man whose culture and code of behavior dates back thousands of years, who will condemn both you and your wife as being grossly immoral.
Now, let's turn it around. Do you think that man is being immoral by forcing his wife to dress in a manner she might well dislike? Chances are that neither he nor his wife would think so.
But most frightening of all... that same man will believe with an absolute conviction far beyond anything your Judeo-Christian beliefs about killing can provide you with, that not only is it acceptable to bar the doors of a burning dormitory in a girls school preventing the occupants from escaping (because they were not properly dressed) but his beliefs, religious teachings, and sense of morality absolutely demand it!
This is a man just as intelligent and well educated as you are, with just as strong a sense of morality and right and wrong as you have -- and yet his morals are diametrically opposed to yours, and no amount of discourse between you would change either one of your opinions.
Still think that morality is absolute?
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193531 - 19/12/2003 08:12
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31597
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I was gonna bring up the women-covered thing earlier. I'm glad you beat me to it, you made the same point I was going to make, but gave a much stronger real-world example.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#193532 - 19/12/2003 09:06
Re: Saddam arrested
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
This is a man just as intelligent and well educated as you are, with just as strong a sense of morality and right and wrong as you have -- and yet his morals are diametrically opposed to yours, and no amount of discourse between you would change either one of your opinions.
Still think that morality is absolute? Believing that morals are absolute doesn't mean you think everyone's moral code is valid. Rather it means you think that there is one code that is correct, whether anyone follows it or not. I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am. Just because we have our own versions of morals doesn't make them relative. One or both of us just may be wrong.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index