Saddam arrested

Yeah, I meant UN. Thanks for the correction.

(Original post edited)

The objective of the war was to remove Saddam's regime from power. That objective was successful. We can argue all day about why we wanted to achieve that objective. It was actually a variety of reasons, only one of which was his failure to comply with the UN regarding WMD's. Personally, I think that Saddam Hussein is in need of a ba'ath.

It was actually a variety of reasons, only one of which was his failure to comply with the UN regarding WMD's

But that's not how Congress and the American public were sold on the war. We were told that the U.S. was just enforcing the UN Security Council Resoultions. That was the only thing that made the war justifiable, and the only thing that created a situation where Congress would approve a bill giving Dubya the authority to use force in Iraq. It's a classic bait-and-switch. Hence my argument that the war cannot be claimed to be successful because the ORIGINAL stated objectives were not met.

The objective was to remove Saddam's regime. The reasons for the war were WMD's among other things.

I think our leaders did what they thought was in the best interests of our national security at the time. Ok, they had some bad intelligence...little egg on their face. Now they have to clean up the results as best they can, and if they can make it out of there with a secular, democratic government in place, I'd say it was a success. We've removed one of the most openly antagonistic regimes from power and strengthened our position in the Middle East and helped our allies there.

Well, I don't know. If your intention is to remove all WMDs and it turns out that they don't have any, then they've all been removed, whether they've all been removed ten years ago or if nothing from nothing still leaves nothing.

I think that follows as much logic as any other argument the US gov't made.

Been away for a few days, naaahh - sod the DNA, that's Lord Lucan.

one of the most openly antagonistic regimes

Maybe I have a short memory, but in what manner were they antagonistic? The only thing I can think of is when they invaded Kuwait, but even that was after the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, essentially told them to go ahead and do it.

come on, didnt you see the way he fired that rifle in the air?

Yeah, but in Iraq, that is apparently as common as passing gas.

but in what manner were they antagonistic?

Let's see.....after Gulf War I, so this doesn't include gassing thousands of people.
Shooting at our planes in internation airspace? Paying money to the familes of suicide bombers? Refusing the UN inspectors? Congratulating the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists? Looking at us the wrong way? Being an ugly son of a bitch that was just asking for it?

Now they have to clean up the results as best they can, and if they can make it out of there with a secular, democratic government in place, I'd say it was a success.

Yes, but there are people declaring it a success already. The war itself cannot possibly be construed as successful based on the original goals.

I agree with you that *IF* a stable democratic government is created in Iraq, I can definitely see calling the overall net effect a success. Of course I would consider bringing democracy to North Korea or China much more of a success, but we can't just go in and kick the asses of those countries, can we?

Also, if you look at the U.S.'s history in building democracies, we're not exactly batting a thousand.

hey, at least we try

hey, at least we try

And in this case (and all the others) I think it'd be a lot more successful AND noble if we "tried" with enough allies to actually make it a long-lasting success, instead of doing it ourselves until it no longer suits our interest, then folding up shop and letting the warlords take over again.

By antagonistic, I was not considering internal conflict. (Though, to me, the human rights violations within Iraq were enough to go to war over. My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.)

I forgot about the no-fly zones. That's a good one. I'm not sure that I'd count the suicide bomber thing, but it's important to note, anyway. Same thing with the UN inspections thing, though we continue to get varying reports about that even from the inspectors themselves.

Congratulating the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists?

Hell, half the Asian world did that.

The rest I'll ignore.

My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

Well, you have to remember the UN had it's chance. It failed to fulfill it's purpose, and it goes to show what a joke it actually is.

Though, to me, the human rights violations within Iraq were enough to go to war over. My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

You know, I completely missed that you felt this way throughout all of our discussions about Iraq. So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth; just trying to be sure I understand correctly. Do other people agree with this? Because I kind of had the idea the Bush trumped up the WMD thing in order to go in when the real motive was to deal with human rights violations. I didn’t think it was right to do, but my guess was that he didn’t think he could get enough support on human rights alone. I’m saying this based on very little knowledge, and if more people would have supported a UN action to go into Iraq, I’d be very interested in knowing that.

> The reasons for the war were WMD's among other things.

The stated reason was that this was a war against terrorism. Bush stated Iraq had links to Al Queda, and the implication was we had to get rid of their vast stockpiles of WMD before it was given to terrorists. Turns out the whole thing was a lie from begining to end. Bush cynically used 9/11 to get America to go along with his plan and now is trying to rewrite history as to why this war was justified.

This war was not about WMDs, lots of countries have WMDs. This was not about getting rid of a dictator, there are plenty of dictators in the world. Neither explains why we went after Saddam. This was about money. And more than that this was about hegemony.

you forgot 'IMHO'

This was about money.

What exactly do you mean by this, and how with such certainty? Even with the blunders that this administration has made, I still don't believe this was about money. Spreading Democracy maybe (edit: though I don't believe so), but not pure greed.

This war was not about WMDs, lots of countries have WMDs.

Yeah, and long ago they all agreed that nobody else would get them.

This was not about getting rid of a dictator, there are plenty of dictators in the world.

That was one of the reasons. Should we invade every country that has a dictator? No, it's not feasible. That was just another strike against Iraq, as was the human rights issues. Let's be honest. No country is going to start a war over human rights, but since we're going in there anyway we might as well put an end to that too. The main reason was the growing threat Iraq posed to the US and our allies. Militarily, Saddam was no match. But his open support of terrorism, his refusal to prove that he's WMD-free, and his control over a vast amount of oil is a threat to the world. I don't care if we went into Iraq based on oil alone. Having a crazed dictator controlling the world's energy is not a good thing. We don't want that bastard to be holding the world by the balls in the future when he does have nukes. To say that Bush wants oil for himself is just ridiculous. The oil is staying in the hands of Iraq, but now it'll be controlled by sensible, elected leaders that hopefully aren't hell-bent on destroying the infidels or conquering the middle east.

So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities?

I don't know what international law has to say about this, but, in my mind, it doesn't matter. Yes. I would have totally supported the war (other than your general ``War is Hell'' ideology) if it had been orchestrated by the UN in reference to human rights and other countries had signed on for it. I realize I've said little here to that point, but that's the case. I supported the attack on Afghanistan, even, until it turned out to be a ``we're going to remove this government and do little else about ensuring peace'' fiasco. For that, I even somewhat supported the US going alone (before the fiasco part), although I thought it would have been good to at least acknowledge the offers of the international community. There would still be issues with a war, as Iraq was one of the very few secularly governed states in the Middle East, and, as far as terrorism goes, the religious states seem to be of bigger concern. I think it would be hard under any circumstance to establish a new secular government in Iraq, but I think the route the US has taken makes it especially hard.

My main problem with the war on Iraq is that the Bush administration obviously used the whole terrorism thing to get backing for his pet war. (I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

However, as [censored] pointed out, the UN once again proved themselves to be toothless. I don't understand why they can get behind sending large numbers of troops to Yugoslavia but not to Iraq. I hate the fact that the UN seems unable to do anything, but, for now, it's the best we've got. Maybe it's time to dissolve it and form a new international body. Of course, the last time an international governing body dissolved World War II happened.

Honestly, the ``lots of small offenses'' argument is the only one that makes sense to me (regardless of the international support issue), and it makes a not unreasonable amount of sense. I still wouldn't have supported it, as I believe that only one of the ``small offenses'' is true.

Too bad it was an argument that the Bush administration used only when all of it's big red herrings proved to be untrue, and then tried to retcon and claim that's what they said the whole time.

(Note that I'm not intending to say that massive human rights violations, etc. are really ``small offenses''. I'm just paraphrasing the idea of ``there are a bunch of reasons that all add up to cause''.)

Very interesting. It turns out that you and I are not as far apart on this as I’d gathered, which I find quite encouraging. I suppose that the difference was that I started out with a fair amount of trust in Bush, whereas you did not. I’m totally bitter about this whole “what are the reasons for going to war thing”, even perhaps more so than you simply because I really believed everything that was said.

Still, burned as I am, I don’t think Bush’s motives are/were as bad as people are making out. However, due to his administrations lack of integrity, it’s really hard to know the truth now isn’t it?

(I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

I too find this a much more disagreeable problem.

The primary arguement used by Bush was that Saddam had WMD's and that they are trained on the US and other countries. We have yet to see any evidence of these WMD's despite the 'dossier' shown to many governments.
Now the claims are that Saddam's capture is a great benefit to the Iraqi people. No mention of WMD's.
I did hear someone say that now Saddam would lead them to the WMD's.
Didn't the US have 'credible evidence' of the location of WMD's? If they couldn't find them before, despite this evidence, why will they be able to find them now?

I hesitate to say that it's more disagreeable. We are talking about killing people, Iraqis and western soldiers, versus what could be described as an inconvienience.

But there are positive aspects to the war and I cannot find any in the erosion of civil liberties. And I find it amusing (in a very black way) that we're supposedly protecting the American Way of Life by getting rid of it.

Ferretboy said:
> What exactly do you mean by this, and how with such certainty?

Well, it could just be coincidence that all of Bush's and Cheney's friends are in the oil business and are making money hand over fist for contracts that the government has awarded them and that other firms that aren't as friendly with the people in the administration have been largely locked out. And it might be coincidence that there are plans of establishing a semi-permanent armed guard to protect the oil interests there until such time as the United States has "paid" for its war with Iraqi oil. It could be coincidence, but you would have to pretty naive to believe these thoughts did not cross Bush's mind before the war. But alas, internal motives of people are hard to "prove" unless they are stupid enough to say it, but they can sure be implied by their actions.

Now, as for proof of this being about American hegemony, that there is plenty of. The people in Bush's administration have been urging and planning this for years, and that has documented.

The-guy-who-may-not-be-named said:
> Yeah, and long ago they all agreed that nobody else would get them.

And we largely ignore that. And it appears that Iraq doesn't have any anyway. Strange that, considering Bush said he knew where they were and everything.

> The main reason was the growing threat Iraq posed to the US and our allies.

He was no threat to us. His "support of terrorism" amounted to paying some families in Palestine. He had no way of hurting us. The inspectors had found no signs of WMDs and both Scott and Blix believed he had none. And his "control over a vast amount of oil" has nothing to do with being a danger to anyone, although it certainly was an opportunity for us.

> now it'll be controlled by sensible, elected leaders

Haha, you are an optimist I see. Saddam was secular, for all his faults. As soon as America is gone religious zealots are going to take over that country. We will have created a monster we will have no hope of containing. To believe Iraq is capable of democracy in our lifetime is not based in any understanding of the culture over there.

I wish you would argue at this level all the time man; when you put your mind to it and stop trying to be offensive you are pretty decent at this.

"a monster we will have no hope of containing"

You know I think that the Iraqis whose relatives were killed/tortured/gassed just might remember who got rid of him if or when that time comes. They are in the majority in Iraq.

-Zeke

But we helped put him in power in the first place, knowing that he was a monster.

I hope you're right, but I doubt you are.

Also, the majority are largely fundamentalist Shiites who might feel that supporting the Saud monarchy might outweigh that.

I don't really know. But it's certainly a situation much too complex to be controlled or predicted; not easily, anyway, if at all.

I'm sure we knew he wasn't a choir boy, but I don't think we knew he'd gas thousands.

Personally, I believe that in the long term, fundamentalist regimes are self limiting. They usually become corrupt, entrenched bureaucracies (theocracies I suppose is a better word) and eventually fail from within. I think Iran is well on the way to that goal. The danger comes in the end days when power is slipping, those in power start to fear and do dangerous/horrible things to consolidate & maintain power. I posit that corruption & power are pervasive in all forms of government. It's just that in a democratic state there exists a check on corruption called the ballot box.

-Zeke

By all accounts, the Ba'ath party killed basically all of the intelligentsia in Iraq following its 1963 coup, the interrogation and torture parts of which were probably led by Saddam Hussein himself. But they were against the Communists, so....

...we forstalled the people who had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed right at us from taking an oil rich nation in a strategic location.

It's easy to try to judge history. I'm certain many bad deeds have been done under our auspices. I don't believe that history can be simplified nor made less grey.

-Zeke

Yeah, ever since Farm Aid...

You would have thought that Saddam would have made sure that Garcia was still alive though before he took up the disguise.

You're so angry.

My psychiatrist says that she detects a distinct pattern -- that I consistently take anger towward BBS members and displace it at high-ranking members of the current administration. I'm not sure I buy that. What do you think?

Why do people in general panic at the first sign of resistance.

Ummmm... First sign?

The most recent Iraq war was one of the shortest in history, and an incredible success.

Hmmm, you are speaking in the past tense, but the war isn't over.

Now you are pissing and moaning about a few car bombs! Please, wait a little while to see how things work out.

I almost want to think that you are pulling my leg here (not like *I* would ever pull anybody's leg!)

BTW I read that essay and found it to be completely unrealistically optimistic about human nature.

Wait a minute. What happened to Pollyanna "Please, wait a little while to see how things work out. "? I'm confused.

You can't expect dictators to like you just because you give them free food and medicine. The only way to properly deal with a despot, is to remove him by force.

So, when does the invasion of North Korea begin? What, you say they have no oil? Just stupid WMD???

From your comments it seems you see our current president as a dictator,

No, i think he's just an unqualified, smug, completely incurious, self-satisfied, rich boy draft dodger. Oh, and I don't like him. I don't think we are living in a dictatorship, but I *am* very concerned that our cherished democracy seems to be sliding in the direction of a republic. That is not American Progress (tm).

and if you really do want him to stop, you know what to do. Its the only way to be sure.

Hmmmm. Make sure to move to a county with electronic voting?

Soooo, after blithley discounting Soros essay as not in keeping with your (angry?) ersatz-darwinian, hardball view of the world, what did you think of Soros core assertions vis-a-vis The Shrub Doctrine?

(to me, that would be this part: "Those principles can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails. The United States is unquestionably the dominant power in the post-Cold War world; it is therefore in a position to impose its views, interests, and values. The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority. The Clinton and first Bush Administrations failed to use the full potential of American power. This must be corrected; the United States must find a way to assert its supremacy in the world." )

The Shrub Doctrine? ?

"You must throw balls to sink them."



-Zeke

edit: err, sorry, that's Beiruit.

Heck... it took us at least five years to catch [......] I was amazed at how quickly Saddam was actually found.

The territory of Iraq is as big as California, so that's fair. I didn't know when he'd be caught, but I wondered if it might have happened earlier. Like maybe if we went in without the "rolling buildup" decried by so many left-leaning generals and with more than six people who could speak the language.

As far as the "left's" cry for more troops?

As I suggested, it wasn't just "the left" that thought that Rumsfeld was being a cocky jerk. Never mind enough troops to *maybe* find Saddam. How about enough troops to secure key objectives -- maybe prevent the bad guys from grabbing RPGs and such from unsecured dumps?

Well you can thank your pal Bill Clinton

I'm going to resist saying something really hurtful here and will instead just offer this news bulletin:

Bill Clinton is not my pal. Got that?

for scaling back the military so much.

Funny how even some ex-Reaganauts beg to differ . Clinton gets credit where he doesn't deserve (like for "prosperity" in a fatally-flawed bubble economy), so why not just take some *other* credit away?

I think there used to be a "six degrees of kevin Bacon"-type dictum on Usenet about how many posts could be posted in alt.whatever before someone *had* to mention the word "nazi". I am starting to feel that a similar rule exists in any on-line discussion of US politics -- can not go over 114 posts before Clinton/Clintons are mentioned!

It seems to me the left wanted Bush to initiate the draft just so they could have something to beat on him about and try to make the war look more like Vietnam.

And where exactly did you get this idea from??? I don't know what it was like when *you* were drafted, but I didn't like it at all -- wouldn't wish it on anybody. Course, with the long rotations, I am thinking that Reserve and NG re-up rates are not exactly going to reach all-time highs in the next few years, so where does that leave Clinton's all-volunteer force? If Vegas bookies started taking on odds on when the first lottery will occur, I would not be shocked.

No matter how this was handled the "left" would have found something to complain about.

Me? I did not have to look very far! I just *hate* having my president lie to me, fark up relations with just about everyone, neglect important commitments to other countries (remember Afgan....um, how do you spell that?), and put the lives of well-meaning but naive teenagers at risk.

While the performance of the military in the initial conflict really showcased the technical and organizational prowess of today's US military, the mess of the subsequent civilian administration if a broadly acknowledged cruel joke. Oh, and the governing council -- all those disinterested pure patriots who *assured* us there were WMD.

It's a mess. Interesting to hear a medic from an NGO on NPR yesterday. I (very roughly) paraphrase: "Wake up people! I took a woman in an ambulance to the hospital (in Basra, I think he said). During our 30-minute trip we were stopped 3 times at roadblocks/checkpoints manned by heavily-armed Shiite militias. British and Italian troops? None to be seen! You folks aren't looking at what is going to happen next"

You can probably find the audio of this gent on npr.org if you want to gauge the fairness of my paraphrasing. Anyhow, this is from somebody who has actually been there and who saw signs of much factional conflict ahead. Fun, fun. It is *cool* now in Iraq. Next summer? Not so cool. I envy no one there.

With respect to that Soros essay (which I like a lot) and the section of iit that I dropped in another post that includes "The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority." I was amused recently when a friend sent me a copy of "The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham wherein the struggles of the various Livingstones to bring Christianity to deprived natives is detailed. I've just started the book, and there's certainly more to it than that, but the parallel to current American we-know-what's-good-for-you righteousness could not be escaped.

In reply to:

---

Soooo, after blithley discounting Soros essay as not in keeping with your (angry?) ersatz-darwinian, hardball view of the world, what did you think of Soros core assertions vis-a-vis The Shrub Doctrine?

---

I like your writing style. I wish I could put my thoughts on paper as learnedly. Maybe, others wouldn't be so quick to ignore my posts.

Seriously, I think Soros is correct in his analysis of what the President and other leaders appear to be doing. The funny thing is that this is what he said he would do. [paraphrase] "We will take the fight to them, not wait for them to come here and fight on american soil" - Bush [/paraphrase]
I understand that you have a problem with the media portrayal early-on that this was about WMD. Mostly, what I heard at the vast majority of press conferences from the President was that 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. When Iraq didn't comply he did exactly what he said he would do, President Bush used force. What bothers you more, the fact that Bush does what he says he will do, or uses the American Military machine for the purpose that it is intended for?

Personally, I dislike wars, but I understand the reasons that the human race has been at war with each other for thousands of years. I really don't see the point in going against the grain... others disagree and that is one of the best things about life. Variety!
Maybe I'm just a little bit lazy and isolationistic - do feel free to tell me I'm going to regret it. So for all those activists out there protesting wars, the internal combustion engine, eating meat, using wood, digging for stuff, and children... RELAX..... it will all be fixed someday. I'm sure of it.

We are talking about killing people, Iraqis and western soldiers, versus what could be described as an inconvienience.

Well, consider all the people that died establishing and then defending our freedoms. Now they're just giving them away. I do NOT consider it a slight inconvenience.

Nor I (I was exaggerating the point), but the point is that we're talking about people dying versus restrictions on what people are allowed to do. And I'm not thinking about those unfortunate bastards who are held in military prisons without due process. They lie at the intersection of the war and the removal of rights.

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.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

Without morals, whoever has the most physical power can set the laws in their favor, and subjugate whomever they please.

How sadly true.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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!

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.

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.

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

Excellent post! If I tried to say it better, I would have failed miserably.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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)

No. I think it's rather the former,

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.

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.

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.

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

i believe that humans have innate attributes instilled in their being, one being the absoulte truths of right and wrong. another is the desire and the need to worship something. We also have free will, so people choose freely what rules their lives. some people money, some power. everyone is a slave of something.

So the idea that because I don't believe in God puts me on the same level as a sociopath is offensive.

do you regard yourself as a good person? if so, have you ever told a lie? have you ever stolen something? have you ever had impure thoughts about someone else? well, if so, then a holy and righteous being will regard you the same as the vilest of people. everyone has sinned, and everyone is at the same level in His eyes. to sin is to literally miss the mark. both me and you are in the same boat as hitler and osama as far as He's concened. but God did provide a means to redeem each one of us, which is the core of my belief.

i think it takes more faith to believe that all the matter in the universe was compressed in a space smaller than a pea, somehow exploding and forming the flawless systems and structures of the cosmos, one being a planet that was far enough from a star to be the right temperature, and dense enough to form an atmosphere suitable for a primodrial ooze to somehow suddenly get hit by lightning and form a dna string in a membrane of cellulose that is self replicating, eventually adding on to itself and mutating into the different lifeforms we have today. and of thse lifeforms, one would develop the ability to reason, and to be able to decern right from wrong, and having these truths univeral in different cultures.

I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am.

Which is the definition of subjective, which was exactly the point Doug was trying to make.

another is the desire and the need to worship something.

I have no desire or need to worship anything. Does that make me less than human?

do you regard yourself as a good person? if so, have you ever told a lie? have you ever stolen something? have you ever had impure thoughts about someone else? well, if so, then a holy and righteous being will regard you the same as the vilest of people. everyone has sinned, and everyone is at the same level in His eyes.

I'm aware of this Christian concept, and it's retarded when applied to humanity. It has come to the point so that no one ever has to make a value judgement. I have the facility and desire to note that killing thousands of people is worse than stealing bread to feed my family. The Bible also notes ``judge not lest ye be judged''. It's all fine and well for God to forgive everyone, but it doesn't make sense for us real people.

i think it takes more faith ...

This is one of the most egregiously erroneous arguments that creationists make. It, in fact, takes no faith, as it's staring you in the face. Do you take it on faith that you're looking at a computer right now? Of course not. It's obviously there. The things we can't prove are just theories. They could well be wrong.

So how did it all start? Yeah, I know, the Big Bang. But how did that start and where did it come from?

So how did it all start? Yeah, I know, the Big Bang. But how did that start and where did it come from?

Please note that the same question exists whether you look at the beginning of creation from a theistic or an atheistic point of view. So neither belief yields an answer.

Please note that the same question exists whether you look at the beginning of creation from a theistic or an atheistic point of view. So neither belief yields an answer.

Exactly. I'm not looking for an answer. My point is that there is no answer. It's just a mind-boggling paradox. That in itself proves to me that there must be a higher level of understanding and existence which our minds can not comprehend.

Neither atheism nor creationism can be proved. Rather, they are both based on faith. Bitt has faith that there is no God, ferretboy has faith that there is, and Muhammad ala Jihad has faith that Allah wants him to murder the infidels.

Everyone has faith in something. Now which one is the right faith? Bitt's is based on an unanswerable paradox. Muhammed's is based on pure evil. Chistianity is based on love for your fellow man and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So,
a) there must be a higher level of existence and understanding different from our physics and our thoughts, and
b) everyone has faith in something.

So we all have a search for the truth. You just have to find it.

i feel like im in a bad disney cartoon

So we all have a search for the truth. You just have to find it.

There is no spoon....

Oh boy. Here I go again.

First I would like to point out that nobody has brought up the difference between moral relativity and cultural relativity. I wish somebody else had because I'm not really qualified to explain it properly. But here I go, feel free to correct my explanation:

Cultural Relativity is simply that some things are good and proper in some cultures and not in others. Certain actions done here in the US would be highly offensive in other countries. The reverse is also true. I would provide examples, but I am sure you can come up with your own. As I understand it (through second hand knowledge) nearly all ethicists agree that cultural relativity is a real and true thing.

Moral Relativity is the idea that this relativity extends to all actions. Again through second hand knowledge it is my understanding that most ethicists believe this to be unfounded and just plain wrong. One of the simplest arguments against it being: "If all morality is relative then it cannot be immoral for me to believe that my personal morality is absolute." (Of course it can't be immoral either for you to tell me that it is wrong.) The reason that we are repulsed at the idea of it being ok to rape and murder 5 year olds is because it is wrong.

The problem whenever you bring religion into this is that most religions combine their culture with their morality. This unfortunately muddies the real question and sends people off on frivolous arguments on both sides. The question of eating pork or covering women's faces is a cultural one (or perhaps a nutritional one.) The question of murdering someone is not. Of course that some cultures (or religions) differ on when it is ok to kill someone is somewhat irrelevant. This would be something that should be able to be arguably determined is ok in certain cases and is not in others (I am by no means the man to do this arguing.)

I think another thing confusing this conversation is that the moral relativists seem to think that we are saying people can't have morals different from ours. They can. We are saying that there is only one [u]true[/u] moral code. (We aren’t even really insisting that it is ours.) We are referring to something outside the system. In a sense, we are saying that if nobody existed, if nobody ever existed, it would still be wrong for a person to kill another person in cold blood. That the moral code would be frivolous is irrelevant to its existence. Maybe I'm being too confusing with this paragraph, so if you don't understand it don't worry about it too much. It's probably me.

With what was said above I mainly wanted to introduce the particular distinction into the conversation. I'm sorry I can't back up my "Cultural Relativity=Good, Moral Relativity=Bad" argument with more, but I haven't the time, energy, or knowledge to do more. As I said, I am not the ideal person to put forth the ideas that I just did, hopefully someone better qualified will add to them. Below I will address some specific points that have been discussed.

By Jeff (FerretBoy):

My views really are just too different for you to understand.

By Bitt (wfaulk):

I think it's rather the former.

I agree that part of the problem with us having a profitable discussion on this is simply that our differing viewpoints are so foreign to each other. I see that you have many misunderstandings about what we believe and that we also are not getting a clear picture of what you believe. I also feel as Jeff (FerretBoy) does in that, if there is no higher being (I use "God" as you do, for simplicity's sake) then life is utterly meaningless and nothing I do can really matter. I think the difference might be that we define something as having meaning when it has meaning eternally whereas you define meaning in the here and now. Can you at least agree to this difference in viewpoint and concede that something that matters in the here and now may not matter eternally?

I think the second thing obscuring our communication is what we mean by happiness. I believe happiness to be relative to the individual and irrelevant to morality. I believe that no firm morality can be based on "what makes people happy" because what makes people happy differs from person to person. Therefore if morality is fixed then it should be based on something irrelevant to people's happiness. It would be nice if it made people happy, but it can't be required to.

I'd much rather humanity truly learn where it came from, or at least aspire to, than accept simple stories as truth.

And I couldn't agree more. If I were to let my mouth run about how I really feel about the things some "religious folk" say and do you would think I hated them more than the coldest hard-boiled atheist. Honestly I sometimes feel I spend more time correcting misconceptions about what I believe than I do actually explaining what I believe. And with good reason, for I intensely love the very thing they are defacing with their slander.

Let me say this: if a person is only believing stories then they have very little knowledge of what they believe and you are right to question them. On the other hand, just because stories are written about something does not make the stories untrue.

Do you take it on faith that you're looking at a computer right now?

Without drawing us out on another tangent, I would just like to mention that according to some philosophers, yes, it does.

The things we can't prove are just theories. They could well be wrong.

Would you understand me better if I said that I subscribe to the theory of God? Because honestly, it is something like that. If I ever KNEW the "theory" to be wrong I'm fairly sure I would abandon it. But the fact of the matter is I have seen too much for it to be a theory anymore. There is something out there, outside of all this. Admittedly it is a personal revelation, something I can tell you about but not show you so that you would believe it. But that doesn't change it for me because I have experienced it. Nothing can take that away from me. I am a Christian because it matches up best with all of my reasoning and experiences. The bits and pieces that don't match up I largely ignore because they are irrelevant to my core beliefs.

(w/regards to forgiveness):

I'm aware of this Christian concept

I don't think you sufficiently understand it however. Grace places us above the law. Before we were disconnected with God and His will was communicated to us through laws written on tablets of stone. Jesus died to restore the connection between man and Himself. Now God speaks to us personally and so the law is unnecessary, we know right from wrong. (For a better understanding please read the book of Romans, paying special attention to chapters 5 and 6.)

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

Slavery is wrong irrespective of the quality of the master. It may be inviting, but its wrong.

Actually I think your original distinction was the correct one. Everything hinges on the fact that it must be freely given. If you willfully chose to do something, how can you be a slave to it? This idea is the same as the one presented in the "go the extra mile, give him your cloak too, turn the other cheek" parable. I think perhaps the misunderstanding here is the difference in what we mean by "slavery". I can't really address this more until I better understand what you mean by slavery.


OK, I think that is all for now. Sorry that that was so directed at you Bitt, I hope you understand it is your ideas that I am referring to and not you personally. I really just thought there was a lot of miscommunication going on and I hope I have at least cleared up some of it without making things worse. Please understand that in all other regards I really do think pretty highly of you, you just don't seem to "get it" on this one thing.

Also I realize this was an incredibly long post and I'll be pleased just to know that you bothered reading all of it.

I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am.

Which is the definition of subjective, which was exactly the point Doug was trying to make.

To say that people believe different things is not the definition of subjective. I think the problem here is htat we are thinking about morals in a different way. The reason I say morals are absolute is because I think to follow or not follow the correct ones has consequences. In this sense there is an absolute set of morals that should be followed, even if people have vastly different ideas of what they are.

Think of it like this: two people are talking about jumping off a building. One guy says not to do it because he'll die, but the other guy truly believes he'll just float down and not be harmed. The fact that both people have their own ideas about what the consequences of an action are doesn't alter the truth of it. Unless they are in a level on Unreal Tournament, if they jump they're gong to die. This truth is objective, and while they may view it differently one or both of them must be incorrect.

So while I understand that everyone has their own ideas about what is or isn't good, I blieve that morals have been defined externally and it is our job to identify what they are. If this is true then morals are not subjective, because they are determined objectivly outside of us. If it is not true then morals are truly subjective, for there is no other standard other than that which we ourselves have errected.

Removing him from the country does take away a longterm problem

In my opinion that is the whole point.
Whatever the excuse presented to the public is, the point is that after the collapse of the USSR there is a huge gap in the world in terms of "control". While at the beginning the US and the West in general seemed to believe that a natural, spontaneous democratization process would take place where dictatorship used to be, unfortunately they were actually proved wrong, and very much so after Sep 11th. What is happening now, I think, is a long-term effort to regain control on those areas which the end of the cold war turned into "lands of nobody", "noboby" being also dictators who can promote/protect terrorism.
Soon after Sep. 11th Bush said a long war had started, and said it would not last less than 10 years. He meant it.
Here I am not saying this is wrong, and I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that a "novo ordo seculorum" is being put into place right now, and it is not going to be quick and easy. How could it be?

My 5 cents...

Think of it like this: two people are talking about jumping off a building. One guy says not to do it because he'll die, but the other guy truly believes he'll just float down and not be harmed.

(Totally unrelated to the serious discussion here...)

A man staying at a hotel decides to have a few drinks at the hotel's bar, which happens to be on the top floor of the 15-story hotel building.

He's half way through his third drink, when a second man at the end of the bar gets up, walks to the window, opens it, and jumps out.

Since the bartender didn't even flinch, the first man figures he must have had one too many and he'd hallucinated the whole thing. He's getting ready to pay the tab and leave, when the elevator opens, and who should walk in but the man who he'd seen jump out of the window minutes before.

The first man confronts the second man with what he'd seen. The second man replies, "Oh, I just drink enough alcohol so that it gives me buoyancy, and I float to the ground like a feather." Just to prove his point, he downs another shot, walks to the window, and jumps again, reappearing in the elevator a few minutes later.

The first man, anxious to try the new trick, quickly downs a few more shots until he feels as though he's floating. He runs to the window, jumps out, and.... splat.

The bartender turns to the second man and says, "Superman, you're an asshole when you're drunk."

Sheesh. I was going to stay away from this discussion, but after sleeping on it, it still troubles me. Not because of the opinions in general, but because of finding them here. This BBS does not represent the views of the guy on the street, but a self-selected clique closer to the bleeding edge of education and intellectual curiosity. It just doesn't feel that way all the time

So whatever, once again, happened to Oliver Cromwell's "I beseech you, in the Bowels of Christ, to consider it possible you might be mistaken"? OK, Old Ollie wasn't the best example of actually following that concept, but...

People with a diffent cultural background have different values. People with (or without) different religious backgrounds and convictions have different values.

Would I, as a Northern European, be happy with the US imposing their cultural values here, just because they don't agree with the Amsterdam coffee shops and the scandinavian public nudity? Of course not.

You can imagine how people here reacted when they found out the US has a plan to land commandos in The Hague to free US citizens in case they are brought to court at the International War Crimes Tribunal.

How can people in the US expect other countries to respect the US right to sovergnity if they dnn't respect others? That's why, despite all the shortcomings of the system, we need things like the International Court of Justice and the UN. Not just a fanatic US president who thinks he has a mandate from God to be the sheriff of the world.

And as to religious and moral relativism, I have to say that most world religions have the "live and let live" thing embedded very deeply in their core - it's just too bad that so many of the adherents of those religions don't live by it.

If you have a deep conviction about a Supreme Being or The Right Way or whatever, why is it so hart to imagine that other people might have equally strong convictions about different deities/things/constructs/whatever? And how can you be so sure your one is the right one? What *if* you happen to be wrong?

I have nothing against religious convictions, and I often admire them, but that shouldn't be at the cost of throwing rationality and chritical thinking out the kitchen window. The reason we are here, at our computers, communicating over these wonderful world-wide networks in our heated, all-mods-and-cons homes, is because of a tradition of questioning dogma, and rationally keeping on asking "what if" questions. Respecting intellectual freedom and learning.

So if I have a position, it would be "this world needs more Galileos and less inquisitors".

ik wil een mooi nederlands meisje neuken.... lief poesje.

just because they don't agree with the Amsterdam coffee shops and the scandinavian public nudity?

Well, not all of us disagree with those things! Keep up the good work.

-Zeke

There are more posts that I haven't read yet because they're on the next page and I want to respond to this now.

That was a great post. I cannot disagree with anything you've said, other than to say that I do believe that I understand the concept of grace (I did attend a Christian church for many formative years), but was pointing out that sometimes people confuse God's grace as their own.

Bringing things back to the original topic of the thread, there's apparently some ambiguity on how, exactly, Saddam was captured. I heard them talking about it on the radio this morning, so I went digging for some articles on the topic. This could very well be bunk, but check out this article from KurdishMedia. The gist is that Saddam may have been captured, much earlier, by Kurdish folks who turned him over to the Americans in return for staying quiet and letting the Americans take the credit. Or, maybe they just figured out where he was and the Americans swept in and took the credit. Or, maybe something else.

ik wil een mooi nederlands meisje neuken.... lief poesje.

That's why there is the Red Light District. Just pay at the cashier's.

Alas, I have been very sick and have not had the energy recently to get involved in this very interesting philosophical discussion after throwing it in a direction I have a lot to say about. People have been doing an excellent job, but there are a couple of concepts I have not seen mentioned.

> We are referring to something outside the system. In a sense, we are saying that if nobody existed, if nobody ever existed, it would still be wrong for a person to kill another person in cold blood.

I believe completely the opposite. The concept of morals is a creation of society and biology. It is biologically based and was created, by evolution, to advance the survivability of the species. Without society, morals are meaningless, and would never exist. Don't steal, don't kill (members of your own "tribe"), treat everyone as you would have yourself treated...all of these are necessary for a society to exist, and without them we would not be where we are today as a species. To believe that they exist outside ourselves, to believe they have some natural "rightness", is an understandable fallacy given the genetic hardwiring of our brain to follow these rules, but it is still untrue.

And in a great cycle of positive reenforcement, the society you live in shapes those morals to its own ends and teaches them, and punishes those who can not abide by them. Morals make society possible, society teaches and enforces morals. There is nothing divine about it. You seperate culture (differences in societies) and true morality, and say they are two seperate things. I say hogwash, they are deeply interrelated, and are meaningless seperated.

Don't steal, don't kill (members of your own "tribe"), treat everyone as you would have yourself treated...all of these are necessary for a society to exist

So I guess that means you wouldn't have any problems killing members of another tribe, like say Iraq? Better yet, we should just nuke the whole f'ing middle east so none of our tribe warriors will have to die in combat.

So I guess that means you wouldn't have any problems killing members of another tribe, like say Iraq?

That depends entirely on what your definition of "another tribe" is. It was (and is) common practice to demonise those groups against whom you wanted to whip up popular fervour.

It's easier to kill someone who's different.

A book I've just finished reading: "Berlin - The Downfall 1945" describes the level of demonisation happening on both sides of the German/Russian front. One comment from the Soviet soldiers upon entering Berlin is that the Germans "were just like them".

Groups are defined by their differences. If you can emphasise those differences, then the other group becomes less like you, and easier to kill.

> So I guess that means you wouldn't have any problems killing members of another tribe, like say Iraq? Better yet, we should just nuke the whole f'ing middle east so none of our tribe warriors will have to die in combat.

Don't confuse my describing of the true situation of the world with my own personal opinion. When it was written that your god said "thou shalt not kill", did it really mean anyone, or did it mean just your own tribe? Well, considering how warlike and violent the old testament and its god was, I think it is clear that this only applied to your own people, and killing non-Jews was fine.