An Ideal World

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm a bit bored of non-lefties complaining about lefties seeing moral principles as more important than defending one's country, or being safe from crime, or something like that. People often tend to say, "but this isn't an ideal world!" For example, many people have told me that because we don't live in an ideal world where there are no threats from other countries, it is okay to join the army and kill people to defend our country. But I say not joining the army and not killing anybody is a step towards that ideal world where nobody kills anybody and there's no need for armies.

I think it's defeatist to reject the idea of ideal moral principles being of fundamental importance, and I don't think it's too idealistic to judge things, such as war, on purely moral grounds. What does everyone else think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,850 • Replies: 55

No top replies

Re: An Ideal World

agrote wrote:

I think it's defeatist to reject the idea of ideal moral principles being of fundamental importance, and I don't think it's too idealistic to judge things, such as war, on purely moral grounds. What does everyone else think?

Walk the path of enlightenment, but be careful not to trip over the loose stones.

0 Replies

Methinks it might be a very long time when I would want go ice-fishing again with either agrote or rosborne...although the friction between terminally overbearing and terminally percocious might raise the temperature a tad.

0 Replies

Good for you, Agrote. Don't get unnecessarily dirty; the norm is to get dirtier than necessary.

0 Replies

Nationalism is just very slightly less harmful to humanity than religion!

0 Replies

Re: An Ideal World

agrote wrote:

But I say not joining the army and not killing anybody is a step towards that ideal world where nobody kills anybody and there's no need for armies.

I agree, as long as you are the last one taking the step.

One can hope that there is a time in humanity's future when there is not a need for armies. But then again, this is not quite correct. A repressive society that doesn't allow any freedoms will eventually not need an army if it is able to induce a culture of fear and authoritarianism. Would that be an ideal world?

While I admire your post, I question the way you posed it as a "lefty-nonlefty issue. I don't think of it as a political issue. I think it is rather a question of humanity, and whether we will ever reach a point in our culture where we will not need armies.

But all primates have an army of sorts, and want to take something away from the other group of monkeys.....

0 Replies

Army Alert! One Battalion coming up! Thanks I really felt the 'Ol Army need coming on fast. Think I'll finish it off with a Brigade and a Platoon chaser.! These Lefty/Non-Lefty "issues" can really parch the soul.

0 Replies

I'm not saying no army = ideal world, I'm just saying an ideal world probably wouldn't need armies - just because it's possible for there to be a world worse than this which doesn't need armies that doesn't mean that's the ideal world - a world where everybody just gets along wouldn't need armies either. Just forget the army thing, lone voice. My question is this: do you think it is too idealistic to put morality before everything else all the time?

0 Replies

The problem arises when a decision has to be made as to what is moral.

This guy's idea of morality may differ from the other guy's. Not only that, but, in the course of the argument over who's version of morality is THE version, personal attacks take place. Personal attacks lead to demonization of one faction by the other. Then there are those who's morality does not allow for the existence of dissimilar moralities. Its a tough question.

Right now the big argument in the world is between the RELATIVIST democracies and the ABSOLUTIST muslims. We could probably approach the ideal world if we capitulated and all became fundamentalist muslims. (Or the other way around.) If the entire world became fundamentalist muslims THAT argument would go away. However, there is something in me that don't like that idea. How about you?

If the entire world could agree on what is moral that would be great. Until then the thing to do is try to find out what YOUR morality is and speak from that perspective.

0 Replies

war is 'never' about morality; it is about territory(greed), power(greed), or belief (stupidity)!

0 Replies

nevermind

0 Replies

Yet, BoGoWo, we compare war (between nation-states) to terrorism (conducted by non-state agents) and define the former as (relatively) virtuous and the latter as (absolutelyl) evil. THEY ARE BOTH EVILS.

0 Replies

They may both be evil, they both simply exist as real within the perceptual world. "Good" and "evil" are tricky terms and depend largly on one's point of view.

Now if we measure those twins (good and evil) against a standard they might have somewhat more legitimacy. For instance, "the degree to which thoughts, words and actions mitigate suffering is a measurement of the "goodness" of the thought, word, or action".

To kill millions for an ideal of racial purity and personal power, is about as far from "good" as defined above as possible. For hundreds of thousands to die in defeating that "evil" is a relative "good". Not to fight, kill and die, to defeat ideologies like Nazism and Communism would make their victory possible, and that would be contributing to suffering and, "evil".

Formal military organizations are bound by a set of interantionally agreed upon rules to, in so far as possible, reduce the suffering that must inevitably accompany war and combat conditions. When professional military units meet one another in battle operating under those constraints great carnage will result, but will be constrained. Killing under these sets of conditions are sanctioned, and are not usually murder.

Terrorists, irregular forces who do not subscribe to the Rules of War are under no constraints. They feel free to murder anyone at any place or time if they believe it suits their purposes. Being without national sanction, and uncostrained all such killing is murder. To knowingly target a public place of no military value solely with the intent to kill civilians, is pretty hard to justify as intended to mitigate suffering.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Terrorists, irregular forces who do not subscribe to the Rules of War are under no constraints. They feel free to murder anyone at any place or time if they believe it suits their purposes. To knowingly target a public place of no military value solely with the intent to kill civilians, is pretty hard to justify as intended to mitigate suffering.

I was talking with a friend from another country the other day, and he said that there are some who consider the atomic bombs USA dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima as acts of terrorism. I really didn't have a great answer for him. Yes, I could have went on about "it was a time of war," "it saved lives in the long run," etc. But I could not, in all honesty, defend the fact that America decided to knowingly, intentionally, kill thousands of innocent women & children.

And further, he asked me: "Why do you think USA dropped the bombs on Japan (people of another race-considered "subhuman" by some), and not on Germany (predominantly white population).

While I didn't really agree with his theme, I could see how objective, reasonable people from another country might come to such a conclusion. I've visited "atomic bomb museums" at both Nagasaki & Hiroshima. Prior to these visits, I could intellectualize and rationalize the bombs quite nicely. After the visits, my mind was blown on this subject. I became anti-Bomb.

Were the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki & Hiroshima acts of terrorism? Thousands of innocent children, women, elderly, and disabled people were killed indiscriminately. Yes, some military targets were probably included. But the targets were of economic importance as much as military. He started drawing the parallel between 9/11 and Nagasaki, etc. I can see how people in other countries might come to the conclusion the USA follows "Rules of War" when mostly convenient, but when the chips are down, or it seems exceedingly inconvenient, screw the rules.

0 Replies

There is a long running thread in the History Forum on the propriety of using atomic bombs on Japan. That is where you might want to go to read the viewpoints of A2K participants.

I don't recall seeing anyone infer that Japan was targeted for racial reasons, nor do I believe that is the case. Germany had already surrendered prior to the bombs being ready for deployment, and it was already clear that Germany was defeated a month or so before that. In the case of Japan, the situation was quite different. Victory on the islands leading to the Japanese mainland became ever bloodier as the distance shortened. Japanese forces seldom surrendered, but instead preferred either suicide, or suicidal attacks. Every indication was that the defense of the Japanese home islands would be vigorous and prolonged. It was strongly believed that the Japanese still held in reserve significant forces and would fight to the death. Landing American forces on the beaches of Japan were expected to make Normandy look like a cakewalk.

Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. It was the headquarters and central command center for those forces most likely to oppose American landings on the southern beaches of Japan. Military forces and supplies were concentrated there and in the near vicinity.

At the time, very few people even in the scientific community, understood the full effect of nuclear weapons. They were generally expected to be very like conventional explosives, but much larger. Radiation and heat effects hardly entered into the expected damage that would result from their use. The EMT effect probably came as a surprise once it was known. Over ten years after the use of atomic weapons, the US still didn't fully appreciate the dangers of radiation. However, by 1958 folks pretty much understood the basics, see The Effects of Nuclear explosions, Dept. of Energy, (1958). Other essential reading should be Herman Kahn's Thinking the Unthinkable, and On Thermonuclear War.[/U]

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

The problem arises when a decision has to be made as to what is moral.

This guy's idea of morality may differ from the other guy's. Not only that, but, in the course of the argument over who's version of morality is THE version, personal attacks take place. Personal attacks lead to demonization of one faction by the other. Then there are those who's morality does not allow for the existence of dissimilar moralities. Its a tough question.

It is a tough question, but it's not really what I'm asking. I'm talking about what whatshername (somebody with a tiger for her picture) was getting at in the racial profiling thread - maybe morality should come before defence and saving lives and such. If killing somebody is wrong, then killing somebody to save 3,000 others is still wrong, so maybe the best thing to do is let those 3,000 people die. Maybe. Or maybe that's the worst decision you could possibly make, I dunno - but I gave the army as an example because my friends who have decided to join the army or the RAF or whatever have always said, when I've tried to pursuade them not to, that this isn't an ideal world and we do need the army and we do have to kill others to save our own people - but I don't buy it really. If everybody decided to not kill anybody, we'd be fine, but if everybody joined the army and fought for their country we'd all die.

0 Replies

I always thought righties were all over morality. Maybe it's just me though.

0 Replies

An ideal world without war is just beyond my comprehension. Nice to think about though. Not just taking the low road and falling back on history but I believe war is just a way of life.

I can recall receiving a bomb-sight toy for Christmas when I was around 6 or 7 years old during Big Twice. Countryside below would turn like a phonograph record on a large disk. I would peer through the sight and "bomb the countryside."

About this same time my family received a little hymn book from the bank with a calendar. One of the pages had representatives of the different armed services. I decided that year I was going to go into the armed forces. As soon as I was old enough I did. Spent most of my adult life there and loved it. I am now enjoying the rewards provided to me for all those years of service.

I cannot imagine what it must be like being drafted because my philosophy about "serving" had less to do with patriotism than it did with the profession. Esprit de Corps was the main thing; God and country followed in that order.

I believe the world might be a better place without war but then; you have all of this messy transitional stuff between here and there. Who needs that?

No, until such time that we can make a clean break from what we have today and a world free from war I believe America must remain supreme and maintain the status quo as we have since we booted the Brits out a couple of hundred years or so ago. That's all.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K Jack Webb ... Go Army! Hooah!

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

It is a tough question, but it's not really what I'm asking. I'm talking about what whatshername (somebody with a tiger for her picture) was getting at in the racial profiling thread - maybe morality should come before defence and saving lives and such. If killing somebody is wrong, then killing somebody to save 3,000 others is still wrong, so maybe the best thing to do is let those 3,000 people die. Maybe. Or maybe that's the worst decision you could possibly make, I dunno - but I gave the army as an example because my friends who have decided to join the army or the RAF or whatever have always said, when I've tried to pursuade them not to, that this isn't an ideal world and we do need the army and we do have to kill others to save our own people - but I don't buy it really. If everybody decided to not kill anybody, we'd be fine, but if everybody joined the army and fought for their country we'd all die.

You are referring to ebrown, who had a very thoughtful piece in that thread. But I think you are misunderstanding what she was saying; she was making a point about the lack of success using racial profiling.

I think its something like this, agrote: Humans have evolved to become a competitive species. All thru human history, people have been killing other people to gain a territorial advantage. When we were on the savannah, we were pushing each other off of pieces of land we wanted. Up until about 150 years ago, it was actually pretty difficult to kill a large number of people in a short time. Now, it is easy.

As a student of evolution, I believe that we will someday evolve past this current stage we are in, if we survive long enough to do so. But as long as people desire something from someone, we will have conflict. The wonder of the United States (for the most part), is we have what others want to take away. Those who want to take it away are not kinder or more righteous or more decent then we are; quite the opposite, actually.

And until then, the good amongst us will have to protect themselves from the evil amongst us.....

0 Replies

An Ideal World

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know