8
   

If you're not with me, you're against me.

 
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:39 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Assuming the "neutral" Swiss refused the Allies' demand that they not sell ball bearings to the Germans, it would have made sense to bomb their ball bearing factories as well.

By refusing the demand the Swiss would have met the conditions of the phrase in question.


So under that logic a neutral country can not have normal trading relationship with either of the sides in an arm conflict.

Yet if they do not trade with either side then that is also a reason to attack them.

So in the case of the Swiss they would have had a choice of being bomb by the allies or invaded by the Germans.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 09:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Which is why I wrote that it would be tough to justify considering a truly neutral entity as an enemy.

However, an entity that sells products to you and your enemy (the same quantities; and at the same price) might also be considered neutral, and yet if you can survive without their product, but your enemy cannot; and the neutral entity refuses your demand that they stop selling to your enemy, it could make sense to take them down.




...if such was the case after having knowledge on your situation still they would n´t be playing neutral...nevertheless you have presented an interesting argument.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 01:57 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Yes, within the category of "truly neutral entity" is the "absolute passivist." I could not consider them enemies simply because of their passivity.


Nor would I if they remained passive which would mean that they not, in any way, assist my enemy in its actions against me, or hinder, in any way, my actions against my enemy.

In this way they need not be against me, by simply not being for me.

I admit though that they will have to be lucky as well as passive as it would be unlucky to have resources I need that they will not share with me.

Should the neutral entity have resources that I absolutely need to defeat my enemy, and will not sell them to me,( even if they refuse to sell them to my enemy as well), I might have to take them by force or stealth if I can. If they resist, they are no longer passive.

Any justification for what I might have to do would depend on the conflict with my enemy being "to the death."
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 02:00 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Assuming the "neutral" Swiss refused the Allies' demand that they not sell ball bearings to the Germans, it would have made sense to bomb their ball bearing factories as well.

By refusing the demand the Swiss would have met the conditions of the phrase in question.


So under that logic a neutral country can not have normal trading relationship with either of the sides in an arm conflict.

Yet if they do not trade with either side then that is also a reason to attack them.

So in the case of the Swiss they would have had a choice of being bomb by the allies or invaded by the Germans.



Or not manufacturing ball bearings.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 02:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
take them by force or stealth if I can. If they resist, they are no longer passive
.


So if a neutral find an arm force on his territory stealing or seizing material that belong to his citizens and used arm force to interfere even if completely on their own soil they can be attack as being no longer neutral?

There seems to be holes in that logic somewhere as I never hear that being neutral interfere with the right of self defense or even the right to maintain sovereign on your own territory.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 02:47 pm
@BillRM,
First of all, JL referenced “absolute pacifists,” which means that they would not physically resist my efforts to secure their resources.

Secondly, you seem to considering the issue based on definition of neutral fashioned by international law. I am not.

Your perspective can provide for an interesting discussion, but it is out of sync with mine.

A country (like Switzerland) that attempts to take advantage of the internationally legal status of neutrality to avoid becoming embroiled in war, but then seeks to profit from that war by selling products needed to continue the conflict is merely adopting a merchant’s strategy, not a moral stance.

It can be very effective, but it’s a risk since, when the world goes to war there is no one left to defend their neutrality.

The wager Switzerland made was that both sides would appreciate and honor the role a neutral nation, spared from conflict, could play.

There was never any guarantee that this would be the case. In fact, Germany had detailed plans for the invasion of Switzerland although they never pulled the trigger when they had the chance.

I don’t have enough knowledge of the ball-bearing affair of which you’ve written to say with any certainty, but I imagine the Allies didn’t believe that Switzerland providing ball-bearings to the Germans was critical enough to warrant force against the Swiss. If they had, and all that stood between victory and defeat were Swiss ball-bearing factories, I’m pretty sure they would have bombed the hell out of them.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 03:21 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Interesting that Germany had plans ready to go and bring out the point even more that Switzerland was between the rock and the hard place as far as selling or not selling ball bearings.

I wonder if the allies war time discussions of the issue had been release yet or not.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 03:54 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Should the neutral entity have resources that I absolutely need to defeat my enemy


...should they have them they were not yours nor do you can possibly justify war based on property that does not belong to you...eventually you would end up fighting everyone sooner rather then later....
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 06:01 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Oh let me made myself clear if I was a leader of a nation in an all out war where the fate of my people depended on winning [Rome and Carthage come to mind] I would do whatever was needed to win.

However I would not try to morally justify doing so as actions may be needed that are clearly not moral under any moral code and people that order such actions just need to live with themselves for so doing in my opinion.

If the conflict was not to the knife and the fate of my nation and my people was not on the line to that degree then I would allow morality to had greater control of my actions.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 10:07 pm
@BillRM,
...agreed...
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 10:09 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
However I would not try to morally justify doing so as actions may be needed that are clearly not moral under any moral code and people that order such actions just need to live with themselves for so doing in my opinion.


I am quite confused by this. You want to label Christians evil, deluded, and insane because of their beliefs and past atrocities but YOU would do whatever was needed to win even if it wasn't moral? Interesting.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:35 pm
@Arella Mae,
I think you did´n t read the conditions to the full...or how do you think nature and natural selection have been working around for the past billion years ?
(be moral but don´t be a moralist) Rolling Eyes
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't think you are understanding where I'm coming from. Bill has made it clear how he feels about people who have warred, killed, etc., claiming it was for God. But, he flat out makes these statements:
Quote:
Oh let me made myself clear if I was a leader of a nation in an all out war where the fate of my people depended on winning [Rome and Carthage come to mind] I would do whatever was needed to win.

However I would not try to morally justify doing so as actions may be needed that are clearly not moral under any moral code and people that order such actions just need to live with themselves for so doing in my opinion.

If the conflict was not to the knife and the fate of my nation and my people was not on the line to that degree then I would allow morality to had greater control of my actions.


This presents quite a dilemna for me regarding his stance. He condemns others who claim to be doing the moral thing per God but yet, if it were HIM he'd have no problem with commiting immoral acts and doesn't seem to think anything is wrong with that. I am completely serious about the fact it greatly confuses me.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:51 pm
@Arella Mae,
if you were replying to his inconsistency I haven´t really noticed since I was not following everything from the start that is an other issue then...still moral organization is a subjective matter with very strong very resistant referents for our species...a different species with different referents is just as entitled as you are to see it otherwise...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 12:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
When I do not understand something someone is saying or if I am confused by what I see as contradictory statements, I ask that person about it and that is what I am doing.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 01:25 pm
@BillRM,
I wonder as well.

The Swiss were riding a tiger, but it was their choice to do so.

As a result, they weren't quite as neutral as many suppose, but no country can be purely neutral in a World War, unless the warring nations allow them to, and that is rarely if ever going to be the case.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 01:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Not necessarily.

If my goal is simply the defeat of an enemy determined to destroy me, then once he is defeated the need for any hostile actions on my part is ended.

Whether as an individual or a nation it makes little sense to accept obliteration because of the property rights of others.

Make no mistake, I would offer to pay a fair price for the resources I needed, but if the "neutral" party refused to sell them to me simply to preserve it's neutrality, I would take them by whatever means necessary and leave cash at the border when I exited.

I don't have any problem valuing my existence over their neutrality, and if it places the neutral party in danger from my enemy, they will immediately be treated by me as an ally.

If my enemy considers the neutral entity's inability to prevent me from seizing it's assets as an expression of alliance, then they were never really prepared to recognize the entity's neutral status, and so, arguably, I simply accelerated an inevitable reckoning.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 01:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
...you forget that without placing at least apparent limits to what you would admit to do you would very much make yourself an enemy of everyone...people dislike infinity´s...moral relativity (no bounds no limits) must not ever be admitted in diplomacy...when you get to be holder then you probably are you will regard discretion as your main weapon... Wink
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 01:48 pm
@Arella Mae,
So let me get this straight AM torturing people in the name of your god and promoting your religion by the sword is the same as Carthage trying to prevent it people including all it men women and children being either put to the sword or taken into lifetime slavery?

It city and it empire no more just burn marks on the ground for a hundred years or so until even that fade out.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 01:49 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Oh let me made myself clear if I was a leader of a nation in an all out war where the fate of my people depended on winning [Rome and Carthage come to mind] I would do whatever was needed to win.

However I would not try to morally justify doing so as actions may be needed that are clearly not moral under any moral code and people that order such actions just need to live with themselves for so doing in my opinion.

If the conflict was not to the knife and the fate of my nation and my people was not on the line to that degree then I would allow morality to had greater control of my actions.


You are not really saying anything I haven't.

You are resisting moral justification for the actions required to preserve your nation and people, but surely you consider them justified, and if not on the basis of morality than on what?

It's obvious.

The continued existence of your people is of higher moral value than the neutrality and property rights of a third party.

Take it down to a more personal level:

Your son is laying in the street dying and your neighbor has the means by which to save his life but refuses to do so because he doesn't want to get involved.

Is it immoral for you to seize those means through any way short of killing your neighbor?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 05:56:25