[pail]

Intervening in WWII could just as easily be construed as an economic decision.

[...]

But, honestly, if the economics weren't in our favor, I don't think the US would have intervened

We in fact did not intervene in the case I was referencing.

I'd still like to know your answer - I did intentionally engineer the case and attempt to stack the deck against you, but I think it would help clarify your position.

[Wilshire]

Didn't I answer you then? A thought experiment where morality is the only factor doesn't really have any value.

Lets make a clearer one:
If you could kill someone that was about to kill someone, would you be morally justified.

edit: *clearer* one. I don't think any answer to this question really applies to the greater conversation here (because things are so much more complex than that). And, obviously, now I'm afraid to get backed into a corner so I don't want to answer lol.

[pail]

You're tough to corner, Wilshire - almost as hard as asking questions of Bakker! If your position is that non-defensive military intervention is never justified even to prevent a genocide, I can at least credit you with being consistent in your position (even if I don't agree with it!). But if you were to concede that it could be justified in some cases, then in my point of view it makes the absolutist moral relativism argument fall apart - as it would be conceding that in some cases it's okay to use violence to impose our values (genocide is bad) on another society with different values (some genocides are good). From that point we would just be debating a matter of degrees: in other words, just how bad a situation would need to be and how costly the intervention would be in order to justify intervention. And making those judgments of "how bad" and "how costly" really mean judging precisely how far the situation and the cost of intervention deviate from our values. And once you're weighing whether an intervention is justified based on that, you've already abandoned the absolutist moral relativism framework.

[Wilshire]

Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

But yes, it does eventually boil down to 'how far is to far', but to me that doesn't need to be a strictly moral argument. Its just the rules of engagement, just like everything else.

The issue becomes when nobody agrees on what rules to play by. Who then is 'right'? I dislike the 'might makes right' argument, which is mostly what I have seen brought up here, but maybe I'm misreading.


---
edit, btw pail, thinking on it, I swear someone put together a similar question some time ago on this forum. Maybe it was you? Perhaps I'm just cnaiur

[pail]

Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

So, would international law or sanctions imposed by the UN qualify as the world agreeing on something? Is foreign intervention on the table when, for example, Saddam, who carried out the Kurdish genocide, continues to violate sanctions imposed by the UN? Or when Assad employs chemical weapons, a war crime that nearly the entire world, including Assad's government, has signed treaties against using?

Note: I'm not actually taking a position on whether the US should have invaded Iraq again or that Obama should have declared war on Assad. (Gee, it sure is easier to sit here putting pressure on Wilshire's position than actually taking a position myself, isn't it?  )

[H]

Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

This type of justification is problematic to me.  Let's pretend there is a country where 51% of the people support genocide.  Is it then justified?  That seems awfully dangerous.

[Wilshire]

Its more a question of, what does the world agree is right and what does it/"we" justify as wrong. Or at least, a majority of people?

In the case of genocide, I think you'd not likely find a majority of people that would say genocide should be allowed.

This type of justification is problematic to me.  Let's pretend there is a country where 51% of the people support genocide.  Is it then justified?  That seems awfully dangerous.

Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

Note: I'm not actually taking a position on whether the US should have invaded Iraq again or that Obama should have declared war on Assad. (Gee, it sure is easier to sit here putting pressure on Wilshire's position than actually taking a position myself, isn't it?  )

It sure is. I noticed you dodged my question(s) .

So, would international law or sanctions imposed by the UN qualify as the world agreeing on something?

For the sake of argument, I imagine this is the best metric we have. Its not like we really have any other system in place to seek international agreement. Ostensibly, each leader represents its nation entirely - though that does mean that Trump is America for all international purposes. Obviously, its a flawed system.

Is foreign intervention on the table when, for example, Saddam, who carried out the Kurdish genocide, continues to violate sanctions imposed by the UN? Or when Assad employs chemical weapons, a war crime that nearly the entire world, including Assad's government, has signed treaties against using?

I guess so.
Democracy is currently the gold standard for 'freedom', isn't it?

With a system so flawed, we aren't anywhere close to a real solution. Is the UN the best we have? Probably. But its as corruptible as any other system we've got.

All I'm pointing out is the no one has moral high ground because no one really agrees on what morality is. If the UN decides that we need to genocide people X because they believe Y, well, I guess that's the world we live in. We play by the rules we create.

But we create them. We can't blame it on God or some other magical belief faeries. At least people can be held accountable - unlike Gods and scriptures.

[H]

Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

But that's just the thing, the 49% disagrees.  So, while you or I can't say one side is right or wrong, neither can either side.

So, why then can we declare it justified?  Or unjustified?

[Wilshire]

Who gets to decide that it isn't, though? Just because you/I don't like it doesn't make it wrong, unfortunately.

But I did say 'world' specifically for that reason.

But that's just the thing, the 49% disagrees.  So, while you or I can't say one side is right or wrong, neither can either side.

So, why then can we declare it justified?  Or unjustified?

Because that's the measure we are using as defined in this scenario - majority rules. For me, I'd rather use that, than Gods and scripture, but I'm not making an argument about morality here.

I'd love for their to be a better system as this is clearly non-ideal.

We can choose to use another word for it, but I think the meaning is plenty clear.
"That's the way the popular vote was cast" instead of 'justified'.
Same as 'thats what god told me to do' instead of 'holy', or 'right'. Just words - semantics - at that point.

[H]

Because that's the measure we are using as defined in this scenario - majority rules. For me, I'd rather use that, than Gods and scripture, but I'm not making an argument about morality here.

I'd love for their to be a better system as this is clearly non-ideal.

We can choose to use another word for it, but I think the meaning is plenty clear.
"That's the way the popular vote was cast" instead of 'justified'.
Same as 'thats what god told me to do' instead of 'holy', or 'right'. Just words - semantics - at that point.

Well, yeah, that's my point.  I understand you like that system better, but it really is as arbitrary as God, a god, or flipping a coin, really.  But almost no one wants a fully fact-based system, because we want things as we desire them to be, not necessarily how they actually are.

[Wilshire]

A person and their feels are as arbitrary as pointing to a line in a book, I agree. Something must be chosen to measure with and against though. Propose a solution?

But again, people can be held accountable, unlike Gods, or as you brought up, a coin toss. To me this makes for an important distinction, though I gather you disagree. Propose a better system then, as clearly you dislike the one the pail devised.

Also, can you explain how flipping a coin appears to be the same, to you, as asking a large population to vote for something and then abiding by that group decision?

[pail]

the one the pail devised.

Disclaimer: This is not the pail's personal system. The pail was merely suggesting it as potentially satisfying Wilshire's criteria of "the world agreeing."

[H]

A person and their feels are as arbitrary as pointing to a line in a book, I agree. Something must be chosen to measure with and against though. Propose a solution?

But again, people can be held accountable, unlike Gods, or as you brought up, a coin toss. To me this makes for an important distinction, though I gather you disagree. Propose a better system then, as clearly you dislike the one the pail devised.

Also, can you explain how flipping a coin appears to be the same, to you, as asking a large population to vote for something and then abiding by that group decision?

Because there is no rationality behind simply asking people something.  Yeah, I guess I am something of a "rationalist" which is ultimately going to be a failure, but I think it is still an improvement on simply soliciting (what will inevitably be) biased opinions.  I think much of the "group-think" we see today is a direct result of this sort of idea that rationality will be born out of mass opinions.

Lots of people can be mislead.  In fact, it is probably easier to mislead massive groups of people, rather than any one individual.  So, what you'll get is not the "best" idea, but the one that is most prone to appeal to our primitive monkey brains.  So we get the idea that is most prone to replicating itself.  In other words, we are ruled by memes, not anything often can be tied to truth or reason.

I don't want to be lead by the meme of the month, is what it comes down to really.

[MSJ]

I'm really trying to figure out how you distinguish the two, because to me they are the same. Clearly to you they are different, but how? I feel I've made a clear case for why I feel they are the same, and would like to see a response to that.

If it boils down to, as I said, means justifying ends, with God on our side telling us to kill to make for a better world, then the evil we do is indistinguishable from the evil we are trying to prevent.

Can you see where I'm coming from, or is my line of thought totally obscure still?

I guess there is no way to distinguish between the two other than looking at the reactions of said government when we pulled out. I remember Iraqi officials saying they wasn't ready, felt abandoned. Lots of soldiers dropped their guns and left their posts(Iraqi), which led to ISIS directly taking over a huge portion of Iraq. To me, the government of Iraq at least, felt they still needed our help and guidance.

I don't think God was on our side when we entered those wars. Afghanistan was a direct reaction to an act of war on America. Same situation there afterwards. Same reaction by their government when we pulled out the majority of our troops.

I understand your line of thought. But, where not making acts of war in the name of Jesus and then trying to convert them to Christianity. But, that's exactly what ISIS and other extremist groups are doing and fighting for.

[Wilshire]

I don't want to be lead by the meme of the month, is what it comes down to really.

Neither do I. I'm firmly belive that any system of government is just as good as the rest, in terms of potential to do good. With an incorruptible leader, a dictatorship works out just as well as democracy.

I dislike 'people' as a whole, just as must as the next guy. Unfortunately, its difficult to remove us from this equation.

I guess there is no way to distinguish between the two other than looking at the reactions of said government when we pulled out. I remember Iraqi officials saying they wasn't ready, felt abandoned. Lots of soldiers dropped their guns and left their posts(Iraqi), which led to ISIS directly taking over a huge portion of Iraq. To me, the government of Iraq at least, felt they still needed our help and guidance.

I don't think God was on our side when we entered those wars. Afghanistan was a direct reaction to an act of war on America. Same situation there afterwards. Same reaction by their government when we pulled out the majority of our troops.

That's good enough to me. I don't have any further badgering questions.

I understand your line of thought. But, where not making acts of war in the name of Jesus and then trying to convert them to Christianity. But, that's exactly what ISIS and other extremist groups are doing and fighting for.

I feel that fighting in the name of Freedom and converting them to Democracy seems about the same as Deity/Religion. This is probably where we disagree most, but I'm not sure what to do about that. 

Its difficult for me to say whether or not the people there wanted the outcome they ended up with, and whether they feel like they are better off now, years later. And, without that information, difficult for me to suggest whether or not we should do it again.

I remember years of 'the world' chiding us for sticking our hands in places we don't belong, then years (now) of 'the world' asking us to raise arms with them again. Right now, I think the world should try and figure this one out without the US to be the scapegoat. Let the EU spend 50% of its GDP on weapons, military training, and fighting a decades long war. We literally just finished doing that, lets take a break. EU has the same economic might as we do, and probably a similar military if they added it together, if not now then if they spent the same kind of money we do.