Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[Imran Siddiqui]

But bombing civilians, forcing Americans to fight and fund the war, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc., were WRONG. The ends do not justify the means.

Of course they do.

[David Floyd]

Sure, for a moral relativist. But moral relativity is incoherent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, not really. It's similar in consistancy and coherancy to absolute morality.

[David Floyd]

No it isn't, but unless you want us to threadjack this AGAIN, maybe we should save that for later.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is still one of, if not the, best Constitutions in the world.

It's pretty good, but not the best. In terms of the text (not necessarily the implementation):

(1) Peru's (1993) guarantees more rights and guarantees them more explicitly (too bad Fujimori always fired the judges).

(2) Japan has essentially an updated version of the US .

(3) The new South African constitution guarantees both an education and water.

Then of course our constitution has the 18th Amendment Sure it was repealed - but it's still part of the text. How embarassing

[Imran Siddiqui]

Perhaps... but a true moral relativist, like elijah is just as consistant and coherant in his beliefs as you are. Simply because it isn't as coherant to you may indeed prove his point . It really is an easy system to understand, I think. MUCH easier than absolute morality (because you don't have to go over what the absolute moral choice is in each situation). I don't see where it is incoherant at all.

Likewise, loinburger's rational relativity system is also, as well, coherant.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, not really. It's similar in consistancy and coherancy to absolute morality.

Here's why moral relativism is inconsistent. The foundational principle of moral relativism is "there are no moral absolutes". This statement is of course a moral absolute.

[David Floyd]

Imran, was the Holocaust wrong, or was it perfectly acceptable behavior?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, that's an absolute statement... NOT a moral absolute.. I hope you see the difference there .

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In what way was the US supreme in 1939? Let's see, it's military ranked below that of Portugal's, it's army air corps was virtually non-existent, and it's armor doctrines were far below those of the major powers. It's navy was nice, of course, but certainly not supreme. The US had the biggest economy in the world, but other nations were spending far more on defense.

The US was supreme in 1945, not in 1939, and it was supreme as a result of its war effort - it didn't fight the war to retain superiority

I never said it did.

Yes, but not the peace and freedom as they relate to the US. Further, it is incoherent to promote peace and freedom to start a war supported by conscription.

WW2 wasn't about mass conscription to fight a foreign war. All of America willingly helped the war effort.

I'm sorry, I thought we were debating WW2, not any supposed obligation to society.

They are related issues

Sure. A just war is fought in self defense, and immoral means are not used to fight the war.

War is fought and won by all means necessary. Doing the necessary evil, is not evil itself.

Sure, but the goal of defeating Saddam by forcing me to participate, killing Iraqi conscripts, and occupying Iraq is far from moral.

Which is part of the reason I did not support GW2.

The size of the world is irrelevant to the fact that Germany and Japan did not have the capability to invade, out-research, or out-produce the United States.

Given time, they might have. I don't feel like rolling the dice.

A madman controlling a nation does not equate to that nation suddenly becoming threatening to me. It wouldn't matter WHO was in charge of Germany, it STILL couldn't have invaded the US.

Again, given time. And who says invasion would have been the be all end all of such an alternate conflict. Perhaps Germany builds a long-range bomber fleet and carpet bombs New York and Washington. What then genius?

What does this have to do with anything?

Because you think it's immoral for society to make you live up to your responsibilities.

Now, I have responsibilities to people who are not even born yet, and may never be?

Yes... not to specific individuals, but to humanity itself.

But bombing civilians, forcing Americans to fight and fund the war, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc., were WRONG. The ends do not justify the means.

I am opposed to the targeting of civilians, etc... as long as it is not necessary to winning the war. The bombing of Dresden was unnecessary and vengeful. But the overall war was just and the overall ends did justify the means.

The Japanese question is a cumbersome one. I do not know enough about the security situation at the time. But, if a substantial population is a threat to national security, all means are necessary to ensure that the threat is minimized in the most humane way as possible. I would have interned the Japanese-Americans if the evidence was there to support it. But I would have ensured that the quality of the internment would be higher than what it was.

[David Floyd]

No, that's an absolute statement... NOT a moral absolute..

Wrong. Absolute statements, when discussing morality, translate into moral absolutes.

[Sava]

There are no moral absolutes.

[David Floyd]

WW2 wasn't about mass conscription to fight a foreign war. All of America willingly helped the war effort.

Then why was conscription in place?

They are related issues

Not really. I'm saying that the US shouldn't have fought in the war, you are saying that there is an obligation to support your society. Those are unrelated.

War is fought and won by all means necessary. Doing the necessary evil, is not evil itself.

So you think the ends justify the means, then.

Given time, they might have. I don't feel like rolling the dice.

Given time, sure, you never know. But in that time, the US would have developed atomic weapons, and would have retained an atomic monopoly for years. If the Soviets didn't have agents within the Manhatten Project, the US would have retained its atomic monopoly much longer.

Perhaps Germany builds a long-range bomber fleet and carpet bombs New York and Washington.

Yes, perhaps 10-15 years down the road Germany would have had thousands of intercontinental bombers. Too bad US fighter jets would have ripped them to shreds.

Because you think it's immoral for society to make you live up to your responsibilities.

I think you haven't even made a coherent statement as to what those responsibilities are, nor have you backed up that non-existent statement.

But the overall war was just and the overall ends did justify the means.

Then why would you oppose targeting civilians? Killing civilians prevents them from supporting the war effort, right?

The Japanese question is a cumbersome one. I do not know enough about the security situation at the time. But, if a substantial population is a threat to national security, all means are necessary to ensure that the threat is minimized in the most humane way as possible.

Well, Germany felt that the Jews and other ethnic minorities were a threat, so they trampled all over their rights and put them in concentration camps. Do you have trouble saying whether or not this is wrong, too?

[David Floyd]

There are no moral absolutes.

Except for that one, naturally

[cinch]

Originally posted by David Floyd


In what way was the US supreme in 1939? Let's see, it's military ranked below that of Portugal's, it's army air corps was virtually non-existent, and it's armor doctrines were far below those of the major powers. It's navy was nice, of course, but certainly not supreme. The US had the biggest economy in the world, but other nations were spending far more on defense.

The US was supreme in 1945, not in 1939, and it was supreme as a result of its war effort - it didn't fight the war to retain superiority

....

The size of the world is irrelevant to the fact that Germany and Japan did not have the capability to invade, out-research, or out-produce the United States.

Those two statements seem almost contradictory.

America would not have become the great power (militarily speaking) it was/is without World War 2. You say this, and I agree.

So, if the U.S. had stayed out of it, and focused on internal matters, reason dictates that it would still have had a paltry military by the end of European and/or Pacific hostilities.

Germany and Japan may not have had the capabilities to invade the war-strengthened U.S., but they might have been able to handle the sub-Portugal "lesser" America that would be produced by isolationism... No?