I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[David Floyd]

What about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or did they waive those by going to war with america?

And what moral or legal authority does the United Nations have to pass a "Universal" declaration of any kind? *snicker*

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It's saying, for example, "The Holocaust was morally wrong, yet it would also be wrong for us to punish you for it, because it did not violate your laws and we have no moral authority to impose our beliefs and laws upon you."

If the Nazis' actions were morally wrong, then why wouldn't we have the moral authority to punish them?

[poison_flower]

Originally posted by Faeelin
If the USA was like the Romans, and if we were motivated by revenge, several middle eastern cities would vanish in mushroom clouds.

But we're not like the Romans. Or the Russians, come to that. So I suggest you explain what we're doign which violate their human rights.

You ****s can't read... I never said that the US had violated human rights, but that the opportunity to was great.

Think about manifest destiny, and the US' destruction of several native american tribes' way of life. Then look at Japanese Interment in WWII. The US has a past history of getting carried away.

[David Floyd]

If the Nazis' actions were morally wrong, then why wouldn't we have the moral authority to punish them?

Because they violated no law, other than a moral law that some, but by no means all, people agree with. Punishing them would be, in effect, passing an ex post facto law and punishing them in that manner, something that is certainly immoral.

[Ecthy]

What is this thread about?

I fully agree with Horse.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Because they violated no law, other than a moral law that some, but by no means all, people agree with. Punishing them would be, in effect, passing an ex post facto law and punishing them in that manner, something that is certainly immoral.

Alright, but how is that not moral relativism? If every nation is able to determine what is "right" and "wrong" by passing laws saying, for example, "killing the Jews is right," then that's cultural relativism. An objective moral code would say "You have a moral obligation to block and/or disobey unjust laws," which would give the Allies the moral authority to punish the Nazis (and other non-signatory war criminals).

[David Floyd]

Alright, but how is that not moral relativism? If every nation is able to determine what is "right" and "wrong" by passing laws saying, for example, "killing the Jews is right," then that's cultural relativism. An objective moral code would say "You have a moral obligation to block and/or disobey unjust laws," which would give the Allies the moral authority to punish the Nazis (and other non-signatory war criminals).

The simple solution, of course, is that moral absolutism does not extend to violating concepts of national sovereignty.

I can say that an action is absolutely wrong. I can also say I have no right to do anything about it. This is not inconsistent.

For another example, I could claim homosexuality was absolutely wrong. By your argument, I'd have a moral duty to try to eradicate it. This obviously isn't the case though. Just because I claim something doesn't necessarily make it so, and even if it did, I still wouldn't have any right to act upon that.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Faeelin


You mean:

1)The nazis

2) The spanish inquisition and other new world activities.

3) the french reign of terror

4) the british in ireland, or south arica, or in the sepoy rebellion

5) The Belgians in Africa

I'd go on, but I don't want to turn this into a troll.

Just reminding everyone that civilization aint all its cracked up to be.

I was thinking of modern day Europe. Anyways are you gonna bring up the vikings if I say Scandinavia?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I can say that an action is absolutely wrong. I can also say I have no right to do anything about it. This is not inconsistent.

Agreed. If your maxims are not sufficiently justified, then they must yield to justified maxims.

For another example, I could claim homosexuality was absolutely wrong. By your argument, I'd have a moral duty to try to eradicate it. This obviously isn't the case though.

Well, it depends on how you go about eradicating it. The maxim "do not kill without just cause" is justified, while the maxim "homosexuality is evil" is not; therefore, you can't kill homosexuals in order to eradicate homosexuality. This doesn't necessarily mean that it would be wrong for you to protest Gay Pride parades, though.

However, if the govt. passed a law saying that all homosexuals are to be detained and executed, then you (and all other citizens) would have a moral obligation to disobey this law (by protesting, sneaking homosexuals out of the country, hiding homosexuals in your home, etc.), unless somehow the govt. is able to sufficiently justify the executions such that you feel that you would not be violating the maxim "do not kill without just cause" in obeying the law.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lars-E
I was thinking of modern day Europe. Anyways are you gonna bring up the vikings if I say Scandinavia?

Good idea!

[David Floyd]

loin, I'm not quite sure I understand your point, nor do I think we are arguing from the same mindset.

My belief is no matter how wrong something is, a nation has no right to punish another nation for doing that wrong, unless that wrong was committed directly against that nation, and that nation only.

[SlowwHand]

But surely you're not saying that because other nations were represented inside the WTC, that the U.S. has no authority to respond?

[David Floyd]

No of course not. The attack was clearly on US soil, regardless of who else was affected. The US is, by definition, the nation that was attacked.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My belief is no matter how wrong something is, a nation has no right to punish another nation for doing that wrong, unless that wrong was committed directly against that nation, and that nation only.

Fair enough. I'm just saying that that's moral relativism.

My belief is that there are a few actions (mass murder being the primary example) that are so clearly wrong that any nation has the moral authority to intervene to stop and punish such actions performed by another nation.

[David Floyd]

That's not moral relativism at all. Respect for national sovereignty, at all costs, fits in with my definition of absolute morality.