Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran

[MRT144]

god forbid america's interests are comprimised at the expense of a million lives

[Gatekeeper]

I believe the al-Shattab Waterway played a significant role in igniting hostilities between Iran and Iraq. The latter had to cede half of the waterway (or something like that) to the former, and it kind of ticked Iraq off.

Gatekeeper

[Az]

"al-Shattab "

I think it's Shat-al-Arab

[Wezil]

Now the US can support Pakistan's current military dictator only to deny ever supporting him when he too bites the hand that fed him....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is your opinion about the immorality of that situation irrelevant while the opinions of others are relevant?

Because it might not be a majoritarian view. Morals are democratic in nature. If 50%+1 agree that something is moral, it becomes moral. All sociatal morality is is a majority of people believing something is moral. Individual morality in this context is irrelvant.

[uh Clem]

Caspar Weinberger-We Didn't Support Iraq v Iran

We have always been at war with Eurasia. East Asia has always been our ally.

[Ramo]

Why do you say morals are democratic in nature? Why is individual morality less relevant than a societal morality? Objectively, they are just as valid. I thought you said you were a moral relativist.

Hell, if we told Saddam forcefully not to attack Kuwait, maybe he'd be a good partner in ME right now... food for thought.

I would prefer a ruthless dictator like Saddam to not be "a good partner" to my state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you say morals are democratic in nature? Why is individual morality less relevant than a societal morality? Objectively, they are just as valid.

Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. Social morality has more force behind it, because it is what is considered 'moral'

And yes, I am a moral relativist. No morality is inherantly better than another morality, though some definetly carry more weight.

[Ramo]

Social morality is what societies consider moral. Individual morality is what individuals consider moral.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep... and social morality is simply what a majority of individual morality agrees with. The ones left behind are not immoral, they simply do not have any force behind their morality.

In being a morality relativist, one cannot ignore the relative weight of morality, and why some moralities win out in society.

[Garth Vader]

So I guess it depends on what your definition of "support" is

[Ramo]

The ones left behind may have force behind them in the same way that societal morals have force behind them. A moral has authority only because people with authority enforce the moral. Someone with excessive authority (say, a very rich person) may very well choose to exercise his authority in enforcing a non-societal moral (say, extreme greed).

I don't see how I'm ignoring the relative weight of morality, etc.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

My God how the moral relativism flies when globalism enters the picture.

I'm a moral relativist in all aspects, berz .

In all fairness the issue isn't yours or Berz moral code but the moral code of the people that makes the moral choice. If a person claims to stand on the side of a objective morality and turns to relativism whenever it suits them they are hypocrits. No one cares about you since you're not important.

[Jac de Molay]

If a person claims to stand on the side of a objective morality and turns to relativism whenever it suits them they are hypocrits.

Basically what the US is doing right now- especially when you consider we were more than willing to look the other way when hussein was gassing the sh*t out the Kurds back in the late 80's.

But now he's the Great Satan, and preemptive slaughter is now necessary.

[David Floyd]

So, Imran, slavery was presumably OK in a society where 51% of the citizens agreed with it, correct?