Who Are the Real Heroes?

[Az]

Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

[David Floyd]

There is nothing that is ethically big in a decision to accept or refuse the draft.

Certainly there is. You are refusing to be forced to go kill people who have done nothing in particular to harm you. That is very ethical, and very moral.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Azazel


You're generalizing with no basis. Look, it's cute that you support the anti-waronIraq movement, but we're talking generally, here.

Is my post not speaking in general manner, comrade? There are heros from the realm of combat as well, for example Guevara is a hero who relied on fighting to accomplish his goals. But inevitably, minor heros who used peace to better the world are far greater than even the most noble of the heros who were misled into using violence, such as the Guevaras and so forth.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Azazel
Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

Military victories are never truly ethical. They may be ethical insofar as they create a world that is probably superior to the one that would have been present were they defeated. But ultimately, they are intrinsically inethical in that they relied on force of arms to accomplish their means.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
Once again, if the military victory is an ethically positive act, why not?

I don't see military victory as ever being "ethically positive". It's all just war games.

[David Floyd]

Military victory is ethically positive IF AND ONLY IF the victor is the power who was attacked without provocation, and IF AND ONLY IF the victory came about without immoral coercion, such as forcing people to fight or pay for the war.

[Az]

But inevitably, minor heros who used peace to better the world are far greater than even the most noble of the heros who were misled into using violence, such as the Guevaras and so forth.

So there have been both, but you cannot generalize and say that people that are using military means are unethical, and those who are using peaceful means are ethical.
The fact is that these are two different axis, since in many times, the use of force is what is required.

Certainly there is. You are refusing to be forced to go kill people who have done nothing in particular to harm you. That is very ethical, and very moral.

even if it is a war of self defence?

I'll continue tomorrow. goon night.

[David Floyd]

even if it is a war of self defence?

Correct. Self defense is only OK if it is voluntary - no one is forcing you to defend yourself or others, and if you aren't forcing others to pay for your decisions.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Military victory is ethically positive IF AND ONLY IF the victor is the power who was attacked without provocation, and IF AND ONLY IF the victory came about without immoral coercion, such as forcing people to fight or pay for the war.

So if the U.S. was invaded, it would be unethical for it to raise taxes to fund military defense?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Azazel

So there have been both, but you cannot generalize and say that people that are using military means are unethical, and those who are using peaceful means are ethical.

Ah, but comrade, by their nature they are completely different things. They not moral shades of grey, they are black and white. War and peace, there could hardly be greater polar opposites. Even if one side is fighting for a cause that is probably for the betterment of humanity, and the other is fighting for one that is probably to the detriment of humanity, the "good" side is not morally justified in defeating the "bad" side through violence. There is always a way to subdue forces of evil through nonviolent means. I know that thinking such things in this world is probably a good way to get locked up in a mad house. But I can assure you that it's true. An absolute "turning of the cheek" philosophy, a philsophy of peace without compromise is the only truly moral thing for humanity. Being the good guy in a war may be of relative moral superiority, but it also is inevitably immoral.

The fact is that these are two different axis, since in many times, the use of force is what is required.
even if it is a war of self defence?

Mr. Floyd may argue that a war of self defence is morally justified. I say that no war, under any circumstance, whether of a defensive nature, or against a clearly evil foe is morally justified. The common arguement is that Germany and Japan HAD to be fought, or the world would be ruined. Obviously Germany and Japan were bad, bad countries bent on world domination. But there is always a way to win without fighting. Anything and everything is possible at all times. Moreover, when you are on the side of peace, you have on your side a force much greater than any army.

I'll continue tomorrow. goon night.

Good night comrade.

[David Floyd]

So if the U.S. was invaded, it would be unethical for it to raise taxes to fund military defense?

Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions.

Monkspider,

Mr. Floyd may argue that a war of self defence is morally justified. I say that no war, under any circumstance, whether of a defensive nature, or against a clearly evil foe is morally justified. The common arguement is that Germany and Japan HAD to be fought, or the world would be ruined. Obviously Germany and Japan were bad, bad countries bent on world domination. But there is always a way to win without fighting. Anything and everything is possible at all times. Moreover, when you are on the side of peace, you have on your side a force much greater than any army.

I agree with most of what you say, but surely you wouldn't argue that it is immoral to defend yourself or another, right? Likewise, in the case of Hitler, it would not be immoral for an American to voluntary join the RAF in order to fight mass murder, so long as that American did not force any other Americans to fund his choices.

Now, there's the additional argument that ENGLAND shouldn't have even been fighting Nazi Germany, and I would certainly agree with that. Therefore, it was also immoral for the UK government to tax its own citizens to support the war, or to support the American volunteer.

However, I CAN envision a situation in which it would be OK for the American to go overseas. If Nazi Germany had attacked Great Britain, and the British were conducting the war morally (ie, no taxes, no draft, no price controls, etc.), then it would be OK for an American to volunteer, and be funded by voluntarily donated British money, or, obviously, his own.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions.

You're the president of a Libertarian paradise that is everything you have ever hoped for in a country. Suddenly, an evil communist dictatorship invades your country with a superior military. The only hope of winning is by raising your military, and you don't have enough money.

You appeal to the people. They, being libertarians, tell you to go away, taxes are evil.

So, you'd let your paradise fall to the communist dictatorship?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Correct. Funding would have to rely on voluntary contributions.

Monkspider,



I agree with most of what you say, but surely you wouldn't argue that it is immoral to defend yourself or another, right? Likewise, in the case of Hitler, it would not be immoral for an American to voluntary join the RAF in order to fight mass murder, so long as that American did not force any other Americans to fund his choices.

Now, there's the additional argument that ENGLAND shouldn't have even been fighting Nazi Germany, and I would certainly agree with that. Therefore, it was also immoral for the UK government to tax its own citizens to support the war, or to support the American volunteer.

However, I CAN envision a situation in which it would be OK for the American to go overseas. If Nazi Germany had attacked Great Britain, and the British were conducting the war morally (ie, no taxes, no draft, no price controls, etc.), then it would be OK for an American to volunteer, and be funded by voluntarily donated British money, or, obviously, his own.

I applaud your peaceful nature David. But no war, including one of self defense or against someone as evil as Hitler is morally justified. There are always peaceful means to accomplish the same ends. As I said, anything and everything is always possible at all times. While it may seem preposterous to suggest that Hitler could have been defeated without violence, I need remind you that without violence there would have been no Hitler. If there were no World War I, there would have been no Hitler. If the Versailles treaty were more concillatory, and not so vengeful, there would have been no Hitler, and even once Hitler conquered France and seemed unbeatable, there is always ways to win without the use of violence or murder. We are just not used to looking for them.

[David Floyd]

Boris,

You appeal to the people. They, being libertarians, tell you to go away, taxes are evil.

That is not what would happen. Faced with invasion, people would certainly voluntarily donate to defense.

monkspider,

Let me ask you a basic question. If someone comes up and physically assaults you, personally, do you believe it is immoral to defend yourself?

I suspect that our difference of opinion is that you're a pacifist, and I am anti-coercion, which is almost, but not quite, the same WRT war.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd

monkspider,

Let me ask you a basic question. If someone comes up and physically assaults you, personally, do you believe it is immoral to defend yourself?

David, defending yourself is fine, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Blocking a punch, or running away are the best things to do.