[tmp_acnt]

Moral: Innocents within war:

Take two states at peace, X & Y.
X declares a war on Y and shoots 1 missle against Y. Will Y be *moraly* correct to completely destroy X including innocent civilians, just to remove the threat? If not, please include moral-related explanations.

[TomL]

tmp_acnt, on Aug 14 2005, 09:59 AM, said:

Will Y be *moraly* correct to completely destroy X including innocent civilians, just to remove the threat?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the fallacy of question-begging. In a war amongst states, there is no such thing as an "innocent civilian". The state which exists is a creation of the civilians in every sense -- politics, economics, use of force. By working and producing value which is the fuel for that state's actions, every citizen of a state is morally responsible for the actions of the state in which he works. Where do government officials come from? They were once citizens of the same state -- who chose to become what they are. Where does the state get its operating funds? From the citizens of the state, who always have the option of laying down their lives or fleeing in opposition to funding their government. Where do the state's soldiers come from? They too are nothing more than citizens of that state, dressed in uniform and given state-supplied weapons and authority.

Citizens who do not agree with the direction their government takes can leave the country or revolt, just as the forefathers of the U.S. did (and ironically, eventually had to actually do both to obtain the justice they sought).

Unfortunately, in our current world, that means that everyone is guilty of some travesty of justice because there isn't a morally perfect nation anywhere on earth. But the U.S. is the freest and the closest to that moral perfection. It is more just than any other nation despite the few injustices it is guilty of, and thus deserves to be defended and protected as much as possible by those who value justice.

Your fallacy rests on the premise that citizens of a state can volitionally exist in a state without giving moral sanction to its actions. This is utterly false.

The citizen of a state performs a cost-benefit analysis -- he can conform to a corrupt state and thereby gain the advantages of being a member of that state to the degree that membership of that state is advantageous, or he can leave and go elsewhere (even if it is illegal to do so, he can still attempt it), or he can join in open revolution. On this level, it's only difference from any other cost/benefit anaylsis he may perform is in its complexity and the consequences of failing to choose the correct action. This is just as true in Iraq as it is in the U.S.

I am guilty. I am guilty of knowingly funding U.S. government actions which are morally contemptable and evil. The benefit of being a U.S. citizen far outweighs that guilt -- and those citizens of other nations who attack us are guilty of far more evil, both in terms of quantity and severity, while obtaining far less benefits for themselves in doing so.

[The Wrath]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. In oppressive states, people can't just up and leave. The Iranian regime was not put into place by the ordinary citizens. Yes, many of them help to perpetuate it, but not all of them.

Yes, citizens can revolt. But if they do not succeed, what then? Are they still not considered morally innocent? The protesting students and Akhbar Ganji are not guilty of the evils of the state of Iran. They haven't been successful yet, so I guess you would just lump them in with the people who perpetuate the evils of the Iranian government. You say they have the option of laying down their lives, or fleeing. Fleeing is out of the question, so you are asking them to commit suicide. Fleeing is also out of the question for you, since you live in the most moral nation, so why don't you storm the Capitol with a gun and try to overthrow the government? Because your life is more important to you than the few rights that our government takes away from you.

Nor am I guilty for the evils of the United States, because, as you noted, there is no more moral place on earth. Your solution for not supporting an evil state seems to be to move somewhere where there is moral perfection. As you noted, it does not exist.

The fact that I fund the government through my taxes is not my guilt; it is the government's for forcing me to make the choice between either paying taxes to fund its evil deeds, or go to jail. Same situation as a man who puts a gun to my head and says "either you kill this innocent man, or I kill you." I am not morally guilty for the killing of the innocent man, because the choice was either his life or mine. Likewise, I am not guilty for the actions of the United States, since the consequences of not obeying the government's demands are worse than my current situation.

Your idea that all citizens of a nation are responsible for the actions of the government is collectivistic. If John Kerry had won the election, I would not be responsible for anything that he did, because I voted for Bush. I am not even responsible for anything that Bush does, because there was no better option and I took my choice of the lesser between 2 evils. Before you accuse all the citizens of a repressive nation of being morally blameworthy, read up a bit on Akhbar Ganji. The man is a hero and AN INNOCENT CIVILIAN. If we, for whatever reason, bombed his prison, his loss would be a tragedy.

I'm all for the killing of civilians, if it furthers our national defense, but to say that no innocent civilians exist in repressive nations is nothing short of ludicrous.

This post has been edited by Moose: 14 August 2005 - 10:49 AM

[Al Kufr]

Person A tells person B to kill person C, or person A will kill person B if he doesnt do what he says.

Does person C have a right to kill person B in order to defend his life?

If C does kill B, who is guilty of the death of person B?

Is person B an innocent?

Isn't this basiclly what we are trying to figure out?

[The Wrath]

The only person at fault in that situation is Person A. And, yes, B is still innocent. TomL's idea is that you are morally blameworthy for doing something under duress.

This post has been edited by Moose: 14 August 2005 - 11:24 AM

[DavidOdden]

TomL, on Aug 14 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

In a war amongst states, there is no such thing as an "innocent civilian".  The state which exists is a creation of the civilians in every sense -- politics, economics, use of force.  By working and producing value which is the fuel for that state's actions, every citizen of a state is morally responsible for the actions of the state in which he works.

Not automatically. This is true of citizens who have a choice, but dictatorial slave regimes such as those in Iran or North Korea preclude choice. Those who chose to become government officials in such a regime have made a choice and they bear moral responsibility; the average Korean cow farmer has no such responsibility. No man has an obligation to die in a futile effort to end the dictatorship. Iran and North Korea are some of the best examples of no-choice regimes (and North Korea by far takes the prize as the worst).

What you're missing is that the innocence of the civilians is irrelevant. Dying in order to save a no-value stranger is rank altruism. X has committed the ultimate immorality in attacking Y, and the question of morality is irrelevant after that point.

[The Wrath]

DavidOdden, on Aug 14 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

Not automatically. This is true of citizens who have a choice, but dictatorial slave regimes such as those in Iran or North Korea preclude choice. Those who chose to become government officials in such a regime have made a choice and they bear moral responsibility; the average Korean cow farmer has no such responsibility. No man has an obligation to die in a futile effort to end the dictatorship. Iran and North Korea are some of the best examples of no-choice regimes (and North Korea by far takes the prize as the worst).

Exactly. What about his idea that you and I bear responsibility for the wrongs of the US government?

Quote

What you're missing is that the innocence of the civilians is irrelevant. Dying in order to save a no-value stranger is rank altruism. X has committed the ultimate immorality in attacking Y, and the question of morality is irrelevant after that point.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Word.

[TomL]

Al Kufr, on Aug 14 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Person A tells person B to  kill person C, or person A will kill person B if he doesnt do what he says.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Holy massive context-dropping, Batman! Nations are not individuals.

If person A fires a gun at person B and innocent bystander C is killed, then one one does not condemn the whole nation in which person A lives. You cannot apply principles from interactions amongst individuals to nations while dropping the context of the definition of "nation", and all that it implies.

This post has been edited by TomL: 14 August 2005 - 02:06 PM

[TomL]

The Wrath, on Aug 14 2005, 11:24 AM, said:

The only person at fault in that situation is Person A.  And, yes, B is still innocent.  TomL's idea is that you are morally blameworthy for doing something under duress.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. The citizens of a nation do not function as such under "duress". They do so out of volition, and no other reason.

[TomL]

The Wrath, on Aug 14 2005, 10:47 AM, said:

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  In oppressive states, people can't just up and leave.

Yes, they can.

None of your rationalization about not being responsible for the U.S.'s actions factor into the fact that you have made and are making a cost/benefit analysis of remaining in the U.S. and living under its system while knowing that it is not a morally perfect system. You've done, you'll continue to do it, and you cannot avoid it, whether you like it or not.

[The Wrath]

So, no matter what I do, I cannot escape moral guilt? I don't buy that. As you noted, it is impossible to escape to a place that is morally perfect. I cannot be held morally guilty for circumstances which are beyond my control.

Are you prepared to back up your contention that people stay in oppressive nations "out of volition, and no other reason?" That statement is ignorant at best and downright stupid at worst. Yes, people can try to leave, but there is a high probability that they will be killed in the process. So what you're essentially saying is that people living in oppressive nations have moral responsibility to commit suicide.

I am not really an Objectivist, but I don't have to be to see how your view is completely contrary to the teachings of Objectivism. You are engaging in collectivism by taking the unwilling inhabitants of despotic regimes and lumping them in with the despots themselves. Joe Iranian cannot be held responsible for the mullahs' oppression of Akbar Ghanji. Joe Korean cannot be held responsible for Kim Jung Il's belligerency. I cannot be held responsible for whatever tax increases occur in this country. It is beyond the power of ordinary individual citizens to effect real changes in their governments.

"Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly, all experience hath shown that men are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

By your logic, everytime the government oversteps its bounds by a millimeter, the people should rise up in violent revolution and overthrow and it is immoral not to do so.

Yes, I can refuse to pay my taxes if I wish. Now which is in my self-interests: pay my taxes and still lead a happy, though somewhat less luxurious life, or go to jail? By your ridiculous logic, anyone living anywhere but the United States is immoral, because they are supporting governments that are not the most moral in the world. Living in a particular nation does not make you responsible for the actions of its government.

You have asserted that people living in oppressive nations do so out of volition. You have asserted that all citizens are responsible and, thus, morally culpable for their government's actions. You have provided absolutely no evidence or logical arguments for either of these assertions. Your stance is collectivist, irrational, and nothing short of repulsive.

This post has been edited by Moose: 14 August 2005 - 03:21 PM

[TomL]

The Wrath, on Aug 14 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

So, no matter what I do, I cannot escape moral guilt?  I don't buy that.  As you noted, it is impossible to escape to a place that is morally perfect.  I cannot be held morally guilty for circumstances which are beyond my control.

They aren't beyond your control. You are performing a cost/benefit analysis that puts the choice squarely on your shoulders. Should you choose to reject all immoral action by any state in which you participate, then you have only choice -- but that choice is available. Like I said, it is a cost/benefit analysis. I don't think there is one among us who wouldn't leap at the chance for a successful revolution resulting in an Objectivist state. But until that is a possibility, we take what we can get.

Quote

Are you prepared to back up your contention that people stay in oppressive nations "out of volition, and no other reason?"  That statement is ignorant at best and downright stupid at worst.

Ridiculous. It is a cost/benefit analysis. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Have you read We The Living yet? I would bet money that Kira would back me up on what I'm saying.

Quote

Yes, people can try to leave, but there is a high probability that they will be killed in the process.

That depends on the state, and is part of the cost/benefit analysis. It doesn't wipe the analysis or the choice out of existence. It's always possible, and the choice always exists. Ask every person that successfully fled East Berlin if its possible or not.

Quote

So what you're essentially saying is that people living in oppressive nations have moral responsibility to commit suicide.

Absolutely not. They have the moral responsbility to make the best for their lives which is open to their choice. That choice includes suicide, but does not automatically mean its the correct choice. There is a cost/benefit analysis one must perform to come to the correct conclusion.

Quote

You are engaging in collectivism by taking the unwilling inhabitants of despotic regimes and lumping them in with the despots themselves.

That's not collectivism. That's reality. A nation is group of people who control the final say over the use of force within a geographic region -- and that means everyone that contributes to that state. A war among nations is a war between all of the people in one geographic region against all the people in another one. No one within those two states is left out of the war simply because they don't like to face the fact that they chose to help make it happen, and the means by which they made that choice. But made it they did.

Quote

By your logic, everytime the government oversteps its bounds by a millimeter, the people should rise up in violent revolution and overthrow and it is immoral not to do so.

No, but that makes it possible to evade the choices you've made if it were true. As I've repeated many times now, it is a cost/benefit anaylsis. At some point, the people should rise up, yes. But certainly not everytime the government oversteps its bounds by a millimeter. When it completely disregards the bounds, that's another story.

Quote

Yes, I can refuse to pay my taxes if I wish.  Now which is in my self-interests: pay my taxes and still lead a happy, though somewhat less luxurious life, or go to jail?

This is exactly the cost/benefit analysis I've been talking about! Why do you reject that a choice exists and then explain exactly how you've gone about making that choice? It boggles the mind. Just because the choice is obvious in your case doesn't mean it isn't a choice.

[The Wrath]

I don't reject that a choice exists. I reject the fact that not resigning myself to a life in prison constitutes moral guilt on my part.

[non-contradictor]

I'll just jump in here.

TomL, on Aug 14 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

... Have you read We The Living yet?  I would bet money that Kira would back me up on what I'm saying...
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a very hard time regarding Kira as guilty of the crimes of Soviet Russia. She had absolutely no say in what they did. However, I think it's different for us in the US. We do get to vote, even if it doesn't seem like it means all that much. We're MUCH, MUCH freer to do as we please than Kira, anyway. So it's kind-of like Dagny in Atlas Shrugged, isn't it? Where she says something about not being able to defend herself to Ellis Wyatt because even though she fought with James over the bad stuff, he went ahead anyway, and since she still works for the railroad, she is responsible too. Though she was also in a leadership position so...

I think I get what you're saying though. Kira understood that it was in her self-interest to try to get out, even if she risked being killed, because she could not live inside. Soo... for an Objectivist in a slave state, it's really not much of a contest, is it? You'd try to leave. And if you didn't, it wouldn't matter if you were guilty or not really, becuase you wouldn't survive long like that anyway.

I think there are innocents in a country that is at war. The civilians who die in a war can blame the immoral people who initiated force and started the war.

By the way~ Just my two cents. No insults, please. This thread is a little heated.

[jrs]

tmp_acnt, on Post #1, said:

Take two states at peace, X & Y.
X declares a war on Y and shoots 1 missle against Y. Will Y be *moraly* correct to completely destroy X including innocent civilians, just to remove the threat? If not, please include moral-related explanations.

I would prefer a counter-force strategy, that is, Y should target the military forces of X beginning with the installation which fired the missile.

One must consider two possibilities: X fired the missile by mistake; or X is testing Y's will to defend itself before launching an all-out attack. In the first case, a measured response is appropriate. In the second case, a all-out counter-force counter-attack is appropriate.

Al Kufr, on Post #4, said:

Person A tells person B to kill person C, or person A will kill person B if he doesnt do what he says.

Does person C have a right to kill person B in order to defend his life?

If C does kill B, who is guilty of the death of person B?

Is person B an innocent?

Isn't this basiclly what we are trying to figure out?

I think that this is a separate issue.

Let me use names to make this easier: Alan, Bob, and Charlie.

Alan might kill or not kill Bob regardless of what Bob does to Charlie, because Alan has free will.

Bob has free will also, so he is responsible for his actions.

Alan is responsible for any deaths which occur and for threating to kill Bob.

If Bob kills Charlie, Bob is also responsible for Charlie's death.

[Marc K.]

non-contradictor, on Aug 15 2005, 01:51 AM, said:

Soo... for an Objectivist in a slave state, it's really not much of a contest, is it? You'd try to leave. And if you didn't, it wouldn't matter if you were guilty or not really, becuase you wouldn't survive long like that anyway.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nicely done. You arrived at the correct conclusion while identifying the heart of the matter.

Atom bombs have no way of distinguishing the innocent from the guilty, and tyrants don't care to.

There certainly are innocent people in North Korea and the US, but that innocence grants none of us sanctuary. Should North Korea ever attack the US, every citizen there is a legitimate target. Just as all of us that choose to live in the US are responsible to pay high taxes.

I addressed this question of responsibility in another thread here, in the Political Philosophy forum in the thread "Morality of using a nuclear weapon...", Post #112 in particular. I quote myself from that thread:

"It is the responsibility of the citizens of a country to choose their government. When they choose poorly or passively allow their government to become threatening, it is their responsibility to right themselves."

"The people are responsible to accept the consequences for the actions of the government they allow to exist."

[Marc K.]

jrs, on Aug 15 2005, 03:43 AM, said:

I would prefer a counter-force strategy, that is, Y should target the military forces of X beginning with the installation which fired the missile.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't you also target the seat of government? Even so, I'm glad you identified your response as one of strategy and not philosophy.

But you are really avoiding the issue: Was it moral for the US to bomb Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo?

[Al Kufr]

jrs, on Aug 15 2005, 03:43 AM, said:

Alan might kill or not kill Bob regardless of what Bob does to Charlie, because Alan has free will.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesnt make sense, the threat has already been given. Alan has a certain natural which is governed by the values and ideas he chooses, and he has chosen the use of force as a way of dealing with people.

If a criminal brakes into your home and tells you to give him your money or he will kill you. You're not going stop and say," well he has free will so he may or may not kill me", and then you wont just walk of like there is nobody there and continue with your business.

Quote

Bob has free will also, so he is responsible for his actions.

So, should Bob go to jail even though he was forced to kill Chralie?

Quote

Alan is responsible for any deaths which occur and for threating to kill Bob.

Quote

If Bob kills Charlie, Bob is also responsible for Charlie's death.

So Bob go to jail for murder, and Alan should go to jail for just threatning murder?

[AisA]

TomL, on Aug 14 2005, 07:08 PM, said:

I don't think there is one among us who wouldn't leap at the chance for a successful revolution resulting in an Objectivist state.  But until that is a possibility, we take what we can get.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am trying to understand your application of morality. What is the moral status of those of us "taking what we can get" by staying here in the United States, even though we know our taxes are being used to fund things like the PLO?

[TomL]

non-contradictor, on Aug 15 2005, 12:51 AM, said:

I'll just jump in here.
I have a very hard time regarding Kira as guilty of the crimes of Soviet Russia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She isn't. You're forgetting the timeframe of the book. Kira was alive in Russia during the revolution. As soon as it was clear to her what the revolution meant to her life and the lives of everyone subjected to it, she immediately decided to leave and began working towards that goal.