Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

Would the goals and methods of a government turning its military on its own people be the same as our occupying Iraq/Afghanistan? I'd say without the guise of being freedom fighters we'd have a lot less of the tiptoeing that guerrilla tactics tend to take advantage.

[mainiac]

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

So because of a vague preference that they never act on specifically because they are trying to cater to people like you, they don't have your vote.

[Karlito]

Hasn't gun control basically been a non-issue at the national level for the last decade?

[Nadaka]

Hasn't gun control basically been a non-issue at the national level for the last decade?

Mostly. There isn't much will to further either gun control or deregulation in either direction aside from the occasional knee-jerk response that never goes anywhere.

I wouldn't say its dead, but holy crap the economy and holy crap the moral police are monstrously larger issues at the moment.

[Montague]

yeah, nah, meh
 

[GlyphGryph]

One country invading another to force a change in governance is a tricky subject but do you really think that those harmed in the other country don't deserve to have their rights considered?

I think a countries primary responsibility should be the consideration of those who live within that country. I think we should stop abusing our own people before even considering going on righteous crusades to liberate others. And even then - I think it's wrong. Their rights deserve to be considered, and I support us doing everything we can to support people that escape from countries where they are not happy - flinging our borders wide open to accept them, perhaps even running smuggling operations to help people escape.

I do not support waging war on a people to enforce my system of morality upon them. Practically and morally it is reprehensible.

Do we consider it 'might makes right' when our legal system incarcerates violent criminals since that is enforced through force?

Our laws are built as part of a society, and practically they require consequences to hold force and protect its members. There is no attempt to change the other persons morality, or assert that my own is superior and it must be followed because I am more powerful. We don't care about their morality, only their ability to follow the laws required to keep our society functioning. In most cases, we do not care if they act contrary to that when outside are borders, and if they move to another country we do not care at all. Criminal law is not about morality, it's about practicality and emotional justification.

Perhaps that could be considered "might makes right". I'll have to think about the rest of your questions. I don't think there are easy answers. But perhaps I can draw a parallel with criminal law - drug laws. I see them as a gross violation of morality, in bulk. A clear expression of might makes right. And why?

Interest. In a violent crime, we have a personal interest in incarcerating the criminal. He poses an extent threat to our social order and existence as a nation, and often a threat to our existence as individuals. To this end, I support countries waging wars of self defense, and action against invaders at the behest of those invading - to stop another from imposing themself on you is hard to quantify as a morally wrong imposition in and of itself.

But drug crimes are an effort, in a way, to save a person from themself - and within themselves, a person should maintain sovereignty.

So too with nations. So long as the nations do not seek to impose on others, and even more so if they let dissenters depart to other willing nations, I have trouble accepting the argument that we have any standing, any legitimate interest, in imposing our will upon them.

This is not an uncommon sentiment, in my experience. Willing participants are generally allowed to engage in what we would consider immoral activity with each other, such as fighting, so long as they show no danger to the social contract, so long as we have no legitimate interest in their actions - hence why boxing is not a violent crime.

I don't pretend to have easy answers about this though - but I think a naive "We should go and right the world's wrongs, and fix the problems in other cultures, whether they want us to or not" is not a good answer. I do not think we have a legitimate interest in stopping baby eaters from eating babies, though if a splinter sect were to come to us seeking refuge, we may have a moral obligation to grant it.

But yeah... definitely something I will think more about over the next several forevers, I think. It's a tough question.

on the gun control issue... kind of
I can understand that. It similar to the reason I can't bring myself to vote for the dems in good conscience, supporting as they do morally abhorrent and utterly unforgivable policies. Policies they have made abundantly clear. Of course, I'm in the situation you'd be in if BOTH parties were advocating gun control.

[Nadaka]

If you already own a spiffy black rifle then any federal sales restrictions are not going to let them take it away from you.

Do I need to remind you that Obama failed to vote for the extension of the FAWB when he was in the us senate in 04?

[Frumple]

GG... drug law, in the states at least, are only nominally -- and only just barely that -- about "saving a person from themselves". It's got a hell of a lot more to do with tobacco and alcohol lobbies mixed with historic prejudice, with prison privatization forces starting to dip their fingers hard into the issue. It's definitely grossly immoral and about as clear an expression of might (money) makes right (law) as you'll see, but it's got basically jack-all to do with personal sovereignty. Unfortunately. It'd be considerably more moral (though still grossly immoral, honestly.) if it were actually like you were presenting it.

States are definitely a terrible example of potentially moral criminal law, as well. It's possible for criminal law to have more to do with morality than practical or emotional factors (though the former, in particular, will almost always still be a strong component), and there's some (mostly european, from what I understand) countries that are closer (with emphasis on the -er, unfortunately) to that ideal, but the states are quiet blatantly and close to universally about retributive punishment, at their best (at their worst, it's nasty shit like the drug laws). There's a difference between retributive punishment and rehabilitative justice; the latter can be moral, while the former is unequivocally (and necessarily, because it flat out doesn't work) not. It'll probably take another century of psych research before folks actually get enough data to bludgeon even the holdouts from yesteryear's ignorance hard enough to shape up, though

[GlyphGryph]

I was trying to work with the best possible interpretations - the ideals and justifications morseso than the reality. In truth, you're correct - most of it is fairly unjustified from any standpoint, but those situations weren't really relevant to the discussion at hand, in which criminal law was serving as a stand-in for international issues, I think.

* GlyphGryph shrugs.

[Shadowlord]

I hate the republicans, but I cannot vote for the dems because of their stance on gun rights.

The one that's essentially identical to the one the Republicans have, out of fear of the NRA? Obama, despite promising to try to bring back the assault weapons ban, has not kept that promise or even bothered to suggest it to congress at all as far as I know.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/where-obama-and-romney-stand-on-gun-control/2012/07/20/gJQAwMpNyW_blog.html

If that is your only reason, you need to consider the bigger picture. The republicans are anti-funding-for-birth-control, anti-abortion, anti-solar, anti-wind, pro-coal, pro-oil, against regulating anything, against labeling genetically modified food (let alone regulating it), want to stop the EPA from being able to do anything about climate change (and refuse to let congress do anything about climate change), and claim that science is a lie (How do computers work? LOL I DUNNO) and climate chance is a hoax (Outlaw non-linear sea level rise in projections, that'll fix it), and frequently demonstrate that they have no understanding of modern [any scientific discipline], and can from time to time be heard expressing beliefs which were proven false centuries ago. It is simply dangerous to leave them with any kind of an ability to influence the country's direction at all, and it's endlessly frustrating that half the country seems to have fallen for what they're saying (or they also don't believe in science, birth control, abortion, climate change, and thinks the government is coming to take their guns and churches away and turn the country into a communist atheism or something).

I've been registered as an independent since I registered to vote (over a decade ago), but I remember, and I'm familiar with history, and I see what both parties are saying. The Democrats may not be the best answer, but they're better than the Republicans by far, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Unless, of course, you think the world was created a few thousand years ago in 6 days, because you have a book which says so, in which case I would point out that I could argue that it was created 5 minutes ago and that that book and your memories and opinions were included.

P.S. I didn't mention voter suppression, womens' rights, racism, or any of that stuff, either, besides mentioning abortion and birth control.

P.P.S. 7 new replies!

[Montague]

derp. nevermind.

[Frumple]

Hey, I'd say the exact same thing about tobacco smokers and alcohol drinkers, but it'd never fly for entirely cultural reasons. I don't particularly want people whose lungs may give out at the drop of a hat or who are walking around with pickled brains making important decisions, either. And yeah, you can pretty regularly tell a difference between a chronic smoker or regular drinker and someone who isn't, years down the line.

It also turns out that there's plenty of high functioning drug users who utilize currently illegal substances and go about "working hard and making more money than they could ever spend". Cuts both ways, basically. You're as much a drug user as they are, it's just alcohol and tobacco (largely arbitrarily, with a hint of historical weight and a hefty dose of lobby money) isn't illegal, and hey, you've found yourself to be sufficiently functional. Surprise! Other folks can manage it, too.

But yeah, drug law has absolutely jack-all to do with anything even remotely beneficial. It's not about protecting society or whatev'. It, in general, passed the point of even attempting to years, maybe decades ago. More about protecting pocketbooks, nowadays. There's not many areas of law in the states that are quite so heavily corrupt, really. There's occasional in-roads trying to fix at least portions of the unholy buggerup the situation has become but it tends to get slapped down because $$$.

[Glowcat]

I don't pretend to have easy answers about this though - but I think a naive "We should go and right the world's wrongs, and fix the problems in other cultures, whether they want us to or not" is not a good answer. I do not think we have a legitimate interest in stopping baby eaters from eating babies, though if a splinter sect were to come to us seeking refuge, we may have a moral obligation to grant it.

Personally, I have a hard time relating to these kinds of arguments because I don't see the distinctions of countries and other political groups as being important barriers in the establishment of ethics. Fear, pain, mental anguish, the desire for a better life... these are universals and ultimately humans are not at the point where we can escape our natures no matter how our local culture shapes us. I do not believe it to be right to swear off intervention (although, as I mentioned, best to not be military in nature) just because some people are born into another political group. I feel far more connected to somebody who shares my ideals in Egypt than I do to neighbors who support views I find abhorrent. I think this is going to be one of the major hurdles humanity faces as it realizes its global nature - that we cannot be defined by the cultures/territories we have been born into. (Alpha Centauri anyone?)

To me, what's most important is the reasoning and justification behind the morals and the real effects caused by enforcing those. I cannot look at all beliefs as equal; I cannot look at all beliefs as justified. This outlook is probably due to how many beliefs I've acquired and shed over my (still relatively small) lifetime, but I do strongly believe that (world wide) discussions of ethics needs to move forward rather than get stuck in a mire of beliefs that cannot withstand scrutiny but are somehow regarded inherent to the national character. It is towards the people, not the nations, to which we should consider when discussing matters of international intervention.

EDIT: Nevermind how unnatural an uniform opinion in a country actually would be. I mean, you brought up the example of letting people freely travel, but even there as kaijyuu pointed out it's considerably difficult to just pick up and leave. If a country's government is metaphorically shitting on people within it, even if supported by the majority, I don't think that all crimes should be accepted and particular crimes that put immediate danger to the minority (such as genocide) should in fact see military intervention whereas others should at least have some pressure to protect the rights of those being mistreated.

[SalmonGod]

The problem here is that there is no absolute objective reference as to what morality is correct.  We all have our beliefs about how people should treat each other and themselves.  These beliefs are a product of our values, which are also highly variable.  Some values are easy to universally agree upon -- human life, for instance.  Everyone agrees that killing is not good, and should be avoided where possible.  Problems become instantly apparent when you realize that while that value is universal, it is not weighed equally against other values that are not held universally (such as differing views on self-defense) and ideas like "human" do not have a universal definition.

Baby-eaters, for instance, would likely argue on the basis of a gradient scale of what they consider "humanity", with adults being a higher value grade of human being than newborn children, and their practice of eating babies alleviates material challenges faced by their specific circumstances that would otherwise be a greater cause of instability.

And until somebody can point to an absolute objective reference by which we can measure our values, definitions, and morals, then we must accept that when we take action against others over moral disagreements, we do so without absolute justification.  You cannot ever strictly say "I'm right and you're wrong."  The statement your intervention actually makes is "I have a strong enough interest in broadening the influence of my belief system that I am willing to impose on yours."  You can make your case however you like, but this is still what it amounts to... and reality sorts out the rest as pure interaction of forces.  In other words, might makes right.

And I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't be active in the world on the basis of our moral convictions.  Let's just not be dishonest or egocentric as we do so.

[Shadowlord]

Everyone agrees that killing is not good, and should be avoided where possible.  Problems become instantly apparent when you realize that while that value is universal, it is not weighed equally against other values that are not held universally (such as differing views on self-defense) and ideas like "human" do not have a universal definition.

You'll find disagreement on "killing is not good" as well, not to mention all the many situations that can make it morally acceptable to different people (some of which may make it morally acceptable to some but not to others, etc).