Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What you and Inspector are attempting to do is to mandate that everyone should behave according to what you would do in their situation. It is not up to you to tell someone whether or not he should risk his own life, in pursuit of a more moral government. It is not up to you to tell someone whether or not he should leave his home and loved ones, in pursuit of a freer continent.

This is subjectivism, isn't it. The requirements of life, and ethics are in fact, objective. That is, it does prescibe what is the right thing to do given a specific context. We can discuss and even prescribe what the right thing to do is, can't we? The best thing you can claim is that we havne't gotten the whole context right (for which I'd like to understand what you think we've missed), but not that there isn't a right and wrong given a particular context (which is what you're doing above).

The assertions back and forth of skepticism, and / or intrincisim (which is what you are accusing mroktor or) is getting really old.

This, the moral responsibility of someone living in a dictatorship, and what moral responsiblity that confers upon me as a rational defender of my rights, is the crux of the debate.

Would suggest that instead of hurling stuff back and forth we try to ground ourselves with what Rand said specifically about this topic and see if we can't find the contradiction either in ourselves or her view. See my other thread....

I agree that people who put up with totalitarian countries must be prepared to suffer the consequences, if that country is invaded by a freer one. HOWEVER...the decision to put up with a totalitarian country is not necessarily an immoral one, if you have made the rational judgement that you can still lead a life worth living, such that you are unwilling to risk losing it completely in what will probably be an unsuccessful attempt at overthrowing it.

Except that some of you are not arguing the first point. Sophia is not. She seems to be arguing that you are free to do nothing inside of a dictorship and then confer moral responsibility on my, regardless of this stance.

Whether or not you're actually being fully rational by staying inside a dictorship is only interesting to me as to what it may or may not confer upon me as an obligation in war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is subjectivism, isn't it. The requirements of life, and ethics are in fact, objective. That is, it does prescibe what is the right thing to do given a specific context. We can discuss and even prescribe what the right thing to do is, can't we? The best thing you can claim is that we havne't gotten the whole context right (for which I'd like to understand what you think we've missed), but not that there isn't a right and wrong given a particular context (which is what you're doing above).

It isn't subjectivism anymore than it is subjectivism for me to prefer living in cold weather, as opposed to your preference for hot weather. A man has the moral right to decide what is most conducive to his own happiness. If dying in an attempt to overthrow a tyrant is less appealing to him than just living the best life he can under that tyrant, that's his moral right.

Would suggest that instead of hurling stuff back and forth we try to ground ourselves with what Rand said specifically about this topic and see if we can't find the contradiction either in ourselves or her view. See my other thread....

Except that some of you are not arguing the first point. Sophia is not. She seems to be arguing that you are free to do nothing inside of a dictorship and then confer moral responsibility on my, regardless of this stance.

Whether or not you're actually being fully rational by staying inside a dictorship is only interesting to me as to what it may or may not confer upon me as an obligation in war.

I agree. Anyone making that decision has to be prepared to face the consequences. I'm just disagreeing with the moral judgement that Inspector seems to have placed on people who choose not to flee.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't subjectivism anymore than it is subjectivism for me to prefer living in cold weather, as opposed to your preference for hot weather. A man has the moral right to decide what is most conducive to his own happiness. If dying in an attempt to overthrow a tyrant is less appealing to him than just living the best life he can under that tyrant, that's his moral right.

This is where I am still concerned. I agree that there are decisions regarding how you live your life that have aspects that are purely arbitrary. (do you like jobs where you wear suits, or do you like cold climate). I'm just not convinced that this is one of them. That is, ethics doesn't say how you are supposed to be productive, but to claim that as a reason to be unproductive is wrong.

I am still not convinced that the moral status of citizens of a dictatorship has a bearing on this analysis (per Dan Edge's assertion). However, what I doesn't sit well with me is Sophia's assertion that their decision to stay must have a bearing on my decision of how I defend myself, that is, it is within the moral analysis; contrasted with this sort of claim that we cannot analyze the morality of the decision to stay.

My question for you then is, do you really think that the decision of what to do within a dictatorship has the sort of moral arbitrariness as the decision of what climate you like? They don't seem on equal footing to me.

I would really like someone to take a look at "Living Rationally in an Irrational World" and see if there isn't some guidance. I'm tired of assertions from either side, and since I'm away from home temporarily, I don't have access to the material.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tactic is getting a bit tiresome. In a debate where several of the participants clearly do not toe the line with respect to Rand's opinions, this is a pretty useless argument.

The only thing that is tiresome is that. This is Objectivism Online - if you don't particularly care about that (and there's no rule that says you have to), then just kindly remain silent. Don't annoy me with statements like that.

Germany would like a word with you.

Oh, would it? That is only a demonstration of your ignorance. Germany did not become a dictatorship overnight. Not even close. I take it you have not read The Ominous Parallels?

Perhaps trying to make his life as happy as he can, under the circumstances?

A fundamental evasion of the nature of a dictatorship. One he is not morally allowed to sustain at the cost of the lives of free men.

In this case, you are responsible for your refusal to either attempt to overthrow our government or to flee the United States and move to a freer country, such as Ireland.

If our country becomes a dictatorship, that will become true. Why would you think I don't think this applies to my own nation?

Moose, I suggest you attempt to take this debate more seriously.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is each person's decision as to what to do with his own life and, given that he is prepared to suffer the possibly negative consequences of that decision

So you agree that when the bombs drop on his head he has no right to complain to the bomb-droppers? Or shoot at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't subjectivism anymore than it is subjectivism for me to prefer living in cold weather, as opposed to your preference for hot weather. A man has the moral right to decide what is most conducive to his own happiness. If dying in an attempt to overthrow a tyrant is less appealing to him than just living the best life he can under that tyrant, that's his moral right.
(bold mine)

If I might jump in, I wonder whether you're suggesting that emotions are a proper means for assessing whether a given action is rational and moral. What's moral for me is determined by the facts, not what happens to "appeal" to me at the moment. Even such a decision as whether to live in hot or cold weather could be very much a moral choice, depending on the context. Perhaps I have some medical condition that is exacerbated by cold weather. All else being equal, to stay up north because that's my preference isn't very rational or moral, if my life is my standard of value. Likewise, I fail to see how anyone living under a dictatorship could rationally choose to stay, unless the only alternative were death. Freedom/slavery is not an optional preference like hot/cold or chocolate/vanilla -- it is the fundamental requirement of life. Given that, how could anyone rationally choose to accept life under a dictatorship given some chance, any chance, to change his situation through revolt or escape?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like someone to take a look at "Living Rationally in an Irrational World" and see if there isn't some guidance.

I just re-read it. Here is the opening paragraph.

I will confine my answer to a single, fundamental aspect of this question. I will name only one principle, the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today and which is responsible for the spread of evil in the world. That principle is: One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

The rest pretty much fleshes that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "fleshing out" part I'm interested. Where she provides context for specifics.

If we keep it at the "Prounounce moral judgement" vs. "Do not initiate force" it stays pretty confrontational. I believe everyone is trying to interpret the principles correctly, but it is the evaluation of hte context that is important here.

That is, does she say you should "fall on your sword" to pronounce moral judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, would it? That is only a demonstration of your ignorance. Germany did not become a dictatorship overnight. Not even close. I take it you have not read The Ominous Parallels?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. I should have remembered the lesson I learned in our previous confrontation that your posts are generally not worth responding to. But I will take issue with this particular part.

Yes, I have indeed read the Ominous Parallels. I have also read Rise and Fall. Politically speaking, Germany pretty much became a dictatorship overnight, when Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. You can argue that Germany was on the path to becoming a dicatorship, and you would be correct. But the actual loss of freedom in Germany occurred remarkably quickly. It wasn't like Venezuela, where an aspiring dictator got into office and then gradually consolidated power.

(bold mine)

If I might jump in, I wonder whether you're suggesting that emotions are a proper means for assessing whether a given action is rational and moral. What's moral for me is determined by the facts, not what happens to "appeal" to me at the moment. Even such a decision as whether to live in hot or cold weather could be very much a moral choice, depending on the context. Perhaps I have some medical condition that is exacerbated by cold weather.

Then again, you might be absolutely miserable if you were to leave your home in Greenland for a more health-conducive climate in southern California. So, do you stay happy and live a shorter life, or live a longer life but with less satisfaction? It's the same basic choice as the poor fellow who is born into a dictatorship.

All else being equal, to stay up north because that's my preference isn't very rational or moral, if my life is my standard of value. Likewise, I fail to see how anyone living under a dictatorship could rationally choose to stay, unless the only alternative were death. Freedom/slavery is not an optional preference like hot/cold or chocolate/vanilla -- it is the fundamental requirement of life. Given that, how could anyone rationally choose to accept life under a dictatorship given some chance, any chance, to change his situation through revolt or escape?

Biological life is not the highest value. I, for one, would rather be happy and die at age 50 than be absolutely miserable and live to be 100. Very often, the only alternative to living in a dictatorship is death. Even if leaving is an option, very often, it would mean leaving behind everyone that you care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that when the bombs drop on his head he has no right to complain to the bomb-droppers? Or shoot at them?

I'm pretty sure I have made that abundantly clear. If you can't gather that much from my posts, then I question your reading comprehension ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I am still concerned. I agree that there are decisions regarding how you live your life that have aspects that are purely arbitrary. (do you like jobs where you wear suits, or do you like cold climate). I'm just not convinced that this is one of them. That is, ethics doesn't say how you are supposed to be productive, but to claim that as a reason to be unproductive is wrong.

On the face of it, it seems like a totally different situation. But, when you think about it, it is a decision about what you think will be most conducive to your happiness. Emotion must necessarily play a role in determining what will grant you the greatest amount of happiness. All I'm saying is that it is not up to you and I to decide that for anyone else. If they decide that it's worth the risk, that's their decision. If they die in an invasion by a free country...well, that sucks. But shit happens. And they knew that shit had the potential to happen when they made that decision. But that doesn't make it an immoral decision.

I am still not convinced that the moral status of citizens of a dictatorship has a bearing on this analysis (per Dan Edge's assertion). However, what I doesn't sit well with me is Sophia's assertion that their decision to stay must have a bearing on my decision of how I defend myself, that is, it is within the moral analysis; contrasted with this sort of claim that we cannot analyze the morality of the decision to stay.

I agree. So, I apologize if I've gotten this thread a bit off-topic. I would support splitting this "decision-making" conversation into a separate thread.

My question for you then is, do you really think that the decision of what to do within a dictatorship has the sort of moral arbitrariness as the decision of what climate you like? They don't seem on equal footing to me.

I don't know that I would use the term "arbitrary." If you recognize that your decision will have no moral bearing on the actions of a free nation then, yes, I would say it's the same. It is, ultimately, a decision in which you weigh the risks versus the benefits, and decide which is most likely to produce the most happiness for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the "fleshing out" part I'm interested. Where she provides context for specifics.

What I mean is that she talks only of making moral judgments and doesn't say anything beyond that subject. Nothing, in other words, that I can see as relevant to this thread.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. I should have remembered the lesson I learned in our previous confrontation that your posts are generally not worth responding to. But I will take issue with this particular part.

I notice that your rudeness continues unabated. Perhaps it is I who should have learned my lesson when last speaking with you.

Yes, I have indeed read the Ominous Parallels. I have also read Rise and Fall. Politically speaking, Germany pretty much became a dictatorship overnight, when Hitler became the chancellor of Germany.

If you are going to be that literal-minded about it, then I can see there is no sense in this conversation.

I invite anyone to re-read what this is a reply to, and what I was replying to there, and then see if this has any relevance. It does not.

I'm pretty sure I have made that abundantly clear. If you can't gather that much from my posts, then I question your reading comprehension ability.

I ask a simple question for clarification and you respond with yet more rudeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that it is not up to you and I to decide that for anyone else. If they decide that it's worth the risk, that's their decision. If they die in an invasion by a free country...well, that sucks.

(This first paragraph is something of a Devil's Advocate position that I hope will illustrate what I see is an error in your thinking) This would be similar to saying that it is not up to you to decide whether or not Inspector or anyone else can decide on moral pronouncements that they think are rationally in the best interest of their life. Who are you to tell them what moral pronouncements they have a right to make just because you wouldn't make the same moral pronouncements?(Devil's Advocate mode: Off)

When the soldier in the "invasion by a free country" starts filling that guy full of lead, that's precisely what he's telling him, he should have a made a different decision. If I can morally fill him full of lead, I can certainly morally tell him (posthumously) he should have chosen a different path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respond in kind to the way that I am responded to. I generally try to be polite to people on this board (including you, despite our previous disagreements). But the moment you accuse me of ignorance, I will stop practicing self-censorship on my opinions of you.

As to the use of Rand/Peikoff's authority in debates of this kind...regardless of whether or not I agree with Rand/Peikoff's opinions, you should be able to defend your own views by some other means than pointing to what they wrote. Even the owner of this forum will, from time to time, voice disagreements with them. I can provide examples if asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respond in kind to the way that I am responded to. I generally try to be polite to people on this board (including you, despite our previous disagreements). But the moment you accuse me of ignorance, I will stop practicing self-censorship on my opinions of you.

Ignorance? I asked if you had read The Ominous Parallels after you flippantly dismissed my comment that dictatorships don't happen overnight, citing Germany - a book whose subject was that Nazi Germany was brewing for a good 50 years before it happened, and that it was a dictatorship for years before its borders even closed - that its population was in a massive state of denial due to bad philosophy. That Jews were persecuted for years before the concentration camps started, but many still didn't leave because they refused to believe it could happen.

As to the use of Rand/Peikoff's authority in debates of this kind...regardless of whether or not I agree with Rand/Peikoff's opinions, you should be able to defend your own views by some other means than pointing to what they wrote. Even the owner of this forum will, from time to time, voice disagreements with them. I can provide examples if asked.

This dishonestly implies that I have not presented arguments in this thread, which is the most annoying part of your complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to add this in here, as well:

I think it was clear in what context I said ANY. I certainly did not mean less then required.

I know full well what you meant and was simply covering all the bases. No need to read too far into that.

Sophia, I urge you to re-read my responses to you, and specifically the questions that I ask and where I reply to your accusations of straw manning you. I honestly think you may be reading my responses too quickly and not getting the full points that I am driving at. If we could eliminate whatever it is that is causing us to stop talking past each other then I seriously doubt there would be any major departure of opinion between us. Please, could you reconsider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement does not imply using so little force as you may jepardize your chances of winning or barely reach it. It does however imply that you don't have a right to an unlimited amount of excess.

Nobody, to my knowledge, is arguing that we should be allowed to use "an unlimited amount of excess" force. That is a straw man, and I challenge you to point to any post anywhere on this forum that takes such a position. Generally, it is advocated that we should nuke or destroy one Iranian city, then demand an unconditional surrender. Personally, I would initially drop two or three nukes, like we did in Japan, just to make it clear that we mean business. This can hardly be considered "an unlimited amount of excess," given our present situation, and given the fact that I'm not advocating the destruction of innocent nations that do not support Islamic totalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that people who put up with totalitarian countries must be prepared to suffer the consequences, if that country is invaded by a freer one. HOWEVER...the decision to put up with a totalitarian country is not necessarily an immoral one, if you have made the rational judgement that you can still lead a life worth living, such that you are unwilling to risk losing it completely in what will probably be an unsuccessful attempt at overthrowing it.

I agree with this particular point. A rational person might have reason to live submissively under a dictatorship. Remember that a dictatorship rules by force, and morality ends at the point of a gun. In a dictatorship, the question a person faces is: Will he submit to force? The answer to that question cannot be prescribed for him by someone else. He must answer it based on his personal circumstances. Perhaps submitting is indeed the best option, especially if he lacks the knowledge, ability, or will to successfully fight or flee. What if his disobedience will result in terrible things happening to his family? I cannot blame a man for submitting to a dictatorship, if, for example, his rebelliousness means that his wife will most likely be raped by government officials and his children will be tortured or killed?

Still, however, I believe we should, if necessary, annihilate every city in Iran in order to win this war. I'm sure there are some nice slaves in Iran who don't want to be at war with the West. But they are still slaves. And you don't sacrifice your own freedom fighters for the enemy's slaves.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small observation:

As to the use of Rand/Peikoff's authority in debates of this kind...regardless of whether or not I agree with Rand/Peikoff's opinions, you should be able to defend your own views by some other means than pointing to what they wrote. Even the owner of this forum will, from time to time, voice disagreements with them. I can provide examples if asked.

Irony. By your understanding of "appeal to authority", you have just appealed to authority in that statement in bold (the owner of the forum voices such disagreements, I voice such disagreements). I don't see how that statement is any different from the one Inspector made that you took issue with. If one is an argument, then so is the other.

But anyway, I digress.

Back to the topic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody, to my knowledge, is arguing that we should be allowed to use "an unlimited amount of excess" force.

This was not a straw man because it has been said here and elsewere on the same topic that: when fighting a moral war, the choice of tactics is a matter of military strategy and not morality. That statement does imply that, in the case of war, the means of achieving a moral goal are either outside of moral evaluation or automatically moral.

Again, we are discussing morality and not what would be a good tactic.

Inspector,

Can you re-state the questions which you would like me to answer? Could you please summarize the points which you think I have missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not a straw man because it has been said here and elsewere on the same topic that: when fighting a moral war, the choice of tactics is a matter of military strategy and not morality.

If this view is so prevalent, then you should have no difficulty digging up one or two posts and linking to them. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it, or your characterization of someone else's arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not a straw man because it has been said here and elsewere on the same topic that: when fighting a moral war, the choice of tactics is a matter of military strategy and not morality. That statement does imply that, in the case of war, the means of achieving a moral goal are either outside of moral evaluation or automatically moral.

Again, we are discussing morality and not what would be a good tactic.

Inspector,

Can you re-state the questions which you would like me to answer? Could you please summarize the points which you think I have missed?

I think the main issue is that your examples of the problems you claim result from making it a matter of military strategy and "not" morality* are all ones in which non-militarily-necessary (or tactically prudent or what have you) actions are taken. Hopefully you can see how anything in the not-militarily-necessary category would have nothing whatsoever to do with what we are claiming or talking about.

This I think is a lot like the animal rights debate: animals do not have rights. That still does not make it moral to senselessly torture animals, nor is it at all necessary to give animals rights to make it immoral to senselessly and irrationally torture them for no reason.

If you apply the same reasoning as held in animal rights debates by the Objectivist position to this debate, I think you will see that the things you fear are coming from our side are not in fact at all a part of our side.

At least, I hope so.

*Which is not actually my position - rather that morality says it is moral to defend oneself as necessary with no limitations imposed by innocents or non-innocents

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I think is a lot like the animal rights debate: animals do not have rights. That still does not make it moral to senselessly torture animals, nor is it at all necessary to give animals rights to make it immoral to senselessly and irrationally torture them for no reason.

That is a good point.

*Which is not actually my position - rather that morality says it is moral to defend oneself as necessary with no limitations imposed by innocents or non-innocents

Underline mine - I am still chocking on that one.

In the realm of individuals who are citizens of the same country there is a limit imposed by morality to the actions one can take in self defense. The existance of this limit is not preventing anyone from properly defending themselves.

The case of individuals of different countries is no different. There is a moral limit to the things that a country represented by a government is morally allowed to do (because the rights of the country come from the individual rights of its citizens) in self defense. It is the same philosophical principle - just on a bigger scale. When your tactical choices are not influenced by altruism - the existance of this moral limit does not prevent proper self defence and does not sacrifice soldier's lives.

It is the influence of altruism (and NOT morality) which is interfering with proper self defence and unnecessarily risking soldier's lives. There is no conflict between the moral and the practical even while at war.

If this view is so prevalent, then you should have no difficulty digging up one or two posts and linking to them. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it, or your characterization of someone else's arguments.

See posts by KendallJ, for example.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...