Leonid

"Syrian rebel leader claims that the Assad regime has transferred chemical weapons to the Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah amid talks to ensure the transfer of Syria’s WMDs to international authorities for destruction." http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-chief-claims-assad-gave-hezbollah-nerve-gas/ Now, if there is still anybody who doesn't think that to destroy Assad and his regime is an act of self-preservation?

No choice is possible without standard of value. If I choose A over B it is because I prefer A in according to my value system. If there is no value system than there is no choice, just a random pick. One chooses to think because he understands that such a choice is beneficial to his course of life. Therefore such a choice like any other choice pertains to the realm of morality. As Ayn Rand mentioned in Playboy interview ".Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice." Moreover man always operates on conceptual level, he cannot live by perception alone. Man without conceptual faculty is not a healthy animal but a cripple human. Initially trough pain-pleasure mechanism and later on by conceptualization of his own experience man learns that his life is valuable and at least implicitly makes it his standard of value. When he explicitly denies and betrays his own knowledge for sake of some non-objective value system, he commits an act of moral obscenity.

Clearly Rand referred to biological existence when she said that man has to act in order to sustain his life, or nature will take it course. The meaning is that only action could be moral, inaction is outside of the realm of morality. However this is not always a case. The decision not to act could be moral decision as well for the reasons I described above.Moreover, in order to maintain his physical existence man has to act qua man, that simply follows from the law of identity. He cannot act as a plant. “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.” Therefore if man chooses to be a suicidal animal it is an immoral choice. " Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil" (VOS, 23) No matter what man qua man does or chooses he cannot escape morality. Suicide bombers are immoral exactly because their choice of standard of value is death, not life. And precisely the fact that they destroy their own life makes them as such.

The life is a process of making choices and choices are based on the standard of value. Therefore man has no choice about adoption this or other kind of morality. Without it he would be in the position of new-born infant, unable to make a simplest conscious choice. The only question is which kind of morality one accepts? Life is an objective standard of value. One may accept or reject it as one may reject the law of gravity and with the same consequences.

I'm familiar with these quotes and with this point of view. However I thinks that they require some clarification. First of all, it's quite clear, that Rand refers not to choice to live but to the choice to maintain life-that is, to take certain course of action in order to carry on living, otherwise nature will take its course. " But the choice to live itself is not subject to moral deliberation; it precedes and set context for moral deliberation"-she wrote in AS pg 1018. That would mean that choice to live, like choice to die cannot be morally evaluated. If so, how one can claim that choice to live is a moral choice? How we can morally evaluate all these who didn't choose to live-suicide bombers, for example? The point is , as I mentioned before, that there is no choice to live. Life is metaphysically given to man. Man can only choose to die. In the context of grown and fully developed man such a choice would mean an abnegation of the value of life, which he already learned. He knows from his first-hand objective experience that life is good, but substitutes this standard by some other non-objective standard; in other words he commits atrocious sacrifice and evades an enormous body of first-hand knowledge. Such an act cannot be beyond the realm of ethics, it should be morally deplorable. Only new-born infant who doesn't know the value of life, doesn't really make any choices could be " beyond good and evil"

The difference between chemical and conventional weapons is that chemical weapons are WMD, they are not created in order to destroy a certain target like a bullet, missile or bomb, but everything living in the vicinity of its action. One cannot specifically aim chemical weapon, it completely eliminate difference between combatants and civil population. All damage it creates is collateral. I know that cynics would say that Tomahawk missile is not much different, but this is a question of degree. A missile aimed to the military target, collateral damage is not its main goal, it's accidental and regrettable and could be minimized. Chemical weapon is aimed to kill en mass, and therefore deeply immoral.

There is no such a thing as pre-ethical decision. All decisions are choices and all choices are ethical. There is also no such a thing as a choice to live. Living is a precondition of all choices. Man can only choose to die and according to circumstances it could be moral or immoral choice. But in any case such a choice is within the realm of morality.

Garshaps:"But everyone is morally imperfect. We all naturally have moral failings, as do our societies. We're born biologically defective, and we acquire errors along the way, both of which are exacerbated by our flawed personal and social background and envirornment. Or own weak society, culture, or civilization makes it hard for us to accurately and justly define and evaluate other such alien collectives and societies. The reality is all individuals -- all observers and judges -- are are at least somewhat biased and warped." You view imperfection as a metaphysically given fact, which is amount to a malevolent view on existence. But you are wrong. If we were born biologically defective we wouldn't be able to exist at all. From other hand morality is not metaphysically given but man-made phenomenon. The degree of your moral perfection depends only on you. To blame such an imperfection on the social background and environment is determinism and blame culture. As Ayn Rand would put it, speak for yourself, brother.

Poland did have chemical weapons. The first incident involving poisonous gas in WWII occurred on the evening of Friday, September 8, 1939 in the village of Jaslo in the south of Poland. (5) Polish troops had tried to blow up a railway bridge over the river Jasiolka. The Poles had used a chemical bomb(6). http://rense.com/general83/gas.htm Also USA and Great Britanain. France also developed used and stockpiled chemical weapons. "The deficiencies of chlorine were overcome with the introduction of phosgene, which was prepared by a group of French chemists led by Victor Grignard and first used by France in 1915.[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

Existence exists is a metaphysically given reality, independent of human choices and actions. This reality is beyond the realm of morality. The pursuit of happiness is man-made chosen course of action. Therefore why choose this course of why to carry on living is a valid moral question. Man may not to take this course and often doesn't, but from the point of view of Objectivist ethics it is a deeply immoral choice.

The rational concept is a total prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. There is not by chance or by whim these weapons have been banned internationally almost for 100 years and even Hitler didn't dare to use them for the fear of massive retaliation. Chemical weapons are tools of mass destruction. Unlike nuclear weapons, there are cheap and easy to produce. If we allow now its use to go unpunished, it will be used in any military conflict with devastating results.

No, I'm not. He could be even worse and then should be dealt with as well. However this is not a question of regime change but administration of justice. Whoever uses chemical weapons should be punished.

The ability to choose presupposes that you already alive. You cannot choose to live, only to die. The question is why to choose to die, that is-to commit suicide? There are many reasons for such a choice, some of them are rational, some not. But this is always a moral choice.

They just have simply to kill the bastard.

The inability to distinguish between metaphysically given and man-made leads to epistemic determinism, a notion that man-made products are indistinguishable from that of the nature which means that mind and free will play no role in their production, that creators are conditioned to create by the nature, cannot help not to do that. Politically it leads to an assumption that man-man products are not results of man's effort and don't belong to him by right. As Obama put it " You didn't make it". Therefore the proper way of distribution is not by voluntary exchange, but by the force of government. The meaning of this is that each and every individual has no rights but society as a whole has, which is a blatant contradiction. So every collectivist punk who cries about oppression of capitalism does it via his blueberry cellphone or Apple tablet on Facebook.

There is no need to bomb Syria. All the Western powers have to do is to made crystal clear that they hold Assad personally responsible for the use of chemical weapons and will punish him personally. One drone could do the job. He cannot hide for ever.That would be a lesson for the future poisoners and much better one than indiscriminate barrage of poorly aimed missiles which would kill thousands of innocent people. The question of regime change in Syria is not of concern of the West. America should stop to export its revolution in the typical Trotskyist fashion.

I'd add " The Pursuit of Happiness" by Gabriele Muccino, "The Astronaut Farmer" by Michael Polish, and partially " Dark Knight" and " Man of Steel"

May his memory be blessed

For almost a century since WWI the use of chemical weapons was a taboo. People knew that such a use will lead to the terrible and unavoidable punishment from the international community. Even Hitler didn't dare to use it for the military purposes against Russians or Allies. Not anymore. The taboo has been broken, first by Saddam Hussein and know by Assad. If he could escape a punishment, in the future conflicts everybody will use it, and there are plenty of conflicts around the globe. Unlike nuclear weapons, chemical weapons could be produced and deployed easily with devastating effect. The action against Syria is an action of self-defense and self-preservation not only to America or Europe but to our civilization as we know it. It is true that America is not a world policeman and it is not its duties to maintain the world's order. In fact it is a duty of UN, which had been created for this very purpose. But UN is a toothless organization, dealing mainly with condemnation of Israel. Therefore Western powers have to take the action. They simply have no choice in the matter.

Homo liber nulla de re minus quam de morte cogitat; et ejus sapientia non mortis sed vitae meditatio est. SPINOZA'S Ethics, Pt IV, Prop. 67 (There is nothing over which a free man ponders less than death; his wisdom is, to meditate not on death but on life.)

In today's America there is no need for such a measure. Don't know about tomorrow.

SoftwareNerd "It is almost certain that the types of people who would lead any such a coup would be far worse than the democratic will, as expressed via today's politicians" How it is certain?.People of Egypt elected an Islamist as a president via free and fair elections. People of Germany elected Hitler the same way. Would you say that removal of Hitler or Mursi by military coup is far worse than democratic will? Democracy is not an end in itself, it's a tool to put proper people in the position of power. When democracy failed, and the country in the flames or elected government brutally violate people's rights, such a government should be removed by any means.Army officers who assassinated Hitler were certainly better than him or his politicians.

Then this minority will be unprotected and die out. Mind is tool of survival, and if they don't want to use it they will pay the price.

Military coup by its very nature is a temporary and desperate measure. It could be justified when its goal to stop an anarchy and bloodshed. But when that achieved, soldiers should return to barracks. Running the country is not a job for the Army.

Probeson:,France and Israel are two different animals. Israel is a melting pot of Jews from all over the world. It is an avowed "Jewish State". It is not united around principles, like America or France for that matter, but around religion-or being Jewish. in fact by referring to Jews as religion you deny nationhood from them and delegitimaze Israel. If it so, the rest of your argument is superfluous. If Jews are not a nation, Israel has no right to exist, no matter what it does or which laws he uses.