Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think I have made all of the points that I could ever make on this topic, plugged any holes in my argument, and explained myself in enough different ways. I am pretty sure that any questions can be answered by reading my previous posts.

Actually, what you did was come in on page 36 of what is now a 38 page thread, re-raising some of the same philosophical issues that have already been discussed in great depth. Your new angle on the topic was to twist a few definitions and make the false claim that fighting a war against an aggressor is somehow immoral because it amounts to collective punishment of innocents. Clearly that's not the case, yet you refuse to acknowledge the faulty logic of your position. Not only haven't you plugged any of the numerous holes in your argument, you've added little to the discussion other than to rehash the same old libertarian/pacifist views on war. I don't accept those views becase they are immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, what you did was come in on page 36 of what is now a 38 page thread, re-raising some of the same philosophical issues that have already been discussed in great depth. Your new angle on the topic was to twist a few definitions and make the false claim that fighting a war against an aggressor is somehow immoral because it amounts to collective punishment of innocents. Clearly that's not the case, yet you refuse to acknowledge the faulty logic of your position. Not only haven't you plugged any of the numerous holes in your argument, you've added little to the discussion other than to rehash the same old libertarian/pacifist views on war. I don't accept those views becase they are immoral.

LOL! Making a list of assertions does not pass for a logical argument. Just wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite.

1) Hitler and the Nazi Party he built were responsible for the large, powerful armed forces of Germany.

2) The Italian armed forces, especially as commanded by Mussolini, were a gift to the Allies.

Hitler was in no way a figurehead. He was the heart and soul of the Nazi Party. The effects of killing him would depend on when he was killed more than how or by whom. Germans in general never accepted their defeat in WWI, there was a general sentiment that their own government had betrayed them, and many hungered for revenge against France and Great Britain. So killing Hitler before he seized power would probably not have prevented WWII, but it would have changed its character.

Killing him after the war started, when Germany was wining, would not have stopped the war, either. No one quits a war when he's ahead. Killing him once the Allies turned the tide probably wouldn't have ended the war. Killing him after the Battle of the Bulge might have ended things, depending on which particular Nazi seized power.

But launching a strong attack on Germany when it began to re-arm or when it moved troops to the Rhineland might have stopped the war altogether.

It would be wrong to say that killing Hitler would have done nothing, but I think that Hitler's rhetoric was ingrained in most Germans' minds by the time the war started, and his followers would have carried on without him until the bitter end. The Germans felt true hatred for the Allied powers because of how ashamed they were after WWI. The German nationalists simply used weakness this to their advantage.

But I agree with your last point, in that I hope my message came out clearly; an intelligently-fought war is not necessarily analogous to a brutally-fought war. I agree that legitimate wars fought by a legitimate nation must be fought to win, but asserting this black-and-white notion that abandoning my respect for individual rights, and thereby legitimizing brutality, is just as legitimate of a way to win a conflict as one fought with valor and sophistication, is simply absurd. One may be able to embark upon multiple means to reach the same ends, and as Ayn Rand teaches us, it's the decisions we make in that ultimate quest - to live or not to live - that make our actions moral or immoral. We can assuredly choose to live by ruthlessly abandoning the respect we have for ourselves and our morals, group all individuals of a slave nation into one collectivist ideal, and abandon these principles to achieve a goal, but how does that not make us savages? Don't we remember that Ayn Rand makes individual rights very clear regarding slave nations like Nazi Germany and present-day Iran? A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized (from The Virtue of Selfishness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I agree with your last point, in that I hope my message came out clearly; an intelligently-fought war is not necessarily analogous to a brutally-fought war. I agree that legitimate wars fought by a legitimate nation must be fought to win, but asserting this black-and-white notion that abandoning my respect for individual rights, and thereby legitimizing brutality, is just as legitimate of a way to win a conflict as one fought with valor and sophistication, is simply absurd.

Suppose you live near the border. Suppose the neighboring nation is a dictatorship with a large army consisting mostly, but not entirely, of conscripts. The dictatorship decides to invade right int he area where you live. Given such a situation, what would be the most moral course of action:

1) Your army shows up and repels the invaders by any means necessary. While your army is engaged in the fight, you have time to evacuate the conflict area.

2) Your army shows up and tries hard to kill only such enemy soldiers as are career military or who joined up voluntarily, leaving the conscripts alone because it would be immoral to kill any of them (they were coerced into service). WHile they figure out how to sort them out, there is a very good chance your guys will wind up defeated first. Your chances of evacuating are poor. But no collective punishment will take place.

3) Since it's unlikely your army can figure out who's innocent and who isn't, and since punishing the innocent along with the guilty would be wrong, they don't even show up. Your place is overrun in short order.

3.1) Corollary: you would naturally not pick up a gun and try to defend your family and community, because you could accidentally kill a poor, innocent conscript; in fact, should any of your neighbors choose to fight, they'd be doing something so immoral you should try to stop them.

Well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Making a list of assertions does not pass for a logical argument. Just wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

Right, and perhaps you should pay attention to your own words.

In essence you've said that a nation can respond to an aggressor, as long as it doesn't cause harm to any individuals who weren't directly involved in the initial aggression. That would be "collective punishment", which is evil in your estimation. Of course, until we're able to design bombs that contain a moral compass, it's impossible to fight such a war without sacrificing the lives of many of our own innocent soldiers. Thus, the practical implication of your position is that America could not respond to a nation that threatens us. According to you, not responding would be morally correct, however "just wanting something to be true doesn't make it so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized(from The Virtue of Selfishness).

You are quoting Ayn Rand selectively. It is dishonest of you: if you read the Virtue of Selfishness, you know she does not agree with your conclusions. If you haven't, you should stop quoting things, unless you know what they mean.

Whatever rights the Germans may have had, it is not the responsibility of England to protect them. England (or the US) had the right to use whatever it took to win the war and protect its own population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not defined a rational system of values by which civillians in other nations are any less valuable than people in your own nation. Are your principles universally applicable, or are you just making stuff up?

It has been defined, not by me, but by the owner of this forum: we are here to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. At least its basics are, as far as participants to this forum are concerned, considered common knowledge. I suggest you read up on the rules.

But I'll repeat it: the sole purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its own citizens. That is according to Ayn Rand's definition of Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

That principle is universally applicable: if Iran had a government who's sole purpose was to protect Iranians' rights, we would not be in this situation. The US is allied to every single nation which has a political system which protects at least most of its citizens' rights. No exceptions. If that principle was universally applied, there would be peace on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose you live near the border. Suppose the neighboring nation is a dictatorship with a large army consisting mostly, but not entirely, of conscripts. The dictatorship decides to invade right int he area where you live. Given such a situation, what would be the most moral course of action:

1) Your army shows up and repels the invaders by any means necessary. While your army is engaged in the fight, you have time to evacuate the conflict area.

2) Your army shows up and tries hard to kill only such enemy soldiers as are career military or who joined up voluntarily, leaving the conscripts alone because it would be immoral to kill any of them (they were coerced into service). WHile they figure out how to sort them out, there is a very good chance your guys will wind up defeated first. Your chances of evacuating are poor. But no collective punishment will take place.

3) Since it's unlikely your army can figure out who's innocent and who isn't, and since punishing the innocent along with the guilty would be wrong, they don't even show up. Your place is overrun in short order.

3.1) Corollary: you would naturally not pick up a gun and try to defend your family and community, because you could accidentally kill a poor, innocent conscript; in fact, should any of your neighbors choose to fight, they'd be doing something so immoral you should try to stop them.

Well?

Of course, you engage in your first option. However, I find utilizing hypothetical situations is a bit of an unfounded method of getting ideas across. That being said, I don't agree with the analogy you describe, because when bombing an entire civilian population with the sole purpose of killing Hitler, you do so with the understanding that these people are civilians, not soldiers. People fighting in an army, forced or not forced, are engaging in aggression, and are therefore soldiers threatening your individual rights, whereas these supposed German citizens would be merely civilians, not individually engaging in any force against the US. The conscripts themselves are threats to your individual rights, so regardless of why they're involved in fighting you, they don't deserve any special treatment.

You are quoting Ayn Rand selectively. It is dishonest of you: if you read the Virtue of Selfishness, you know she does not agree with your conclusions. If you haven't, you should stop quoting things, unless you know what they mean.

Rand's quote couldn't be clearer, actually.

If you have any evidence to counter mine, you'd be best to provide it. Otherwise, you stand out as merely appearing to be the usual loudmouth, offering nothing more than frivolous insults and childish superiority arguments.

Whatever rights the Germans may have had, it is not the responsibility of England to protect them. England (or the US) had the right to use whatever it took to win the war and protect its own population.

This is the usual unfounded, nondescript "evidence" I've come to expect from you.

And please be more selective with your words. I did not say that England had a responsibility to "protect" the Germans' rights, nor did I say Ayn Rand said that. What I said was that regardless of whether or not a government chooses to recognize individual rights, the individuals living in those nations still possess them. This is also what Ayn Rand said in the quote I provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can assuredly choose to live by ruthlessly abandoning the respect we have for ourselves and our morals, group all individuals of a slave nation into one collectivist ideal, and abandon these principles to achieve a goal, but how does that not make us savages? Don't we remember that Ayn Rand makes individual rights very clear regarding slave nations like Nazi Germany and present-day Iran? A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized (from The Virtue of Selfishness).

You are quoting Ayn Rand selectively. It is dishonest of you: if you read the Virtue of Selfishness, you know she does not agree with your conclusions. If you haven't, you should stop quoting things, unless you know what they mean.

Rand's quote couldn't be clearer, actually.

If you have any evidence to counter mine, you'd be best to provide it. Otherwise, you stand out as merely appearing to be the usual loudmouth, offering nothing more than frivolous insults and childish superiority arguments.

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the

servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations. But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila,

Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds? This applies to all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or “industrialized.”

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

The above are selected quotes from "Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness.", chapter 13 (the same one your quote is from) You have systematically contradicted those specific passages, in most of your posts here, in all threads related to US foreign policy.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fist fights are fought by individuals, wars are fought by nations and the need to fight a war has existed in the past and does exist now.

Actually it isn't an argument at all, it is a statement of fact, do you disagree that it is true?

Surely we shouldn't cling to a 10,000 year old institution just for the sake of tradition?

If you are talking about War, then I don't think it can be called an institution and we should cling to nothing for the sake of tradition. We should fight wars only in self defense, decisively and with as little loss of American life as possible.

Wars are fought by large numbers of individuals, I suppose you are one of those who thinks that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saving innumerable American lives, was immoral. [emphasis added]

First a technical issue: you quoted me as having said the above but I did not say the bolded portion. I don't know how that happened but please be careful in your quoting in the future.

I'm not sure how to take your first sentence. It could be taken as some sort of utopian fantasy principle but if so why stop there? Why not come up with an even more principled utopian statement like: there should be no war. That is something with which I could almost agree while lamenting the fact that war is inevitable considering the amount of irrationality in the world.

Or, it could be taken as a comical absurdity considering the nature of war. Or, it could be taken as some sort of pacifist evasion of reality.

The way I'll answer it is to say that since government is the representative of its people by definition, then those individuals who are present when an aggressive government threatens another have given either their explicit or implicit consent to that government. Certainly all those who stay in Iran give it sanction and any rational dissidents who fight for freedom understand the nature of their government and the propriety of fighting it and would therefore sanction us bombing it.

Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US then demanded "unconditional surrender", which would strip the government of its veil of legitimacy. Days later, the bombs were dropped. The US governemnt nuked 2 cities because they could.

This is an aggressive imperial apologist's rewrite of history. Japan was not ready to surrender as evidenced by the fact that they hadn't surrendered before the bombings and still hadn't, even after Hiroshima. Unconditional surrender was not a new condition, it was the stated goal of the US from the beginning of the war. The Japanese Empire was illegitimate and stripping it of its veil was essential to its defeat.

More importantly, I guess my earlier supposition is true. You think that it is immoral for the American government to have saved hundreds of thousands of American soldier's lives. Well, at least we now know for sure what your vision of a proper morality is: sacrifice the good to the evil.

Self defense is moral for the individual and it is morally obligatory for government. So while I tend to agree with gags that "punishment" isn't really the ultimate purpose of war, in the proper context, by your definition, it would be morally acceptable by governmental principle.

Your first exclamation is either an evasion of the point or you are for anarchy. If you are for anarchy, then good luck with that whole global peace thing.

A nation is not arbitrarily defined, it has a very definite border. Are you saying that the US and Canada don't know exactly where the border is? And the minority that is "in charge" was elected by the majority. One of the proper functions of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If another nation threatens those rights, then it is morally imperative that a proper government do whatever is necessary to protect its citizen's rights -- that is what is meant by "self defense" in the context of nations at war.

Most of your objections have been answered previously in this thread and elsewhere, please read them. There are good references to Objectivist articles in Post #263 on pg.14 and a good link to other threads in Post #290 pg.15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the

servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations. But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila,

Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds? This applies to all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or “industrialized.”

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

The above are selected quotes from "Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness.", chapter 13 (the same one your quote is from) You have systematically contradicted those specific passages, in most of your posts here, in all threads related to US foreign policy.

This is pretty pathetic evidence, and does not address the points that I've brought up. All you've done here is highlight some other unrelated truths.

Please do some of your own thinking and show how this "evidence" relates to anything I've said, in the discussion of bombing an entire civilian population with the end goal to kill Hitler. Absolutely, if a free nation wishes to invade a slave nation, and if it is in their objective self interest, then they are allowed to do so. That wasn't the question at hand, however. Do you have something relevant to provide related to what we were actually talking about, or are you satisfied with just blurting out quotes and making baseless statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching.

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the

servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations. But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila,

Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds? This applies to all forms of tribal savagery, ancient or modern, primitive or “industrialized.”

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

The above are selected quotes from "Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness.", chapter 13 (the same one your quote is from) You have systematically contradicted those specific passages, in most of your posts here, in all threads related to US foreign policy.

Non Sequitur. In a way some of these statements support my view. None of these statements contradict what was said - I do spot a number of logical jumps and assertions in what she said, but in any case it doesn't affect whether or not people should be punished for civillian casualties. Rand's starting point supports me:

"The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob."

If she says anyything that contradicts this statement, then she is contradicting herself or making logical jumps without demonstrating all of her steps in between. Perhaps you have some quotes by her that better support your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that legitimate wars fought by a legitimate nation must be fought to win, but asserting this black-and-white notion that abandoning my respect for individual rights, and thereby legitimizing brutality, is just as legitimate of a way to win a conflict as one fought with valor and sophistication, is simply absurd.

This is an interesting notion you have, let's test it; and no need for a hypothetical, we can use history.

Was it morally proper to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki or was it brutal? Would it have been more legitimate and valorous to invade the Islands of Japan?

Here is another quote for you to try and integrate into your position. It was made by Miss Rand in a Q&A from her speech "Global Balkanization":

Q: Miss Rand, as an advocate of individualism there's one point that I find difficulty in figuring out in my own mind, and perhaps you can clarify and that is the statement that it is the prerogative of a free country to invade and attack what you call a slave state or a slave pen or a non-free country. I find this hard to figure out because in the final analysis it is not a nation attacking a nation it's people attacking people, attacking individuals, and they may not want your attack. Could please explain that?

AR: ...I know the source of this statement. It's the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals and if some poor blob in Soviet Russia didn't want an invasion, or he is not a communist, we mightn't harm him. Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty pathetic evidence, and does not address the points that I've brought up....

Please do some of your own thinking and show how this "evidence" relates to anything I've said, in the discussion of bombing an entire civilian population with the end goal to kill Hitler.

For one, I just quoted to you Ayn Rand being unequivocally in support of the Allied invasion of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In both cases, cities were firebombed, civilian installations targeted as a matter of policy ("to defeat the will of the enemy"-RAF official policy), and two Japanese cities were nuked.

If you can't make that association, I don't see how more explaining is gonna cause you to recognize all the other relevant connections between philosophy and its application. You're just here to spew pacifist nonsense. The fact that out of context, some Ayn Rand quotes seemed similar to the rest of the floating abstractions you call principles, is an unfortunate accident. You don't understand Objectivism.

P.S. I hope Marc's very concrete quote will once and for all put an end to your illusion that Rand supported your brand of pacifism. I'm sure now you'll just start claiming that she was wrong, but her other ideas are somehow fine.

Non Sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur, since you alleged that the interests of foreigners in enemy lands should be of the same importance as the interests of America's own citizens, in the eyes of the US gov., and my quotes happen to show Rand, who's work is the subject of this website, expressly contradict that notion (it's the first red highlight in the text), but that answer was not addressed to you. I answered you in a previous post, in more detail.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That being said, I don't agree with the analogy you describe, because when bombing an entire civilian population with the sole purpose of killing Hitler, you do so with the understanding that these people are civilians, not soldiers. People fighting in an army, forced or not forced, are engaging in aggression, and are therefore soldiers threatening your individual rights, whereas these supposed German citizens would be merely civilians, not individually engaging in any force against the US. The conscripts themselves are threats to your individual rights, so regardless of why they're involved in fighting you, they don't deserve any special treatment.

So civilians working at various plants making munitions, weapons, tanks, uniforms, etc to send to the front are not engaging in aggression, just crucially enabling the aggressors to continue the war? That was the case in WWI and WWII. Just about the entire country was an integral part of the war effort, whichever side they were on. Not to mention that many towns also were transit points for war materiel, so the railroads and warehouses and power plants and refineries were also hit.

That was then. These days war is different. For one thing weapons and weapon systems are much more specialized and take longer to produce. You wouldn't expect Ford to start turning out airplanes these days, but ti did during WWII. Things don't work like that any more. Armies are smaller, yet more powerful than in the past.

Still, cities remain transit points to the front, and highways and especially bridges are crucial choke points for troop and materiel movements. Power plants and refineries are targets, too. Unfortunately, civilians, many not involved directly or indirectly in the war, live near such targets.

Also these days many of our enemies deliberately place civilians in the line of fire. Hamas and Hizbullah hide missiles and misslie launchers in private homes in crowded neighborhoods. If that will deter you from striking at valid targets, then you've lost. Because then all the enemy need do is palce any number of civilians around all targets, or even just claim he has.

I ask again: Well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting notion you have, let's test it; and no need for a hypothetical, we can use history.

Was it morally proper to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki or was it brutal? Would it have been more legitimate and valorous to invade the Islands of Japan?

Here is another quote for you to try and integrate into your position. It was made by Miss Rand in a Q&A from her speech "Global Balkanization":

I happen to find the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings unnecessary. The most convincing historical evidences that I've read have pointed out that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were even dropped. Obviously it worked, but I still think if we were more sensible and rational in our actions, we could have arrived at a better solution than testing out our death bombs on them.

Nothing in that quote you provided is anything I could disagree with. People are responsible for their own governments, regardless of whether the people agree with that government.

For one, I just quoted to you Ayn Rand being unequivocally in support of the Allied invasion of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In both cases, cities were firebombed, civilian installations targeted as a matter of policy ("to defeat the will of the enemy"-RAF official policy), and two Japanese cities were nuked.

If you can't make that association, I don't see how more explaining is gonna cause you to recognize all the other relevant connections between philosophy and its application. You're just here to spew pacifist nonsense. The fact that out of context, some Ayn Rand quotes seemed similar to the rest of the floating abstractions you call principles, is an unfortunate accident. You don't understand Objectivism.

P.S. I hope Marc's very concrete quote will once and for all put an end to your illusion that Rand supported your brand of pacifism. I'm sure now you'll just start claiming that she was wrong, but her other ideas are somehow fine.

You guys are both missing the point here - I am not arguing against a free nation invading a slave nation when it is in the free nation's best interest. I am arguing against ruthless and unnecessary cruelty brought upon people who are not, as individuals, acting aggressively against anybody - particularly when such strategy is potentially counterproductive, and most likely not helpful. I am arguing against the original analogy that was brought up, that was supposed to legitimize knowingly killing an entire city to accomplish one arguably non-important (when considering the long-run implications) goal.

And neither of your quotes addressed Ms. Rand's favorable view on HOW we conducted ourselves in these conflicts. You both brought up justification for engaging in these conflicts - justifications that I completely agree with - but both of you failed to bring up Ayn Rand actually discussing the matter at hand. Nowhere in either of the Ayn Rand quotes you guys brought up did it specify her thoughts on the methods which we used to fight these battles.

I, on the other hand, have shown you pretty solid evidence that Ayn Rand understood that individual rights must be recognized even if an individual's government fails to do so. Surely you can do better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it isn't an argument at all, it is a statement of fact, do you disagree that it is true?

I know this tactic. When one person talks about morality, you switch to documenting facts. It is a non-sequitur. I think it is immoral, regardless of whether it has always existed. Please be careful about switching the debate like that, as it can get people really angry.

If you are talking about War, then I don't think it can be called an institution and we should cling to nothing for the sake of tradition. We should fight wars only in self defense, decisively and with as little loss of American life as possible.

The contraversial part is that people's definition of 'war' involves turning the self into a collective concept encompassing everyone in a nation, and that any murders of innocent people are being whitewashed as 'part of the enemy collective'.

First a technical issue: you quoted me as having said the above but I did not say the bolded portion. I don't know how that happened but please be careful in your quoting in the future.

In that case I am not sure what happened.

I'm not sure how to take your first sentence. It could be taken as some sort of utopian fantasy principle but if so why stop there? Why not come up with an even more principled utopian statement like: there should be no war. That is something with which I could almost agree while lamenting the fact that war is inevitable considering the amount of irrationality in the world.

I am saying that it is immoral for people to kill innocent civillians, even in war time. In the same way that murder is immoral, and manslaughter is immorally negligent. In all of these cases, there should be some sort of punishment for this criminal behaviour. I never 'wished away' the existence of civillian casualties. I am only saying that to the extent that crimes can be punished, killing innocent civillians in war should be punished.

Or, it could be taken as a comical absurdity considering the nature of war. Or, it could be taken as some sort of pacifist evasion of reality.

LOL a couple of people have pulled out the "Pacifist" label without cause. The only time it is moral to use violence is in self defense, and solely against the people who are aggressing against you or your property. This is non-aggression, not pacifism.

The way I'll answer it is to say that since government is the representative of its people by definition, then those individuals who are present when an aggressive government threatens another have given either their explicit or implicit consent to that government. Certainly all those who stay in Iran give it sanction and any rational dissidents who fight for freedom understand the nature of their government and the propriety of fighting it and would therefore sanction us bombing it.

So if you live in America in your own home, and your government turns fascist-imperialist without your consent, then other nations are justified in killing you? Is this a universal principle? I just don't see how one man can be responsivle for the actions of another. Was John Galt responsible for the actions of the American leaders in Atlas Shrugged, just because he had stayed in America?

This is an aggressive imperial apologist's rewrite of history. Japan was not ready to surrender as evidenced by the fact that they hadn't surrendered before the bombings and still hadn't, even after Hiroshima. Unconditional surrender was not a new condition, it was the stated goal of the US from the beginning of the war. The Japanese Empire was illegitimate and stripping it of its veil was essential to its defeat.

How do you know? You countered my comment with an ad-hominem and some assertions.

More importantly, I guess my earlier supposition is true. You think that it is immoral for the American government to have saved hundreds of thousands of American soldier's lives. Well, at least we now know for sure what your vision of a proper morality is: sacrifice the good to the evil.

LOL! Really? My view is simply that if you wanted to destroy the Japanese Imperialist government, then fine, but be sure to punish people who kill civillians.

Your first exclamation is either an evasion of the point or you are for anarchy. If you are for anarchy, then good luck with that whole global peace thing.

I am not an anarchist, i support private property. Instead, I am in favour of privatising all governemnt functions and seeing the benefits of free market competition in the services of arbitration, contracts, security and military contractors.

A nation is not arbitrarily defined, it has a very definite border. Are you saying that the US and Canada don't know exactly where the border is? And the minority that is "in charge" was elected by the majority. One of the proper functions of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. If another nation threatens those rights, then it is morally imperative that a proper government do whatever is necessary to protect its citizen's rights -- that is what is meant by "self defense" in the context of nations at war.

It's this whole "Whatever is necessary" idea that i find so nebulous and bloodthirsty.

Most of your objections have been answered previously in this thread and elsewhere, please read them. There are good references to Objectivist articles in Post #263 on pg.14 and a good link to other threads in Post #290 pg.15.

Thank you, I will read through those posts more fully.

Edited by Sergio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are both missing the point here - I am not arguing against a free nation invading a slave nation when it is in the free nation's best interest. I am arguing against ruthless and unnecessary cruelty brought upon people who are not, as individuals, acting aggressively against anybody - particularly when such strategy is potentially counterproductive, and most likely not helpful.

Unnecessary, counter-productive, unhelpful--these are all qualifiers I would leave up to those who are experts in intelligence and warfare, and have knowledge of the specifics of a situation.

If you don't have an ethical argument against specific tactical options the US military and intelligence have, those options should be left available, to be utilized when the most qualified individuals consider them necessary, productive and helpful.

My impression was that you do have an ethical complaint against both torture and the US military taking action despite the possibility/likelihood of collateral civilian casualties.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sergio, I posed a hypothetical that you never answered. You changed it (I assume) because you don't believe the US government is as innocent as you, the bystander in my example, are. I would still like an answer to my question, hypothetical unchanged.

I also saw another question posed to you and didn't see an answer. Are you an anarchist?

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an anarchist, i support private property. Instead, I am in favour of privatising all governemnt functions and seeing the benefits of free market competition in the services of arbitration, contracts, security and military contractors.

What makes a group of competing street gangs with the power to use force in a geographic area more "benefitial" than a government that is limited to only protecting me from physical force with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in a geographical area?

Why should my rights be subject to the whims of competing gangs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting notion you have, let's test it; and no need for a hypothetical, we can use history.

Was it morally proper to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki or was it brutal? Would it have been more legitimate and valorous to invade the Islands of Japan?

That is one option. Another option is for America to have only dropped bombs on government and 'war supply' buildings, thus guaranteeing the guilt of those killed. I really don't see any case for damaging the property of private citizens without first determining their guilt.

AR: ...I know the source of this statement. It's the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals and if some poor blob in Soviet Russia didn't want an invasion, or he is not a communist, we mightn't harm him. Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

What if someone voted against Hitler, or didin't participate in the voting process at all? What about a selfish man who had found a way to live his own life without supporting the system or initiating force against others? Is it the fact that he pays taxes and the fruits of his labour keep the Nazi economy afloat that make him guilty and therefore that justifies killing him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sergio, I posed a hypothetical that you never answered. You changed it (I assume) because you don't believe the US government is as innocent as you, the bystander in my example, are. I would still like an answer to my question, hypothetical unchanged.

OK, sure:

Imagine that you are walking down a street with a friend, and I am approaching you. When our paths meet, I suddenly grab your friend and aim a firearm at you with the intent to kill you. Are you justified in shooting through your friend to kill me? If you do so, who is responsible for your friend's death

Yes, it is acceptable to shoot through my friend in order to save my life. Especially if it were likely that you would kill him anyway. However, if you hadn't grabbed my friend - if he was just obliviously standing in between us, then it would not be moral to involve him in my business or to sacrifice his life for the benefit of my own. The problem I have with your analogy is that it only works if either the US is innocent, or if enemy nations literally use people as human shields by strapping them onto tanks and buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes a group of competing street gangs with the power to use force in a geographic area more "benefitial" than a government that is limited to only protecting me from physical force with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in a geographical area?

Why should my rights be subject to the whims of competing gangs?

The scope of this issue is beyond this particular debate, but if you would like to see the solutions I advocate explained clearly and consisely, feel free to check out this thread:

Brilliant idea for Private Justice and Defense

Edited by Sergio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator's Note: Sergio, please read the Forum Rules, especially the section on "Consistency with the purpose of this site." I am not sure what your definition of anarchism is, but "privatizing government functions" is definitely something that Objectivists consider an example of it. So whatever you call your ideology, it is definitely not consistent with Objectivism, and we'd rather you did not use our site as a platform for advocating it.

Since you say you respect private property, I trust you will comply with our request without need for further action on our part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator's Note: Sergio, please read the Forum Rules, especially the section on "Consistency with the purpose of this site." I am not sure what your definition of anarchism is, but "privatizing government functions" is definitely something that Objectivists consider an example of it. So whatever you call your ideology, it is definitely not consistent with Objectivism, and we'd rather you did not use our site as a platform for advocating it.

Since you say you respect private property, I trust you will comply with our request without need for further action on our part.

I have read the forum rules. The relevant part is:

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

This raises so many questions.

I am trying to demonstrate that these ideas are not contradictory to Objectivism, thus not violating any rules. They are consistent with the methodology of Objectivism, but not all of its conclusions. Is Objectivism an approach to finding truth, or is it a list of pre-formed conclusions that Ayn Rand came up with? Is it primarily a philosophy or a list of rules? Most importantly, is Objectivism open to the idea of future innovation in its conclusions? For example, if a new system could achieve Objectivist values more sustainably than a small government system, would the innovation be accepted, or are we to terminate the pursuit of alternatives after 1982 when Ayn Rand died? Ayn Rand based her economics on the ideas of the Mises institute. Well, they have come up with many new ideas over the last few decades - are these to be disregarded? I have given hypotheticals before of honest men like Rearden or John Galt creating private defence agencies that are superior to government ones, but i did not get logical responses for why they should be stopped. Is loyalty to conclusions instead of methodology really what Objectivism stands for? I understand Ayn Rand's request that deviations from her philosophy and conclusions be named something else. So, in the same way that Ayn Rand built upon Aristotle, others have built upon her ideas. Is discussion on Aristotle's ideas also discouraged? Limiting discussion of innovations shifts the purpose of Objectivism away from a pursuit of timeless truth and towards a pursuit of 'truths that were documented before 1982". Is there a reason for why discussion of such ideas are considered unacceptable?

I am willing to limit discussion of outside ideas, as this forum is private property, but I would like to see some sort of reason for it. Some of the people here have made some really intelligent comments, with ideas that I have never considered before, so it would be great to find a way to be more involved with this community.

Edited by Sergio
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...