timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I'm a sad man today. Joe Cocker was arguably the greatest cover artist ever in rock. Since I am a huge fan of blues and rock blues, I absolutely loved this guy, especially in the early days: his voice, his style, his band, everything about him.

Here is a list of my favorite ten Joe Cocker songs, in no particular order:

"With a Little Help From My Friends"

"Bye Bye Blackbird"

"Do I Still Figure In Your Life"

"Changes In Louise"

"Feeling Alright"

"High Time We Went"

"Delta Lady"

"Something"

"You Are So Beautiful"

"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"

:(

"A Whiter Shade Of Pale" would fit in somewhere among this list but it's a very solid one for sure.

Yeah there are tons I left out.

 

[msommer]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

I cannot think of a situation where kidnap, murder and rape would make a large group function better and hence in practical terms all groups reach the same conclusion independently.

Look at certain royal families. Intermarrying has been the norm for political advantage but when you repeat the families too often you get unfortunate side effects and genetically that royal line breeds itself out of existence. This happened in England and they actually had to import a German Prince to take over.

In all of western society (and I believe in the rest of the world as well) marrying your brother, sister daughter or son is seen as flawed and not allowed. Independently we've reached that conclusion - because the effect it had on those who thought it was a great idea.

That doesn't make it a moral absolute but a genetic one.

To my mind it is the same with your example. Over time on the savanna, in small villages we've learned that kidnap, murder and rape have problematic societal side effects. We've made rules about it to avoid having to deal with these side effects on a case by case basis.

There are societies, though, that have placed e.g. familial honor higher than the negative effects of these issues, and that's where you see vendettas where families go after each other for generations, seemingly forgetting the oriiginal slight, but focusing only on the latest score.

 

[Ilov80s]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

Maybe not current socuety, but past societies may not have found it evil depending on whom the victim was.

Then they were wrong.

Not saying it was right. Just pointing out that Romans, Vikings, Arabs and other groups practiced rape, murder and kidnapping of conquered enemies. That was considered status quo.

 

[jon_mx]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

It can happen in any society where the majority view a minority group as inferior or even sub-human. It does not matter if it is based on beliefs or physical characteristics. People have rationalized cruel behavior for thousands of years.

but in that case the society itself is evil. I say it's an evil act in any context.Actually a correction: if the society condoned the act, it would not be kidnapping.

Of course you will always say it is an evil act, because that is your value system. But that was not your question. I can see a society which where those acts would not be evil by their value system, which is completely up to them.

Well you skipped over my comment about how it can't be kidnapping if a society condones it. But forget that. Would YOU agree that such an act is objectively evil, regardless of how the society in question perceives it?

I have a value system where I can't fathom those not being evil. But I know many people who consider overpopulation to be the #1 problem facing mankind. From that perspective, such things as AIDS killing off millions is not evil, but a necessity for the survival of the planet. They believe we need to reduce the population by large numbers. So yes, I can see how killing people for the better of the whole could be objectively seen as not evil.

 

[timschochet]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

I cannot think of a situation where kidnap, murder and rape would make a large group function better and hence in practical terms all groups reach the same conclusion independently.

Look at certain royal families. Intermarrying has been the norm for political advantage but when you repeat the families too often you get unfortunate side effects and genetically that royal line breeds itself out of existence. This happened in England and they actually had to import a German Prince to take over.

In all of western society (and I believe in the rest of the world as well) marrying your brother, sister daughter or son is seen as flawed and not allowed. Independently we've reached that conclusion - because the effect it had on those who thought it was a great idea.

That doesn't make it a moral absolute but a genetic one.

To my mind it is the same with your example. Over time on the savanna, in small villages we've learned that kidnap, murder and rape have problematic societal side effects. We've made rules about it to avoid having to deal with these side effects on a case by case basis.

There are societies, though, that have placed e.g. familial honor higher than the negative effects of these issues, and that's where you see vendettas where families go after each other for generations, seemingly forgetting the oriiginal slight, but focusing only on the latest score.

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

It can happen in any society where the majority view a minority group as inferior or even sub-human. It does not matter if it is based on beliefs or physical characteristics. People have rationalized cruel behavior for thousands of years.

but in that case the society itself is evil. I say it's an evil act in any context.Actually a correction: if the society condoned the act, it would not be kidnapping.

Of course you will always say it is an evil act, because that is your value system. But that was not your question. I can see a society which where those acts would not be evil by their value system, which is completely up to them.

X Dislike This

 

[Two Deep]

When I come in here it feels like I'm visiting a prisoner.

 

[timschochet]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

It can happen in any society where the majority view a minority group as inferior or even sub-human. It does not matter if it is based on beliefs or physical characteristics. People have rationalized cruel behavior for thousands of years.

but in that case the society itself is evil. I say it's an evil act in any context.Actually a correction: if the society condoned the act, it would not be kidnapping.

Of course you will always say it is an evil act, because that is your value system. But that was not your question. I can see a society which where those acts would not be evil by their value system, which is completely up to them.

Well you skipped over my comment about how it can't be kidnapping if a society condones it. But forget that. Would YOU agree that such an act is objectively evil, regardless of how the society in question perceives it?

I have a value system where I can't fathom those not being evil. But I know many people who consider overpopulation to be the #1 problem facing mankind. From that perspective, such things as AIDS killing off millions is not evil, but a necessity for the survival of the planet. They believe we need to reduce the population by large numbers. So yes, I can see how killing people for the better of the whole could be objectively seen as not evil.

That's not what I asked though. I specifically came up with kidnapping and raping a young child because it is so unequivocal, much more so than the examples that you mentioned (or incest which msommer brought up.) You state that you cannot fathom those not being evil. That is not the same as stating that these actions are objectively evil. Am I, as an atheist, more clear on the right vs. wrong of this than you are as a religious person?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Keep on truckin. It's the reactions that are puzzling IMO.

 

[timschochet]

When I come in here it feels like I'm visiting a prisoner.

I need cash, cigarettes and booze. In small containers that I can carry around in my ####### just in case there's a general search.

 

[timschochet]

I was dissatisfied with my movie lists yesterday. I need to divide films into genres and do it that way. I'll offer some more lists later on.

 

[jon_mx]

There are very intelligent people like Princeton's Peter Singer who advocates killing disabled children, labeling them a "non-human personhood".

Here is some fodder too:

Infanticide on DemandBy Fay Voshell
[SIZE=medium]In ancient Rome, the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]paterfamilias[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] had the power of life or death over his children from birth onward. After a baby was born, the midwife put it on the floor. If the father picked the child up, it was formally a member of the family. If not, the infant was exposed to the elements on a hillside, where it would die of exposure or be devoured by wild animals. Sometimes the child was picked up by slave-dealers, who were interested in raising the children to a marketable age, then selling them for work in such professions as prostitution.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]The Roman father's absolute right to kill his children was challenged by Christians, who, along with those who followed Judaism, forbade infanticide.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Eventually, due to the influence of Christianity, infanticide was almost completely erased from the West. Parents' absolute right to do what they wished with their newborn children was bounded by the law, even though the practice would continue sporadically outside the law. Direct advocacy for and promulgation of infanticide virtually died out, with the notable exception of dictatorial regimes such as the Third Reich.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Until now.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Recently, advocates for the parental right to kill unwanted newborns have appeared in the forms of Drs. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, whose [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]paper[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] for the Australian Journal of Medical Ethics[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] advocates "after birth abortion."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Giubilini's and Minerva's main argument consists of the relentless logic which pro-life advocates predicted would be an eventual consequence of the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Roe v. Wade[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] decision by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1973. That decision essentially permitted abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of gestation. Pro-life advocates predicted that the arguments in favor of abortion could just as easily be applied to newborns and the elderly as well as any other "undesirable" group of human beings. The decision set morality concerning human life tumbling down a slippery slope, they argued. If a fetus could be declared not human or deserving of rights, then newborns' lives would also be jeopardized -- to say nothing of the elderly and chronically ill.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The slippery slope argument has long been [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]scorned by the liberal left[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], who adamantly denied that born human beings would also eventually be subject to death sentences handed out to the unborn. Preposterous, the left cried. A logical fallacy! Never would happen! "B" does not follow "A"![/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]But Giubilini and Minerva have used the slippery slope argument in favor of infanticide, thereby showing that pro-life advocates correctly predicted such a logical development.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Among the arguments the doctors utilize:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.
[SIZE=medium]There are, after all, the good doctors argue, abnormalities which cannot be detected until after birth. Such deformities render the child's life "not worth living." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]To those who protest that children with physical and/or mental handicaps can lead quite happy lives, Giubilini and Minerva reply:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

None the less, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call
after birth abortion
should be permissible.
[SIZE=medium]Both doctors go on to write that the newborn and the fetus are morally equivalent. Both are human beings and "potential persons," but since neither is in the position of attributing any value to his or her existence or able to articulate any aims in life, neither is a person. It follows that "[m]erely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]To be human, the doctors argue, a newborn must have aims in life, must be able to appreciate life. Since a newborn does not have aims or appreciation, "t is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense." In other words, no harm is done to the newborn if she is killed, for she is not like you and me -- a real person.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now, where have we heard the "not a real person" arguments before? Need we once again say the argument of not being a real human has been used against undesirable and unwanted groups of human beings over and over again, Jews and blacks being some of the humans who have been labeled "not real persons"?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Giubilini and Minerva suggest a cutoff point for infanticide, allowing a few days for decision-making. In this opinion, they are following the "scientific" reasoning of [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Francis Crick[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], who declared that a child is not fully human until three days after birth. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Both doctors go through a laundry list of reasons for abortions, which they now believe should apply post birth to newborns, handicapped or normal. The parents, whose well-being is the primary concern, are to have absolute choice as to whether or not their baby lives.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Even adoption is not seen as a good alternative, as giving up the newborn might cause the parents emotional harm. Better to kill the baby than that the mother be upset about giving up her child.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people [the parents] should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.
[SIZE=medium]Their conclusion:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
[SIZE=medium]So there we have it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Infanticide on demand is now to follow abortion on demand. No argumentation for infanticide remains merely abstract or a mere verbal game. Regardless of whether or not the authors were "only" ethicists, their article appeared in a respected medical journal and should be taken seriously. Lest any reader think our current president and administration would adamantly oppose such measures as Giubilini and Minerva advocate, it is well to recall that our [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]president [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]voted against[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] saving the lives of babies[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] who somehow escape being killed by abortion. He also voted in favor of partial-birth abortion. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The slippery slope argument of pro-life advocates has been vindicated by leftists who formerly ridiculed the argument as absurd. The arguments of Giubilini and Minerva follow a gruesomely reversed and morally repugnant logic which now openly advocates the murder of infants.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Just as in ancient pagan Rome, parents are now to have absolute authority over their child's life. Just as they presently have the absolute authority to decide to abort their unborn children for any reason or no reason at all, so now they are to given the power to decide whether or not their newborn baby lives or dies, if the left gets its way.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]American Thinker[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]. She may be reached at [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]fvoshell@yahoo.com[/SIZE][SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In ancient Rome, the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]paterfamilias[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] had the power of life or death over his children from birth onward. After a baby was born, the midwife put it on the floor. If the father picked the child up, it was formally a member of the family. If not, the infant was exposed to the elements on a hillside, where it would die of exposure or be devoured by wild animals. Sometimes the child was picked up by slave-dealers, who were interested in raising the children to a marketable age, then selling them for work in such professions as prostitution.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The Roman father's absolute right to kill his children was challenged by Christians, who, along with those who followed Judaism, forbade infanticide.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Eventually, due to the influence of Christianity, infanticide was almost completely erased from the West. Parents' absolute right to do what they wished with their newborn children was bounded by the law, even though the practice would continue sporadically outside the law. Direct advocacy for and promulgation of infanticide virtually died out, with the notable exception of dictatorial regimes such as the Third Reich.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Until now.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Recently, advocates for the parental right to kill unwanted newborns have appeared in the forms of Drs. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, whose [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]paper[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] for the Australian Journal of Medical Ethics[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] advocates "after birth abortion."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Giubilini's and Minerva's main argument consists of the relentless logic which pro-life advocates predicted would be an eventual consequence of the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Roe v. Wade[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] decision by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1973. That decision essentially permitted abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of gestation. Pro-life advocates predicted that the arguments in favor of abortion could just as easily be applied to newborns and the elderly as well as any other "undesirable" group of human beings. The decision set morality concerning human life tumbling down a slippery slope, they argued. If a fetus could be declared not human or deserving of rights, then newborns' lives would also be jeopardized -- to say nothing of the elderly and chronically ill.[/SIZE]
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/03/infanticide_on_demand.html#ixzz3Met1cZVN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[timschochet]

If you want to know the moral difference between a nation like Pakistan and Israel, as well as world reaction, take a look at this latest news out of Pakistan that they're going to execute 500 militants in retaliation for the school massacre last week. Putting aside the question of whether or not this will be effective (I doubt it), Israel is a nation that has suffered hundreds of such terrible attacks as Pakistan faced, and when have they ever proposed such an action? The Israelis have thousands of Palestinian terrorists locked up in jail. Have they ever executed any as retribution for an act of terrorism? And if they announced they were going to do it, can you imagine what the world reaction would be? Israel would be universally reviled. Yet I predict that when Pakistan executes these men, there will be barely a whimper of protest.

 

[Gawain]

If you want to know the moral difference between a nation like Pakistan and Israel, as well as world reaction, take a look at this latest news out of Pakistan that they're going to execute 500 militants in retaliation for the school massacre last week. Putting aside the question of whether or not this will be effective (I doubt it), Israel is a nation that has suffered hundreds of such terrible attacks as Pakistan faced, and when have they ever proposed such an action? The Israelis have thousands of Palestinian terrorists locked up in jail. Have they ever executed any as retribution for an act of terrorism? And if they announced they were going to do it, can you imagine what the world reaction would be? Israel would be universally reviled. Yet I predict that when Pakistan executes these men, there will be barely a whimper of protest.

Eichmann?

 

[timschochet]

If you want to know the moral difference between a nation like Pakistan and Israel, as well as world reaction, take a look at this latest news out of Pakistan that they're going to execute 500 militants in retaliation for the school massacre last week. Putting aside the question of whether or not this will be effective (I doubt it), Israel is a nation that has suffered hundreds of such terrible attacks as Pakistan faced, and when have they ever proposed such an action? The Israelis have thousands of Palestinian terrorists locked up in jail. Have they ever executed any as retribution for an act of terrorism? And if they announced they were going to do it, can you imagine what the world reaction would be? Israel would be universally reviled. Yet I predict that when Pakistan executes these men, there will be barely a whimper of protest.

Eichmann?

You're not serious are you? Eichmann was executed for crimes that HE committed, not as retribution for crimes that were committed while he was in prison.

 

[timschochet]

jon it seems like you're agreeing with my point. Yes, a moral argument can be made for infanticide- I used the Hawaiian example. A moral argument can made for a LOT of things that we consider crimes. However, I still believe there are certain moral absolutes for which a moral argument cannot be made. I offered one example.

On a side note, it was fairly easy for me to come up with what I believe to be a clear, objective case of evil- in this instance, the kidnapping, raping and murder of young children. It is far more difficult for me to come up with an objective case of good. i can look at specific behaviors in specific situations and say, "THAT person acted in a good way", but I can't apply that to every possible situation, as I can with my evil example. Good behavior seems to be far more subjective to me, very difficult to define and sometimes even to identify. Not sure why that is.

 

[hagmania]

There are very intelligent people like Princeton's Peter Singer who advocates killing disabled children, labeling them a "non-human personhood".

Second time I've read that phrase today. Other instance is talking about orangutans. Bader-Meinhoff is a fascinating phenomenon.

 

[Gawain]

If you want to know the moral difference between a nation like Pakistan and Israel, as well as world reaction, take a look at this latest news out of Pakistan that they're going to execute 500 militants in retaliation for the school massacre last week. Putting aside the question of whether or not this will be effective (I doubt it), Israel is a nation that has suffered hundreds of such terrible attacks as Pakistan faced, and when have they ever proposed such an action? The Israelis have thousands of Palestinian terrorists locked up in jail. Have they ever executed any as retribution for an act of terrorism? And if they announced they were going to do it, can you imagine what the world reaction would be? Israel would be universally reviled. Yet I predict that when Pakistan executes these men, there will be barely a whimper of protest.

Eichmann?

You're not serious are you? Eichmann was executed for crimes that HE committed, not as retribution for crimes that were committed while he was in prison.

You're putting too many restrictions on your statement. Has Israel executed people? Yes.

Have they executed people as punishment for others? Yes (Damocles)

Have many nations executed civilians as punishment for partisan attacks? Yes

Israeli society is supposed to have evolved beyond reprisals, as the USA did. Pakistan, not so much.

 

[timschochet]

Damocles?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Next time I have the opportunity to return a dropped item to someone out of kindness, I'll be sure to say "good thing I'm an atheist, or I might have kept it" and report back.

 

[Gawain]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

 

[hagmania]

tim, did your Good Samaritan sound like he was joking?

 

[timschochet]

tim, did your Good Samaritan sound like he was joking?

not at all.

 

[timschochet]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

OK. I read about that in Frederick Forsythe's The Odessa File. But Pakiatan is publicly announcing the execution of 500 men held in prison who didn't commit the school massacre. That's a little different. That's Nazi time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

The old Iraqi baathists and nationalists liked the nazis, they aligned themselves with them in WW2. Saddam Hussein's uncle was one of them. Arab nationalism and Euro fasco-nationalism go together perfectly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

OK. I read about that in Frederick Forsythe's The Odessa File.But Pakiatan is publicly announcing the execution of 500 men held in prison who didn't commit the school massacre. That's a little different. That's Nazi time.

That's just the Eastern way of doing things, Russia/USSR, China, Japan, they hold a lower value on life than the west does.

 

[hagmania]

tim, did your Good Samaritan sound like he was joking?

not at all.

Weird thing to say. It's either quite condescending or he had lived a troubled past imo.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you want to know the moral difference between a nation like Pakistan and Israel, as well as world reaction, take a look at this latest news out of Pakistan that they're going to execute 500 militants in retaliation for the school massacre last week. Putting aside the question of whether or not this will be effective (I doubt it), Israel is a nation that has suffered hundreds of such terrible attacks as Pakistan faced, and when have they ever proposed such an action? The Israelis have thousands of Palestinian terrorists locked up in jail. Have they ever executed any as retribution for an act of terrorism? And if they announced they were going to do it, can you imagine what the world reaction would be? Israel would be universally reviled. Yet I predict that when Pakistan executes these men, there will be barely a whimper of protest.

Eichmann?

He was an actual villain, a criminal of the highest order, that's different as he was convicted for crimes he actually committed.

 

[timschochet]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

OK. I read about that in Frederick Forsythe's The Odessa File.But Pakiatan is publicly announcing the execution of 500 men held in prison who didn't commit the school massacre. That's a little different. That's Nazi time.

That's just the Eastern way of doing things, Russia/USSR, China, Japan, they hold a lower value on life than the west does.

Pakistan is next to India. Do you think the Indian government, made up of Hindus and Jains, would do such a thing? I don't. If anything they value life more than we do. A religious Jain won't swat a fly away for fear he might kill it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Damocles?

http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/roger-howard/books/operation-damocles

The poor bastahds working in a factory trying to eek out a living would probably be closest to the Pakistan analogy.

I'm not saying it wasn't prudent, or justified. I'm just saying that no one's hands are clean.

OK. I read about that in Frederick Forsythe's The Odessa File.But Pakiatan is publicly announcing the execution of 500 men held in prison who didn't commit the school massacre. That's a little different. That's Nazi time.

That's just the Eastern way of doing things, Russia/USSR, China, Japan, they hold a lower value on life than the west does.

Pakistan is next to India. Do you think the Indian government, made up of Hindus and Jains, would do such a thing? I don't. If anything they value life more than we do. A religious Jain won't swat a fly away for fear he might kill it.

Are you kidding? How many racial/religious revenge riots have they had in India? They have mass revenge killings all the time, actually I thought that was how Pakistan got created.

 

[timschochet]

I think Pakistan started because Musls wanted their own country. And yeah there were millions killed. But we're talking about a public execution for retribution purposes announced by the government. I don't think India has done this. I don't think ANYONE has done this openly and publicly since Pol Pot. I could be wrong though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think Pakistan started because Musls wanted their own country. And yeah there were millions killed. But we're talking about a public execution for retribution purposes announced by the government. I don't think India has done this. I don't think ANYONE has done this openly and publicly since Pol Pot. I could be wrong though.

IIRC - There were rampant religious riots (which led to a war) before Pakistan became a state.

I think you're missing something here:

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-plans-execute-500-terror-convicts-officials-093327925.html

These aren't random executions based on race or religion or politics. Allegedly these are all terrorists who have been convicted.

The "prime minister has also issued directions for appropriate measures for early disposal of pending cases related to terrorism," the spokesman said, without specifically confirming the plan to execute 500 people.

Not defending it but there are distinctions. It's definitely not Pol Pot territory.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1.1 The Partition Massacres, 1946-1947

The exact number of casualties during the Partition violence will always remain a matter of debate. Estimates range from around 200,000 to one-and-a-half million. A British contemporary estimates claimed that 180,000 people died (Moon, 1998: 269, 293). Another contemporary estimates from India put the death toll at 500,000, approximately 200,000-250,000 non-Muslims and 200,000-250000 Muslims (Khosla, 1999: 298-99). According to Butalia, it would be closer to 1,000,000 dead, half of which are Muslims and the other half non-Muslims (Butalia, 1998: 1). However, Brass noted that a consensus figure would today be around 500,000 but that the sources that are most likely closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 (Brass, 2006: 18).

http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In just three years (1959 – 1962) over 4,000 executions, most by firing squads, were documented to have taken place under Castro’s executioner: Che Guevara. All these executions took place without due process of law or fair trials. Che admitted ordering “several thousand” executions.

http://www.slideshare.net/frontfel/che-guevare-glamourising-a-mass-murderer

In 1958, in the Sierra Maestra 11 peasants were executed for refusing to serve as guides or otherwise cooperate with the Rebel Army. From January 1 to January 13, 1959 272 executions directly attributed to Raúl Castro were carried out in Santiago de Cuba, 90 without a prior trial, and 78 with Raúl Castro delivering the coup d’grace. In 1959 263 additional executions were carried out in Raúl Castro’s line of command outside of Santiago, in the rest of the province of Oriente.

http://www.cubaarchive.org/downloads/CA14.pdf

The Castros have around 11,000 executions (at least which have been documented), largely political opposition, peasants who wouldn't follow orders, people who would not turn over property, that kind of thing.

http://cubaarchive.org/home/images/stories/1.25.2012_update.pdf

This is the kind of thing maybe you're speaking of.

 

[Gawain]

1.1 The Partition Massacres, 1946-1947

The exact number of casualties during the Partition violence will always remain a matter of debate. Estimates range from around 200,000 to one-and-a-half million. A British contemporary estimates claimed that 180,000 people died (Moon, 1998: 269, 293). Another contemporary estimates from India put the death toll at 500,000, approximately 200,000-250,000 non-Muslims and 200,000-250000 Muslims (Khosla, 1999: 298-99). According to Butalia, it would be closer to 1,000,000 dead, half of which are Muslims and the other half non-Muslims (Butalia, 1998: 1). However, Brass noted that a consensus figure would today be around 500,000 but that the sources that are most likely closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 (Brass, 2006: 18).

http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

Partisan reprisals are nothing new. Here the USA does it:

http://www.signsofhistory.com/kentucky/grant/722.htm

It sounds like some/most/all of the 500 in pakistan are already on a suspended death sentence. The state is just moving forward because of the actions of the Taliban.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1.1 The Partition Massacres, 1946-1947

The exact number of casualties during the Partition violence will always remain a matter of debate. Estimates range from around 200,000 to one-and-a-half million. A British contemporary estimates claimed that 180,000 people died (Moon, 1998: 269, 293). Another contemporary estimates from India put the death toll at 500,000, approximately 200,000-250,000 non-Muslims and 200,000-250000 Muslims (Khosla, 1999: 298-99). According to Butalia, it would be closer to 1,000,000 dead, half of which are Muslims and the other half non-Muslims (Butalia, 1998: 1). However, Brass noted that a consensus figure would today be around 500,000 but that the sources that are most likely closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 (Brass, 2006: 18).

http://www.massviolence.org/Thematic-Chronology-of-Mass-Violence-in-Pakistan-1947-2007

Partisan reprisals are nothing new. Here the USA does it:

http://www.signsofhistory.com/kentucky/grant/722.htm

It sounds like some/most/all of the 500 in pakistan are already on a suspended death sentence. The state is just moving forward because of the actions of the Taliban.

Three Confederates were brought here from prison at Lexington and executed Aug. 15, 1864

Yes, in 1864 when we had a Civil War. Hopefully, we're all better now.

Al Qaeda is living in Pakistan's backyard. It's not exactly a reprisal either IMO.

 

[jon_mx]

[SIZE=12pt]At its full flowering, freedom is the first principle of society; this society, Western society. Indeed, from Abraham to Plato, Aristotle to Aquinas, freedom is the animating principle of Western civilization. Freedom comes in many guises: in the noble words of the Declaration of [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Independence[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] and in the noble souls of people like Shcharanskiy. And yet freedom cannot exist alone. And that's why the theme for your bicentennial is so very apt: learning, faith, and freedom. Each reinforces the others, each makes the others possible. For what are they without each other?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Learning is a good thing, but unless it's tempered by faith and a love of freedom, it can be very dangerous indeed. The names of many intellectuals are recorded on the rolls of infamy, from Robespierre to Lenin to Ho Chi Minh to Pol[/SIZE] Pot. We must never forget that wisdom is impossible without learning, but learning does not -- not by the longest measure -- bring wisdom. It can also bring evil. What will faith without a respect for learning and an understanding of freedom bring? We've seen the tragedy of untempered faith in the hellish deaths of 14-year-old boys -- small hands still wrapped around machineguns, on the front lines in [SIZE=12pt]Iran[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt].[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And what will be wrought by freedom unaccompanied by learning and faith? -- the license of Weimar Germany and the decadence of imperial Rome; human behavior untempered by a sense of moral, spiritual, or intellectual limits -- the behavior G.K. Chesterton described as the ``morbid weakness of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal.'' And when freedom is mangled in this way, what George Orwell would have called unfreedom[/SIZE] soon follows.

[SIZE=12pt]So, we like to believe, and we pray it will always be so, that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]America[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] is different, that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]America[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] is what she is because she is guided by all three: learning, faith, and freedom. Our love of knowledge has made this nation the intellectual and technological center of the world. Our commitment to protecting and preserving the freedoms we enjoy is unshakable. And our faith is what supports us. Tocqueville said it in 1835, and it's as true today as it was then: ``Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is more needed in democratic societies than in any others.''[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Americans know the truth of those words. We still believe in our Creator. We still believe in knowledge. We still believe in freedom. We're committed to providing the world with the bounties we enjoy, and we're sickened by those societies that do dishonor to humankind by denying human beings their birthright. We grieve for the millions who have perished even in this decade because their freedoms were denied, and we must not dishonor them by allowing those who follow us on this Earth to say those millions died for nothing, that we lived in an age of barbarism.[/SIZE]

 

[Gawain]

Yes, in 1864 when we had a Civil War. Hopefully, we're all better now.

Al Qaeda is living in Pakistan's backyard. It's not exactly a reprisal either IMO.

Yar, it's a step in the road to becoming an "enlightened" nation that reprisals are no bueno. But it's a step that we (and many other nations, there's a reason the term franc-tireur came into vogue) had to reach through a lot of troubles.

I agree that what Pakistan is proposing is less offensive than a Red Dawnesque Wolverine retribution. These guys are living on borrowed time because they've already been convicted and sentenced.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

So, killing infants is ok, but killing children is not? Where do you draw that line?

 

[timschochet]

If these guys are all already under a death sentence, then I suppose its not quite as bad as I thought. But it's still not something a civilized country should do.

 

[timschochet]

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

So, killing infants is ok, but killing children is not? Where do you draw that line?

i never said that killing infants is OK. I said you could make an argument to justify it in certain societies. But I don't believe that kidnapping and raping a child can be justified in any society.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I've seen some pretty bad infants.

 

[Gawain]

I've seen some pretty bad infants.

I'd gladly knock off the Baby from the tv show Dinosaurs.

How the heck was that ever popular?

 

[msommer]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

I cannot think of a situation where kidnap, murder and rape would make a large group function better and hence in practical terms all groups reach the same conclusion independently.

Look at certain royal families. Intermarrying has been the norm for political advantage but when you repeat the families too often you get unfortunate side effects and genetically that royal line breeds itself out of existence. This happened in England and they actually had to import a German Prince to take over.

In all of western society (and I believe in the rest of the world as well) marrying your brother, sister daughter or son is seen as flawed and not allowed. Independently we've reached that conclusion - because the effect it had on those who thought it was a great idea.

That doesn't make it a moral absolute but a genetic one.

To my mind it is the same with your example. Over time on the savanna, in small villages we've learned that kidnap, murder and rape have problematic societal side effects. We've made rules about it to avoid having to deal with these side effects on a case by case basis.

There are societies, though, that have placed e.g. familial honor higher than the negative effects of these issues, and that's where you see vendettas where families go after each other for generations, seemingly forgetting the oriiginal slight, but focusing only on the latest score.

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

How did the Hawaiian ruling society deal with mental illness in an heir?

You started with the premise that there was an absolute morality.

My premise is that morality is born from society or other pressures.

Your Hawaii example shows a society where infanticide (of non viable specimens) were accepted as normal and a moral choice.

IMHO that is an example that shows that there are no absolute moral rules and that indeed the moral rules were fostered by societal pressures to make things work.

Your morals (and mine) would say that the Hawaiian society was immoral. They, pre missionary pressures, obviously disagreed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If these guys are all already under a death sentence, then I suppose its not quite as bad as I thought. But it's still not something a civilized country should do.

As mentioned - Cuba?

11,000 political executions on their hands.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Does that crazy right wing guy Wizard Jim still post here?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

So, killing infants is ok, but killing children is not? Where do you draw that line?

i never said that killing infants is OK. I said you could make an argument to justify it in certain societies. But I don't believe that kidnapping and raping a child can be justified in any society.

Yeah, I'm still not buying that there's an appreciable moral difference.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

msommer I'm not sure of your definition as well because it implies there are no moral absolutes.

I would argue, without any equivocation, that an adult who kidnaps, rapes, and murders a young child is committing an evil act. I can't fathom any possible society or situation in which this would not be an evil act. Can you?

I cannot think of a situation where kidnap, murder and rape would make a large group function better and hence in practical terms all groups reach the same conclusion independently.

Look at certain royal families. Intermarrying has been the norm for political advantage but when you repeat the families too often you get unfortunate side effects and genetically that royal line breeds itself out of existence. This happened in England and they actually had to import a German Prince to take over.

In all of western society (and I believe in the rest of the world as well) marrying your brother, sister daughter or son is seen as flawed and not allowed. Independently we've reached that conclusion - because the effect it had on those who thought it was a great idea.

That doesn't make it a moral absolute but a genetic one.

To my mind it is the same with your example. Over time on the savanna, in small villages we've learned that kidnap, murder and rape have problematic societal side effects. We've made rules about it to avoid having to deal with these side effects on a case by case basis.

There are societies, though, that have placed e.g. familial honor higher than the negative effects of these issues, and that's where you see vendettas where families go after each other for generations, seemingly forgetting the oriiginal slight, but focusing only on the latest score.

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

File this under "The Dangers of Tim Having His Own Thread."

T, you may want to reel this one back.

It's quasi-malthusianist for starters, except that Malthus was against infanticide.

 

[tonydead]

No. It's an interesting comparison but it is not valid.

The Hawaiian royalty (Ali'i) also intermarried, in their case brother and sister, for generations. They solved the genetic problem by killing deformed infants. Until Christian missionaries came along and informed them that was wrong, this infanticide was practiced for centuries and it produced strong capable leadership One could argue that it was an effective form of Darwinism. Because of this example, infanticide is not something that I would term as an absolute evil. Much good was produced from the royal incest of the Hawaiians.

The same cannot be said for kidnapping and rape of children. Again, the term "kidnapping", like "theft" or "murder", already implies that we're talking about an action against the will of the state. But even if we weren't, I am arguing that these acts are OBJECTIVELY evil and society recognizes it as such; we don't have to "learn" it as you claim by examining the societal side effects. There are certain things that human beings should simply KNOW are wrong. How we know this is an open question. A religious person would usually insist that we know it because the Bible tells us so (though interestingly enough, nowhere that I know of in the Bible does it say THOU SHALT NO RAPE.) I don't think so, because my problem with that is the same one I have with the guy who returned my wallet- the implication is that someone who was unaware of the Bible or societal norms would be fine with raping a child. I don't believe that.

So, killing infants is ok, but killing children is not? Where do you draw that line?

i never said that killing infants is OK. I said you could make an argument to justify it in certain societies. But I don't believe that kidnapping and raping a child can be justified in any society.

Yeah, I'm still not buying that there's an appreciable moral difference.

I think Tim's argument is that it was beneficial to the society, therefore moral to that society. I'm not sure I agree with him, but, I understand the argument. It's an example to think about. And I think it might be much harder to find an example where rape is beneficial to society, I can't think of one.

Tim, I'm not familiar with Hawaii's history, how did the people originally get on the islands and how did they get isolated so they had to start inter breeding?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Ahhh, so gets back to the question of when/if the killing of innocents for the greater good is ever justifiable.