ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[koban]

So fool believes that abortion and rape and kidnapping are absolutely wrong?

I could envision very specific scenarios where each of those would not be absolutely wrong. :think:

Kidnapping's an easy one in this thread.

 

[koban]

i understand Knight, my point is that it doesn't have to be.



yeah, i've been payin' attention to this thread a little bit :chuckle:



i don't believe morals exist at all Knight.

some things are absolutely wrong, to me, but i can't speak for anyone else, and you can't either.

i seem to remember us talking about this before...

i seem to remember getting banned...:think:

oh yes, my wounds require more licking.

I could let you borrow one of those cone collars my beagle just got done with. :chuckle:

 

[koban]

Originally Posted by Knight

Yes... or No...

Was the USA guilty of murdering children when they dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yes.

Yeah, I gotta go with Balder here - what else would you call the deliberate and intentional killing of innocents?

 

[JoyfulRook]

Yeah, I gotta go with Balder here - what else would you call the deliberate and intentional killing of innocents?

Unfortunate casualties of war. And if anything their blood was on the Japanese Government's hands.

 

[koban]

Unfortunate casualties of war.

No argument there.

And if anything their blood was on the Japanese Government's hands.

None there either.

On the other hand, the deliberate targeting of civilian populations can only be described as murder. Necessary, yes, but murder nonetheless.

And don't think I'm one of those who claim the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't justified - they most definitely were. They served a greater good. (mostly, they kept my dad from being in the Japanese mainland invasion force, whose allied casualties were expected to be in the hundreds of thousands)

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

But war or no, the deliberate causation of the death of an innocent child can be called nothing other than murder. War is hell, no?

 

[genuineoriginal]

i left a lengthy post for our friend genuineoriginal in which i cited the Art of War.

Sun Tzu, a master strategist taught that a general should never allow or introduce superstitions into warfare. he also taught that attacking cities was the last resort of both strategy and morals. he taught that a general must first master his own humanity and sense of justice before going into battle. he also taught that victory should be accomplished with the least amount of blood shed possible, he taught that it was the pinnacle of skill. he also taught innovative ways to weaken the enemy without resorting to blood shed so when it did come down to the wire, the blood letting would be kept to a minimum.

any involvement on the part of the civilian population of the enemy state would go no further than plundering their stores and winning their hearts.

that Sun Tzu, a follower of the Tao, could be a greater stategist than the deity Joshua received his commands from was a point genuineoriginal could never wrap his mind around.

:readthis:

http://www.mailsbroadcast.com/the.artofwar.preview.htm
Sun Tzu :
Execute those who disobey.
The troops panic and were hysterical at this stage and the "Emperor" intervene to prevent losing his favorite concubines.


Sun Tzu :
Since I have been given the command. I am disciplining my troops, there must be no interference.


Sun Tzu :
Executed the troops leaders in public.
And appoint two new replacement leaders. This time, when the orders were given, the troops marched to the beat of the drums and none dare to ignore any orders.

You must have missed my answer.

 

[PureX]

The problem with postmodern relativism, in my view, is not relativism itself, but the idea that such relativism is only horizontal. I think absolutist camps and postmodern relativist camps are in roughly the same boat: both arguing for a rather flat view of morality, not acknowledging the spectrum of moral growth that is not only possible, but inevitable (at least to a degree) for everyone.

"Growth" as defined by what criteria?

 

[PureX]

What's the difference between murder and killing?

"Murder" is defined by some one's moral criteria, while "killing" is defined by universal biological criteria. "Murder" is a subjective assessment, while "killing" is an objective fact.

 

[PureX]

This discussion is really classic. Knight apparently has a limited understanding of moral relativism and doesn't realize he and Bob are espousing a form of it.

The idea that it is "okay" to purposefully cut down civilians (infants, children, women, elders) in their homes and villages "because it's wartime" is reprehensible to me. I can't believe it's seriously being defended. But of course, it has to be defended, because it is recorded with approval in the Bible and therefore -- according to the narrow interpretive lens some people unfortunately believe is necessary -- it must be okay and morally justifiable.

If these Christians believe it's a crime to kill children, except when it's war time (and then it's okay to cut them up with swords), then they seriously undermine their own moral standing when they condemn those who support another conditional argument that it is sometimes okay to kill children -- in the form of abortion. The chants of "baby killers" are coming back to haunt this lot!

Excellent assessment! ... A moment of clarity and articulation in a sea of confusion and deliberate obfuscation. Thank you.

 

[Balder]

"Growth" as defined by what criteria?

I'm thinking specifically of the stages of moral and cognitive development as mapped by Kohlberg, Loevinger, Gilligan, and many others. They've developed independent maps based on clinical research, and these maps have held up cross-culturally after numerous tests in different countries and cultures. Religious traditions also record stages of growth (Buddhism does so clearly and explicitly) and interestingly, these stages also generally overlap.

 

[avatar382]

I'm thinking specifically of the stages of moral and cognitive development as mapped by Kohlberg, Loevinger, Gilligan, and many others. They've developed independent maps based on clinical research, and these maps have held up cross-culturally after numerous tests in different countries and cultures. Religious traditions also record stages of growth (Buddhism does so clearly and explicitly) and interestingly, these stages also generally overlap.

Balder, your statement about post-modernist relativism is interesting.

Could you describe post-modernist relativism a little? I've never heard the term before. Is there a difference between not being a moral absolutist and being a post-modern relativist?

 

[PureX]

I'm thinking specifically of the stages of moral and cognitive development as mapped by Kohlberg, Loevinger, Gilligan, and many others. They've developed independent maps based on clinical research, and these maps have held up cross-culturally after numerous tests in different countries and cultures. Religious traditions also record stages of growth (Buddhism does so clearly and explicitly) and interestingly, these stages also generally overlap.

But you didn't answer the question. What criteria (goal) are these folks using to determine positive growth, or negative regression? And ultimately, my point would be that they ARE using a chosen criteria. In fact, both the "absolutists" and the "relativists" are choosing their own criteria for defining and evaluating "morality". The only difference is that the relativist recognizes this, while the absolutist is denying it.

 

[allsmiles]

Relative to some... barbarism is good, can you argue against that?

like i asked you before, you should really take that up with Sun Tzu. or Jesus perhaps. i did make an example yesterday of asking if any of you would cut off a defenseless infant's head if Jesus was telling you to do it. the reason i used Jesus was to demonstrate Granite's point that throughout the bible morals evolved.

would Jesus give such a command?

as i asked before do you have anything to say about Sun Tzu?

and why was the slaughter of the defenseless necessary? was the city already taken? was victory conditional on the slaughter of the defenseless populous?

 

[allsmiles]

:readthis:



You must have missed my answer.

:BRAVO:

wonderful, another completely inept answer from my new favorite lame duck.

http://www.mailsbroadcast.com/the.artofwar.preview.htm
Sun Tzu :
Execute those who disobey.
The troops panic and were hysterical at this stage and the "Emperor" intervene to prevent losing his favorite concubines.

this is not in reference to mass numbers of a civilian population.

Sun Tzu :
Since I have been given the command. I am disciplining my troops, there must be no interference.

Sun Tzu :
Executed the troops leaders in public.
And appoint two new replacement leaders. This time, when the orders were given, the troops marched to the beat of the drums and none dare to ignore any orders.

so you equate the execution of enemy commanders (officers in the army, not civilians) with the mass genocide of a city's civilian population?

 

[Stripe]

so you equate the execution of enemy commanders (officers in the army, not civilians) with the mass genocide of a city's civilian population?

he probably thinks theyre relatively not the same ...

 

[Balder]

Balder, your statement about post-modernist relativism is interesting.

Could you describe post-modernist relativism a little? I've never heard the term before. Is there a difference between not being a moral absolutist and being a post-modern relativist?

By postmodern relativism, I'm referring mostly to the type of relativism that has developed in academic literary and cultural criticism circles, but which also informs some types of feminism and has spread out into our culture in various ways. It is strongly egalitarian and anti-hierarchy. Idealistically, it regards all cultures and values as equally valid and generally eschews ranking or jugment of other worldviews (though isn't consistent in this regard).

One of the points I was making is that this perspective rests on significant cogntive and moral development in the individual that holds this view, which the developmentalists I mentioned have confirmed, but the postmodern relativist often denies any such "vertical relativism."

 

[Balder]

But you didn't answer the question. What criteria (goal) are these folks using to determine positive growth, or negative regression? And ultimately, my point would be that they ARE using a chosen criteria. In fact, both the "absolutists" and the "relativists" are choosing their own criteria for defining and evaluating "morality". The only difference is that the relativist recognizes this, while the absolutist is denying it.

Yes, they are using chosen criteria, and they acknowledge it. But the chosen criteria are based upon cognitive and clinical research findings, which show up universally. These findings point to a general trajectory of cognitive and moral growth in human beings (meaning, certain perspectives and reasoning capacities rest upon others, and that these perspectives and capacities always emerge sequentially).

Of course, there are a number of elements of any culture which are rather arbitrary and do not really depend on these patterns of development. Prohibitions against eating pork (but not other meats) are not developmentally dependent. However, "how" such prohibitions are held, understood, and implemented will change as the individual develops cognitively.

 

[Granite]

like i asked you before, you should really take that up with Sun Tzu. or Jesus perhaps. i did make an example yesterday of asking if any of you would cut off a defenseless infant's head if Jesus was telling you to do it. the reason i used Jesus was to demonstrate Granite's point that throughout the bible morals evolved.

would Jesus give such a command?

as i asked before do you have anything to say about Sun Tzu?

and why was the slaughter of the defenseless necessary? was the city already taken? was victory conditional on the slaughter of the defenseless populous?

Options:

1) the command to slaughter the innocents was acceptable only for that time
2) a similar command would be acceptable today under some given circumstances
3) such a command is never morally defensible

If the first option is chosen it implies that morals and ethics change over time and are circumstantial or situational--in other words, relative.

The second option has been practitioned throughout human history with horrific results that have been universally condemned; you do not put yourself in good company when you line up with the killers of children.

Option three is simply not an option for any consistent Christian.

 

[Stripe]

DISCLAIMER:
let me try to wrap up this debate again. i hope this is complete and hole proof, but if you disagree with any of the stages please point the first instance out. if my thinking is correct it should be a very simple task to explain more clearly what im saying and for the rest of this post to stand...

FOOLS INSTIGATION: fool asks "You're a soldier in Joshua's army, you got order's to smote everyone in town A, you've killed all the men, and the women, and now it's time to butcher the infants. Don't be shy! Step right up and tell me what you'd do."

FOOLS POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE INSTIGATION:

• a) fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him.
• b) fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him.
• c) fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible.

GRANTS POSSIBLE RESPONSES: grant either kills the infants or doesnt kill them.

GRANTS RESPONSE: grant doesnt kill them.

FOOLS POSSIBLE VERDICTS:

• a) grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible.
• b) there is no god and grant is justified in his actions.
• c) there is/are (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible so grant is justified in his actions assuming nominated god(s) would act differently to the god of the bible.

ANALYSIS OF VERDICTS AGAINST POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND FOOLS INSTIGATION:

• i) a & a - fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him and grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible. logically consistent.
• ii) a & b - fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him and there is no god and grant is justified in his actions. logically inconsistent.
• iii) a & c - fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him and there is/are (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible so grant is justified in his actions assuming nominated god(s) would act differently to the god of the bible. logically inconsistent.
• iv) b & a - fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him and grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible. logically inconsistent.
• v) b & b - fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him and there is no god and grant is justified in his actions. logically consistent.
• vi) b & c - fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him and there is/are (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible so grant is justified in his actions assuming nominated god(s) would act differently to the god of the bible. logically consistent.
• vii) c & a - fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible and grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible. logically inconsistent.
• viii) c & b - fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible and there is no god and grant is justified in his actions. logically inconsistent.
• ix) c & c - fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible and there is/are (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible so grant is justified in his actions assuming nominated god(s) would act differently to the god of the bible. logically consistent.

REDUCTION OF ANALYSIS:
to remain logically consistent fool must utilise one of the three combinations that make sense:

• i) a & a - fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him and grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible.
• v) b & b - fool doesnt believe in the god of the bible and is trying to disprove him and there is no god and grant is justified in his actions.
• ix) c & c - fool believes in (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible and is trying to disprove the god of the bible and there is/are (a) god(s) but not the god of the bible so grant is justified in his actions assuming nominated god(s) would act differently to the god of the bible.

GRANTS CONFESSION BACKED UP BY RELIABLE WITNESSES:
grant believes in the god of the bible.

GRANTS BURDEN BASED ON GRANTS CONFESSION AND REDUCED ANALYSIS OF VERDICTS:

• i) a & a - grant must reject any order god makes to kill children
• v) b & b - none
• ix) c & c - none

CONCLUSION:
to be logically consistent and to enforce a penalty on grant, fool must go with i) a & a - fool believes in the god of the bible but doesnt like him and grant is in rebellion against the god of the bible. if fool wishes to charge along these lines fool must admit that he doesnt have a case yet because:

• a) god hasnt asked grant to kill babies yet and
• b) grant is distinctly unimpressed with any suggestion that god might order him to kill babies.

if fool wishes to pursue any other line of questioning his original question will have to change in arrangement. if fool wishes to change the original post then this (current) discussion is over though some of its contents might be relevant in an altered subject.
if this posts assumptions are correct and its logic sound then there is no burden on grant to respond to it.

NOTES:

• the original question makes no mention of gods involvement. it has been assumed for the sake of this post that god ordered joshua to kill babies.
• this post also takes the liberty of assuming FOOLS POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE INSTIGATION so any errors are likely to appear there (see last note). also, if fool would like to point out exactly why he raised this hypothetical question it would reduce the problem hugely.
• grant has no envy whatsoever for posters attempting to justify the actions of the hebrew army, although to discuss the hebrew army is to alter the (assumed spirit of the) original question.
• grant has no envy whatsoever for posters attempting to justify the actions of god.
• grant only posts this in the hope that some might find it helpful.
• note how in FOOLS POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE INSTIGATION, it makes little or no difference to the conclusion whether b or c is the case.
• if this post is lacking in viable options or logical assessment then please discuss briefly and exactly how and where such things occur. it will be easy to discuss items that closely follow the intended purpose of this post, but nigh on impossible to deal with extending the scope of the original question.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

FOOLS INSTIGATION: fool asks "You're a soldier in Joshua's army, you got order's to smote everyone in town A, you've killed all the men, and the women, and now it's time to butcher the infants. Don't be shy! Step right up and tell me what you'd do."

For sake of accuracy that was not how fool presented his case on Bob's show which is what this thread is in reference to.

On Bob's show fool asked... "Is it OK for me to slaughter a baby with a sword?"

Prior to his call on Bob's show he tested his approach here on TOL but fool was too specific and received answers that didn't trick the audience so he altered his question and made it much more vague and ambiguous for Bob's show.

All of this is the answer to the question I have been asking fool... "why do you suppose I answered your question the opposite of Bob?" fool hasn't answered because his answer would only further prove my point that fool is disingenuous.