quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Once again, the US government has no interest in "preventing massacres". In fact, the World Health Organisation is left in little doubt about the fact that US sanctions have been responsible for more deaths than any attrocity Hussein could even dream of committing. This report is fairly old now (1996) but the issues have not changed: http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html (Plenty of other condemning articles on the WHO site as well, for anyone interested). Admittedly, it's as much the UN's fault as it is the US (as the UN were the ones responsible for the instegation of the sanctions in the first place - justified as they probably were at the time), but it is Geroge Bush - with his dumbed down, barbaric war-mongering - who propogates the misery the sanction are causing. All he need do is accept that inspectors have - just today - flown into Iraq to inspect weapons facilities, back down from his misguided, dogmatic ideologies, and treat the Iraqi people with the humanitarian respect they deserve.

I think you've pointed out the problem right here. The UN has proven itself to be such an ineffective organization - it's solution to the problem in Iraq was the sanctions you so detest, yet they have failed to achieve any of their goals while resulting in innumerable civilian deaths in Iraq. But now, when the US finally realizes that the only way it can ever accomplish anything is by bypassing the UN, the US receives criticism?

If I believed that the US would actually do what it takes to maintain long term stability in Iraq following a war, I would support the invasion of Iraq, with or without UN support. But I don't believe that, which is why I agree with your basic premise, which is that the war against Iraq would be a primarily economic decision(and, in my opinion, a strategically poor one at that).

quote:

There is absolutely no justification for the compromise of the inherent sanctity of human life. Anyone who deems human life expendible, or the loss of it as merely "collateral damage" needs their priorities re-examined. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Bush decides to invade Iraq, he is - in my eyes - directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent human beings. By the laws of his own state, he'd deserve to be put to the chair by virtue of what he is proposing to do.

I can't agree with that. The natural mechanisms for the regulation of the human population on the world have failed due to our tremendous technological advances. One of the few efficient ways left to maintain natural equilibrium of the human population is through warfare, especially in regions that are currently failing to adequately support their population for whatever reason.

Furthermore there is no objective evidence to suggest that by killing these people you are not doing them a favor. Socrates argued that since no one had ever experienced death, there was no one qualified to judge whether it was positive or negative.

I certainly have no fear of death, as it is foolish to fear the inevitable, and I think that were we to invade Iraq, our greatest concern ought to be for the survivors, not the slain. If the US truly wanted to make the lives of those survivors and their children better for generations, then I think the short-term loss of life would be far outweighed by the long-term benefits of improved social institutions and civil liberties. It's just unfortunate that the US would almost certainly be unwilling to make the investment of time and money necessary to make these changes last. I think we ought to be willing to pay that price of time and money, and the price of those lives that would be lost, because that is the price of progress. The only reason I do not support any war against Iraq is precisely because I don't think this price will be paid in full, and hence nothing will be gained.

Arbiter:

I don't really have the time to respond to everything you just said, but for now:

quote:

The natural mechanisms for the regulation of the human population on the world have failed due to our tremendous technological advances.

What you say is true in a way. The world population, as it stands (6.1 billion?), is a far greater number than it would otherwise be in a globe where technology did not exist, so in this sense the human race has surpassed its "natural populational equilibrium" (however you wish to interpret that).

However, the technology that has pushed the worlds population beyond its natural equilibrium, is also the technology that can be geared to sustain it. Perhaps when the population growth rate begins to exceed the rate by which technology evolves, then we have a definite problem, but until then I think its quite clear that although technology has pushed us to the brink of global over-population in the "naturalistic" sense, it also has the potential to make these population levels sustainable.

For instance, in the past, with these current population levels, I don't think it would be too much to suggest that half the plaent would starve to death in the space of a decade. They lacked the technology to rapidly grow replenishing food stocks back then, as well as the technology to realistically transport it to neighbouring societies. There was no possibility for - to use an example - Division of Labour or Comparitive Advantage, both of which ensure that no country (or community) need be completely self-dependant. No country need grow the food it eats, so long as it can produce something in large enough quantities with a competitive value. In the "natural world" self-sufficiency (both within individuals and socieities) is the law the dictated whether a person or a group of people were able to survive. Two-thousand years ago, with six billion people on the planet and without the technology to transcend the binding, natural necessity for self-sufficiency, people would not have the resources they needed - given that more units of resources per capita would be needed to produce the same output we are capable of today, due to the inherent inefficiency of closed, technologically inferior societies - to produce enough to sustain themselves.

Even today, we can see the same problem. Large societies, that would otherwise be unable to sustain themselves, are today able to sustain a far greater population given that - with the advent of superior examples of technology - less resources are used to make more. The only areas where the population is unsustainable, quite simply, are the areas where technology is inferior (i.e. Africa, the sub-continent) or where they rely on self-sufficient, closed-to-external-trading means of production (i.e. most of the old communist countries - look at the mess the USSR was in in its latter years). These population levels are only unsustainable where resources are not being used as efficiently as we have the technology to allow for.

Having said that, I think that there is a plateau, where - regardless of the sophistication of the technology - there are simply too many people to feed. I think we're a fair way off just yet, but it's something we're going to need to be prepared for and to do our best to avoid.

quote:

One of the few efficient ways left to maintain natural equilibrium of the human population is through warfare, especially in regions that are currently failing to adequately support their population for whatever reason.

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

As I said before, even in a society with a population too large to currently sustain itself, the problem is not lack of resources, but the lack of the technology necessary to utilize these resources properly. A better, more humane, possibly cheaper solution than culling off large amounts of a human population through warfare to ensure sustainability in a given region, would be to provide this region with the basic technological infrastructure to ensure greater total production from the same amount of resources. The trouble is, institutions such the IMF who are supposed to be helping third world countries by supplying large loans to help fund the initiation of this said infrastructure, often take more money in the end - through interest - than they provide. I think one source said that for every dollar provided to third world nations by the IMF and other nations, seven dollars are taken back in interest - put simply, if this synopsis is true (given that I don't understand it well enough to say it is definitely true) then the rich continue to get richer, while the poor begin to starve. Is it economic Darwinism? Is it just natural that the weak countries starve to death due to their inability to compete with the stronger nations? Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean we don't have the power to change it.

And while this view may seem hopelessly idealistic or naive, I don't find it any more idealistic or naive than the perspective that suggests that either killing off large percentages of a population - or even allowing other to do the killing for you - is the solution to any problem facing the world today..... much less this one.

quote:

Furthermore there is no objective evidence to suggest that by killing these people you are not doing them a favor. Socrates argued that since no one had ever experienced death, there was no one qualified to judge whether it was positive or negative.

Rather obtuse rationalism I'd say.

Perhaps you would like to murder a friend or a relative and see if you get any thanks for the "favour" of non-existence you provided to them (solving the world's problems in the process)?

quote:

I certainly have no fear of death

Non sequiteur.

Indifference to death does not mean that one does not value one's life. I'm not particularly scared of death either, but it doesn't mean I don't want to put it off for as long as I can.

quote:

I think that were we to invade Iraq, our greatest concern ought to be for the survivors, not the slain.

If death is such a liberation then - and such an altruistic gesture - will you gaily skip up to the gillotine when it's your turn to do something for your planet? If you see an altruistic pretense to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, perhaps - to avoid a sense of existential hypocracy (mauvaise fois) - you too should give up your life so that someone like you may enjoy a slight increase in his/her material well-being?

There is probably a point at which the pain of life becomes worse than the fear of death, but I don't think it is reached often enough to suggest that the dead are ever the ones to envy.

quote:

If the US truly wanted to make the lives of those survivors and their children better for generations, then I think the short-term loss of life would be far outweighed by the long-term benefits of improved social institutions and civil liberties.

Would you happily live in utopia, though, if you knew that a large amount of people had to die unwillingly to get you there? Or, so goes the analogy, would you be comfortable sitting in heaven when you know there are others suffering in hell?

Even if it could be demonstrated that there could a good chance of increased quality of life after a war on Iraq, I still don't believe that the deaths of innocents justify such an outcome when a more peaceful solution - such as the removal of trade sanctions - can bring about an immediate increase in the quality of the Iraqi society. War - which obviously means the death of a great many human beings - should only be the absolute last resort in a desperate situation, and only if this last resort could be shown to be more beneficial than merely doing "nothing".

Perhaps a war would improve Iraqi life somewhat in the long run (though, as I have argued several time before in this topic, I doubt it will) but the proposed war does not justify the hypothetical ends - especially when there are solutions available that can deliver an equivelent increase in the material quality of life without a drop of blood being spilt.

Anyway, I think that's about it.

Sorry, if that was off-topic at all.....

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

U.S. government DESERVED the 9-11 attack
the American people didn't. New York is one of the nicest places to live in my opinion. But you really have asshole politicians with big mouths that can't shut the fuck up

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade However, the technology that has pushed the worlds population beyond its natural equilibrium, is also the technology that can be geared to sustain it. Perhaps when the population growth rate begins to exceed the rate by which technology evolves, then we have a definite problem, but until then I think its quite clear that although technology has pushed us to the brink of global over-population in the "naturalistic" sense, it also has the potential to make these population levels sustainable.

You make two good points, firstly, that technology can help compensate for increasing population, and secondly, that resources are not being used as efficiently as possible. However, in the case of Iraq, for instance, any benefits the people could gain through the provision additional technology would almost certainly be subverted to a select few. Similarly, Iraq's resources cannot be used to efficiently sustain its population so long as those resources are being monopolized by a corrupt government.

This is one of the reasons a war is necessary - because without reforming Iraq's government, which can only be accomplished by means of war, those alternatives are not viable to reduce the suffering of the Iraqi people.

quote:

And while this view may seem hopelessly idealistic or naive, I don't find it any more idealistic or naive than the perspective that suggests that either killing off large percentages of a population - or even allowing other to do the killing for you - is the solution to any problem facing the world today..... much less this one.

You clearly see the principle of equilibrium by death in everywhere in nature. Populations of some species are regulated by other species which hunt them, and those predator species' populations are regulated by the availability of their prey. Such mechanisms, however, do not work for human beings, because they are both at the top of the food chain and have the ability to sustain themselves through agriculture. This does not, however, mean that we ought to allow as many humans to live as possible, because although it might be sustainable, it is far from optimal.

quote:

Rather obtuse rationalism I'd say. Perhaps you would like to murder a friend or a relative and see if you get any thanks for the "favour" of non-existence you provided to them (solving the world's problems in the process)?

I think that's pretty spurious. Overpopulation is not so much a world problem as it is a regional problem. The middle east is a region where it is a problem (following from the present conditions of the general population), while the United States is not. The issue of whether death is good or bad should not be resolved by assuming it is good or assuming it is bad. It should be resolved by assuming neither and allowing neither belief to affect your actions. Since I don't assume death is good, I would have no reason to kill someone as a favor to them, but also, since I don't assume death is bad, I would have no reason to preserve their life as a favor to them.

quote:

Non sequiteur. Indifference to death does not mean that one does not value one's life. I'm not particularly scared of death either, but it doesn't mean I don't want to put it off for as long as I can. If death is such a liberation then - and such an altruistic gesture - will you gaily skip up to the gillotine when it's your turn to do something for your planet? If you see an altruistic pretense to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, perhaps - to avoid a sense of existential hypocracy (mauvaise fois) - you too should give up your life so that someone like you may enjoy a slight increase in his/her material well-being?

Again, I am not asserting any altruism to the death of Iraqi civilians, I'm merely denying any altruism to the preservation of their lives. Since we have no way of knowing one way or the other, we ought not to even make it a consideration. Your accusation of "existential hypocracy" (which is a tu quoque fallacy, I might point out), fails to recognize several important differences between me and an Iraqi citizen, but I don't think I ought to waste space further refuting an argument which is fallacious at its very base.

quote:

Would you happily live in utopia, though, if you knew that a large amount of people had to die unwillingly to get you there? Or, so goes the analogy, would you be comfortable sitting in heaven when you know there are others suffering in hell?

Of course! I live happily in the United States, a country that came into its very existence by means of winning a war in which a large amount of people had to die unwillingly. For that matter, who dies willingly - only those who commit suicide. So certainly I can be happy living in a world that is able to exist precisely because people, animals, plants, and bacteria are constantly dying unwillingly. And if their deaths served to allow for a true utopia, I could hardly think of a more honorable death those people could ask for. If I could die today to create a utopia for all who lived on, I could ask for no greater honor than the opportunity to do so.

quote:

Even if it could be demonstrated that there could a good chance of increased quality of life after a war on Iraq, I still don't believe that the deaths of innocents justify such an outcome when a more peaceful solution - such as the removal of trade sanctions - can bring about an immediate increase in the quality of the Iraqi society. War - which obviously means the death of a great many human beings - should only be the absolute last resort in a desperate situation, and only if this last resort could be shown to be more beneficial than merely doing "nothing".

Well I agree that the trade sanctions should be lifted. I just don't think that it does enough for the Iraqi people. It doesn't improve their civil liberties, for example. There is no peaceful solution that solves the whole problem. Hence, war is the last resort, and while war would be a tremendous short term sacrifice, it could theoretically result in an even more tremendous long term benefit, which is exactly why I would say it could be better than doing nothing.

quote:

Perhaps a war would improve Iraqi life somewhat in the long run (though, as I have argued several time before in this topic, I doubt it will) but the proposed war does not justify the hypothetical ends - especially when there are solutions available that can deliver an equivelent increase in the material quality of life without a drop of blood being spilt.

Here we finally agree. I think a war in Iraq could improve Iraqi life in the long run. But I agree with you in suspecting that it would fail to do so, my reasoning being that the U.S. government would almost certainly be unwilling to continue to pour resources into maintaining stability in Iraq for a long enough period of time as to allow Iraq to rise above its legacy of problems. Furthermore, you are correct that the plan of action being proposed by U.S. leaders does not appear to be one that would create those long term benefits. This is the reason, and the only reason, that I am opposed to the war against Iraq which the U.S. government seems so intent upon.

While it is apparent that I disagree with you on many matters, I do appreciate your intelligent response.

Arbiter

quote:

We all know terrorism has been around for centuries, however we did nothing to help Ireland squash their IRA problem, we probably should have... The Columbians also have terrorists attack their government for years, and now the Russians have been victims of terrorists. The US should form a joint world alliance vs. terrorism... Lets start with Ireland and search for terrorists house to house, and then help the Russians with their Chechen terrorists.

Hhmmm help the Northern Ireland and British government get rid of the IRA as much as I totally don't agree with you at all on that one, you won't ever accomplise it, If the US ever helped the British in Northern Ireland, I tell you there would be uproar, and you won't be holding that view, when your troops come home in body bags. For every member of the IRA that gets killed theres another to fill the other persons boots as simple as that.

Another thing Northern Ireland has two sides commiting terrorism its not just Republican groups like the Provo IRA, Real IRA, Contiunity IRA, the Loyalists have groups too like the lovely UVF, UDA, Red Hand Defenders, orange Voulenteers, and so who stir up so much shit its un fucking true, you know their honour goe's as far as shooting dead unarmed taxi drivers, and post men, their honour goe's as far as blowing up 33 people in one day in County Monaghan and Dublin, and you know what no one ever mentions that but when its comes to Omagh when the real IRA blew up 28 people its here there and fucking everywhere, on every newspaper getting shouted from every rooftop, Please if everyone see's every single Nationalist viewed Irish person as a terrorist please PM me and put your theories wrong.

Terrorism isn't something you can stamp out that easy, and if your forces want to start raiding houses, one country they should be in is Pakistan because I guarentee Al Queda cells are all over that country, including top men in the organisation probably Osama himself is hiding there, because the Afghan Pakistan border is not the best guarded border in the world, and if theres one tip for Northern Ireland you could learn, is hire the SAS have them set up survallence post which they done many times in Northern Ireland in some cases it was a 8 by 5 foot pit, carrying a two man team that wouldn't move for weeks, taking photo's gathering intelligence, then going out for the kill once they'd established things were being planned, theres a lot you can learn from the SAS when it comes to terrorism.

___________________

the actions and thoughts of all can be understood with this thought:

humans, like every other creature on this planet, are inherently selfish.

quote:

If I could die today to create a utopia for all who lived on, I could ask for no greater honor than the opportunity to do so.

except for this guy

the world's problems are the result of our pathetic species.

PS: i really enjoyed spending 2hrs of MY life reading this thread. [no sarcasm intended]

___________________
huh?

Hm, Arbiter... I dont understand what made u gain such a....let me not judge it but at least call it "special".. attitude towards life. What I concluded after reading your posts is that basically you dont regard your life as a personal gift but rather more as means to a ...higher goal. Similiar to the often-cited "brick in the wall" of civilization, or even nature in general. Now my philosophy is that either everything is based on a super-logical plan..or that nothing makes sense and everything is plain coincidence, luck whatever. It cant be a mixture of both... And in both cases I came to the conclusion that the point is to make the best out of it(life that is), cause u cant change anything anyway. So personally I'm lucky to get the chance to be what I am, at least for this little little little period of time on that little little little place, called earth. So why the hell should I think about actually sacrifice myself and throw this gift away for something I wont witness anyway.And the ones who will benefit...argh who cares.
Hehe...Point is, follow the cliche of "live the life to the fullest" cause at the end of the day..there's nothing more true.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant Hm, Arbiter... I dont understand what made u gain such a....let me not judge it but at least call it "special".. attitude towards life. What I concluded after reading your posts is that basically you dont regard your life as a personal gift but rather more as means to a ...higher goal. Similiar to the often-cited "brick in the wall" of civilization, or even nature in general. Now my philosophy is that either everything is based on a super-logical plan..or that nothing makes sense and everything is plain coincidence, luck whatever. It cant be a mixture of both... And in both cases I came to the conclusion that the point is to make the best out of it(life that is), cause u cant change anything anyway. So personally I'm lucky to get the chance to be what I am, at least for this little little little period of time on that little little little place, called earth. So why the hell should I think about actually sacrifice myself and throw this gift away for something I wont witness anyway.And the ones who will benefit...argh who cares. Hehe...Point is, follow the cliche of "live the life to the fullest" cause at the end of the day..there's nothing more true.

It is my belief that all humans deserve a better life than the one they live in this world now. I could be a happy person simply living out my life, with no purpose but to experience as much momentary pleasure as I could before I died, but I would be so much more satisfied on my deathbed if I knew that I had played a part, however small, in making the world a better place for people in the future, to help secure for them that which I believe they deserve. I guess to some extent, I just believe that it is better to give than to receive. I want to die an honorable death, a death that serves some purpose rather than merely marking the end of my life. Otherwise, I will feel that I have squandered my life - it will be as if I never lived.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It is my belief that all humans deserve a better life than the one they live in this world now. I could be a happy person simply living out my life, with no purpose but to experience as much momentary pleasure as I could before I died, but I would be so much more satisfied on my deathbed if I knew that I had played a part, however small, in making the world a better place for people in the future, to help secure for them that which I believe they deserve. I guess to some extent, I just believe that it is better to give than to receive. I want to die an honorable death, a death that serves some purpose rather than merely marking the end of my life. Otherwise, I will feel that I have squandered my life - it will be as if I never lived. Cheers, Arbiter

i can see you want purpose in your life but my theory stands. i pondered over possible motives why you would want to sacrifice yourself and came up with a desire to be immortalised. i ask you, would you do the same thing if no-one in the world knew that you did it?

___________________
huh?

quote:

Originally posted by dr me i ask you, would you do the same thing if no-one in the world knew that you did it?

Certainly. While recieving credit for whatever good I am able to do would be an added bonus, the good deed is its own reward. More than being an issue of what others think of me, it's an issue of my own personal pride in being able to be a positive influence.

quote:

Originally posted by AAzn_ScratcH U.S. government DESERVED the 9-11 attack the American people didn't. New York is one of the nicest places to live in my opinion. But you really have asshole politicians with big mouths that can't shut the fuck up

the US Government is made up of people| please dont post such absurd comments, this thread was not created for utter bullshit|

>JM<

quote:

However, in the case of Iraq, for instance, any benefits the people could gain through the provision additional technology would almost certainly be subverted to a select few. Similarly, Iraq's resources cannot be used to efficiently sustain its population so long as those resources are being monopolized by a corrupt government.

However, the solution to this problem - in the current context - is to simply replace Hussein's regime with another Sunni-Islam one, only it will merely be more "US-Friendly" this time round I presume. The trouble is, Hussein's current Sunni regime is quite secular by Middle-Eastern standards, and if the subsequent regime is more extreme - both religiously and politically - than the current one, then I'd suspect that over time the problem would get even worse.

A more extreme Sunni regime would be even more likely to persecute the Shiite and Kurdish people than Hussein. Then again, even if they are of the more moderate variety, there is no saying the new Sunni government would be any more lenient towards the Kurdish and Shiite populations, who together are far greater in numbers than the Iraqi Sunni population. However, the US government doesn't want to give power to the Shiite majority simply because they are mindful of the possibility of them being sypatheitc towards the Iranian Shiite cause, even though the implementation of a Shiite government - by virtue of the sheer number of Shiite Iraqi's - would be better for Iraq overall.

This is the kinda thing I'm talking about :

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/...3_majority.html

quote:

This does not, however, mean that we ought to allow as many humans to live as possible, because although it might be sustainable, it is far from optimal.

But that was the point I was trying to make in my other post: if you think there are currently too many human beings on this planet, and you will gladly will the death of others, then I ask you, will you happily sacrifice your life right now for the good of the planet? If not, why should you expect Iraqi's to?

Population control, I believe, is important, but the sanctity of human life supercedes all that. Once an indivual has been cast into existence, he should be free to have complete sanctity over his own body and his own life, so far as we can make that possible.

Population is better controlled through the increased awareness of contraception and abortion. Once someone attains their own existence, we have no right to say whether they live or die.

quote:

I think that's pretty spurious.

Thanks.

(Sorry, obscure Simpsons reference).

quote:

Overpopulation is not so much a world problem as it is a regional problem.

So long as we continue to consider these issues in terms of region and race - as opposed to our global humanity - then yes, you're probably right.

But why do we consider these issues in such terms though? If we're going to divide the human race up into regions, where do we draw the line and say "this is where we start giving a shit"? At national level? At state level? Up to the end of our street perhaps?

It may sound hopelessly idealistic, but their problem - by association of our common humanity - is our problem.

quote:

The issue of whether death is good or bad should not be resolved by assuming it is good or assuming it is bad. It should be resolved by assuming neither and allowing neither belief to affect your actions.

But now I'm confused: if the sanctity of human life is not the greatest of all our aims - nor the aim to which all other aims are subservient - then what aim is more important? Why are we having this discussion on an invasion of Iraq - whether it stands to benefit American or Iraqi lives - if human life comes second to some other goal?

If we are not operating under the belief that human life is worth preserving, then what beliefs are left?

quote:

Since I don't assume death is good, I would have no reason to kill someone as a favor to them, but also, since I don't assume death is bad, I would have no reason to preserve their life as a favor to them.

Once again, that's an obscenely abstract perspective, and one not likely to benefit the current plight of the Iraqi people, nor anyone else for that matter.

Perhaps death is more favourable than the state of living, but few people are willing to sacrifice their lives to find out. Without getting overly philosophical, death - so far as we can tell - is merely a state of infinite non-existence, or nothingness. Once one is dead, there is no coming back. It is a final, irreversable choice - by murdering someone or by committing suicide you prematurely destroy a tiny fragment of existence that can never exist henceforth. There is a point - to be sure - where the pain of life becomes less desirable than the finality of death, but it is up to the individual to decide where that point lies (which is why I am for the legalisation of euthanasia and suicide). However, to murder someone or to allow them to die (when you have the opportunity to save them) against their will is to actively will a state of nothingness - and to be sure, in this sense, to murder and to allow to die amounts to the same thing. Perhaps read Heidegger's views on death and "nothingness" (nothingness being a very big part of his philosophy) to understand why realisation of what death (more restrictively) and Nothingness (more broadly) entail, to understand exactly why we should do what we can to preserve existence.

Once again, if you can happily will the death of others (doing nothing to help them when you have the ability to amounting to the same thing) and yet continue to eschew death yourself, then I may once again refer you to Satre and his concept of Mauvaise Fois to show you exactly where you're going wrong.

quote:

Your accusation of "existential hypocracy" (which is a tu quoque fallacy, I might point out), fails to recognize several important differences between me and an Iraqi citizen, but I don't think I ought to waste space further refuting an argument which is fallacious at its very base.

From a logical standpoint, my accusation is quite valid.

Hypocracy suggests the notion of preaching one set of values and living another. By definition, wherever the contradiction lies between these differing set of values, only one may be true, not both. Thus, either what you are saying is logically valid, or what you are doing is logically valid, but not both. And that's all hypocracy amounts to: either change what you say or change what you do, otherwise at least one of the two are - by definition of what we can say about contrary statements never being true at the same time - at least in part false.

Furthermore, what exactly are the differences between you and an Iraqi citizen? Are they that great that you are each subject to an entirely different set of rights?

quote:

Of course! I live happily in the United States, a country that came into its very existence by means of winning a war in which a large amount of people had to die unwillingly. For that matter, who dies willingly - only those who commit suicide. So certainly I can be happy living in a world that is able to exist precisely because people, animals, plants, and bacteria are constantly dying unwillingly. And if their deaths served to allow for a true utopia, I could hardly think of a more honorable death those people could ask for. If I could die today to create a utopia for all who lived on, I could ask for no greater honor than the opportunity to do so.

But then you had no say who fought in the two major wars that defined modern day American life. You had no say in whether Joe Brown went off and secured the state of your existence 200 years later: how can you be held morally responsible for his death?

On the other hand, as it stands right now, you do have some say - regardless of how small - in whether others die for your personal benfit. To be sure, an American victory in Iraq will bring benefits to the American public, if only for the short to mid-term availablity of oil. And this is what I'm saying: would you will the deaths of these Iraqi civilians to enhance the quality of your own life, to bring the nature of your own existence that little bit closer to some concept of utopia? And then, if you say, that a war on Iraq cannot enhance your quality of life at all, then the question must be raised, why do you will their deaths (or not oppose them at least - though it amounts to the same thing)? If you argue that it is because of the enhanced quality of life of Iraqi civilians, then it would seem to go against the utilitarianistic philosophy you so consciously restrict to your own region - so which is it then? Why should we go to war with Iraq? Or if, as you say, you oppose a war with Iraq, then by which principles are you basing it on, given that you don't seem to agree that we should to some lengths to preserve human life?

quote:

While it is apparent that I disagree with you on many matters, I do appreciate your intelligent response.

Right back atcha.

It's good to see that we can declare our disagreements on an intellectual level, rather than on a distinctly personal level.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/