[helene_t]

Jimmy, it sounds to me as if your reasoning goes like this:
- either moral is subjective or it's objective
- if it's subjective then nothing can be said about moral issues, other than "In my humble opinion ....."

But there is a grey scale of objectivity, ranging from highly debately (how many lab animals is it acceptable to sacrifice to achieve some scientific progress with no direct, evident value for health care?) to not-realy-debatable (slavery is wrong).

So when somebody says that "this and that is imoral" then it should read, in the context of a philosofy that denies absolute morality, as "the imorality of this and that is barely debatable", i.e. all reasonable persons would agree that it's imoral.

If ethics was an exact science , we would allways, when saying something "is" imoral, specify exactly which ethical paradims we believe to lead to the imorality of that something. But that is not feasible. Even if something is, at a deep philosofical level, subjective, it sometimes makes sense to talk in absolute terms, at least if we are confident that the reader understands the essential part of the message.

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

is slavery immoral? if so, upoin what do you base that view?

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Binding prescription for all memberstates of the UN.

Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.

3.

(a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
() Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court;

() For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:

(i) Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;
(ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;

(iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

(iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

[csdenmark]

This just for evidence of poor record for USA but not only USA. Really looks like USA has chosen very bad company.

Link to Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch World Report 2006
U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide
(Washington, D.C, January 18, 2006) – New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreatment have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006 .

Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause. But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch

Printer Friendly Version

Also Available in


Related Material

Human Rights Watch’s 2006 World Report
Report

Free Email Newsletter

Contribute to Human Rights Watch


The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior U.S. government officials. The policy has hampered Washington’s ability to cajole or pressure other states into respecting international law, said the 532-page volume’s introductory essay.

“Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive.”

Roth said the illegal tactics were fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees.

U.S. partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances. The European Union continued to subordinate human rights in its relationships with others deemed useful in fighting terrorism, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

Many countries – Uzbekistan, Russia and China among them – used the “war on terrorism” to attack their political opponents, branding them as “Islamic terrorists.”

Human Rights Watch documented many serious abuses outside the fight against terrorism. In May, the government of Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of demonstrators in Andijan, the Sudanese government consolidated “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur, western Sudan, and persistent atrocities were reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Chechnya. Severe repression continued in Burma, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Tibet and Xinjiang in China, while Syria and Vietnam maintained tight restrictions on civil society and Zimbabwe conducted massive, politically motivated forced evictions.

There were bright spots in efforts to uphold human rights by the Western powers in Burma and North Korea. Developing nations also played a positive role: India suspended most military aid to Nepal after the king’s coup, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forced Burma to relinquish its 2006 chairmanship because of its appalling human rights record. Mexico took the lead in convincing the United Nations to maintain a special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Kyrgyzstan withstood intense pressure from Uzbekistan to rescue all but four of 443 refugees from the Andijan massacre, and Romania gave them temporary refuge.

The lack of leadership by Western powers sometimes ceded the field to Russia and China, which built economic, social and political alliances without regard to human rights.

In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that U.S. mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to “a few bad apples,” but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership.

Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that “waterboarding,” a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a “professional interrogation technique.”

“Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift,” said Roth. “The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate.”

The Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 contains survey information on human rights developments in more than 70 countries in 2005. In addition to the introductory essay on torture, the volume contains two essays: “Private Companies and the Public Interest: Why Corporations Should Welcome Global Human Rights Rules” and “Preventing the Further Spread of HIV/AIDS: The Essential Role of Human Rights.”

[keylime]

What science is there to global warming? The same scientists who cried foul is now saying "we don't know if it's happening".

Quite bluntly, some of us in this thread has either never been poor and/or homeless, or has forgotten that in this country, you have every chance to further yourself with hard work, prayer, vitamins, and sometimes, frequent wrestling episodes.

Living in Canada for 2 years, made me appreciate how crucially important citizenship is, and how lucky I am to have been born here. Contrary to the reconquistas that don't belong here, I fly my flag PROPERLY and with honor to the men and women I served with, and who serve this country everyday.
Does this mean Canada was a "bad" country? Of course not - the Canadian people were incredibly kind and loving towards me and my friends above the 49th parallel are deeply dear to me. However, what I am saying is, citizenship matters.

With all the Bush bashing in this forum, I'm surprised that we conservatives haven't decided to pile on France and Germany. Then again, we don't pile on. :-)

[mike777]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 5 2006, 05:31 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 4 2006, 07:02 PM, said:

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

International law prohibits assaulting foreign countries if not for self defense, if I understand it correctly.

So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There was no such threat coming from Iraq.

--Sigi

Thanks to you and Gerben and I think you have stated your position quite clearly, thanks.


"So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There..."


In your position if you live in the Southern part of Country A and the Northern Part of Country A attacks you and your family and neighbors then the USA can do nothing without the UN voting it is ok. No matter how evil. So If 400,000 people die, millions displaced, young boys and girls raped but the UN never votes year after year, we are wrong. IF the UN votes No too bad to your family. I see no logic and I am not swayed that the UN is to be trusted in its judgement but many disagree for some reason.

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

I think Helene has hit the nail on the head with morality, many people do say Morality is objective not relative otherwise it is IMHO. That is not to say we who believe in Objective morality are not sinners, confused or better than those who disagree with us. We are searching and learning and just plain wrong and confused often . We sure need to do a better job living up to what we claim we believe in and have more empathy with others for starters. How can anyone listen to us unless we do better.

[csdenmark]

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 05:50 PM, said:

IF the UN votes No too bad to your family

So it is in Dafur. Here also USA takes the NO-position.

Other examples of such might be Eritrea, Angola and Myanmar.

[Sigi_BC84]

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in a some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

Well, basically I say that international law should be recognized by every and any country, no matter how big or powerful -- this is the ideal, but unfortunately laws are there to be broken, also on the international level.

The US are powerful enough to be able to step over international bodies like the UN if they assume it's beneficial to them. The last euphemism they have used in that regard was "coalition of the willing".

If the UN are too slow in their reaction to certain world events, the problem should be solved by attempting to modernize the UN instead of rendering it worthless by performing continuing unilateralism.

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

keylime, on Apr 5 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

With all the Bush bashing in this forum, I'm surprised that we conservatives haven't decided to pile on France and Germany. Then again, we don't pile on. :-)

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

Or at least that little comment that the whole coalition in Iraq are responsible for the problems in general, Denmark and Italy incl.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Roland

[csdenmark]

Walddk, on Apr 5 2006, 08:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Roland

No Roland I fear it is a fact but I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

[Sigi_BC84]

Walddk, on Apr 5 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 5 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so.

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting.

Insulting maybe, but I must admit that I was inclined to respond along similar lines...

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

Digital Tradition Mirror
What Did You Learn in School Today

Listen to Pete Seeger: What did you learn in school today




What Did You Learn in School Today
(Tom Paxton)

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

Copyright Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc.
SOF

Thanks to Mudcat for the Digital Tradition!

Visit the Tom Paxton web site

[the saint]

Sigi_BC84, on Apr 5 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 5 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

I note you say self-defense attacks are ok in fact you seem to say preemptive attacks in a some cases are ok also now, I am not sure Gerben agrees with you? I see no exceptions in Gerbens post.

Well, basically I say that international law should be recognized by every and any country, no matter how big or powerful -- this is the ideal, but unfortunately laws are there to be broken, also on the international level.

The US are powerful enough to be able to step over international bodies like the UN if they assume it's beneficial to them. The last euphemism they have used in that regard was "coalition of the willing".

If the UN are too slow in their reaction to certain world events, the problem should be solved by attempting to modernize the UN instead of rendering it worthless by performing continuing unilateralism.

--Sigi

The problem with the UN is that too many ccountries hide behind it and use it for their own vested interest. The security council is hidebound to stalemate with China and Russia continually blocking the US for their own needs. Take Darfur for instance, China wouldn't bring the Sudanese government to heel. Why? Something to do with the massive Oil contracts they just signed. WTF do millions of lives matter so long as the red party gets what they want?

The UN should act for the greater good. Is it any wonder nations have to go over the top of it when it allows tin-pot dictators to play Bertie Big-Bol****s on the world stage, when they should be shot for the incredible number of crimes against humanity and despicable corruption instead.

React to world events? I've seen corpses move faster. Unless of course there is a free lunch going.

Which brings me nicely to FIFA and the IOC...

(And breathe.... )

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Apr 5 2006, 08:01 AM, said:

Jimmy, it sounds to me as if your reasoning goes like this:
- either morality is subjective or it's objective
- if it's subjective then nothing can be said about moral issues, other than "In my humble opinion ....."

But there is a grey scale of objectivity, ranging from highly debately (how many lab animals is it acceptable to sacrifice to achieve some scientific progress with no direct, evident value for health care?) to not-realy-debatable (slavery is wrong).

So when somebody says that "this and that is imoral" then it should read, in the context of a philosofy that denies absolute morality, as "the imorality of this and that is barely debatable", i.e. all reasonable persons would agree that it's imoral.

yes helene, that's pretty close to my views... let me try to clarify... my objection to peter's post concerned his calling a certain thing, in no uncertain words, "immoral"... yet he insists there is no such thing as an objective morality, thus no standard by which to make the statement...

now then, if there is NO such thing as objective morality, then all morality is subjective (assuming it exists at all)... here are your choices as i see them, feel free to tell me where i'm wrong (logically wrong, that is)

1) morality is objective
2) morality is not objective
3) morality does not exist

if a morality is "barely debatable" then it is, of course, somewhat debatable, and the degree to which it is either of those is itself debatable... would you agree? that reduces all (subjective) moral arguments to the (as i said before) "r2, mknot" category

to be able to logically state that a thing is immoral, one must have some standard by which that judgment is made... it doesn't matter to me what the standard is, but it either exists or the statement cannot be made (again, from a philosophical/logical point of view)

Quote

Even if something is, at a deep philosofical level, subjective, it sometimes makes sense to talk in absolute terms, at least if we are confident that the reader understands the essential part of the message.

that might be true... however, a statement can make sense while at the same time be blatantly illogical..

while you and i might agree that slavery is immoral, the slaver might disagree... and in a world of subjectivism, neither would be (could be) wrong... claus quoted something concerning human rights which he, presumably, was setting forth as a way to judge a thing moral or not... but that simply begs the question - whose morality was he quoting and why is it any more moral than another's?

mike was right (again) when he said:

Quote

That is not to say we who believe in Objective morality are not sinners, confused or better than those who disagree with us. We are searching and learning and just plain wrong and confused often . We sure need to do a better job living up to what we claim we believe in and have more empathy with others for starters. How can anyone listen to us unless we do better.

as far as the UN goes ... nevermind

the saint said:

React to world events? I've seen corpses move faster. Unless of course there is a free lunch going.

or oil for money ... or was that food? (if you're the son of ... nevermind)

[pbleighton]

"1) a certain group once said that slavery was moral
2) that certain group now says that slavery is immoral
therefore, morality is subjective"

Oh, please. It's not just a "certain group" saying this. The supposed source of "objective morality" for the "certain group" (including of course you) is the Bible, which hasn't changed in 2,000 years, sanctions slavery, which is now recognized as horribly immoral.

Therefore the Bible is wrong about a very major moral issue. How then can Christians claim to have an "objective morality", if the source is so flawed?

Peter

[mike777]

I am a bit surprised you skip over the issue of killing 99.99% of the world in the great flood was ok.

I am a bit surprised you skip over the issue of turning people into salt was ok.

You might notice a few other times when it seemed killing a bunch of people was ok also in that good book.

You might notice the response was often why them and not me?

As I mentioned before, why was evil and great suffering allowed to enter into the world?

You can "google" or "ask" to buy many books on this issue if you would like to learn more.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

if a morality is "barely debatable" then it is, of course, somewhat debatable, and the degree to which it is either of those is itself debatable... would you agree?

This is clear, I just happen to disagree.

In the context of this thread, "slavery is imoral" is probably not debatable since I expect nobody in this forum to support slavery. And even if someone happened to support slavery, I would not bother to debate with him/her.

On what conditions it is morally acceptable for a government to asault another country, might, however, be debatable. Again, within the context of this thread. In another forum where that issue might not be debatable.

All participants in this thread are English-writing bridge players living in 2006 and interested in discussions at a reasonable academic level. That sorta gives us a common reference frame. Not to suggest that we are expected to agree on everything, but I do expect most posters to agree on some issues.

When Peter said "It is imoral to xxx" then it might mean that it's his personal opinion, or he might be referening to the presumed common reference frame of the participants in this frame, or to some other frame of reference. Of course, he's not claiming that it's "objectively" imoral to xxx. It may be that he believes in some grey scale between those alternatives. It may be that he didn't realy think about it in such details. FWIW, I don't care what frame of reference he was operating in. I pretty much understand what he means.

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

claus quoted something concerning human rights which he, presumably, was setting forth as a way to judge a thing moral or not... but that simply begs the question - whose morality was he quoting and why is it any more moral than another's

I refer to human rights simply because thats the recognized standards all memberstates of UN have accepted to comply to. That the standards generally accepted as basis for democratic values. I have never heard of anybody disagreeing those standards.

Many are violating parts of human rights agreements - normally they are hard blamed for it. I have never seen any country officially disagreeing or maybe even trying to have those standards changed fundamentally. Please remember thats also the standards on which not only our national judicial systems are based but internationally law as well. We may in future be prepared for attacks against those values from some of the theocraties - but none else I think.

Those are simply what you may call conscience of world community. Maybe you prefer the word 'our common moral values' - then OK with me.

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 6 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

Therefore the Bible is wrong about a very major moral issue.  How then can Christians claim to have an "objective morality", if the source is so flawed? 

i guess i'm just unable to make myself understood... i've not been talking about slavery or any other act, i've been talking about the nature of morality.. you stated that morality is subjective... if that's true, you can't make any definitive statements, pro or con, regarding any issue that speaks to the morality of that issue (i mean, of course, you can't make any logically defensible definitive statements)

you offer as proof of subjective morality happenings in a book you don't believe to be true performed by a God you don't believe exists... why must i be 'good for goodness sake'? why because santa claus is watching me... i know this is true because the song says so

slavery is just one of a number of acts that can be used, but all for the sake of discussion... iow, the question is about morality, not the act one deems moral or immoral, and it's a simple question: if morality is subjective, can one person's beliefs be more moral than another's?

i've not made any value judgments regarding slavery or anything else... all i've stated is that you have no standard by which to judge a thing immoral...

mike said:

As I mentioned before, why was evil and great suffering allowed to enter into the world?

you aren't getting any bites, despite many laudable attempts...

helene said:

In the context of this thread, "slavery is imoral" is probably not debatable since I expect nobody in this forum to support slavery. And even if someone happened to support slavery, I would not bother to debate with him/her.

fwiw, i agree that slavery is immoral... i know it's hard to divorce any one act from the concept of morality, but i'm really not speaking of slavery at all.. i'm speaking of morality.. if it is subjective, there's no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral... if it's subjective, might makes right...

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

you stated that morality is subjective... if that's true, you can't make any definitive statements, pro or con, regarding any issue that speaks to the morality of that issue (i mean, of course, you can't make any logically defensible definitive statements)

Can you make a logically defensive argument for statements of the kind "The Earth is round?". Surely, it is logically possible that it were flat. My belief in the round Earth is based on my subjective choice to respect the evidence in favour of the round Earth (and disregard some of the alleged flat-Earth evidence) and to prefer a model for the evidense-generating process that makes the same evidense incompatible with a flat Earth.

So it's subjective that the Earth is round. However, I can defend that statement within the context of a specific frame of reference, namely the assumtption that my readers share my acceptance of certain evidence and that they also share my preference for certain kinds of models for certain evidense-generating proceses (for example, to someone who believed in a completely unpredictable universe in which there was no relation between facts and evidense - which is logically possible - no photo of a round Earth would make any impact).

Whether an argument is valid or not, and whether a statement is true or not, depends on the frame of reference. This goes for moral statements as well.