"A somewhat different version of skeptical pacifism can be found in critiques of militarism and the ideology and propaganda that lead people to support war. In this approach, skepticism produces a practical political pacifism that is based upon the fact that citizens have no good reason to trust that their governments are telling them the truth about war and its justification. This skepticism is derived from historical judgments about the tendency of governments to manipulate information in order to provoke the citizenry toward war. In light of such skepticism, the burden of proof for the justification of war is placed upon the government, who must prove that the dangerous and presumptively immoral activity of war can in fact be justified.
This sort of skepticism might also be called “prima facie pacifism”: this is the idea that war is usually wrong except in certain extraordinary circumstances when it is compellingly shown that the evil of war is a sort of lesser evil that is necessary for some greater good. Prima facie pacifism presumes that war is wrong but allows for exceptions. Prima facie pacifism places the burden of proof upon the proponent of war: it is up to the proponent of war to prove, in a given circumstance, that war is in fact morally necessary."
I would think that even a conscientious objector(CO) hopes like hell that their side(country) wins the war. Should a CO by virtue of their non combative stance against armed conflict, not be concerned if his/her side is conquered and be willing to live with the consequences of occupation?
(May 3, 2017 02:05 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: I would think that even a conscientious objector(CO) hopes like hell that their side(country) wins the war. Should a CO by virtue of their non combative stance against armed conflict, not be concerned if his/her side is conquered and be willing to live with the consequences of occupation?
Can we be more clear about what the war is about?
For example, the US defended its democracy against Germany, but it also adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education. As the Prussians when they took control of Germany, centralizing education and destroyed Germany's heroes, the US has done the same, bringing an end to the culture that education transmitted and the US had defended in two world wars. For all practical purposes we are what we defended our democracy against, so now what is a good reason to go to war?
(May 3, 2017 02:05 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: I would think that even a conscientious objector(CO) hopes like hell that their side(country) wins the war. Should a CO by virtue of their non combative stance against armed conflict, not be concerned if his/her side is conquered and be willing to live with the consequences of occupation?
Can we be more clear about what the war is about?
Does that really matter for a conscientious objector? War is war for whatever the reason. When your nation's conqueror's army is goose-stepping up your street, as a CO are you concerned? If so then what would that worry be?
(Dec 19, 2016 08:07 AM)Carol Wrote: In fact, I like being feminine and think that means being protected, and some call that childlike.
I learned about life and became passionate about principles, virtues, and good manners because that is what lifts man to his full potential and means having the good life. I enjoy a wonderful sense of meaning by talking about this, and I do it to save the world, and so that my great-grandchildren and their children will have liberty and justice. It is as we create it.
Protection, freedom, liberty, and justice? They're not free.
(Apr 26, 2017 05:28 PM)Carol Wrote: How about this- have you spent much time caring for a child? If so, did you notice any change in yourself?
I am very much in favor of traditional values and femininity and this is so for every cell of my body. Violating our own values, whatever they are, is a very visceral experience. It just feels wrong. I make this argument because women's liberation did not liberate women but made it taboo for them be feminine and the result is a military state. This was not what the US was before WWII. The point is, your argument does not seem well rounded to me. When we bomb another country, I identify with the mothers trying to keep their children alive and I strongly oppose war.
Like most mothers, I would die for my child. Unfortunately, though, he chose to risk his life for the collective. He’s a marine.
Do you think that I would choose to sacrifice my son for the collective? Hell, no, but it wasn’t my choice. I might risk my life for a stranger. Maybe even die for someone else’s child, but given the choice, I’d let countless people die before I’d let my son die.
Some people have argued that pacifism is a form of egoism, a pathology of the privileged.
Of course, there is also the motivation to increase the welfare of the collective, and to uphold moral principles, but egoism can conflict with both of these, as well.
Is compassion one of your virtues?
How can we tell if it’s compassion or idiot compassion?
Are we simply looking to reduce the stimuli that’s causing us personal distress? Are we looking to avoid social or self-punishment, if we don’t help? Are we hoping to gain social or self-rewards by helping?
If it is self-serving and easy for us to escape the empathic arousal without helping, and the cost of helping is too high it, then any helping behavior will automatically be reduced. You know, similar to the isolationists in the United States after World War I.
If our ultimate goal is to benefit another, we’re likely to receive self-benefits, but those are just unintentional consequences, not our ultimate goal. If the human motivational repertoire is not limited to the egoism of empathy or the "identifiable victim effect", we should be able to take broader considerations into account and extend our compassion.
When it comes to compassion, though, I do think that our parental instincts trump empathy, reciprocal altruism, and kin selection. The parental instinct is not a reflective response, but an instinct with a cognitive, affective, and motivational component.
"The protective impulse is, no doubt, evoked more readily and intensely by one’s own offspring, but the distress of any child will evoke this response in a very intense degree in those in whom the instinct is strong.
By further extension, the same emotion may be evoked by the sight of any young animal in distress or any adult towards whom we harbor no hostile sentiment."—William McDougall
This response isn’t evoked by perceived similarities to the self. Our parental instinct is evoked by anything that is seen as vulnerable and needs protection. McDougall suggested in 1908 that one of the reasons that this wasn’t given as much attention as kin selection or reciprocal altruism is because most philosophers or psychologists were men that may have been somewhat deficient in this instinct. I don’t agree with him on this account because men have always protected vulnerable and weaker individuals.
(May 3, 2017 06:36 PM)Carol Wrote: For all practical purposes we are what we defended our democracy against, so now what is a good reason to go to war?
So, how should we handle the current situation in North Korea?
And the war on terrorism, their global strategy, and apocalyptic beliefs…what should we do?
You’re a traditionalist. Can you respect their traditions? Should you?
For absolutists, nothing is tolerable apart from their own doctrine and nothing is gained by the pretense that both parties want peace. Can you think of any rational solutions to the challenges of political extremism, tyranny, terrorism, and absolutism?
Is a morally inspired war superior to a self-interest war?
Is the cost of helping too high? Should we ignore the empathetic triggers and focus solely on national security and self-interest?
How could we accomplish either without military might?
Just guessing but the vast majority of humans on the planet would probably not favor war, including myself. This does not mean I will forever be immune from it. There are people in the world that embrace war. I suppose what Carol is really hinting at is the elimination of war altogether, how do we as humans cease using it?
I remember Country Joe MacDonald once sang "You know that peace can only be won when you've blown 'em all to Kingdom Come". Does that apply only to the free world? It's similar to the philosophy nature has adopted. Insect colonies with soldiers come to mind. Unfortunately peace has to be won time and time again. What Carol may be looking for is that idyllic scene, one almost everyone has viewed, the painting of Eden where the predators gather peacefully around the edges of a delightful pond with prey. Total peace, no longer enemies. Unfortunately nature does not follow the tranquility of that scene. I wonder if we could genetically alter violence out of every creature and if that would doom all life on Earth?
(May 4, 2017 06:10 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: What Carol may be looking for is that idyllic scene, one almost everyone has viewed, the painting of Eden where the predators gather peacefully around the edges of a delightful pond with prey. Total peace, no longer enemies. Unfortunately nature does not follow the tranquility of that scene. I wonder if we could genetically alter violence out of every creature and if that would doom all life on Earth?
"An autotelic person needs few material possessions and little entertainment, comfort, power, or fame because so much of what he or she does is already rewarding. Because such persons experience flow in work, in family life, when interacting with people, when eating, even when alone with nothing to do, they are less dependent on the external rewards that keep others motivated to go on with a life composed of routines. They are more autonomous and independent because they cannot be as easily manipulated with threats or rewards from the outside. At the same time, they are more involved with everything around them because they are fully immersed in the current of life."
In a sense the action itself is an expression of their happiness, and not a desire to achieve or have happiness.
The "will", generally, is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires present. Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.
The "will to power" is an explanation of human aims and actions. It promotes "art for art’s sake", intrinsic motivation, a sense of purpose and curiosity for its own sake. The "will to power" is the will to live. The struggle itself should be enough. One must imagine Sisyphus happy, right?
Now, let’s remove that struggle. Imagine a computer programmed to obtain perfection, and reduce, not only human suffering, but all suffering. A utilitarian masterpiece with the capacity to prioritize the long list of human values. Life, health, longevity, happiness, love, empathy, logic, knowledge, honesty, justice, equality, inclusion, tolerance, etc. In order to accomplish this we’ll have to teach machines to predict the future.
Sounds good, right? Let’s call it Googol.
You’re a female and you’ve just started your menstrual cycle. Menstruation defines femininity now. Womanhood is no longer about emotional or intellectual maturity. Googol does all of that. It’s time for you to choose a mate. Wait a minute, Googol does that, too. It watches you, knows your likes and dislikes. It has access to your DNA, knows the potential outcome of any relationship, not only during your lifetime, but future generations, as well.
It could present you with a limited number of choices, allowing you little bit of freewill, but we’re talking about perfection here, right? We’re striving for the best possible outcome for the greatest number, including future generations, and we’re living longer. It’s not about personal happiness. Happiness is maximized and distributed evenly throughout time. There’s no more war, crime, or violence. Negative emotions are no longer necessary. At one time we learned through exploration, and from our mistakes, but we don’t need to do that anymore. Googol is our decision tree that maximizes utility through the knowledge of good and evil. Googol determines the positive and negative outcomes. Googol will simply tell us. Googol is our God and we love it! We obey it! Nothing is hidden. If you act against it, a worldwide notification will be issued. Your behavior affects all of us.
Oops! I forgot about freedom. That wasn’t on my list. Is that a human value? Well, we’re no longer living in a human world, are we? We’re living with Gods. Freewill? Freedom? Fuhgettaboutit.
My sci fi....genetically engineer humans to be indestructible or surround us each with protective shields through some pocket held device or even a cell phone for that matter. Call it Armor All and don't worry about copyright infringement. Once we are, for all intents indestructible, then what good is war if you can't kill anybody?
In war, military targets are not always people but can be infrastructure, destroying systems of transportation and factories, and today, knocking out the other guy's communication system has taken our wars into space. I am not sure where we are at with star wars, but my father consulted the project several years ago. The technological advancements make protecting satellites or destroying them, an important military goal.
When it comes to body armor we have greatly improved it and the police use it as well as the military. Drones will continue to replace humans, and it is funny that we keep pushing the idea that robots that look like humans won't kill, when the main thrust of robotic development is robots that kill. I guess if it doesn't look like a human it is okay to make robots specifically to kill and destroy?
Carol is not hinting at anything but thought she had a brilliant realization and wanted to test it out. I wanted to know how others would react to my thought. You and I are in agreement. I think most people will run from war if they can. However, as you said, some people will embrace war, and cannibals, and some native Americans and others, do not want to give up the way of the warrior, as it is very much a part of their culture. War that is part of culture, did not look as modern warfare does today, and as CC said maybe we do not to think of the difference as the same thing?
I don't know what to think of those who focus on the people who make war and agree this is human nature, instead of paying attention to all the people who try to flee war and whose lives are in danger because of the conditions of refugee camps? I am concerned people are reacting emotionally with knee-jerk comments, instead of actually thinking about the human behaviors and circumstances. That leads to an unpleasant argument, instead of discussion that is intellectually stimulating. If we know what to say in 2 seconds, that is fast thinking, and probably not worth saying. Deeper thoughts, that make discussions interesting are slow thinking. It is unfortunate we are not all aware of the difference because I think humanity, in general, would do much better if we understood the difference between fast and slow thinking.
(May 5, 2017 04:07 PM)Carol Wrote: In war, military targets are not always people but can be infrastructure, destroying systems of transportation and factories, and today, knocking out the other guy's communication system has taken our wars into space. I am not sure where we are at with star wars, but my father consulted the project several years ago. The technological advancements make protecting satellites or destroying them, an important military goal.
When it comes to body armor we have greatly improved it and the police use it as well as the military. Drones will continue to replace humans, and it is funny that we keep pushing the idea that robots that look like humans won't kill, when the main thrust of robotic development is robots that kill. I guess if it doesn't look like a human it is okay to make robots specifically to kill and destroy?
Carol is not hinting at anything but thought she had a brilliant realization and wanted to test it out. I wanted to know how others would react to my thought. You and I are in agreement. I think most people will run from war if they can. However, as you said, some people will embrace war, and cannibals, and some native Americans and others, do not want to give up the way of the warrior, as it is very much a part of their culture. War that is part of culture, did not look as modern warfare does today, and as CC said maybe we do not to think of the difference as the same thing?
I don't know what to think of those who focus on the people who make war and agree this is human nature, instead of paying attention to all the people who try to flee war and whose lives are in danger because of the conditions of refugee camps? I am concerned people are reacting emotionally with knee-jerk comments, instead of actually thinking about the human behaviors and circumstances. That leads to an unpleasant argument, instead of discussion that is intellectually stimulating. If we know what to say in 2 seconds, that is fast thinking, and probably not worth saying. Deeper thoughts, that make discussions interesting are slow thinking. It is unfortunate we are not all aware of the difference because I think humanity, in general, would do much better if we understood the difference between fast and slow thinking.
May 2, 2017 06:27 AM
![[Image: 100_4709B.jpg]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ajoZPn2ETc4/THgZViW_y_I/AAAAAAAABu4/QluQXBl6kmU/s200/100_4709B.jpg)
