3 ms·

So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by

by meric 10y ago

So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that?

mcphage 10y ago
> Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? If mob rule is sufficient, then yes, mob rule by a larger mob would be right. If mob rule is insufficient, then the behavior of the Phillipines isn't justified, and so yes, can be corrected by other outside groups. In either case: the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified.
- meric 10y ago
  the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified. That maybe so, but intervention of other groups cannot be justified, if Philippine's behaviour to intervene in the unjustified behaviour of drug dealers is itself unjustified. If mob rule is unjustified, then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no?
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no? It isn't justified by virtue of its size, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified. It may be justified for other reasons—humanitarian aid, for instance.
int_19h 10y ago
>> So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? Pretty straightforward logic, actually. If the entirety of my oppression of you is preventing you from oppressing someone else, that is the right and proper kind of oppression. There's direct analogy here with the use of violence in self-defense: violence initiated by the attacker is bad, violence used by the victim or a third party in defense of the victim is good. In reality, it's often not so simple, but you can still rank the parties on who is "more right", and whose oppression is more justified, so to speak. So yeah, sometimes you need the majority to oppress the hell out of some smaller majority to make them behave. Good examples include US Civil War, WW2, and the use of National Guard in US to impose federal desegregation laws during the Civil Rights Era. A good example of a failure to do so, and its moral consequences, is the Rwandan genocide. Now, this all was a hypothetical - I'm not saying that an invasion of the Philippines would be justified on these grounds. Of course not! But what they're doing certainly justifies, at the very least, a condemnation - and it would be immoral to not judge. Same exact kind of immoral as turning away and muttering "not my business" or "she might deserve it anyway" when your neighbor is beating his wife.
- meric 10y ago
  The 'oppressed' we are talking about are meth dealers who have spread the drug such that up to 30% of those who live in slums have become addicts. Entire communities destroyed. Filipinos follow your exact same logic, decide the behaviour of these drug dealers is unjustified and must be stopped at all costs. Who am I to judge whether killing these drug dealers is right, or is not right? Meth has not affected my family but it has destroyed theirs! And likewise, if you are the general of a foreign army and do decide to invade them to stop it, who am I to judge you for trying to prevent death of innocents? In both cases I will observe, and if you are in my community, which you are, I will give you my perspective and my advice, but I will never intervene. I will not support or intervene Filipinos efforts to save their communities, nor your hypothetical efforts to invade them. It is my business to advise only so much because we and other commenters are in the same community. I think that is our moral difference and if you would judge me for it, I will accept it graciously.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It appears that you have completely missed the point of all the complaints. The oppressed that we're talking about are not drug dealres - they're people accused of being drug dealers, which may be right or wrong, but either way we will never know if they're just murdered in cold blood without having their time in the court of law. Rule of law exists for a reason, and part of that reason is to protect the innocent who inevitably end up targeted by vigilantes in witch hunts. In many cases, the witch hunts spiral out of control to such an extent that most people are innocent (of what they're accused of, anyway), simply because it becomes a cheap and easy way to settle scores. Another point that I'd like to make, is that you talk about communities. But, who draws the lines? There's a community of Filipinos, true - but who decides who is the member, and does being a member of that community automatically excludes one from other communities? I would dare say that it does not; and if so, why should that other membership be ignored? I mean, ultimately, we are all members of one community called "people", spanning the entire globe; everything else is a subdivision of that. So, if it's common membership that you believe to give the moral justification to judge, and possibly intervene, then it is membership in that community that I will claim as my justification to do so.

by meric 10y ago

mcphage 10y ago

> Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? If mob rule is sufficient, then yes, mob rule by a larger mob would be right. If mob rule is insufficient, then the behavior of the Phillipines isn't justified, and so yes, can be corrected by other outside groups. In either case: the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified.

meric 10y ago
the Phillipines' behavior is unjustified. That maybe so, but intervention of other groups cannot be justified, if Philippine's behaviour to intervene in the unjustified behaviour of drug dealers is itself unjustified. If mob rule is unjustified, then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no?
- mcphage 10y ago
  > then using a larger mob would be even more unjustified, no? It isn't justified by virtue of its size, but that doesn't mean it's unjustified. It may be justified for other reasons—humanitarian aid, for instance.

int_19h 10y ago

>> So is that the logic we use to impose the ideas of the majority of the rest of the world on Philippines? Is oppression by majority solved by more oppression by a bigger majority? What kind of logic is that? Pretty straightforward logic, actually. If the entirety of my oppression of you is preventing you from oppressing someone else, that is the right and proper kind of oppression. There's direct analogy here with the use of violence in self-defense: violence initiated by the attacker is bad, violence used by the victim or a third party in defense of the victim is good. In reality, it's often not so simple, but you can still rank the parties on who is "more right", and whose oppression is more justified, so to speak. So yeah, sometimes you need the majority to oppress the hell out of some smaller majority to make them behave. Good examples include US Civil War, WW2, and the use of National Guard in US to impose federal desegregation laws during the Civil Rights Era. A good example of a failure to do so, and its moral consequences, is the Rwandan genocide. Now, this all was a hypothetical - I'm not saying that an invasion of the Philippines would be justified on these grounds. Of course not! But what they're doing certainly justifies, at the very least, a condemnation - and it would be immoral to not judge. Same exact kind of immoral as turning away and muttering "not my business" or "she might deserve it anyway" when your neighbor is beating his wife.

meric 10y ago
The 'oppressed' we are talking about are meth dealers who have spread the drug such that up to 30% of those who live in slums have become addicts. Entire communities destroyed. Filipinos follow your exact same logic, decide the behaviour of these drug dealers is unjustified and must be stopped at all costs. Who am I to judge whether killing these drug dealers is right, or is not right? Meth has not affected my family but it has destroyed theirs! And likewise, if you are the general of a foreign army and do decide to invade them to stop it, who am I to judge you for trying to prevent death of innocents? In both cases I will observe, and if you are in my community, which you are, I will give you my perspective and my advice, but I will never intervene. I will not support or intervene Filipinos efforts to save their communities, nor your hypothetical efforts to invade them. It is my business to advise only so much because we and other commenters are in the same community. I think that is our moral difference and if you would judge me for it, I will accept it graciously.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It appears that you have completely missed the point of all the complaints. The oppressed that we're talking about are not drug dealres - they're people accused of being drug dealers, which may be right or wrong, but either way we will never know if they're just murdered in cold blood without having their time in the court of law. Rule of law exists for a reason, and part of that reason is to protect the innocent who inevitably end up targeted by vigilantes in witch hunts. In many cases, the witch hunts spiral out of control to such an extent that most people are innocent (of what they're accused of, anyway), simply because it becomes a cheap and easy way to settle scores. Another point that I'd like to make, is that you talk about communities. But, who draws the lines? There's a community of Filipinos, true - but who decides who is the member, and does being a member of that community automatically excludes one from other communities? I would dare say that it does not; and if so, why should that other membership be ignored? I mean, ultimately, we are all members of one community called "people", spanning the entire globe; everything else is a subdivision of that. So, if it's common membership that you believe to give the moral justification to judge, and possibly intervene, then it is membership in that community that I will claim as my justification to do so.