4 ms·

There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high

There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. As all rules of thumb, it not always work but it normally does. A consequence of this rule is asymmetry, because you only go to another country if you have the upper hand and something to win; And a consequence of force asymmetry is more suffering for one side than the other. So, yes, suffering is, even if not a direct one, a good proxy for moral stance.

eveningcoffee 9y ago
>There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality. Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces. Etc etc.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  "Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality." Barring a few, normally not very successful, Blue Helmets interventions, I can't think of instances of that. Surely, when a foreign power decide to use the force, against a less powerful country, the real reasons have little to do with stop genocides or injustices.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    World War II?!
    - golergka 9y ago
      Can you expand on that? As far as I know, no major power in WWII used prevention of genocide as their reason to join the war.
golergka 9y ago
But why do we have to stick to rules of thumb and causation links? This rule has a glaring hole in it: according to it, the moment allies landed in Normandy and Soviet Union moved the fight into mainland Germany, Nazi Reich became more moral than the adversary. Can't we at least come up with better heuristics than this? (Yes, about Godwin's law: WWII is just a classical example that has an ethical consensus about it. If it makes you more comfortable, you can replace it with Gondor's armies storming the Black Gate.)
- RobertoG 9y ago
  I think it was Borges that said 'all the discussions are about semantics.': I could argue that the Second World War was about, you know, the world, not about Germany. They were fighting in all Europe, that in that moment the fight was in Germany was due to the development of the war but it was, yet, a global war. We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you. For instance, Russian intervention in Ukraine was about protecting ethnics Russians, USA intervention in Iraq was about spreading democracy or defensive intervention or something like that. That goes against my heuristic, so I should stop to examine the evidence more carefully.
  - likeclockwork 9y ago
    I don't think either of those are counterexamples to your heuristic. Your heuristic just highlighting your biases around those two conflicts.
    - RobertoG 9y ago
      I can see now how adding a 'supposedly' in the 4th paragraph would make my point more clear. Sorry about that.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you. That is an excellent point. However, I too often see people treat heuristics as a rigid rule instead; case in point: original comment. Treating heuristics as heuristics and digging deeper requires untypical intellectual honesty, especially when talking about politics - where most of the arguing is an emotionally charged aggression towards out-group rather than search for the truth. Therefore, while I perfectly understand usefulness of heuristics as a concept, I think that in this kind of topic it's useful to abstain from heuristics altogether.

eveningcoffee 9y ago

>There is a rule of thumb for judging morality in wars: If you are fighting in your country and the other side it's not, then, normally, you have the moral high ground. Yes, normally. One example where it does not apply is when you are in your country and are executing a genocide. Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality. Except when it is not really genocide but counter-activity to a local minority initiative with the intent to play a victim such a that another country where they have large majority could send in their forces. Etc etc.

RobertoG 9y ago
"Then we can argue that an invading party with the intent to stop the genocide has higher morality." Barring a few, normally not very successful, Blue Helmets interventions, I can't think of instances of that. Surely, when a foreign power decide to use the force, against a less powerful country, the real reasons have little to do with stop genocides or injustices.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  World War II?!
  - golergka 9y ago
    Can you expand on that? As far as I know, no major power in WWII used prevention of genocide as their reason to join the war.

golergka 9y ago

But why do we have to stick to rules of thumb and causation links? This rule has a glaring hole in it: according to it, the moment allies landed in Normandy and Soviet Union moved the fight into mainland Germany, Nazi Reich became more moral than the adversary. Can't we at least come up with better heuristics than this? (Yes, about Godwin's law: WWII is just a classical example that has an ethical consensus about it. If it makes you more comfortable, you can replace it with Gondor's armies storming the Black Gate.)

RobertoG 9y ago
I think it was Borges that said 'all the discussions are about semantics.': I could argue that the Second World War was about, you know, the world, not about Germany. They were fighting in all Europe, that in that moment the fight was in Germany was due to the development of the war but it was, yet, a global war. We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you. For instance, Russian intervention in Ukraine was about protecting ethnics Russians, USA intervention in Iraq was about spreading democracy or defensive intervention or something like that. That goes against my heuristic, so I should stop to examine the evidence more carefully.
- likeclockwork 9y ago
  I don't think either of those are counterexamples to your heuristic. Your heuristic just highlighting your biases around those two conflicts.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    I can see now how adding a 'supposedly' in the 4th paragraph would make my point more clear. Sorry about that.
- golergka 9y ago
  > We need heuristics because when somebody tell us something that goes against a developed heuristic we should be surprised and examine the evidence more carefully. A kind of comprehension algorithm if you want. Maybe it's another way of saying that if you are invading a country the burden of proof is on you. That is an excellent point. However, I too often see people treat heuristics as a rigid rule instead; case in point: original comment. Treating heuristics as heuristics and digging deeper requires untypical intellectual honesty, especially when talking about politics - where most of the arguing is an emotionally charged aggression towards out-group rather than search for the truth. Therefore, while I perfectly understand usefulness of heuristics as a concept, I think that in this kind of topic it's useful to abstain from heuristics altogether.