4 ms·

It feels like you're taking what I'm saying and trying to shoehorn it into an old story you know. What you're saying about Socrates doesn't really match what I

It feels like you're taking what I'm saying and trying to shoehorn it into an old story you know. What you're saying about Socrates doesn't really match what I'm saying, as far as I can tell. I also don't see how my arguments are cynical, morally bankrupt, paradoxical, deceitful, meaningless, senseless, or as you started this whole thing, a false dichotomy. Like, I get that perhaps the character of Thrasymachus was like this, but I'm not that guy. So, to be clear, I'm not arguing against the goodness of governments, democracy, laws, morals, or keeping people alive. I'm just trying to clarify the facts about how force, law, and morals are related to each other, in practical terms as they apply to all power structures. > there is nothing in the world which is illegal because everything which happens has been implicitly permitted to happen. Where did I indicate that I believe this? The illegal things that happen get punished, at least some of the time. In the other direction, if something gets punished at least some of the time, it is an illegal thing. It's a stronger law if it gets punished more often, but punishing only a percentage of offenses is still enforcement in general. If it's a law that is never upheld, it's a law in theory but not in practice. If it's a law in practice but not in theory, something like "don't be impolite to the cops" or "don't make Daddy angry when he's drinking", it's an unwritten rule. Why is this an incorrect perception? > The core problem is that you are making a very cynical argument that there is no law or morality which can or should prevent us from killing other people First, morality and law are distinct. Anyone can say we should or shouldn't kill people on the basis of their own morality. Morality is converted into law by the use of force. For example, natural / human rights, which correspond directly to morals, are not guarantees, they are ideals about how we would like things to be. However, they are converted into legal rights by the use of force, or the threat thereof. This provides some semblance of a guarantee about things. At the international level, there are no hard laws stopping the US from doing a lot of different things, because there is no world police. As such there is only really morality, no guarantees, and so by using force we are effectively making laws out of our own morality, in the same way that a dictator does. And, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be prevented from killing people, nor in this thread am I arguing that it's morally okay for the US to attack Syria (it seems slightly better than doing nothing, but it could be a big mess), I'm really just stating the fact that bombing Syria is its own legal justification because there is no higher authority making laws that will stop the US from doing so. I personally like the idea of one world government to stop this kind of ad hoc lawmaking, but that doesn't stop it from being ad hoc lawmaking. I even agreed with you that it would be better if the US ratified the Geneva Protocols first, but I don't see that's inconsistent with my understanding of what's actually happening here. Basically, I feel like we are talking at cross purposes.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
P.S. I realized after some thinking that maybe the problem is this: I'm claiming might makes legally right, whereas you seem to think I'm claiming might makes morally right, which I'm not.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  Maybe you can look at it this way: if you take your original post and re-write it so that it doesn't contain the words "legal" or "moral" or reference any abstract principles other than the interests of the powerful, you'll have the same argument you are making, except it will come across as absurd: > Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to [exert force], bombing is its own justification [for using force]. We're making a [use of force] that says [we are using force].... The words "legal" and "international law" make your argument sound more reasonable, but only because the reader assumes they mean something like a codification of moral or social principles. My goal is not trying to be argumentative. It's that I'm reflexively pacifist and deeply skeptical of arguments which seek to justify violence, especially when made from a position of relative power or hypocrisy, and in a way which glosses over the moral problems in killing people.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > The words "legal" and "international law" make your argument sound more reasonable, but only because the reader assumes they mean something like a codification of moral or social principles. I think the assumption that laws actually correspond to widespread morals and social principles is the fundamental problem here. It's not a valid assumption. I think it's actually immoral to believe that because something is lawful it must be good. In other words, if somebody actually does have "legal justification" to kill someone else (no greater authority will stop them), that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, e.g. in the case of capital punishment in the US, or in the case of using chemical weapons in Syria absent some kind of foreign intervention, or in the case of the US bombing Syria. Morals are relative, and not everyone will agree with a law. Illegal things can be moral, immoral things can be legal. In the best case everyone's morals contribute to the law, in the worst case it's only the lawmaker's morals that truly matter. None of that changes the fact that for something to be a law there has to be a punishment for breaking the law, and that punishment for doing something makes it into a de facto law. It's unpalatable but there it is. I'm a pacifist too, for what it's worth; I believe violence is only a good idea when it prevents even greater violence, I believe it's a good thing for power to be concentrated by governments, and I don't like the current state of international relations where rich countries tell poor countries what to do. But, I'm not an anarcho-pacifist.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

P.S. I realized after some thinking that maybe the problem is this: I'm claiming might makes legally right, whereas you seem to think I'm claiming might makes morally right, which I'm not.

trevelyan 13y ago
Maybe you can look at it this way: if you take your original post and re-write it so that it doesn't contain the words "legal" or "moral" or reference any abstract principles other than the interests of the powerful, you'll have the same argument you are making, except it will come across as absurd: > Since at the most base level the use of force is necessary to [exert force], bombing is its own justification [for using force]. We're making a [use of force] that says [we are using force].... The words "legal" and "international law" make your argument sound more reasonable, but only because the reader assumes they mean something like a codification of moral or social principles. My goal is not trying to be argumentative. It's that I'm reflexively pacifist and deeply skeptical of arguments which seek to justify violence, especially when made from a position of relative power or hypocrisy, and in a way which glosses over the moral problems in killing people.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > The words "legal" and "international law" make your argument sound more reasonable, but only because the reader assumes they mean something like a codification of moral or social principles. I think the assumption that laws actually correspond to widespread morals and social principles is the fundamental problem here. It's not a valid assumption. I think it's actually immoral to believe that because something is lawful it must be good. In other words, if somebody actually does have "legal justification" to kill someone else (no greater authority will stop them), that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, e.g. in the case of capital punishment in the US, or in the case of using chemical weapons in Syria absent some kind of foreign intervention, or in the case of the US bombing Syria. Morals are relative, and not everyone will agree with a law. Illegal things can be moral, immoral things can be legal. In the best case everyone's morals contribute to the law, in the worst case it's only the lawmaker's morals that truly matter. None of that changes the fact that for something to be a law there has to be a punishment for breaking the law, and that punishment for doing something makes it into a de facto law. It's unpalatable but there it is. I'm a pacifist too, for what it's worth; I believe violence is only a good idea when it prevents even greater violence, I believe it's a good thing for power to be concentrated by governments, and I don't like the current state of international relations where rich countries tell poor countries what to do. But, I'm not an anarcho-pacifist.