Respect Our Enemies -- Why?

[R. Richard]

Which makes Ted Bundy types virtuous in war, but vicious on the domestic front. Lucky for the domestic front, most soldiers are not criminally insane. They, are, yes, average joes who just want a normal life again--or rather, as much of a normal ife as they can have given what they've seen and been through during the war.

Actually, the criminally insane are NOT virtuous in war. They would as soon kill their leader or each other as the enemy. You have to develop a sort of relationship with them in order to control them as much as they can be controlled.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Forgive me, if you weren't speaking of me, Roxanne. But I am not a moral relativist!

I have a very strong sense of ethics. And I've paid a high price for them.

I just don't believe I know enough to be absolutely certain they apply in absolutely every situation.

And they aren't the same as yours. Which I suspect is my biggest sin.

"Morality" in my view means a set of general principles that we hold in common for the pupose of allowing us to live together in peace. I believe these general prinicles include the notion that some things are always wrong in every human society at all times. By moral relativist I mean someone who is unwilling to accept the possibility of such a principle.

 

[Oblimo]

Empathy for Hitler, Bundy, child molestors and slave owners? Why? (Again, we are not talking about "understanding.")

Again, we are talking about an aphorism, a maxim expressed with poetic concission, meant to inpsire, not to be analyzed. You know, like "existence exists."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oblimo: Dyson is talking about empathy, Roxanne.

Why didn't he say that, then? He said we should "respect our enemies."

Machan explained that "respect" is not another word for "understand." Are you saying that "respect" is another word for "empathize?" Is it another word for "feel sorry for?"

If one feels sorry for Bundy because he so horribly misused his gift of life does that mean that one also "respects" Bundy?

 

[Oblimo]

By moral relativist I mean someone who is unwilling to accept the possibility of such a principle.

Then please stop using the term when referring to posters like me, Rob, and Pure, because we are willing to accept the possibility of such a principle. We just don't take any particular universal principle as a given without discussing it first.

 

[Oblimo]

OK, at this point I think it's fair to ask for a definition of "empathy."

Very fair. If I said "understanding," would you smack me?

Empathy, as I understand the term, is the ability to perceive emotions in others, to recognize and to reconstruct the existence of the inner lives of other people. This is different from sympathy, which is feeling the same way they do. An FBI profiler empathizes with a serial killer's piquerism in order to predict his/her criminal behavior. If the profiler were to sympathize, s/he'd start running around stabbing people.

The opposite of empathy is sociopathy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Then please stop using the term when referring to posters like me, Rob, and Pure, because we are willing to accept the possibility of such a principle. We just don't take any particular universal principle as a given without discussing it first.

I haven't referred to any specific individuals, but you have named three. RG has said many things in the past that make his view on this unclear to me. Pure has said many things in the past that make me think this definition applies to him very much. I have not discussed this with you, so I couldn't say if it applies to you.

 

[Oblimo]

Are you saying that "respect" is another word for "empathize?" Is it another word for "feel sorry for?"

No, that's pity.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Very fair. If I said "understanding," would you smack me?

Empathy, as I understand the term, is the ability to perceive emotions in others, to recognize and to reconstruct the existence of the inner lives of other people. This is different from sympathy, which is feeling the same way they do. An FBI profiler empathizes with a serial killer's piquerism in order to predict his/her criminal behavior. If the profiler were to sympathize, s/he'd start running around stabbing people.

The opposite of empathy is sociopathy.

Smack!

I seem to have edited the quote you cite out of existance. Take a peak at the revised post, please.

 

[Oblimo]

I haven't referred to any specific individuals, but you have named three. RG has said many things in the past that make his view on this unclear to me. Pure has said many things in the past that make me think this definition applies to him very much. I have not discussed this with you, so I couldn't say if it applies to you.

Well, in our past discussions, you have (if I recall correctly) responded to my posts (and Pure's too, IIRC) with criticisms of relativism and subjectivism. I apologize for any misconceptions

 

[Oblimo]

Smack!

This wouldn't be a AH discussion if I didn't turn the other cheek.

I seem to have edited the quote you cite out of existance. Take a peak at the revised post, please.

I think the aphorism "respect your enemy" means many different things in different contexts, but I also think empathy may be the common thread between them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This wouldn't be a AH discussion if I didn't turn the other cheek.


I think the aphorism "respect your enemy" means many different things in different contexts, but I also think empathy may be the common thread between them.

I'm not sure. I think the statement in my post No. 30 sums it up nicely: "If Dyson wanted to say 'we should regard our enemies as human beings,' he would have been right, and should have said that. But instead he said, 'We should respect them as human beings.' This is what makes no sense, and it does suggest an attitude of non-judgmental tolerance toward one's enemies."

That last is what I think he was really trying to slip by, and the attempt was made with a friendly sounding aphorism, as you point out. As I said to 3113 in post No. 45, in my view, and I think Machan's, he got himself on a rhetorical limb that exposes some of the "logical fallacies" of the relativist worldview.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And with that last post I will probably retire from this thread, except that I probably owe 3113 one more exchange if she comes back. But my half of it won't be until tomorrow night.

G'night, all.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yoiks! three pages before i even start!

First, Roxanne is clearly trying to have her cake and eat it, insofar as she claims that the argument against Hitler is individual and objective, and the broader argument against Nazis ni the war is subjective. When it suits her, she limits Machan's arguments to individuals, lumping Ted Bundy with Hitler. Clearly, Hitler's crimes are not those of an individual in the way that Bundy's are. Did Hitler personally kill 6 million Jews? Obviously not.

So, the vast grey area of personal responsibility in times of national war rears its ugly and oh-so-inconvenient head in an argument ostensibly about moral absolutism.

Ted Bundy didn't lead an army, nor did he have followers that he controlled through sophisticated psychological techniques. Is his evil equivalent to Hitler's, who didn't (so far as I know) kill anyone in cold blood?

Many Nazi regulars were probably not aware of the genocide carried out in their name, whether through willful ignorance or institutional design. Are they to be branded with the moral choices of their superiors, the same as others who knew the consequences of their actions but chose to follow orders anyway? Are sadistic SS prison guards and medical experimenters the moral equivalent of an infrantryman trying to secure a bridge to keep fuel available to his army and his countrymen? According to this broad view of "enemies", the answer is "yes".

One may as well argue that because of Abu Ghraib, the entire GWOT is evil. I can't think of anyone trying to make THAT argument.

 

[rgraham666]

I thought I had made clear clear the basis of my ethics to you, Roxanne. So I'll state them again.

The bedrock is that there's enough pain in the universe without me adding to it. That never changes.

Required to pursue that, I regard three traits as necessary. Empathy, wisdom and courage.

Without empathy, a person can't do good except by accident. A person must have some feeling for other human beings. Empathy sets the destination.

Without wisdom, a person cannot make good decisions. a person can't compare now with when, can't examine the world and possesses no real knowledge of it. Wisdom marks out the path.

And without courage, a person can't walk the path to the destination empathy and wisdom create. Because following that path places a person up against people without empathy and wisdom.

And those people don't fight fair.

There you go, Roxanne. My ethics laid out clean, pure and simple.

 

[Pure]

i think you miss a simple point, rg. those who disagree with Ayn Rand ARE by definition subjectivist, relativist, and out of contact with reality. She has the truth. You don't agree with it, what other conclusion can we draw?

though ms roxanne is only 90% ms rand, she, by her actions, implicitly endorses, with a little more politeness and circumspection, the almost same principle for those who disagree: She simply says, "your position is that of someone who is subjectivist, relativist, and out of contact with reality; and it has been discredited as such. BUT your individual intentions may be good; i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You may simply be unable to understand the issues properly."

 

[Liar]

Empathy for Hitler, Bundy, child molestors and slave owners? Why? (Again, we are not talking about "understanding.")

To empathize is not to sympathize.

 

[Recidiva]

I respect my enemy because if they're strong enough to oppose me, they've got something going for them, things I can learn from them, and ways I can approach them in diplomacy. This can lead me to understanding and working with them in cooperation as an ultimate goal, or learning more about them in close quarters as an intermediate goal. Learning their methods and motivations.

If I disrespect them, I lend myself to underestimating them and this is one of the largest risks of degrading your opponent.

Respect for myself and respect for others leads to better understanding.

A tenet of war: "Know thy enemy as thyself."

 

[Liar]

I think some extremist groups have classed themselves as 'enemies of capitalists/imperialists etc'. Some politicians eroniously label themselves as 'enemies of waste/corruption etc' Apart from which, the moment the 'other side' is defined as 'the enemy' you become their enemy. As Rob said, "What you resist, you become."

Do they consider themselves to be enemies of...or is that just a semantic label? Where in fact, they consider the imperialism/corruption/whatever to be the enemy of their lives? if the imperialists stayed home, nobody would give a damn, and they wouldn't have any enemies.

But either way, in order to respect or not respect an enemy, you have to define one, and thus become one.

So, asking "who is your enemy", is pretty much the same as asking "whose enemy are you?". And is questioning whether you should respect your enemy then also to question whether they should respect you? I think it must be.

 

[Pure]

looking over Tibor's spiel, which doesn't make much sense, as 3113 pointed out, i've understood it a bit. i think the key lines are:

Tibor Machan quoted by Roxanne {abridged by me}Why should one respect someone as a human being? Does being a human being amount to some worthwhile achievement? No. Why then respect one merely for being human — Hitler was human, Ted Bundy was human, slaveholders were human, and child molesters are human.

It is pretty preposterous to consider all of them worthy of any sort of respect (although perhaps some of them did a few things that may be so, say, kept a clean house or treated their pets nicely). […]


Actually, often to understand our enemies it is imperative that we have no respect for them. Respecting them could well prejudice our understanding of them. We may be tempted to ascribe to them good qualities they do not have and by such means be tempted to misunderstand them quite seriously. [excerpts]
----

P: First, Tibor never defines respect. But from the above, it seems he thinks it means something like 'admire.'

And he's concerned about us admiring someone (even partially) who's NOT admirable. These NOT admirable people, the Hitlers and Bundy's, Tibor is only willing to concede minor or trivial virtues, such as looking after one's pets.

WHY is he concerned? IMO, it's because we won't be *tough* enough on them (through misunderstanding them). If said terrorist is conceded to be at all compassionate, honest, or courageous; to have the slight bit of integrity; we won't blow his head off upon capture. or we'll flinch at the thought of torturing him for information, and so imperil our troops.

The Black/White, Manichaean world view is essential to those planning certain 'tough' (ruthless) procedures. That a key element that Tibor has in common with Hitler; it's just that Hitler's white is Tibor's black, and vice versa. A 'man of action' requires certainties.

 

[past_perfect]

I find his choice of examples rather interesting. Dead people and criminals. I wouldn't define either of them as enemies myself. There are laws for criminals and there isn't much I can do about dead people.

Coming to think of it, I'd have trouble defining anyone as a current enemy of mine. Maybe I am respecting and understanding people too much.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'd like to make those decisions myself rather than someone else telling me who these people are and why they do what they do.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that I don't buy into abstracts (and abstract groups), as they tend to be used and abused beyond recognition to fit any kind of agenda (good example here respect equals tolerance? wtf is that?). That doesn't mean that I don't see the need for action and addressing problems.

Maybe it has to do with my decision to deal with reality as I comprehend it rather than that others try to sell me as objective.

I suppose it would be very difficult (but not impossible) to get people like me into a war. Hm, is that a bad thing?

 

[neonlyte]

Neon, when you say "lack objectivity" are you really saying "pretend to be objective when no such thing is possible, because everything is subjective?"

Not at all. It is almost impossible to be objective within the framework of one's own culture. To deal with an enemy, objectivity is essential. It's why we have 'generals' - though they too make mistakes. The problem with this 'question' is the concept of 'enemy'. A culture never sees itself as the enemy, the enemy are those who oppose the majority, and the majority are in turn the enemy of the minority.

The term 'enemy' is too loosely banded about, most modern 'enemies' merely express a different cultural opinion, only a few actually want to change the status quo. Differences of opinion can be talked to death. Those who want to physically/culturally change the will and customs of others are the only enemies I'm discussing. With those enemies, it is win or lose. Applying a moralistic arguement to battle with your enemy is self-defeating - What was the greater moral travesty - the British destruction of Dresden or the German invasion of Poland - it takes you no where. The protagonists on both sides (one assumes) considered (subjectively) the moral justification of their actions and objectively decided the action was correct, the winners do not need to justify their acts of war deemed essential to defeat the enemy. Citizens carry the moral judgement, generals act, but who is to say which side was right? Not history, it's largely written by the winner, a different history would have been applied if Germany had won WW2. (Please - no one take this as support for the Nazi's) To defeat your enemy - the one intent on changing your culture - you need utter objectivity - and the bollocks to see it through.

Also, if I apply that "there is no Morality in battle" to the kind of law enforcement situation inferred in some recent posts of a criminal murdering innocent hostages one-by-one to obtain an impossible demand*, would you claim there is moral equivalence between the criminal and the innocent hostage? Or to be more precise, between the criminal and the police sniper who has the criminal's head in his crosshairs (the rest of him covered by a human shield). If I assert that objectively speaking they are not morally equivalent, would you insist that my assertion is subjective, not objective?

*I mean literally impossible, like requiring Fidel to release all his political prisoners, or morally impossible, like handing his ex-wife and children for him to murder.

Look... people exerting extorsion against the will of a culture by taking life or threatening to take life are acting under their own moral imperative. They perceive an injustice and concoct a plan, usually with no chance of success by way of change, because the moral rights of the majority do not tolerate the taking of innocent life in pursuit of a minority goal. (Terrorism) An individual taking the same action is labelled Criminal - the police deal with them according to the will of the majority. Acting violently against the will of the majority will almost certainly lead to violent retribution (police sniper). I don't imagine the police sniper, in squeezing the trigger, is concerned about the criminals moral rights, by our standards, the criminal gave up those rights by resorting to violence. But you cannot say they are not morally equivalent, only that the majority despise the morals of the criminal, how could you otherwise know, our understanding of the criminals demands is subjectively viewed from our 'cultural vantage point' where 'we' are always right. The only objective position is deal with the criminal with as little colatoral damage as possible. Our culture does not give in to extorsion, it does not give in to criminals, or terrorism, or an enemy threatening cultural change. The culture is the collective will of the majority - by definition subjective, action to defeat the culture's enemy is always objective.

 

[Pure]

this reminds me of a big debate a while back, a little of which appeared on these boards:

were the 9-11 highjackers courageous (brave) ?

Tibor, Roxanne, etc. are committed to saying, "except in trivial matters (care of pets), there was nothing 'good' or estimable about them."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne: "Would you claim there is moral equivalence between the criminal and the innocent hostage? Or to be more precise, between the criminal and the police sniper who has the criminal's head in his crosshairs (the rest of him covered by a human shield)."

But you cannot say they are not morally equivalent, only that the majority despise the morals of the criminal, how could you otherwise know, our understanding of the criminals demands is subjectively viewed from our 'cultural vantage point' where 'we' are always right. The only objective position is deal with the criminal with as little colatoral damage as possible. Our culture does not give in to extorsion, it does not give in to criminals, or terrorism, or an enemy threatening cultural change. The culture is the collective will of the majority - by definition subjective, action to defeat the culture's enemy is always objective.

I can and do say that the criminal who threatens an innocent, and the police offcier who shoots the criminal to prevent the death of an innocent, are not morally equivalent. The criminal chose to take that which did not belong to him - the life of another. The policeman did not initiate the force. He just gave the criminal his choice - destruction - for the only person that the criminal had the right to make that choice for - himself. To say that they are equivalent because the policeman is merely acting from a "cultural vantage point" is wrong. The vantage point is not cultural, it's human.

What is "moral" then? Perhaps it is that which is good for human beings. You may say that I am a "species-ist" because I define morality from the vantage point of a human being. I agree, and the term is "humanist."

Morality is not a thing that exists independent of humans. It is an idea that humans invented to help humans live together in peace. Under this definition, due to the nature of humans, certain things will always and everywhere be immoral.

As a humanist I can and do say that the initiation of force in human societies is immoral, always and everywhere. Whether the use of force in response to the initiation of force is immoral depends on the context. Proportionality enters into it, and whether other choices exist. A police officer whose only option is to shoot a criminal in order to save an innocent person is acting in proportion to the threat, and morally. Destroying a city and 200,000 souls to send a message to the Russians is immoral.

 

[Liar]

To empathize is not to sympathize.

Ah, nevermind. Scrolling up I see you've already covered that. Nothing to see here, keep moving, peeps.