Respect Our Enemies -- Why?

[Roxanne Appleby]

Coming to think of it, I'd have trouble defining anyone as a current enemy of mine.

How about a guy who wants to fly an airplane into a building occupied by you and 3,000 of your neighbors because you don't agree with him about the nature of reality?

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

I think the nature of reality is that it mostly consists of emergent qualia and anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to a knuckle sandwich

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think the nature of reality is that it mostly consists of emergent qualia and anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to a knuckle sandwich

Oh yeah? That shows what you know. Everyone knows that it's all really explained here. The details are here.

 

[past_perfect]

How about a guy who wants to fly an airplane into a building occupied by you and 3,000 of your neighbors because you don't agree with him about the nature of reality?

Well, if such a person existed, he would probably my enemy.
I don't know of anyone who would do that because they don't agree with me about the nature of reality though. At present, I don't know of anyone who would consider me their enemy - but if that was the case, I'd like to know why - in other words, I would respect him as a human being and try to understand what his problem with me is - simply because he might not be the only one, so if I'd kill him, I might not have been able to resolve the problem.

Do you actually believe that was the reason for 9/11?
That'd be a rather unique view I haven't heard before.

I know of people who are willing to die and kill for their abstracts though - without actually understanding what they are, because they have been told that is the right thing to do. I'd think twice about that.

I mentioned that in another thread - I would have had to shoot at family members in case of an armed conflict between ideologies at the time that was still relevant. That was a real possibility for me at the time - part of my personal reality, my situation. I'd dealt with it if and when the situation became concrete for me. What, in your opinion, would have been the right and moral choice for me in that hypothetical scenario?

I had similar discussions in conjunction with the Israeli-Hisbollah conflict. A lot of Germans were quick in assuming a moral highground (with all due squirmishness and possible politcal correctness because of our past/in other words, the new version of anti-semitism) - I could not, for the simple reason that the Israeli's situation isn't mine, nor the one of the Hisbollah or the Lebanese people. I could respect and understand them, but I could not find an "objective" ground to judge either of them.

 

[neonlyte]

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.

Our cultural values are a sum of our individual human values - it is how culture adapts and changes. It is the culture that determines laws, decides - on moral grounds - what is right and what is wrong based upon the concensous of the individuals that make up the culture. Culture cannot be imposed against the will of the majority (communism?) but individuals within a culture can accept the majority view whilst still maintaining degrees of moral individuality (porn writers?).

The problem with dealing with specifics (the hostage taker and the policeman) is we all know the right moral answer - I hope - but our moral values have no bearing on the hostage taker who believes himself to be taking an objective stance based upon his own perception. He's moved away from the cultural mainstream, a renegade, a non-conformist. We judge him to have no moral rights, he forfeits his position.

A 100,000 renegades, holding 100,000 hostages, facing 100,000 policeman is a battle for survival. The most skilled, the most cunning, the most aggressive are likely to win. Innocent lives will be lost - where did morality go? Where did individual rights go? They play little part in the battle for survival. The only constant is the cultural value each side fights to defend.

As individuals, you and me, we can take the 'moral high ground', but I choose to recognise it as a subjective stance taken away from the heat of battle; in battle, the enemy wins, and that is both the other guy AND me, though culturally, we do not regard it as so.

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.

I'm largely in agreement - as a fellow humanist and member of the winning culture.
I'd also likely be in agreement - as a fellow humanist and member of the losing culture.
I might object as a persecuted member of a minority culture required to adapt to the winners cultural values.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Our cultural values are a sum of our individual human values - it is how culture adapts and changes. It is the culture that determines laws, decides - on moral grounds - what is right and what is wrong based upon the concensous of the individuals that make up the culture. Culture cannot be imposed against the will of the majority (communism?) but individuals within a culture can accept the majority view whilst still maintaining degrees of moral individuality (porn writers?)

Look again at the part of my post you agreed with: '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." '

You say "it is culture that determines what is right an wrong." No, a culture does not determine right and wrong on the really important things, according to the definition I offered. It may add a lot of its own rights and wrongs on "indifferent" things to use a term from Locke., and on those I agree with you. But on the kinds of things we're discussing - criminal killing an innocent, dictator committing mass murder, one human claiming ownership of another - right and wrong are determined by that which is good or bad for human beings by virtue of their nature as human beings. Defining that can get tricky, but it's not infinitely tricky, and so I can say with certainty that the crimes listed above are always and everywhere immoral, without regard to whether a particular culture condones them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne: "A guy flies an airplane into a building occupied by you and 3,000 of your neighbors because you don't agree with him about the nature of reality."

past_perfect: Well, if such a person existed, he would probably my enemy.
I don't know of anyone who would do that because they don't agree with me about the nature of reality though. Do you actually believe that was the reason for 9/11? That'd be a rather unique view I haven't heard before.

Unique? I doubt it. What do you think religion is, if not a particular view about the nature of reality? And so that is what religious wars are about. I'm not simplistic about this; I recognize there are all kinds of material and political elements to such things. But the thing that motivates a person to take their own life in an act of mass murder is not a mere disagreement over public policy, or the ownership of certain olive trees in Palestine.

past_perfect: I mentioned that in another thread - I would have had to shoot at family members in case of an armed conflict between ideologies at the time that was still relevant. That was a real possibility for me at the time - part of my personal reality, my situation. I'd dealt with it if and when the situation became concrete for me. What, in your opinion, would have been the right and moral choice for me in that hypothetical scenario?

Emigrate? Honestly, I don't know. Presumably you are discussing West Germans shooting at East Germans had the Cold War turned hot. Or you might be discussing the madness in the land of the Southern Slavs. If the latter, yeah, emigrate.The cold war example is a little different, because the goal of the Soviet empire was world domination, so if there was nothing to stop them we would all be studying Marx and Russian in school right now. That might be worth shooting a few relatives for. (Actually, depending on which relatives . . . no, never mind. )

 

[Pure]

hi neon,

NeonTo defeat your enemy - the one intent on changing your culture - you need utter objectivity - and the bollocks to see it through.

P: That's a nice statement. One problem with moralizing everything is that the other guy has to be not only against you, but evil; and with a little more mental effort (at caricature), basically weak. (Like the Nazi picture of the Jews. Even better, recall Hitlers famous remark, that the Brits were a nation of shopkeepers!)

Here's a true example. Around 1940, the Brits were in Hong Kong and the Japanese were on the move. With hindsight we see the Japanese were moving to take HK, Singapore and lots of E. Asia and various islands (since they had already taken Manchuria). The Brits did not take the threat seriously. One leader said, "What do we have to fear from a bunch a little people with thick glasses, who have no night vision."

The Japanese launched the invasion of HK at night and took it over very quickly (with lots of bloodshed)--a couple days, iirc. It made a fascinating documentary. Probably many Americans, until Pearl harbor had similar ideas about Japanese weakness.

There was a fine movie a while back, called, i think, "Tora, Tora Tora," and it told of the Pearl Harbor attack from both sides: following the Japanese fleet and the American military.

Were the Japanese worth 'respecting'? Well, the question has never gotten clarified with all this objectivist cant. But it seems that those who want to say, "There's nothing in them to respect or hold in esteem" are likely to infer weakness, since strength (wielded with any smarts) is a virtue.

Which raises the following issue: Let's assume there was nothing but evil in the Japanese, 1937-45. Well, that's very odd, since they became friends soon after the war and (iirc) less than a 100 were hung for war crimes, and certainly less than 1000 were imprisoned.

This problem [in propaganca] is treated in 1984, where the enemy is called despicable and the ally is admired-- there are only three mega countries. But then the fight shifts, and the former enemy is admired and the old ally becomes despicable. Maybe it requires 'doublethink.'! In WWII, the Chinese were the good guys, and the Japanese, the bad; then by 1950, the reverse held.

Here's a current issue. The mujahideen were valiant fighters in Reagan's time--worth funding, not just praising. They were praised for valor, endurance and daring for downing Russian copters with rockets. Now al qaeda is in Iraq, and the slimy, cowardly, bastards--totally evil, as Roxanne says; NOTHING estimable about them-- are downing American copters with dastardly sneak attacks.

 

[neonlyte]

Here's a current issue. The mujihideen were valiant fighter in Reagan's time. They were praised for valor and enduring and daring for downing Russian copters with rockets. Now al qaeda is in Iraq, and the slimy, cowardly, bastards--totally evil, as Roxanne says; NOTHING estimable about them-- are downing American copters with dastardly sneak attacks.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend - who said that?

Iraqi is now supposedly the friend, truth will eventually out that AQ was Iraqi's enemy, and The enmey of my friend is my enemy.

The convolutions are endless, as your examples show, as said before, the winner writes the history.

The issue of respect, as you rightly say, has been by-passed. Here's my take: Respect of an enemy is reserved for the Generals (all this in time of battle), a strategy, a manouvre, a tactic. Respect of an enemy cannot be allowed to descend to the culture or you risk losing objectivity - it is the role of the propagandists to paint the enemy as evil.

Post battle, respect of an enemy moves to a different platform. For one, the excesses of battle have to be justified, painting the defeated enemy as more than they were, or less than they were helps the process of justification, the excess of battle necessary due to the enemies 'valiance' or their 'atrocities', which ever the propagandists deem most appropriate. Then we come to the business of assimilating the enemy back into main stream culture: we do this now by helping reconstruct their countries in the belief that the former enemy culture will look upon the victors favourably and to impose elements of our culture upon them - make them more like us. (Raping and pilaging was so much simpler - and helped spread the gene pool) Few would deny a degree of respect for the modern economies of Japan and Germany, some might even envy their world position.

The problem with the Middle East is we don't begin to understand their culture, except where it overlaps with our own - economically for the most part. It is easy to see an enemy in a culture you do not understand, and as easy not to have any respect for that culture. Some of us (the wider us) do this at an individual level, still more accept the broad brush strokes of the propagandists, usually to be found working at the economic level. The propagandists work is aided by extremists who put the 'e' in evil (and enemy), and the cycle becomes self generative.

What is different today from 65 years ago is the culture. It is better informed, it is rapidly informed, it has 'voice' (on both sides), the excesses of battle cannot be easily covered over or ignored, and the morality of battle moves to the foreground. (Witness Iraq) Thus, the enemy becomes confusing, it is both within and without, we're not sure who are the enemy, we are certainly not sure who we ought respect. Demoralisation sets in within both cultures. Battle has changed. It has become prey to the subjectivists - the objectivists dare not 'utterly defeat' the enemy under the glare of the spotlight.

The trick with Iraq might be to win the propagandist battle in Iraq before it is lost 'at home'. My personal fear is even that might not be enough, it certainly will not defeat the people I'm supposed to call 'my enemy' (once more - on both sides). As things stand, there will be no winner until the atrocity committed in the name of battle cause one side to be the loser. Respect will follow - might take a while.

NOTE: Last post, away for a few days for hospital tests.

 

[past_perfect]

Unique? I doubt it. What do you think religion is, if not a particular view about the nature of reality? And so that is what religious wars are about. I'm not simplistic about this; I recognize there are all kinds of material and political elements to such things. But the thing that motivates a person to take their own life in an act of mass murder is not a mere disagreement over public policy, or the ownership of certain olive trees in Palestine.

No, it is simply their belief to achieve something with that act, that will further their cause (an abstract) more than staying alive. If I can gather anything from that statement, I would say you are in dire need of understanding arabic people, the way their societies work and what is actually going on there. I realize that it must be a bit more difficult getting unbiased information at your neck of the woods, but it is nevertheless possible.
The lack of respect for their culture (which includes their religion) is what pisses a lot of them off btw. The abstracts are interchangeable. Note that the ones coming up with these brilliant ideas are hardly ever seen on a battlefield.

Emigrate? Honestly, I don't know.

Hm, avoiding moral choices. Interesting. It was the East/West cold war problem btw. Actually, I tried that - if you were left-wing at the time, you were told "then go over to the other side if that's how you feel" - I tried that, unfortunately I had published several things already, so they turned me back at the border - apparently I was too radical and too far left for them. After that incident, the West German army wasn't interested in securing my services anymore. In case you are wondering - I have settled down somewhat since and revised my views considerably.

Interestingly enough, the "world domination" argument is used today by those who consider themselves your enemies. In their situation, it would appear that way. So I guess they are right to resist?

 

[elsol]

*yawn*

First step when you want to take the controls of war... dehumanize the enemy.

If you don't have a problem with crossing the line (I don't particularly even see a line) then don't respect the enemy.

I don't respect the enemy... but I have no problems with genocide, theo-cide, dropping a nuke on a fully populated city, torture-lite, torture-dark, torture-mestizo, just war, unjust war, just-because war...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

*yawn*

First step when you want to take the controls of war... dehumanize the enemy.

If you don't have a problem with crossing the line (I don't particularly even see a line) then don't respect the enemy.

I don't respect the enemy... but I have no problems with genocide, theo-cide, dropping a nuke on a fully populated city, torture-lite, torture-dark, torture-mestizo, just war, unjust war, just-because war...

I think your old "burp" would be more appropriate on this one.

 

[elsol]

I think your old "burp" would be more appropriate on this one.

This is a significantly easier question.

I couldn't work up the energy for a burp

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One of my philosophical "gurus" has shared this with me, and rather than steal this person's best lines I will just paste it:

"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."

Let's look at the alternative. Let's not respect them as human beings. Let's torture them and castrate them, flay the skin from their bodies and impale them on sticks and leave them to die. Lets starve them in concentration camps and make them work as slaves. Lets butcher their children and rape their women. Let's show them we can be just as scummy as they can. No--even scummier.

Does that make things better? Can we finally get some some sleep as a society now without worrying about how humanely they're being treated?

Here. Here's a box of razor blades and some nitric acid. You'll have to do it yourself, though, or find some objctivist buddies to give you a hand. You know, it's the damndest thing, but when they start that really loud shrieking, those enemies sometimes almost sound human to me.

 

[elsol]

Here. Here's a box of razor blades and some nitric acid. You'll have to do it yourself, though, or find some objctivist buddies to give you a hand. You know, it's the damndest thing, but when they start that really loud shrieking, those enemies sometimes almost sound human to me.

Now come on, objectivist believe in morals, and certain things would be out of line with any 'objective' moral system.

Oh wait, morals only apply towards other human beings, right? If you don't respect your enemies as human beings, it must be because you don't think they're human.

Cool, I was a little bit worried that Republicans would run out of people willing to do the torture thing then and come knocking on my door.

Believe me, NO ONE in their right mind wants me to walk down that path. No screaming you'd do under my ministrations would sound human... for long. (I've always wanted to try this 'suppossed' apache torture where they boil the blood in your brain.)

Inquisition! Inquisition! Inquisition!