Israel/Gaza: human shields

[Penta]

Here's my two cents on the matter.

Not really the matter at hand, but fair enough.

one of the philosophies I strongly believe in is "Si vis pacem, para bellum"

I prefer "Si vis pacem, para pacem" (though I think that will make Jäeger snort in disbelief).

However, I also strongly espouse Thomas Jefferson's philosophies regarding war:

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."
"I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind."
"I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another."
"In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also."

I like all of those too. Pity your modern governments don't seem to agree.
I'm not keen on the last, though.

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

I certainly would never have wanted to be a soldier. Very glad my sons didn't either. If someone actually tried to invade us again, I - and they - would no doubt think differently, but I wouldn't want them inculcated with a military mindset when it wasn't necessary. I think it's better for people to be brought up in a spirit of free enquiry, and taught to think for themselves rather than to follow orders.

[Lost Boy]

Here's my two cents on the matter.

Not really the matter at hand, but fair enough.

You're right. Thank you for humoring me with a response, notwithstanding my off-topic rambling.

I'm not keen on the last, though.

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

I certainly would never have wanted to be a soldier. Very glad my sons didn't either. If someone actually tried to invade us again, I - and they - would no doubt think differently, but I wouldn't want them inculcated with a military mindset when it wasn't necessary. I think it's better for people to be brought up in a spirit of free enquiry, and taught to think for themselves rather than to follow orders.

I'm no soldier, either.
When Jefferson said this, there existed a very different definition for the term 'soldier'. In those days, a soldier was usually a farmer or tradesman, who was responsible for keeping and maintaining his own weapons, and usually was assigned to a local militia. They would train every so often, and were ready to respond at a moment's notice to any threat (i.e. Indian raid, piracy, etc.) to their state or township, or, less often, to their country (i.e. "The Redcoats are coming!" ;)
There were several pros to this type of military. It didn't strain the public coffers or require enormous funding to maintain, like our modern military-industrial complex. Also, the emphasis on this type of military was strictly for defense, as it would have been much more difficult to explain to a farmer or blacksmith why he was being called up to action and sent overseas to fight some politically hazy bush war. It is easy, however, for one to understand why he is being called up to defend his own town or state in the event that his country is invaded by enemies. One of the best results of having this type of military is the effect is has upon the common man's mindset. He takes his voting and civil duties very seriously, and tends to act in a much more responsible manner.

The only country I can think of that still uses this modus operandi is Switzerland, and I commend them for it. They don't involve themselves in other peoples' wars, (although I find their neutrality in WW2 a bit questionable). Their crime rate is very low, their citizens are generally responsible, and they don't get invaded. They also don't involve themselves in other peoples' wars.

Overall, the biggest advantage of requiring the common people to shoulder the burden of providing for their own defense is they tend to act more responsibly, and usually refrain from engaging in militaristic follies in other peoples' countries. Unless they are Mongols, that is.

[Penta]

My misunderstanding of the meaning of "soldier" then. And I'm all for "refrain[ing] from engaging in militaristic follies in other peoples' countries". I expect you guessed. ;)

[Lost Boy]

My misunderstanding of the meaning of "soldier" then. And I'm all for "refrain[ing] from engaging in militaristic follies in other peoples' countries". I expect you guessed. ;)

Something I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Penta]

ooh, it's a love-in!

[Lost Boy]

My misunderstanding of the meaning of "soldier" then. And I'm all for "refrain[ing] from engaging in militaristic follies in other peoples' countries". I expect you guessed. ;)

One addendum, if I may.

I should have said usually agree with. For example:
What if the U.S. had remained isolationist in WW1 or WW2? Most Americans saw our involvement in the war as folly. What would have happened if the U.S. decided to only retaliate against Japan for Pearl Harbor, but leave the Nazis alone? What if we said to England, "Sorry, guys, once was enough. You're on your own this time" and what if we didn't even support the Lend-Lease Act? Europe would have certainly been crushed between the Hitlerites and Stalinists. Maybe the U.S. as well, eventually. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Thoughts?

[Penta]

Yup, that's always the tricky one. And the question of alliances and treaties always complicates it too.

But mostly, seeing as you quoted Burke, I'd say that I'm currently trying (unsuccessfully, as usual*) to get my head round the concept of evil, and related questions of autonomy, determinism, responsibility and guilt, and have decided to give just war a rest for a bit. ;)

Edit: I sometimes wish philosophers would just give us the answers, instead of, supposedly, the tools to work things out for ourselves.

[Lost Boy]

Yup, that's always the tricky one. And the question of alliances and treaties always complicates it too.

But mostly, seeing as you quoted Burke, I'd say that I'm currently trying (unsuccessfully, as usual*) to get my head round the concept of evil, and related questions of autonomy, determinism, responsibility and guilt, and have decided to give just war a rest for a bit. ;)

Edit: I sometimes wish philosophers would just give us the answers, instead of, supposedly, the tools to work things out for ourselves.

Good and evil are not relative concepts, although I understand that it is politically incorrect to say that a person's opinion about what is good and evil may be wrong.

In this case, I thought it was pretty clear cut case of evil. A state-sanctioned genocide that includes working millions of people to death, systematically gassing them en masse, and then incinerating them- can safely be defined as 'evil.'

All in all, I thought that my country's decision to stop the Nazis from doing these things to your country was not an altogether unworthy endeavor.

[Penta]

In this case, I thought it was pretty clear cut case of evil. A state-sanctioned genocide that includes working millions of people to death, systematically gassing them en masse, and then incinerating them- can safely be defined as 'evil.'

All in all, I thought that my country's decision to stop the Nazis from doing these things to your country was not an altogether unworthy endeavor.

And very welcome - though some said not before time. ;)

I have difficulties with "evil", not so much with actions, but when used to describe individuals. And particularly because it's all so bound up with religions.
I prefer to think of good and bad (or harmful) and right and wrong (and to apply those to actions not people).

The interesting thing about describing someone as evil is that it's often used to push for very harsh punishments of those so described, and to pre-empt liberal ideas about social conditioning which are thought to lead to leniency in sentencing. But evil is also thought, by the same people who use it in that way, to be without cause or its own cause (or caused by the Devil). So an evil person does evil things simply because he is evil, and he can't help being evil, in which case no blame can be attached to him and he must be innocent (or at least he has no moral responsibility for the bad things he did). So I can't see for the life of me how labelling someone evil is at all helpful.

(Of course this sort of determinism works the other way as well: if a terrible upbringing or other social conditions are taken as causing this bad behaviour and the person is excused on those grounds, then again they've removed any idea of moral agency or responsibility.)

[Sri Lanky]

I prefer to think in terms of negative and positive. I have a hard time with the concept of good or evil being victorious over the other. Shit happens.....can only be true to yourself. To thine own self be true.