The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
BTW, I meant what I said about your breath smelling like Scalia. If you’d like to see how Scalia uses history to dispose of epistemology and morality completely, I invite you to read his opinion about the 8th amendment in Harmelin.
Mespo: “I am simply saying your seeing the world myopically through Kantian glasses doesn’t make me want to visit my optician.”
Like I said, I choose him because I can’t refute him.
“Kant is certainly a great thinker but his belief that true morality is based and justified exclusively on duty grounds is assuredly and naively wrong.”
Pardon me, but, in light of your ignorance of Kant’s work, this seems like a a brazen unfounded statement more befitting a common troll. Let’s see how you support your ‘claim.’
“While it fits your extreme examples such as slavery or calling for an assassination,”
Instead of resorting to the rhetorical device of throwing me a bone, perhaps you might indulge me by showing me ‘how it fit.’ How else would I be able to verify your comprehension of the subject?
“pray tell how does Kant deal with moral questions presented over abortion, the morning after pill, eating meat on Friday, euthanasia, or even the mundane “helping little old ladies across the street.” Very little of the”duty” bright line tests there.”
Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target. Your posts regarding my use of Kantian analysis smacks of projection for your hatred of those who use a literal appeal to the Bible like a Magic 8-Ball. “How does Kant deal with…” Are you f’n kidding me? It’s as if you’re equating Kant with a fanatic’s use of Leviticus. Get over yourself. It’s not “how does Kant deal with” it’s “how do I deal with and formulate my arguments for doing so.” On the issue of abortion, et. al. I don’t simply open to a page of Kant, I formulate an argument built upon the PRINCIPLES (those non-spacio-temporal thingys) about the Social Compact, the alienable v. inalienable rights of the individual, the distinction between tyranny & usurpation, the necessity for maintaining said distinction so as to keep the social compact from becoming illusory, the distinctions between duties of virtue and duties of right (a Kantian analysis of the boundaries between state and individual responsibility) the commentaries of Blackstone and the viability of the fetus, etc., etc.
“[Kant’s] contributions are both remarkable and obscure. That is not to say that I waive my right to criticize obvious fallacies in his reasoning. Or do you assert that his philosophy is the perfect theory of everything.”
How can “Kant’s fallacies” be obvious if you’ve never addressed them much less attempted to refute them? Further, if you’ve found any fallacies, they are most assuredly mine. However, before you accuse me of invoking a fallacy, I would advise you to make sure you’re familiar enough with said fallacy to ensure your accusation is correct. (see your post re: “argument from authority” etc.)
Mespo: “Kant may have been perfectly consistent in the philosophical construct he created, but like so many philosophers he avoided those inevitable dust-ups with the real world.”
I couldn’t agree more. Take his death penalty arguments he penned late in life. Doesn’t mean I can’t use his same methodology to show how he contradicted himself and thereby make the argument that the death penalty is non-feasible under the categorical imperative.
And here’s why I continue to remind you of your ignorance of Kant:
Mespo: “This refusal to test theory outside of the laboratory of the mind is blatant disregard of ecological validity. Ask Rick Wagoner. Utopias are as hard to come by in business as in societal architecture.”
Kant is not about theory but principles uncovered by a certain methodology of thinking. Here’s a rhetorical example of what I mean from Robert Pirsig:
“For this eighteenth-century German philosopher [Phaedrus] feels a respect that rises not out of agreement but out of appreciation for Kant’s formidable logical fortification of his position [in the Critique of Pure Reason]. Kant is always superbly methodical, persistent, regular and meticulous as he scales that great snowy mountain of thought concerning what is in the mind and what is outside the mind. It is, for modern climbers, one of the highest peaks of all, and I want now to magnify this picture of Kant and show a little about how he thought and how Phædrus thought about him in order to give a clearer picture of what the high country of the mind is like and also to prepare the way for an understanding of Phædrus’ thoughts.”
But why should an analysis of Kant stand in your way; when it’s far easier to plow him aside with a few glib irrelevant remarks paving the way for the sophistry you offer as substitute for a formidable counter-argument.
Mespo: “Your refusal to accept that SOME morality is relative to the time employed bespeaks a refusal to look at historical fact and the documented evolution of morals. Maybe Nietzsche should be on your reading list for some balance.”
Are you aware that you have yet to formulate an argument to justify your position Mr. Coyote? And regarding Kant v. Nietzsche, care to tell me where I’ve invoked Christianity as a basis for analyzing morals, or how Kant is seen as a traditional thinker about morals? It seems your hatred (well founded or not) of organized religion has blinded you to the finer points of argumentation. You don’t suffer from “quick-read-itis” you suffer from ‘quick-to-conclusion-itis.’
Finally, seeing once again you failed to challenge or concede any point I made in my previous post, I’m beginning to wonder if the term ‘counter-argument’ exists within your vernacular.
“How does Kant deal with?” — You’re funny.
I’ll have to reread this post again buddha, I can obviously tell you put a lot of thought into it and it is beautifully presented. I will have to reflect on it, in order to appreciate it in its’ totality. I was only referring to morals from the standpoint of a Catholic/ Christian platform. Obviously one does not have to be a Christian to have a moral center. I have met many who profess “know religion” but seem to possess a better moral compass than those who seemingly are religious. I say religious and not spiritual. As I get older I am trying to become more spiritual because I have the religion part covered. I am not a philosopher, but I “think” most philosophers were trying to establish principles for the conduct of life. In this process they encourage others to develop and establish priciples as well. Philosophy helped me to think and appreciate the process of divergent thinking. I am not sure it is beneficial to subscribe to the value system of every philosopher, but to use it as a means to develop ones’ own platform to think critically and spatially..
billy,
First, in order for us to get along better, please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the “evolution of morals” because I would never frame “morals” as evolving as “morals” is a value loaded word based in some religious dogma. But the non dogmatic study of ethics has certainly evolved over time. If you don’t believe that, please feel free to ask Bob, Esq to contrast Aristotle and Kant. That will paint your wagon. What I was talking about is the science behind the propagation of ideas and how it mimics biological process – one that happens to support evolution. That you equated this to morals only presents the case to highlight the distinction and the importance of terminology, thus confirming my original assertion by providing a greater degree of contrast – a higher resolution data set.
Second, that you cannot accept this shows that you should also brush up on the basic concepts of cybernetics and molecular biology. Perhaps some information theory while you’re at it. An argument based in dogma will always fail to an argument based in the scientific method simply because one system can be demonstrated and repeated in the real world to create measurable results and the other is simply either individual or organizational wishful thinking in the end. A belief with no proof is not going to win an argument as arguments by their nature are based as much in the nature of proofs as in the logical relationships created by interactions. Dogmatic thinking is based in “belief without question” and that’s ultimately at odds with basic logic. Dogmatic arguments don’t work outside the context of a religious organizations structure proper. It’s the difference between internal logical consistency and actual logic – a basic lesson often demonstrated around here with the various “The moon is made of green cheese” argument. So in summation, that’s multiple sciences with their testable theories and hypothesis and logical conclusions vs. some dogma loaded “morals” that are contextually out of place and will not yield in the face of demonstrable facts because they are an organizational construct not interested in logics that don’t perpetual the organization proper to the benefit of those who run the organization. Hmmm. Part of the scientific method is to seek to reduce error in your data sets by using either physical experimental data and/or mathematical proofs that seek to eliminate both experimenter’s biases and mathematical misadventure. Part of dogmatic thinking is to ignore or attempt to quash what the organization and its leaders perceive as a threat, be it an actual error or not. Ask Galileo.
But let’s not neglect the viruses.
Viruses are something that we can actually demonstrate in real time some evolutionary concepts – especially the ideas of convergent and divergent evolution – something also demonstrated in the distribution and changes to memes across a system over time. We can do the same thing in breeding/genetically manipulating some simple creatures like fruit flies. And your cute little puppy didn’t just spring to magical existence different from his wolf ancestors. It got that way because we bred for selective traits over time. We humans were just the one’s making the choices about which traits get selected. We “played God”. Oops. And we still do every day in labs across the world. If you don’t believe this, then I guess you won’t be wanting any vaccines in the near future.
I am not a philosopher, I am not an attorney, I took a philosophy course at University many moons ago. I am not an authority on Kant or Camus or Nietzsche. You “judge”, are an obviously very brilliant individual, I read your posts, you are a very talented writer. All you guys blow me away! By reading and sharing, it is helping me develop and sharpen my tools that have somewhat atrophied over the years..
This is rather stimulating, thank you for allowing me to share and read.
billy:
“Because I “championed” Bobs’ rebuttal was not intended to impugn you Judge.”
***************
Not taken as a slight. I merely was hoping you would add your considered insight into the discussion rather than reiterating praise you obviously felt several posts ago.
Cheering and admiration are fine but as players in the game all know it’s USUALLY accomplished by those who can’t or won’t play the game. I think you can play.
That is not the point I was trying to illustrate. My argument was”finer” than that. I was referring to “cultural mores” that are considered abominable by Christians, but not seen as morally offensive by some primitive cultures. Through the process of moral education or missionary work, these cultures were taught that this behavior was morally offensive and not acceptable. They already understood that stealing was wrong! They have a conscience that was given to them by God at birth. Through a culture of paganism, they developed a deformed conscience in other areas. These areas are, but not limited to cannibalism, polygamy, and a whole host of other savage customs.
billy”
You say earlier:
“Morality is not fostered in historical experience . It stems from mans historical appeal to religion, which serves as a moral compass in assisting in mans decision to follow his “conscience” or the “evil one”.”
and now you say:
“The understanding that stealing was evil is self evident, even when studying the cultures of ancient civilzations who were never exposed to the Gospels or the Old Testament.”
Thank you for coming around to my point that the need for morality seems intuitive in humans independent of religion, and that it develops along with, and not contrary to, its historical context. BTW not all cultures consider stealing or even murder morally wrong as we have discussed on the blog before.
Because I “championed” Bobs’ rebuttal was not intended to impugn you Judge.
Judge, don’t take what I shared as a “narcissistic injury”..
The understanding that stealing was evil is self evident, even when studying the cultures of ancient civilzations who were never exposed to the Gospels or the Old Testament.
The documented “evolution of morals”? What you call “moral evolution”, some call “moral education” or missionary work. Stealing is as contemptible now as it was when the Ten Commandmendts were given to Moses, evolution was not needed to realize that even “ancient man” could discern that stealing was evil. When missionaries explained to pagan cultures that “cannibalism” was morally wrong, this was “moral education” or reeducation. The “evolution takes place when the student of the “converter” embraces the “moral philosophy”, or “theology, in the case of “morality” having an origin in Christianity.
billy:
Thanks billy we’ll fit you for pleated skirt, knee socks and megaphone later. Head on off to the gym for more mental aerobics.
Bob, Esq.:
My, my testy today. I am simply saying your seeing the world myopically through Kantian glasses doesn’t make me want to visit my optician. Kant is certainly a great thinker but his belief that true morality is based and justified exclusively on duty grounds is assuredly and naively wrong. While it fits your extreme examples such as slavery or calling for an assassination, pray tell how does Kant deal with moral questions presented over abortion, the morning after pill, eating meat on Friday, euthanasia, or even the mundane “helping little old ladies across the street.” Very little of the”duty” bright line tests there.
On the issue of your knowledge of Kant versus mine, I, of course, accept your superior study of the philosopher. His contributions are both remarkable and obscure. That is not to say that I waive my right to criticize obvious fallacies in his reasoning. Or do you assert that his philosophy is the perfect theory of everything. Duncey me, I thought he was mortal! And let’s not fall into the trap of saying because I don’t have the technical knowledge that a GM exec. has that I may not criticize their decisions on running a car business. Kant may have been perfectly consistent in the philosophical construct he created, but like so many philosophers he avoided those inevitable dust-ups with the real world. This refusal to test theory outside of the laboratory of the mind is blatant disregard of ecological validity. Ask Rick Wagoner. Utopias are as hard to come by in business as in societal architecture.
Your refusal to accept that SOME morality is relative to the time employed bespeaks a refusal to look at historical fact and the documented evolution of morals. Maybe Nietzsche should be on your reading list for some balance.
I will reiterate last nights’ post. This is the best rebuttal I have read so far, it was only eclipsed by the latest rebuttal from Bob Esq.. By reading and responding to these posts it helps to sharpen my own dormant “mental” muscles.
Mespo:
“Bob,Esq reduces most every rebuttal to a Kantian analysis of morality based on principles of duty or necessity divorced from experience. His admiration for Kant is palpable (as Mike S. points out), and that my student of logic, without more, is the fallacy of an appeal to authority.”
First, I tend to employ Kantian analysis because it happens to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. You having confessed to no knowledge of said knife have no business opining about said knife.
Second, let’s get our informal fallacies straight. To accuse me of invoking ‘appeal to authority’ with Kant, you’d have to show that I used a BARE statement by Kant and held it out to be true simply because HE said it. However, notwithstanding your confessed and chosen ignorance of Kant, I quoted an implicit ARGUMENT by him; not a statement. Further, and obviously, the quote was not used as a summary conclusion to the argument about Israel; it was part of an ar-gu-ment.
Mespo: “In it’s pristine form morality may indeed be based on notions of duty and necessity, but pray tell, from whence do we get these notions. Are they just there rattling around in our heads? I think not.”
Now you’re just appealing to your own ignorance.
Mespo: “I suggest that we get them from common historical experience which provides societal support for normative conduct. To my mind, that is what Mike S. is saying about the mid-East problem. History has prescribed opposing duties to each of these antagonists which compel them to act in accord with their perceptions of morality.”
If that’s not sophomoric relativism, I don’t know what is. Slavery isn’t right or wrong morally; it’s just a matter of who happens to be thinking about it at the time – right? You have no right to be morally outraged that someone posted a poll on facebook asking whether the president should be assassinated — because in your world, there’s just other points of view. They have their duties and you have yours, so suit up and defend your … was it an opinion or something you call ‘morality?’
Mespo: “Ultimately and in my judgment, Mike S is right.”
Could you offer at least a syllogism, or must you continually appeal to your own authority?
Mespo: “Bob,Esq barely conceals his resentment of Israel when he so “Freudianly” laments that “… she’s (Israel) just never called on anything; like my sister.”
First, the use of the ‘she’ pronoun was Mike’s; to which I merely responded in form. To toss in the “Freudianly” comment was sheer intellectual dishonesty. Your second act of intellectual dishonesty was to ignore the fact that Mike S. agreed with my comparison of Israel to my sister and her post traumatic sense of a-morality.
Mespo: “This is personal opinion with a Kantian overcoat.”
So you’re saying I simply opined about the simile; no arguments? How did I do it? Lemme guess, I said “My sister is like Israel because Kant says so? Like that Mespo?
Mespo: “In my experience, Israel is “called” on many things–this report being just one of them.”
So you do you think Jimmy Carter’s observations are incorrect? In your experience, perhaps you can justify for all of us the invasion of Lebanon. Just how does your historically based morality see the detainment of two soldiers and the random non-government authorized firing of rockets justify a full scale invasion of a country? And while you’re at it, perhaps you’ll share some insight as to where the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stands in your historically based metaphysics of morals. Cause if I’m not mistaken, you’ve got Scalia on your breath. (See Harmelin v. Michigan)
nal:
I took it that way. You are the victim of “quick-read-itis.”
Byron,
Evolution is the precise word. You need to read about cybernetics. Memes operate a LOT like a virus. They not only propagate on similar models, they also adapt to local circumstances and mutate in general like a virus subject to speciation pressures.
Billy,
Apology and olive branch accepted.