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.
Buddha:
“There are absolute truths in the world, but the path to divining their nature is strewn with the traps of ethical relativism.”
*************************
I don’t dispute the existence of some universal truths merely I say that most of our notions of morals, ethics or good vs. bad boils down to our judgment as to whether the act causes more pain or pleasure. To that extent it is relative. That most societies agree to it, makes the value universal, but I do not subscribe to the Platonian “Forms In The Sky” model which holds there is some perfect moral law divorced from human experience. Each human act exists within its context and is judged as such based upon our experience with similar situations. Isn’t that, at its core essence, what we do in court each and every day?
Mike S.: “As I see it you are quite comfortable discussing anything as long as you set the terms of the discussion and refuse to engage in areas that you discount, i.e. history vs. your notion of moral absolutes as per Kant. So be it.”
Seeing I offered my argument for taking my position of refusing to use history as a basis for morality, further shown by my disgust with Scalia’s employment of same tactic in Harmelin, a counter-argument in lieu of pouting that I’m some kind of stubborn five year old would be appreciated.
Mike S.: “You may characterize my treatment of Palestinian and Semite as being abstract, but I believe I was quite datailed in my not accepting either.”
No, you were abstract in your use of Semite; your use of Palestinian was connotatively dismissive.
Mike S.: “I note that in both cases you never presented your own refutation of my points, merely ingnored them. So can I assume your position is: that it’s discuss an issue in the terms you set, or you will just ignore my responses? Nice technique if you can make it work and effective in court with sympathetic judges and incompetent opponents.”
You seem to forget that argument is built upon a foundation of claims and suppositions. Should I choose to attack any portion of your foundation, it is your obligation as opponent to defend it in lieu of summarily dismissing my counter-argument just so we can muse about your opinions/conclusions.
Mike S.: “Bob, as much as you may wish it, I’m not on the stand and not undergoing your no doubt formidible cross-examination. I have already explained to you that philosophy as a subject holds no interest for me, nor do I consider it relevant to anything but the self-congratulatory rooting of philosophy fans. i.e. My Kant is better than your Wittgenstein. Incidentally, with somewhat more intelligence to be sure, to me fans of philosophy are as important to the world as are fans of sport. It means alot to each and they can get agitated about it, but it’s only
so much sturm und drang that is used by some in retrospect to justify their actions.”
First, I’m not a trial attorney. Second, I didn’t ask you to accept Kant’s argument; I invited you to refute it. Third, your carpet bombing of philosophy and philosophers in general represents nothing more than an en masse ad hominem. Fourth, I offered the quote from Kant as one of the reasons I refuse to accept History based morality. In doing so, I would toss in an additional claim that I challenged your points at their very roots. Just how does your attack on philosophy and philosophers rise to the level of counter-argument?
Mike S.: “Not any more than you’ve paid attention to my belief that nations and international relations are not motivated by morality, ever.”
The question was never “what motivates a country” the question was “is the country morally culpable.”
Mike S.: Bob, I think my statement is clear. You present your opinion to make your arguments, with a dash of Kant, but little to no data/facts to back up the opinion.”
If I’ve made any argument requiring further facts to back it up, then why don’t you simply enlighten me as to what facts they are in your counter-argument in lieu of simply making the bald assertion?
Mike S.: “Bob, you called me out and indeed chose to have an “argument” with me, I note and not to engage in a discussion with me which was also an equally valid and less oppositional course to take.”
Mike, argumentation is not about mere conflict. Argumentation is the method by which two people reach truth in agreement.
Mike S.: “While I know you like to think in philosophical terms, my perception of you in this discourse is you want to quarrel. Quarreling on your part, on this issue, puts me at a disadvantage. This is because my position on Israel is not one of fully defending all of its’ actions, whereas yours is that the country is itself immoral.”
I never made any such claim Mike, so I’d appreciate it if you’d stop throwing your premises into my arguments and attacking them as if they were my own. I no more consider Israel to be an immoral state than I consider the U.S. to be during and post Bush/Cheney. Further, you acknowledged the root problem when you assented to the comparison between Israel and my sister. The walking on egg-shells problem; no one dare chastise or reprimand her for her inappropriate actions; after all, her previous suffering gives license — or does it make us irrationally reticent to stop her at all— and just look the other way.
Mike S.: “The dichotomy in what I’m saying exists only in your mind. While I agreed that Israel behaves like your sister I present the historical context for it and at the same time decry it. I’m saying to make it plain, that Israel’s experience of constant attacks has so affected its’ people, that they feel justified in acting any way they can, to strike back at their enemies. There is a difference between Israel and your sister though. She was sexually assaulted once, whereas Israel has had ongoing assaults.”
Since when does ‘feeling justified’ act as a substitute for ‘justification?’ How does one assault differ from ongoing assaults in the context of ‘feeling justified’ equals actual justification? You’ve just created the perfect defense FOR EVERYTHING; ‘feeling justified.’ My God man, your premise makes civilized society itself disappear.
Court: “You stand accused of raping and murdering your wife, how do you plea?”
Defendant: Not guilty
Court: Your defense?
Defendant: “I felt justified”
Court: “Defense accepted, case dismissed.”
In contrast to simply ‘feeling justified’, which I maintain stems from an attitude of moral immaculateness, there’s the ‘self defense’ option. This too, however, has its limits. There’s an element known as ‘proportionality.’ For example, killing a man for spilling hot coffee over you would be considered… ‘dis-proportional’ and thus making the actor morally (and criminally) culpable.
Not to keep pressing the issue, but you seem to have a problem stating whether Israel acted proportionally in waging war against Lebanon. (see previous posts for specifics)
Mike S.: “Despite that overall feeling of justification that Israeli’s might have, the position of their government has never been that Israel has a right to do whatever it wants. Much of that mat be hypocritical to be sure, but then please inform me of any government in history that hasn’t been both hypocritical and amoral?”
Tu quo que Mike. It seems the only part of my argument that you absolutely refuse to assent to is the world walking on egg-shells regarding any of Israel’s (allegedly wrongful) actions because of the Holocaust, yet you accept that Israel has been acting far more on a ‘feeling’ of entitlement to act immorally because of the traumas that the Jews suffered.
Mike S.: “Bob, I’ve admired your writing and agreed with you on many things, but this is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you write. Comic relief? You are patronizing me and in this instance and being pompous to boot. You may not be able to empathize with my feelings/thoughts/premises, admittedly, but I would think that you would have the decency, nay morality, to understand that I truly believe them and have provided reasons for my beliefs.”
I may not be a psychologist, but I can spot when fear over comes rationality. There was no ill will in that portion of the post and my attempt to quell your fear with laughter was not pompous but genuine. The fact that I confessed that I would take up my Model 70 and summarily kill off as many of the antagonists in your nightmare, within 300-400 yards of me, should have been ample evidence of my empathy regarding your nightmarish beliefs. Oh yeah, did I mention that there are Jews’ in my family?
BTW, that last sentence doesn’t count as a premise for an argument. It’s merely a statement regarding ‘feelings’ about this matter.
Finally Mike, I applaud you for engaging the argument in lieu of changing the entire subject with each post.
Buddha,
Speaking personally from my own experience, the difficulty with pursuing truth is that it results in more and more humbleness as opposed to greater and greater self glorification.
Also, it’s difficult to make the jump from self-preservation in order to pursue truth wherever it might take you.
The most painful experience I’ve ever had was seeing myself from a pure perspective. I knew myself to be ugly then. It was painful beyond words because there was no escape, not even in death.
Bob,
Oh I’ve read Harmelin and I am truly appalled by Scalia’s “reasoning”, but I was just talking the phraseology itself. I too think mespo is off track on this one. This is why.
There are absolute truths in the world, but the path to divining their nature is strewn with the traps of ethical relativism. Some are easy to distill, others not so. It is through the defeat of these traps with reason that we distill greater truths or learn which traps are inescapable (due to whatever reason, but the most prevalent I can think of is that a decision is so situation specific as to have no application in “normal” life). mespo is falling into moral relativism I cannot argue otherwise.
But still, a harsh comparison.
“Your classical background would, if I am right, cause you to reject Kant because for the Greeks it was all about living in the world. You used your mind to understand what was in front of you based on your senses. Kant, I think, reverses that order. in other words existence does not exist without the existent. Whereas you probably believe that existence is perceived and conceptualized by the existent. Anyway just some thoughts, mostly baby steps.”
********************
You must be a big baby for steps like that. I do reject epistemological idealism as being useful only in an abstract or academic discussion. I would say existence only exists in a place conducive to existence and is as much a part of the whole experience as the perceptions of the observer. I would further say that “place” is as real objectively as it is subjectively, or maybe moreso. Was there no universe before we migrated from the ooze?
Don’t get “bitter” Mike. I still like you. I get a “barrels worth of entertainment” reading your posts. Really, I do.. Anytime someone wants to discuss religion, the middle east and morality, you are gonna get division. These topics are a “lightning rod” for intense and often hard feelings. When a person “goes their”, it gets “hot” quickly. I liken it to the “Pooh story”. Little Pooh kept sticking his nose into the honey pot. Eventually his head got stuck, you know the rest..
Buddha: “Wow. Now them is a fightin’ words. And the very idea makes me want mouthwash. Listerine. Acetone. Searing hot plasma. Whatever it takes to get that image out of my mind and away from my mouth.”
Here’s the result of His-Story based analysis of morals:
His Lordship:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7272.ZO.html
Note that in Scalia’s world, epistemic marvels arrive at the predicates ‘cruel and unuusual’ without any judgment whatsoever.
Mespo: “Though I wish I could provide you a Schopenhauer-esque critique of Kant”
No you can’t. We weren’t discussing the Critique or the ding an sich. We were discussing methodology in approaching principles of morals. If Schopenhauer reached conclusions differing from Kant, or claimed there were further steps than just uncovering ‘duties,’ would you have provided a critique or a smoke-screen?
And as an attorney, are your duties in any way tied to your experiences as an individual with a will in the world?
Mike,
Western Fresh Water Salmon? That sounds like it’s either: Made up, farmed salmon, or Kokanee. I’m o.k. with either the first or the last, but if it’s the middle one we need to talk.
That’s right Mike. California, “a land of milk and honey”. Mike, that was a pricelss post, loved it!
Buddha,
I agree, but didn’t want to go into a Mike sized post, because that’s just too much proof reading.
My point was simply that talking about “morals” like they’re separate from the rest of human development is like saying “I believe animals evolved, but not humans.”
“I “like” you Mike, but you have done some serious “troll-baiting” on anything related to Judaism, the Holocaust, Israel, and rants against Catholicism.”
Gee Whiz Billy,
I certainly appreciate you liking me and I will spend awhile framing an answer to your accusation of my bigotry towards the RCC. Unfortunately right now there’s no food in the house and my beautiful wife is hungry and my reply to Bob took up too much time
So I’m off in my Brand New Land Rover, top of the line you know, leaving my huge Country Club Condominium and driving over the a very upscale food emporium. There I’ll replenish my food with a selection of prime beef, sushi Grade Tuna, Western Fresh Water Salmon and free range chicken. Ah, its’ a wonderful life I have, just like yours which you have told us about in such detail.
Gyges,
Not all people moralize, but most moral people are in effect ethicists without method or they are backing blind belief with dogma. Morals don’t work anymore because they have become tools of organizations first and good guidance second. This is self-evident. But this isn’t as territorial as it seems. It’s not morals vs. ethics. It’s realizing that morals are an incomplete truth and that ethics – the search for greater common truths through dialects and logic – simply provides a better tool as it is reality based and does not bend to institutional prerogative.
At one time, we could only make bronze tools. Now we make exotic alloy tools. All knowledge, including the search for truth and good in the world (both subjects of religion and ethics), is a continuum. What a bronze age smith considered metallurgy is probably something a modern smith would giggle at its inadequacy and quaintness.
I submit that morals and ethics are both the same game – the search for the good, but that one has a better tool set for getting at the truth. Morals have become the Neanderthal of analysis in the search for what constitutes good humane behavior. Organization distortion has become moral’s equivalent of a thick protruding brow and small brain case. Being good and cooperative and altruistic are every bit the survival adaptation. And the conscious choice to embrace that fact over embracing the worn and dangerous mode of competition, aggression and alienation is (IMO) the next step in human evolution. And I say it’s a conscious choice too. Technology has unbalanced the playing field and we as a physical species are not adapting fast enough to cope with the changes. Our next step MUST be volitional.
“Would you say that you treat the terms Palestinian and Semite in an equally abstract manner? Whether or not I read your earlier posts bears no relevance to the handling of the terms here.”
Bob, Esq.,
As I see it you are quite comfortable discussing anything as long as you set the terms of the discussion and refuse to engage in areas that you discount, i.e. history vs. your notion of moral absolutes as per Kant. So be it.
You may characterize my treatment of Palestinian and Semite as being abstract, but I believe I was quite datailed in my not accepting either. I note that in both cases you never presented your own refutation of my points, merely ingnored them. So can I assume your position is: that it’s discuss an issue in the terms you set, or you will just ignore my responses? Nice technique if you can make it work and effective in court with sympathetic judges and incompetent opponents.
In principle, it does:
Kant: “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be valid morally, i.e., as the ground of an obligation, has to carry absolute necessity with it;……………………………….
Saturday bath material? Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing; most importantly explain logically — why?”
Bob, as much as you may wish it, I’m not on the stand and not undergoing your no doubt formidible cross-examination. I have already explained to you that philosophy as a subject holds no interest for me, nor do I consider it relevant to anything but the self-congratulatory rooting of philosophy fans. i.e. My Kant is better than your Wittgenstein. Incidentally, with somewhat more intelligence to be sure, to me fans of philosophy are as important to the world as are fans of sport. It means alot to each and they can get agitated about it, but it’s only
so much sturm und drang that is used by some in retrospect to justify their actions.
“On to the issue of Lebanon. Let’s start again; without you injecting yourself into the picture.”
Let’s not start again, especially after the snarkiness of your call to start. You want me to not inject myself and yet by dint of your opinion you have injected yourself, without any data to back up your statements. So in essence what you want is dueling opinions, framed in the context of your choice, with you having the option to reply to me or not given your definition of context. Nice work if you can get it, but you’ve picked the wrong patsy.
“Are you getting a handle yet on why I’m CONSTRAINED to reject history as any form of moral compass?”
Not any more than you’ve paid attention to my belief that nations and international relations are not motivated by morality, ever.
“”Mike S.: “Bob where have I ever talked of or defended Israel as a place of “moral immaculateness?”
That’s a re-assertion of one of my claims.”
Bob, that is pure sophistry on your part and you’re smart enough to know it. when you posited “moral immaculateness” it was directed at my post.
“While I appreciate the history lesson, I must inform you that this line of argument leads no where but to an irrelevant dead end per the topic of Israel’s self-perceived moral immaculateness.”
Once again Bob defines the terms of discussion and throws in his “zinger.” However, since you were replying to my post and I specifically have never claimed the defense of “moral immaculateness” for Israel, or believe that Israel as a nation does, then in my opinion you were setting up a straw man. Do some Jews assert something like that sure. Do some Israeli’s, I believe less than you think. Neither the government of Israel, nor I, nor even the majority of Jews in this world believes that.
We really are not a people that believes in nor practices homogeneity of thought. Unles you can give me data that’s proof of your claim, it remains simply your opinion, which I opine is based on your visceral perceptions. By the way don’t you agree that that whole quote was dismissive and snarky in tone? Good tactic, but somewhat dishonest.
“Mike, I am not debating a perception; I’m discussing with an intelligent person, who has a proclivity for being fairly verbose (& troll-baiting) on the topic of Jews, Judaism & Israel (and dare we forget circumcision), my claims about the state of Israel and its a-moral similarity to my sister.”
Yes Bob I am verbose and I do bait trolls on many topics. I am open to the charge that I get involved in a lot of discussions about Jews and Israel, but once again your perception is skewed because I purposely avoid many other topics about Israel and/or about Jews. What happens though, is when these topics come up I get people asking my opinion and although you claim my past writing is irrelvevant (when it suits you)I don’t believe that I can in anyway be characterized as a dogmatic follower of Israel and/or one who is loath to criticize Israel. However, since I am a self-identified Jew, and damn proud of it, I can understand why people think of me when related topics arise.
“Mike, to say that most of what I write is merely opinion is to say I don’t know how to argue. I’m not opining, I’m arguing.”
Bob, I think my statement is clear. You present your opinion to make your arguments, with a dash of Kant, but little to no data/facts to back up the opinion. You might not be satisfied by my output, but I at least make the effort to give my perceptions historical contexts (which can be easily checked) and/or data to back up what I’m saying. In your preference to argue on your own terms you prefer to make unsupported statements. That’s fine but that doen’t mean I have to accept your premises.
“Mike, I chose to have an argument with you. And what is an argument; a pile of opinions? No. To paraphrase: ‘Arguing is reason giving. Reasons are justifications or support for claims. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or opinion.'”
Bob, you called me out and indeed chose to have an “argument” with me, I note and not to engage in a discussion with me which was also an equally valid and less oppositional course to take.
Bob, I’ve given my reasons and reasoning, which obviously differs with yours and while you are free to refute or disacount them, you merely (like history) dismiss them. So we are seeing you in full and deliberate argument mode and I suggest you use your dictionary to see that there is a huge difference between
discussion, debate and argument. Now to you, argument is probably
defined in philosophical terms:
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/definition-of-argument/
This is again your way of trying to define your terms of discourse. To me though an argument is a quarrel and that connotes something different. While I know you like to think in philosophical terms, my perception of you in this discourse is you want to quarrel. Quarreling on your part, on this issue, puts me at a disadvantage. This is because my position on Israel is not one of fully defending all of its’ actions, whereas yours is that the country is itself immoral.
“I ‘believe’ opinions change much quicker than arguments; and I believe you’ve contradicted your initial ‘opinion.’”
The dichotomy in what I’m saying exists only in your mind. While I agreed that Israel behaves like your sister I present the historical context for it and at the same time decry it. I’m saying to make it plain, that Israel’s experience of constant attacks has so affected its’ people, that they feel justified in acting any way they can, to strike back at their enemies. There is a difference between Israel and your sister though. She was sexually assaulted once, whereas Israel has had ongoing assaults.
Despite that overall feeling of justification that Israeli’s might have, the position of their government has never been that Israel has a right to do whatever it wants. Much of that mat be hypocritical to be sure, but then please inform me of any government in history that hasn’t been both hypocritical and amoral?
“I’m not mocking you but I can’t empathize with the reasons you give for dreaming up your nightmare scenarios.”
When I state that I’m dead serious about something and you describe it as a “nightmare scenario” you are mocking.
“Alright, maybe that could be considered mocking, but couldn’t it also be considered comic relief to distract you from your proclivity for dreaming up extraordinarily fearful scenarios for yourself?”
Bob, I’ve admired your writing and agreed with you on many things, but this is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you write. Comic relief? You are patronizing me and in this instance and being pompous to boot. You may not be able to empathize with my feelings/thoughts/premises, admittedly, but I would think that you would have the decency, nay morality, to understand that I truly believe them and have provided reasons for my beliefs.
“So…why do you ‘believe’ you’re right?”
I’ve already layed it out though apparently not in a format that you accept or approve of and certainly not on your terms, which you seem to demand for discussion.
Mespo:
I am reading some Kant now, he is rather hard to figure out and I have heard that he has a fatal flaw, but I have yet to figure it out.
From my thinking it might be that he sees the world as being a projection of your being not the other way around. I assume that sensory perception is necessary to become human, if you were deprived of your senses you would not be able to become conscious. I think Kant might believe that human consciousness just is, no externalities are required. But I am only a little way into this so I could be just full of BS.
Your classical background would, if I am right, cause you to reject Kant because for the Greeks it was all about living in the world. You used your mind to understand what was in front of you based on your senses. Kant, I think, reverses that order. in other words existence does not exist without the existent. Whereas you probably believe that existence is perceived and conceptualized by the existent. Anyway just some thoughts, mostly baby steps.
Buddha, Bryon, Bob, Billy, and any people with a letter other then B starting their name
I think where we get tripped up is when we separate our view of acceptable and unacceptable behavior (like Buddha, I think Morals is such a loaded and meaningless word that it hinders discussion) from the rest of the universe. Why should it be? Isn’t reasonable that morality falls into the same category as every other human characteristic. Either an adaptation that helps with individual or species survival, or a side effect of one.
That does it mean that the ideas are meaningless, on the contrary, I can think of few things more meaningful than ways of behaving that are responsible for humanity being humanity.
The obvious hole in this argument is the question of why we all participate in behavior that’s been tagged as “bad” in our collective wiring then exists. For one thing every single living thing walks a fine line between survival of the species and survival of self. Another concept to remember is that there’s no universally useful adaptation. Sickle Cell Anemia is a prime example of that. Having a certain percentage of the population with a single Sickle Cell alleles is great protection against the group being wiped out by Malaria, but too high of a percentage and you get a to high of an incidence of Sickle Cell Anemia which is caused by having both alleles.
Bob is fond of saying that we haven’t evolved one inch slime. I say we haven’t evolved one inch from the small tribes of early primates that are our ancestors. We still function like we’re bands of 20 humans fighting over their territory.
Bob,Esq.:
Though I wish I could provide you a Schopenhauer-esque critique of Kant, I have neither the time nor the inclination. Rejoinder noted, and as usual we agree only to disagree and take victory or defeat from our readers opinions.
I should not eat and type. sigh
“[Y]our breath smelling like Scalia.”
Wow. Now them is a fightin’ words. And the very idea makes me want mouthwash. Listerine. Acetone. Searing hot plasma. Whatever it takes to get that image out of my mind and away from my mouth.
“that don’t perpetua[te] the organization proper ”
Billy,
I can see by your last post that you are on a better path to a more comprehensive understanding. That is a good thing. And as note with philosophers, it can be a mistake to put all your eggs on one basket. Like Nietzsche. To quote “The Big Lebowski”:
DONNIE: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
WALTER: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.
An open mind is a flexible mind. A flexible mind is an adaptive mind. An adaptive mind is the key to how we as a species went from banging rocks to together to walking on the moon.