"Can you please leave so I don't get the hypocritical evil of my ideology thrown in my face?"

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

Is throwing a plane into Wall Street and the Pentagon justified by the evil ways of Yankees in the Middle East then?

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

:100:

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable.

You're confusing law with morality.

If you're Churchill, and the Germans are about to invade, and you have good intelligence they're completely unprepared for a gas attack, you would honor the Geneva conventions rather than gas the Nazi's and save the country and hundreds of thousands of Jews?

The Nazis also had their own rationale to do what they did — everybody does and everybody did, the exception are psychopaths but those get arrested after the first few murders. This conversation about international law degenerates into "what is the right thing to do?" and people want to bring mutable laws signed by nameless (often ignorant) politicians instead of actually proving their case — instead, they paint whoever as evil and go from there.
This mode of thought is very particular of the Anglosphere, and by the site's userbase we see why it manifests so often in the lounge. The French are evil, the Germans are evil, the Japanese are evil, the communists are evil , the Russians are evil, the Arabs are evil, and now we see lots of "the Chinese are evil" talk. It is only them who are good, and the good guys always win (except all the times their side got beat, but it was more of a "strategic retreat"). And from there every sort of wickedness follows. It is a very anti-philosophical and pernicious mode of thought.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. I don't have the luxury of "well, let's dispassionately analyze their reasons" given my identity.

Call it shallow thinking, but I don't really tend to devote much thought to ideologies which if followed necessitate my death and the deaths of those who share the same identity markers.

Lincoln once said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." We can apply that to the Holocaust as well. Here's a litmus test for any moral theory: does it say the Nazi's were evil? No? Then that moral theory is a philosophical piece of shit.

It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.

So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact.

Lincoln once said "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." We can apply that to the Holocaust as well. — RogueAI

Also applies to the Nakba ... :mask:

It's very simple. You tend to teach your kids this: two wrongs don't make a right.

So no. I would never commit to war crimes or torture for that matter. If a gas attack could defeat them, then there are also other ways available. Those may cost more lives on our side but at least e survive with our humanity in tact. — Benkei

So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.

Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?

Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist.

Hey let’s come up with a bunch of hypotheticals towards the end of justifying present-day genocide. What a fun game.

I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. — RogueAI

Unfortunately I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s.

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin: — Tzeentch

I never mentioned justice, only that I could justify my actions because it helped you.
NOTE TO SELF: I must remember not to help you if your dog bites you so as not to anger your sensibilities.

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law. — Tzeentch

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no. — Tzeentch

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess.

So, killing the enemy with bombs, bullets, and flame is OK, but gas is wrong. Why? Because you made a promise not to use it? As far as horrible deaths go, does it get much worse than being burned alive? Suppose there's an alternate Earth where the Geneva Conventions outlawed everything except knives, and the Nazi's are coming at you with guns. You would stick to knives? No, you wouldn't.

Also, since this is my scenario, suppose you know with certainty that using gas will give you a 99% chance of repelling the Nazi invasion, and not using gas will give you a 1% of success. You would essentially hand England and all its Jews over to the Nazi's rather than go against the Geneva Convention? I have a hard time believing it. I think if we sent you (and anyone else who voted "no") back in time as Churchill in my scenario, you would do whatever you had to to stop the Nazi's from invading. Nukes, if you somehow had them. Gas, if you didn't. Torture on a captured Nazi general. You would not allow the Nazi's to commit genocide against your people. You are against genocide, right?

Your position would make a lot more sense if you were just a straight-up pacifist. — RogueAI

We already know you have the moral backbone of a jellyfish so no need to come up with increasingly unrealistic mind games to try to break someone else's.

First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well.

Countries defending against such aggression are often only too keen to turn perfectly defensive wars in punitive expeditions afterwards. A sentiment that's as understandable as it's wrong.

To me, the moral character off my adversaries is irrelevant where it concerns activities I think are inherently wrong. This is the same argument that would lead to saying people who break the law should not be afforded legal representation, because they're bad people. I can see a lot of bad outcomes if we go this way - especially since half of the time such judgments are entirely the result of group-identity (tribalism, nationalism, patriotism etc.).

The likelihood of securing victory using immoral means is also irrelevant. In that case if I enter a cage fight and bring an Uzi then I should use it because I'm guaranteed to win. This is obviously ludicrous. Also, I'm not a utilitarian so these calculations make no sense to me.

I also think the conflation of Nazis with Germans, as people are wont to do with Hamas and Palestinians, is unfair to the non-Nazi Germans and the non-Hamas Palestinians. But your decisions (and therefore the way you look at "groups") certainly impacts what happens to a lot of innocent people.

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity.

You're confusing law with morality. — Benkei

Again the question, is morality implicit in justification? Or is there a difference between morally justified and plane old justification?

I'm not sure I understand the question. To further explicate what I mean with the sentence I quoted: Law is not about morality. Statutes of limitation are not about fairness but economics. There are more things "not done" that are not legislated, which leads to all sorts of externalities that broader society has to (try to) fix.

I can do a lot of things within the law that I consider immoral. Like cheating on my wife. Being an absent father or even purposefully going out of my way to undermine my kids' confidence by blaming them for everything from bad weather to breaking a cup.

Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"?

But probably more importantly, performing immoral acts would diminish my own humanity. — Benkei

Well, in this situation you've got Nazis storming an English beach head after already establishing air superiority.

So you can either try to kill them or let them take over.

Presumably you choose "resistance by other means" which sacrifices many more English lives but avoids breaking international war laws.

What if conventional means were sure to lead to failure against the upcoming Nazi onslaught? Would you continue with the futile resistance?

It's really just a matter of which bullet you bite.

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable. — BitconnectCarlos

Since then they have invent so many weapons that make gas look like a water pistol.

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? — Sir2u

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that parties have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, moral reasoning, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument.

Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, [...] — Sir2u

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL.

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification? — Sir2u

Sure.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion.

I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess. — Sir2u

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then...

I guess I was right when I said we would probably have too little common ground for a fruitful discussion.

It's not about law though.

Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"? — Benkei

Sorry about that.
The original question is about justifying a person's acts, then morality pops its head up, then justice appears, then law.

While it is obvious that there are connections between these concepts it is difficult to get them into a clear picture.

Justifying ones acts means having facts, motives or reasons for them. But there is no specific reason for them to be morally acceptable.
Morality has to be based on sort of guiding concept, but not all morality is equally acceptable by everyone.
Justice is about judgement of actions and usually is after the fact, therefore not being part of the decision to take a particular action.
Laws would be the method of application of justices. Whilst probably being known before the action to be judged have nothing to do with morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past and some are still today, depending on ones version of morality.

Is there a real difference between moral justification and plain justification, or is it all just word play?

Ok, it's a matter of which moral bullet you bite. Use an ugly weapon or turn over your countrymen to death when you could have prevented it.

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, morality, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument. — Tzeentch

Whose morality? On what is that morality based?

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL. — Tzeentch

Not necessarily.

In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Taking of hostages;
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

I will let you figure out how it applies to gang warfare. Oh, hang on. Maybe you have never experienced driveby's with bullets flying in all direction trying to hit the members that are stealing the drug customer of the guys in the car.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion. — Tzeentch

Is there any FIRST PRINICLE that is not an opinion?

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then... — Tzeentch

OK, you win.
I just hope that when you are assaulted in the street your possible life saver does not just walk away thinking that he will not be justified in assisting you by hitting the criminal on the head with a big stick.

I would agree "facts, motives and reasons" are not necessarily moral justifications. They could be though. I can express the belief of the existence of a certain moral fact (murder is wrong), a moral motive (I wanted to do the right thing and helped the drowning man) and reasons (I stopped the crime because it was morally wrong), although where one ends and the other begins is probably not something we can really disentangle.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. Even if on a lot of other issues most of our moral intuitions and judgments probably coincide due to a shared cultural heritage.

And people feel like these are important discussions: morality is clearly interrelational, people are looking for affirmation and confirmation and, I think even, acceptance. We want to understand and be understood on some primary issues and often quite primal feelings like disgust or, the other side of the coin, admiration and worship. Unfortunately, nowadays, you will always find this online, so very little reason for people to actually investigate their moral intuitions. All this is more important than justifying buying pasta instead of potatoes at least. So, no, it's not just words I think. There's a lot more going on.

A bit rambling but hope that touches on what you wanted to talk about.

That's what they call a false dichotomy because this rarely occurs in real life. Even rarer when there's a villain we can point to who manoeuvred us in that situation (in which case we actually no longer have moral agency because this villain controls and constrains both choices). And even if it did exist, there's always the option not to choose. It's not up to me to condemn innocent people because of the crimes of others.

The problem is, there's no fact of the matter what morality is and how it comes about.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable.

Interesting tension here. You say there's no fact of the matter about what morality is, yet you hold immutable opinions towards it. :chin:

It's like you're saying "there's no fact of the matter as to what morality is, yet its character is immutable."

Thanks. I think we agree on most things.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. — Benkei

An idea I have had running through my head for a while, not exact on this topic but not too far from it either.
One of the things that for Muslims is supposed to be immutable is the behavior of women.

I have been watching the protests around the world of the Gaza supporters.
Right alongside the Arab women,(many of which fled their homelands because of laws forbidding them education and basic rights) in typical head scarfs are local women in shorts and crop tops with their heads uncovered.

I wonder if the extremists are sitting around watching the news and saying "Look, Allah has blessed us, even the western whores are protesting for us"

I am not try to be racist or even provoke ire amongst the people in the forum. It is just an honest thought.

There's no fact of the matter but I try to have a more or less consistent approach to morality which is broadly informed by virtue ethics and the idea that empathy is more or less the nucleus of moral thinking in humans. I positively hate utilitarianism.

The Nazis did have their rationale and we can examine that, but when it comes down to it the Nazis (and some other groups) would murder me on the spot purely for my identity so you can be sure I'll be advocating for that gas attack as well as virtually any method necessary to destroy them. — BitconnectCarlos

Just as well you didn't live in India or Africa during the heyday of the British Empire.

First of all, you're confusing law with morality. I never said the law was exhaustive. But yes, I think firebombings are immoral as well. In fact, I think most reasons countries give to start military operations are generally immoral and most from there what follows is therefore also immoral. In other words most bombs and bullets are immoral as well. — Benkei

Yessss!!!
Nuclear missiles, too. And all of them are always justified, because somebody was always in danger from somebody for some reason that we don't go into.

I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s. — BitconnectCarlos

Projection like this is often a confession (e.g. Zionfascists or sympathizers in the 2020s). :shade: