When (and how) something (or someone) is "good."

[Arising_uk]

... I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity that would rather shell a civilian neighbourhood than invade by foot and vehicle where they can find their targets and leave the helpless and poor unharmed, ...

This is nonsense VOT. No soldier would do anything so stupid if they can shell the place first. Even if they did as you said then the helpless and poor would still be killed as house to house leaves no time for deciding who's who when entering in combat. You also miss that the US actually tell the civilians that they will be attacking and that they should leave, thats a first for an army.

[The Voice of Time]

... I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity that would rather shell a civilian neighbourhood than invade by foot and vehicle where they can find their targets and leave the helpless and poor unharmed, ...

This is nonsense VOT. No soldier would do anything so stupid if they can shell the place first. Even if they did as you said then the helpless and poor would still be killed as house to house leaves no time for deciding who's who when entering in combat. You also miss that the US actually tell the civilians that they will be attacking and that they should leave, thats a first for an army.

No proper, I say, soldier, would ever think of shelling a civilian neighbourhood. It should not even be considered, unless of course the neighbourhood is abandoned. I know the US makes some attempts at safeguarding the civilian population, my point is that their threshold for killing civilians or endangering their lives is unacceptably low, and that they lack completely perspective of the value of human lives. But I'm feeling the rage coming so I'm just saying I will not discuss or answer this any further than acknowledging that my statement in the quote was not a description of absoluteness, but of tendency, and that I can't possibly talk to anyone who DEFENDS THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS BY ANY FUCKINGS MEANS WHAT-SO-EVER, because a person like that, in my opinion, is as bad as the ones who kill civilians, and there is something very wrong about his head that makes him capable of taking such a stance without crying out in shame of its horrific perspective on human beings.

[Tesla]

No proper, I say, soldier, would ever think of shelling a civilian neighbourhood. It should not even be considered, unless of course the neighbourhood is abandoned. I know the US makes some attempts at safeguarding the civilian population, my point is that their threshold for killing civilians or endangering their lives is unacceptably low, and that they lack completely perspective of the value of human lives. But I'm feeling the rage coming so I'm just saying I will not discuss or answer this any further than acknowledging that my statement in the quote was not a description of absoluteness, but of tendency, and that I can't possibly talk to anyone who DEFENDS THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS BY ANY FUCKINGS MEANS WHAT-SO-EVER, because a person like that, in my opinion, is as bad as the ones who kill civilians, and there is something very wrong about his head that makes him capable of taking such a stance without crying out in shame of its horrific perspective on human beings.

Given the right Circumstances, you personally would shell a civilian neighborhood. It seems to me you are being very short sighted. What is the purpose of this conversation? It does not appear to be adding anything meaningful to the definition of good.

[The Voice of Time]

Given the right Circumstances, you personally would shell a civilian neighborhood. It seems to me you are being very short sighted. What is the purpose of this conversation? It does not appear to be adding anything meaningful to the definition of good.

The conversation continues because people answer each other with challenging phrases. If you don't want it to continue more, you shouldn't talk about it.

[Tesla]

The conversation continues because people answer each other with challenging phrases. If you don't want it to continue more, you shouldn't talk about it.

I did not ask why it continues. I asked where your endgame was. I do not care for sophistry. I am here to debate, learn, grow and hopefully impact. So, are you here just because you like to argue, or do you have a point?

[The Voice of Time]

The conversation continues because people answer each other with challenging phrases. If you don't want it to continue more, you shouldn't talk about it.

I did not ask why it continues. I asked where your endgame was. I do not care for sophistry. I am here to debate, learn, grow and hopefully impact. So, are you here just because you like to argue, or do you have a point?

I originally answered james1951 as he abstracted a quote from me and then talked about it in such a way I felt it necessary to reassure him that just because I said some people feel it necessary to commit evil, for instance to easily dispose of enemies, it doesn't mean I feel the same way about the mentioned form of evil. And then Arising_uk defended the death of civilians as acceptable because, I infer, he thinks the duties of a soldier follows with it a risk of those deaths occurring that is necessary to accept as a part of the soldier being able to perform his job, and then I raged because I, find it necessary, to fight anybody who will accept the killing of civilians or defenceless people or the serious risking thereof. I'm not here to debate that, however, so let's resume the discussion on the nature of good. My comment to you meant that you didn't think it added anything to the discussion of good while at the same time you felt compelled to join in it, so I inferred that questioning its relevance was an attempt to point out its irrelevance, while at the same time you fuelled it.

I have no idea why you make references to sophistry.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity that would rather shell a civilian neighbourhood than invade by foot and vehicle where they can find their targets and leave the helpless and poor unharmed, ...

This is nonsense VOT. No soldier would do anything so stupid if they can shell the place first. Even if they did as you said then the helpless and poor would still be killed as house to house leaves no time for deciding who's who when entering in combat. You also miss that the US actually tell the civilians that they will be attacking and that they should leave, thats a first for an army.

No proper, I say, soldier, would ever think of shelling a civilian neighbourhood. It should not even be considered, unless of course the neighbourhood is abandoned. I know the US makes some attempts at safeguarding the civilian population, my point is that their threshold for killing civilians or endangering their lives is unacceptably low, and that they lack completely perspective of the value of human lives. But I'm feeling the rage coming so I'm just saying I will not discuss or answer this any further than acknowledging that my statement in the quote was not a description of absoluteness, but of tendency, and that I can't possibly talk to anyone who DEFENDS THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS BY ANY FUCKINGS MEANS WHAT-SO-EVER, because a person like that, in my opinion, is as bad as the ones who kill civilians, and there is something very wrong about his head that makes him capable of taking such a stance without crying out in shame of its horrific perspective on human beings.

I'm sure AUK is not condoning the murder of civilians, I know I'm not, but the problem is that no one knows with certainty what a civilian or soldier looks like. Sure It'd be great, if like the US and other allied forces, they wore uniforms, so as to differentiate civilians, but they don't. As a matter of fact, I bet you couldn't necessarily pick, which of two Afghan's, was a soldier and which the civilian, assuming of course that we knew we had one of each.

Also I see that it's easy for you sitting in that easy chair, with no pants on, behind your computer, talking like you are, but if right this very second, jets came flying out of the sky and crashed into all your neighbors, exploding their houses into balls of flames, killing them instantly, some of which were your best friends, and Al-Qaeda took responsibility, and your country sent you over there, and while walking through the villages, your best soldier buddies head suddenly exploded, such that you had to scoop his brains out of your eye socket and ears, being cut by some of his skull fragments, you'd be screaming for them to apprise the next village, that shelling would commence tomorrow, and that they should leave or else be blown up, before you and your second best soldier buddy, went walking through. And while it's hard for anyone to know how another would react to such events, let alone them selves, I'd be willing to bet, I'm correct. Which does not condone the killing of civilians.

Those never taking part in war, have no right to judge others for doing so, as they have no idea, with certainty, how they'd deal with it.

That being said, as I'm sure many are aware, I'm majorly against war.

By the way, I'm an American, and as written, you insulted me:

I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity...

as I am in fact an American, if you'd dropped the "s," I would have not felt insulted as much, but even then, the 'soldiers' don't call the shots in war, the Generals do, as they experience 'the bravery of being out of range.'

[Arising_uk]

... I know the US makes some attempts at safeguarding the civilian population, my point is that their threshold for killing civilians or endangering their lives is unacceptably low, and that they lack completely perspective of the value of human lives. ...

In point of fact the US Army is one of the few that has a perspective on this and places any value upon it. Armies and soldiers are among the few that actually understand the value of human life as they take it. I also think the value is, cheap.

[Arising_uk]

Also I see that it's easy for you sitting in that easy chair, with no pants on, behind your computer, talking like you are, but if right this very second, jets came flying out of the sky and crashed into all your neighbors, exploding their houses into balls of flames, killing them instantly, some of which were your best friends, and Al-Qaeda took responsibility, and your country sent you over there, ...

Thats the issue tho' isn't it, as Afghanistan didn't bomb America and yet you flattened and destabilized a whole country in your quest for vengeance.

[Tesla]

The conversation continues because people answer each other with challenging phrases. If you don't want it to continue more, you shouldn't talk about it.

I did not ask why it continues. I asked where your endgame was. I do not care for sophistry. I am here to debate, learn, grow and hopefully impact. So, are you here just because you like to argue, or do you have a point?

I originally answered james1951 as he abstracted a quote from me and then talked about it in such a way I felt it necessary to reassure him that just because I said some people feel it necessary to commit evil, for instance to easily dispose of enemies, it doesn't mean I feel the same way about the mentioned form of evil. And then Arising_uk defended the death of civilians as acceptable because, I infer, he thinks the duties of a soldier follows with it a risk of those deaths occurring that is necessary to accept as a part of the soldier being able to perform his job, and then I raged because I, find it necessary, to fight anybody who will accept the killing of civilians or defenceless people or the serious risking thereof. I'm not here to debate that, however, so let's resume the discussion on the nature of good. My comment to you meant that you didn't think it added anything to the discussion of good while at the same time you felt compelled to join in it, so I inferred that questioning its relevance was an attempt to point out its irrelevance, while at the same time you fuelled it.

I have no idea why you make references to sophistry.

I want to join the discussion; however I want to first establish that good is an opinion because of its nature to individual, simply to avoid such discussions of when or when it isn't pertinent to kill civilians. Many such conversations begin and end with someone playing devil’s advocate for the sake of examining all sides, which with such a topic as 'good' can very quickly become unproductive because of the individual and diverse definitions of what is good due to situational or indoctrinated sources that define values.

That being said, I believe that there are some things that we can conclude of 'good' without rehashing the conversations of the late great philosophers. We need to first establish a value that is most important. I'd like to suggest that 'Good' can only be defined by levels of importance.

I say that because of a short history lesson, concerning a ship of slaves that landed on the coast of North America. That story details how it was overburdened when it left port, an issue that was corrected later by dumping 300 people into the sea. Which at the time, was 'good' because if not, then most would have perished, or all perished, for lack of water.

So would you like to help me discover 'good' by first examining what is most important?

[prof]

...So would you like to help me discover 'good' by first examining what is most important?

I thought I did that in the original post of this thread, but I guess I failed to communicate.

Therefore, if you would take the time to ready and study any one of the selections referenced below, with links provided, you would get some answers to your question. They deal with that very issue you raise:

For further insight on the topic, these links are recommended:

For ETHICS- A College Course, use this:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

For the paper, LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, use this one for the PDF-FILE: http://tinyurl.com/28mtn56

For the booklet A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, use
http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

For the booklet ETHICAL ADVENTURES
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

For the essay, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf
or, alternatively:
http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

And for the paper ASPECTS OF ETHICS
http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo

If your reader program gets stuck, or frozen, as you scroll, simply click on Reload, and continue.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Also I see that it's easy for you sitting in that easy chair, with no pants on, behind your computer, talking like you are, but if right this very second, jets came flying out of the sky and crashed into all your neighbors, exploding their houses into balls of flames, killing them instantly, some of which were your best friends, and Al-Qaeda took responsibility, and your country sent you over there, ...

Thats the issue tho' isn't it, as Afghanistan didn't bomb America and yet you flattened and destabilized a whole country in your quest for vengeance.

No I didn't! Who do you think you're talking to anyway, the commander in chief? Because you speak in those terms, makes you a small person indeed, one of no consequence. When are you going to grow up?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The conversation continues because people answer each other with challenging phrases. If you don't want it to continue more, you shouldn't talk about it.

I did not ask why it continues. I asked where your endgame was. I do not care for sophistry. I am here to debate, learn, grow and hopefully impact. So, are you here just because you like to argue, or do you have a point?

I originally answered james1951 as he abstracted a quote from me and then talked about it in such a way I felt it necessary to reassure him that just because I said some people feel it necessary to commit evil, for instance to easily dispose of enemies, it doesn't mean I feel the same way about the mentioned form of evil. And then Arising_uk defended the death of civilians as acceptable because, I infer, he thinks the duties of a soldier follows with it a risk of those deaths occurring that is necessary to accept as a part of the soldier being able to perform his job, and then I raged because I, find it necessary, to fight anybody who will accept the killing of civilians or defenceless people or the serious risking thereof. I'm not here to debate that, however, so let's resume the discussion on the nature of good. My comment to you meant that you didn't think it added anything to the discussion of good while at the same time you felt compelled to join in it, so I inferred that questioning its relevance was an attempt to point out its irrelevance, while at the same time you fuelled it.

I have no idea why you make references to sophistry.

I want to join the discussion; however I want to first establish that good is an opinion because of its nature to individual, simply to avoid such discussions of when or when it isn't pertinent to kill civilians. Many such conversations begin and end with someone playing devil’s advocate for the sake of examining all sides, which with such a topic as 'good' can very quickly become unproductive because of the individual and diverse definitions of what is good due to situational or indoctrinated sources that define values.

That being said, I believe that there are some things that we can conclude of 'good' without rehashing the conversations of the late great philosophers. We need to first establish a value that is most important. I'd like to suggest that 'Good' can only be defined by levels of importance.

I say that because of a short history lesson, concerning a ship of slaves that landed on the coast of North America. That story details how it was overburdened when it left port, an issue that was corrected later by dumping 300 people into the sea. Which at the time, was 'good' because if not, then most would have perished, or all perished, for lack of water.

So would you like to help me discover 'good' by first examining what is most important?

Importance from the perspective of what/whom/when?

[The Voice of Time]

I'm sure AUK is not condoning the murder of civilians, I know I'm not, but the problem is that no one knows with certainty what a civilian or soldier looks like. Sure It'd be great, if like the US and other allied forces, they wore uniforms, so as to differentiate civilians, but they don't. As a matter of fact, I bet you couldn't necessarily pick, which of two Afghan's, was a soldier and which the civilian, assuming of course that we knew we had one of each.

It's mostly a question of taking risks. And some risks we can take, because they show courage and a sense of righteousness, others we can't take, because they show cowardice and carelessness/recklessness. Of course it's not that simple, sometimes courage and righteousness becomes foolishness and stubbornness, but it's very easy, when you weigh at what point that crossing happens, that you become a coward and a criminal through carelessness/recklessness, instead of just avoiding foolishness and stubbornness.

Also I see that it's easy for you sitting in that easy chair, with no pants on, behind your computer, talking like you are, but if right this very second, jets came flying out of the sky and crashed into all your neighbors, exploding their houses into balls of flames, killing them instantly, some of which were your best friends, and Al-Qaeda took responsibility, and your country sent you over there, and while walking through the villages, your best soldier buddies head suddenly exploded, such that you had to scoop his brains out of your eye socket and ears, being cut by some of his skull fragments, you'd be screaming for them to apprise the next village, that shelling would commence tomorrow, and that they should leave or else be blown up, before you and your second best soldier buddy, went walking through. And while it's hard for anyone to know how another would react to such events, let alone them selves, I'd be willing to bet, I'm correct. Which does not condone the killing of civilians.

It's very easy for me to talk because it's all so stupid that there's little good to say about it at all. To be honest, I'm not entirely against the Afghanistan war, the Taliban were cruel people born out of hatred for anybody but their own "ethically superior" kind (which of course was ridiculous as there's been few people with a more destroyed ethical sense than them). But it's mostly how the war was fought. First of all, it's the worst off people from the US who enters the army in promise of money, and, something I find most disgraceful for any welfare nation: education. That is, people would enter the army so that they afforded education ^^ The American people were as much victims of the Afghan war (not talking about 9/11, but the actual war in the aftermath) as the Afghans were victims (though at different degrees of course). The war was typical exploitation. "You come from a bad family? You have little money? Why not let the army pay for you and give you new hope! All we require is that you go down into Afghanistan and kill some Mujahideen!", of course, not taking into account, is that these people are young, they are troubled by experiences of poverty and socially unstable or come from bad social situations (that's not always the case, of course). They are exploited in the same way that young children can be exploited by adults, that is, some adults never grow sufficient personal strength to withstand other exploitative people. Because of their weaknesses they fall prey to easy deals and smiling officers. I mean, what do you expect, when people actually answer you as you give them such a shout like "you want to do duty for your country?" or "you want to kill Mujahideen?" or anything such bad-spirit propaganda. Only idiots answer people like that, not because I think it's completely wrong to kill Mujahideen (to protect others) or that it's wrong to do a duty for ones fellow members (assist a cause), but because the sentences are as meaningful as commercials, and are really just cheap mind tricks to prey on those who are easily persuaded because of their own lacks of the sophisticated thinking that can protect them from making bad choices or accepting other peoples reality just because it is offered nicely wrapped, or, for that matter, that they are desperate, and are easily persuaded by people juggling coins or offering brotherhood.

When you send down people who are not professional soldiers in all the right aspects: mind, body and heart, you get people who do poor choices and who will commit to ruthlessness because they don't know any better.

What would I do? If the government tried to conscript me, I would refuse (mostly because I'm not soldier material, I'm too sensitive about things up hand in that I would despair at faults of my fellow soldiers and cry most of the time I killed somebody and would likely had gotten myself killed because I couldn't pull the trigger when somebody else were about to kill me as over time the killing or attempted killing would be too much for me to bear, but that weakness doesn't mean I can't use my reason to understand a middle-way). I wouldn't hate the people who did wrong by killing my fellows in the airplane attack, that I know, because it's not my nature, I would do what real human beings should do in such an event: mourn in the aftermath, and try to save and care for as many as possible in the happening. I think tragedies are not worthy of causing hatred, people grow hatred from a sense of possession, that they own other people, that other people are their property, their ownership, or that maybe a country is their property (or at least a shared property) and that it's transgression to cause it harm. I don't feel that way about people in general, I have felt it of course, but then again hatred is only worth it as long as the object of property exist. If I had a child, for instance, I would be able to feel hatred, I think, as long as the person was alive. If the person was dead, there would be nothing to hate for. That isn't to say I can't feel a need for retaliation, but then again only if there is a retaliatory target, a direct target, not like indirect targets like Mujahideen in far away country, and only if it will achieve some understanding with that target (even in my greatest rage I'm not mindless, I'm thoroughly objective-oriented. Unlike some people, I never feel pleasure from hurting anybody not for any reason, not even my mother (which you might think is because she's my mother, but to me it would be the opposite, I dislike nobody or would have anybody else more dead than her) for which I have the closest to a hatred relationship I've ever had over a long period of time with anyone).

Those never taking part in war, have no right to judge others for doing so, as they have no idea, with certainty, how they'd deal with it.

That is very invalid thinking. If soldiers are idiots, then somebody should tell them, whether they themselves have ever experienced a fight or not. If your statement was really true, then the amount of resistance that military would face in doing things would be minimal, and we would be able to suffer at the hands of stupid people we couldn't argue against because we weren't them. It's exactly like saying that a serial killer can't be prosecuted and condemned because the people who would do that have never been serial killers themselves ^^ or we can't complain about the doctor's treatment of us if he makes a mistake because we've never done doctoring ourselves ^^ what a hell it would be if people lived like you offer in that statement.

I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity...

as I am in fact an American, if you'd dropped the "s," I would have not felt insulted as much, but even then, the 'soldiers' don't call the shots in war, the Generals do, as they experience 'the bravery of being out of range.'[/quote]

Typo. I meant without the "s". But that being said, I know there's a lot of Americans giving back-up support even to the worst of their soldiers, and then my statement has to count for them as well.

[The Voice of Time]

I want to join the discussion; however I want to first establish that good is an opinion because of its nature to individual, simply to avoid such discussions of when or when it isn't pertinent to kill civilians. Many such conversations begin and end with someone playing devil’s advocate for the sake of examining all sides, which with such a topic as 'good' can very quickly become unproductive because of the individual and diverse definitions of what is good due to situational or indoctrinated sources that define values.

That being said, I believe that there are some things that we can conclude of 'good' without rehashing the conversations of the late great philosophers. We need to first establish a value that is most important. I'd like to suggest that 'Good' can only be defined by levels of importance.

I say that because of a short history lesson, concerning a ship of slaves that landed on the coast of North America. That story details how it was overburdened when it left port, an issue that was corrected later by dumping 300 people into the sea. Which at the time, was 'good' because if not, then most would have perished, or all perished, for lack of water.

So would you like to help me discover 'good' by first examining what is most important?

What is good is "made" in the sense that we don't "find" it but makes up an idea of how it looks like. However, to say that it is a perspective is just another making, and if we accepted that, then we really have lost perspective of the very reason we question what is good: namely to increase our understanding of where to look for it.

Importance is a way to say that "focusing on this will achieve understanding of how to do good", so when we say that something is important we say that it is containing a trace of information about good (which could very well be information about its reverse, namely bad or evil, but which in turn can tell us about how to avoid just that, giving us directions to good by eliminative reductionism).

It is fully possible to rationalize about situations like the slave-cargo example. However, the real faultiness, laid in not being prepared in the first place, and those who did that should've been the first ones to get "dumped", unless they were vital to the survival of the rest (Like navigation experts). They should also had abandoned all attempts at reaching their destination for its own sake, and rather looked for land and water wherever it could be found, to prioritize survival of everybody above business. One of the first faults of rationalization is the lack of a creative outlook, namely that people think in narrow terms and therefore are not able to find satisfying solutions for all members of a situation.

My definition of good is the conditions under which any unity is satisfied, though that is only one third the truth. The second third is that any unity is like an upside down pyramid of conditionality, and that if remove parts from it, it could easily tip over the side and in the process be destroyed. Because of this, to ensure the stability of the upside down pyramid, you had to ensure that the accumulation of more weight on top of it was corresponding to the balance that was needed below. In this regard all parts of the pyramid are dependent on each other, and the same way with reality. It doesn't make sense to say that each person is to himself or that all are one. Because really it is more an in-between, in that people's relationship with the pyramid is what determines their value to be satisfied, or in other words balanced-ly incorporated into it. The last third is too complex that I would elaborate on it right now, and it is the biggest third also.