leaving all of us sitting in the moment
ok. i know someone, who created a list of what love is. this i find interesting, even though i'm a little outdated in addressing it. i want to criticize this as an idea, or as a description of an emotion. the original list is posted at zigjackofalltrades.blogspot.com. the assumption i'm making here is that it is a description of legitimate, moral, and healthy love--whatever this may truly be, but we can generally agree on what it is not.
my first criticism revolves around 2. no human being is worth taking life for, with the single exception of protecting the lives of others. but as a general rule, this isn't an indication of love of an individual. maybe its a social obligation, but protecting others isn't love. and taking of life for other reasons is unacceptable. it is far from clear to me how this relates. you kill for ideas maybe, like the survival of freedom, but out of anger or any other motivation is not a reflection of love in any legitimate sense.
generally the list makes no sense. i noticed that some people believed that it was some deep expression of emotion. to be honest, much of the non-list material was an expression of a deeply held emotion, and i'm not criticizing that. i'm more interested in defining this emotion.
but these two parts are inconsistent. love tells you to abandon your dreams for someone else yet makes you want to pursue them more by becoming the best that you can be. this is very much the moral of both sections.
further, it is troublesome the proposition that love requires the sacrifice of everyone but the loved person if that loved person needed it. first, this is troublesome because of the "unselfish" nature of love inflicting a very selfish cost. second, it is troublesome that a position is described by a situation that should never occur if it is love, which implies that it is a meaningless statement. third, this implies that there can only be one love at any time, or at a minimum, only one most important love, like one ring to rule over them all.
all of these statements are ultimately meaningless. for instance, you can never share "anything...with no negative repercussions." if this were the case, then no one is in love. there are certain things that you do not to or share with someone you love because you value their enjoyment of whatever experience over your lack of enjoyment. you do things you don't want because the other person wants you to, and they enjoy it, and you do not want to hurt them by telling them otherwise. if you told them, and they got angry, then this statement means that they do not love you. no one does, can, or should share everything they think or feel. if you do that, then you are being selfish. nor do you want to be totally honest with anyone. this might be the worst advice of all. sometimes love is lying. everyone lies. you have to.
you can never accept anyone unconditionally either. things change. circumstances change. here's the problem, this is like a photograph of love. of course you accept someone unconditionally now when you feel a certain way, but the test is do you accept them when they are different? the answer is maybe. what if they took a position you morally oppose? what if they betrayed you? unconditional acceptance isn't an option, and may even be, in some occassions, morally questionable. effectively by definition, unconditional love cannot be restricted to a set of specific circumstances found in a given moment.
it is simply not possible to feel strong and weak in any real sense. it sounds very pretty, but the two are mutually exclusive, other than in the general sense. and used in this general sense it is meaningless. it offers no guidance, many circumstances reverse a person's specific level of confidence and assurance without being love. and you can never feel strong and weak, yet totally secure around someone. because feeling secure and better about yourself is not feeling weak, and it sounds an awful lot like feeling strong.
he might be pretty close with his statement that it is wanting "to be around them, even at the worst of times."
the description i'm criticizing attempts to be pretty. there is nothing pretty about definitions. love, like all complex ideas can only be described in simple, virtually meaningless ways. i can explain all "love" behaviors through self interest and the social order and its larger welfare. its not pretty, and no women are going to write on here how deep and warm this is, and no one is going to want to meet me because of it.
love, as an idea defies its simple sound and easy definition. it is an inadequate term to describe a broad range of emotions. but i will try. love is non-exclusive. love is a genuine concern for the well-being and enjoyment of another living thing. love is adding an additional weight to their well-being and enjoyment in comparison to society in general and to your own [although these two are not equal]. love is wanting to be around another living thing. notice i am excluding love of inanimate objects, but including love for all living things. love is not some amazing, powerful force for good. it's caring. it describes no course of action that can be applied to every circumstance. it's listening, forgiving, leaving, staying, ignoring, lying, honesty, sharing, excluding, including, knowing, forgetting, its everything that living things do to one another when they do those things considering the interests of the other living thing. often, it is being moral and doing the right thing, however you define moral.
we are social creatures. and love is a social emotion. and even our perception of it will change as society changes.
i'm sure most people will fail to find this idea romantic, or interesting, and will generally prefer the other list. but the truth is, no one is perfect. nothing is perfect. we should all strive to understand one another, and how we are imperfect is a real part of this process. no fairytale ideal of human emotion is accurate, fair, or healthy. we are all broken, and that is ok.
oh. and this title is just interesting to me, and a comment i made to a friend. and i was listening to "you and a promise" by howie day. and the two ideas kind of meshed in my head. but, even that story is a statement about love, and what it actually is, and how broad of an idea it is that the list failed to do justice to. also, as a post script to the original author, no offense is meant by this criticism, and i appreciate that you gave me something to think about on an otherwise boring day.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
and the celebration had begun
to many, the world serves as evidence of god. but not to me.
i look around at the cruelty of nature, and recognize that it speaks volumes.
i was looking at images of bombings.
and i was thinking of what a horrible thing bombing is.
and how we should seek to forever avoid it.
then i thought about the middle east.
and religious fanaticism both abroad and here.
and the future of warfare.
it should be the goal of some of the smartest people in our society to discern a way to engage our new enemies in a manner that minimizes suffering. it seems to me, that thus far, we have dramatically failed in such an endeavor.
i look around at the cruelty of nature, and recognize that it speaks volumes.
i was looking at images of bombings.
and i was thinking of what a horrible thing bombing is.
and how we should seek to forever avoid it.
then i thought about the middle east.
and religious fanaticism both abroad and here.
and the future of warfare.
it should be the goal of some of the smartest people in our society to discern a way to engage our new enemies in a manner that minimizes suffering. it seems to me, that thus far, we have dramatically failed in such an endeavor.
Monday, September 17, 2007
the dreams in which i'm dying
hello.
i want to talk about dreams. often i've had de ja vu experiences. this can be simply explained however. first, you only remember striking experiences, not the hundreds of times that your dreams did not correlate to your experience.
the second point i want to make is of personal interest. most people have dreams that are interesting, fantastic things. mine, however, are not. they are bland and boring. i dream about a dining room with cheesy fake flowers. i dream about standard types of people. i dream about everyday conversations. this is why i often have these experiences. because the vagaries of my dreams fit so well with ordinary life.
this experience, is consistent with another emotional experience, or more appropriately, eccentricity that i have. i don't feel things in a standard or typical way. i'm not excited, i'm not even really sad. i'm always kind of neutral. i'm pretty good at imitating some emotions, but i'm poor at taking good news or bad news. this has resulted in some unfortunate experiences.
this is my next goal, to learn how to seem excited at good news or compliments. then fewer people will have their feelings hurt in personal exchanges.
i apologize for this.
i want to talk about dreams. often i've had de ja vu experiences. this can be simply explained however. first, you only remember striking experiences, not the hundreds of times that your dreams did not correlate to your experience.
the second point i want to make is of personal interest. most people have dreams that are interesting, fantastic things. mine, however, are not. they are bland and boring. i dream about a dining room with cheesy fake flowers. i dream about standard types of people. i dream about everyday conversations. this is why i often have these experiences. because the vagaries of my dreams fit so well with ordinary life.
this experience, is consistent with another emotional experience, or more appropriately, eccentricity that i have. i don't feel things in a standard or typical way. i'm not excited, i'm not even really sad. i'm always kind of neutral. i'm pretty good at imitating some emotions, but i'm poor at taking good news or bad news. this has resulted in some unfortunate experiences.
this is my next goal, to learn how to seem excited at good news or compliments. then fewer people will have their feelings hurt in personal exchanges.
i apologize for this.
Monday, August 20, 2007
conspiracy theories
ok.
so.
i just want to express concern about the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
man, we've just debunked jfk, and now this...
ugh.
so.
i just want to express concern about the prevalence of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
man, we've just debunked jfk, and now this...
ugh.
asleep on a shoulder that i've never met
ok. here's a good start. read this article at the discovery institute's website, here's the address... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4154&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage
sadly you'll have to cut and paste that...since i haven't figured the whole link thing out yet. i'll summarize as i go though.
the article itself is about the michael vick incident. however, it attempts to explain why we are so upset by it. as a friend of mine said, "i hate dogs, and even i know that's wrong." i'm motivated to write about this article for two reasons, one being that i disagree with its reasoning, and second i object to the idea that human beings are creatures of special creation or of a higher nature. actually there's a third, their argument relies on some questionable assumptions.
1. "But few are asking why, exactly, we are so upset. For example, do we contend that the dogs acted wrongly by fighting each other to the death? Of course not. Only human beings have the capacity to understand right from wrong."
--here is a quiet assumption, that is important later in their argument. its a rhetorical trick. immediately we are assuming that human beings can make a distinction between right and wrong. now, i won't argue that human beings do not make distinctions between actions, but i think that it is difficult to claim that animals do not do the same, and it can be argued that most human beings make the distinction between right and wrong for the same reason that animals do. human beings are socialized and trained, i have yet to be convinced that there is an innate moral sense. if there is, it is the desire to have a place in the world, which is a result of our social nature. our dogs have the same sense of right and wrong as a child, displaying guilt and occassionally even weight cost and benefit of breaking the rules. now, this may just be imparting human conceptions onto animals; however, i think that one can argue strongly that social animals respond to these stimuli. their point in starting at this point is to end closer to their ultimate point, that we are creatures of special creation with special responsibilities.
2. "Then are we furious because, as animal-rights activists would have it, the victimized dogs had a "right" not to be treated in such a brutal fashion? No. Animals don't have rights. They can't even understand the concept."
--you do not have to understand rights to have them, this isn't in the definition of rights. otherwise, mentally ill and handicapped individuals would not have rights, by definition. this argument fails.
3. "Indeed, for rights to be true rights, they must apply universally."
--also, this is not in the definition of rights. it is for some, but not for others. for instance, you do not have a universal right to life or to free speech. rights are defined by the duties that they impose. you have the duty not to take anyone's life unlawfully and the duty not to commit slander. but technically, the duty not to take life, and the right to life, do not apply universally. you have the right to kill the other side in a war, or to act in self defense. you also have freedom of speech, but it is not universal, it is limited in scope by truth (slander) and obscenity laws.
4. "Yet anyone seriously asserting that a lion violated a zebra's right to life by hunting it down would be laughed out of town."
--this is a favorite argument of the religious right, and groups such as the discovery institute. this is an inappropriate metaphor. no one would argue either that a lion violated a person's right to life by hunting them down. this statement sounds compelling, but demonstrates nothing. it does not prove that there is no right to life for animals, or that animals do not have rights, only that lions have no duty to protect the lives of zebra's, or humans, for that matter.
5. "By treating helpless animals as if their pain did not matter, by engaging in such blatant cruelty, they not only inflicted inexcusable suffering and terror upon helpless, sentient beings, but, even worse, they besmirched the higher nature and noble calling of the human race."
--i completely agree with this sentiment up until the higher nature part. indeed, we do have a noble calling, that we are largely ignoring in many ways.
ultimately, i agree with the sentiment of this piece, that causing suffering on another living thing for entertainment is wrong. but i do not think that animals should not, or do not, have rights. i would argue that all living things should have rights as much as is tenable. the authors are right that human beings can recognize suffering and empathize, although i contend with the statement that animals do not recognize suffering either. to an extent they do, especially the social animals. i have seen enough animals mourn and respond to the suffering of others that i think that it may well be a rebuttable presumption that animals are not that aware of other creatures. but i do believe that human beings, as creatures capable of rationalizing and constructing moral visions have a unique responsibility to mitigate suffering wherever possible. we have philosophy, religion, and socialization to construct and communicate a moral vision.
but none of these positions require that human beings are products of special creation or of a higher worth than the lives of animals. the suffering of all creatures at our hands should be restricted as much as is possible.
btw...later i will discuss why i think that eating is an argument against design and god.
thank you for your time.
sadly you'll have to cut and paste that...since i haven't figured the whole link thing out yet. i'll summarize as i go though.
the article itself is about the michael vick incident. however, it attempts to explain why we are so upset by it. as a friend of mine said, "i hate dogs, and even i know that's wrong." i'm motivated to write about this article for two reasons, one being that i disagree with its reasoning, and second i object to the idea that human beings are creatures of special creation or of a higher nature. actually there's a third, their argument relies on some questionable assumptions.
1. "But few are asking why, exactly, we are so upset. For example, do we contend that the dogs acted wrongly by fighting each other to the death? Of course not. Only human beings have the capacity to understand right from wrong."
--here is a quiet assumption, that is important later in their argument. its a rhetorical trick. immediately we are assuming that human beings can make a distinction between right and wrong. now, i won't argue that human beings do not make distinctions between actions, but i think that it is difficult to claim that animals do not do the same, and it can be argued that most human beings make the distinction between right and wrong for the same reason that animals do. human beings are socialized and trained, i have yet to be convinced that there is an innate moral sense. if there is, it is the desire to have a place in the world, which is a result of our social nature. our dogs have the same sense of right and wrong as a child, displaying guilt and occassionally even weight cost and benefit of breaking the rules. now, this may just be imparting human conceptions onto animals; however, i think that one can argue strongly that social animals respond to these stimuli. their point in starting at this point is to end closer to their ultimate point, that we are creatures of special creation with special responsibilities.
2. "Then are we furious because, as animal-rights activists would have it, the victimized dogs had a "right" not to be treated in such a brutal fashion? No. Animals don't have rights. They can't even understand the concept."
--you do not have to understand rights to have them, this isn't in the definition of rights. otherwise, mentally ill and handicapped individuals would not have rights, by definition. this argument fails.
3. "Indeed, for rights to be true rights, they must apply universally."
--also, this is not in the definition of rights. it is for some, but not for others. for instance, you do not have a universal right to life or to free speech. rights are defined by the duties that they impose. you have the duty not to take anyone's life unlawfully and the duty not to commit slander. but technically, the duty not to take life, and the right to life, do not apply universally. you have the right to kill the other side in a war, or to act in self defense. you also have freedom of speech, but it is not universal, it is limited in scope by truth (slander) and obscenity laws.
4. "Yet anyone seriously asserting that a lion violated a zebra's right to life by hunting it down would be laughed out of town."
--this is a favorite argument of the religious right, and groups such as the discovery institute. this is an inappropriate metaphor. no one would argue either that a lion violated a person's right to life by hunting them down. this statement sounds compelling, but demonstrates nothing. it does not prove that there is no right to life for animals, or that animals do not have rights, only that lions have no duty to protect the lives of zebra's, or humans, for that matter.
5. "By treating helpless animals as if their pain did not matter, by engaging in such blatant cruelty, they not only inflicted inexcusable suffering and terror upon helpless, sentient beings, but, even worse, they besmirched the higher nature and noble calling of the human race."
--i completely agree with this sentiment up until the higher nature part. indeed, we do have a noble calling, that we are largely ignoring in many ways.
ultimately, i agree with the sentiment of this piece, that causing suffering on another living thing for entertainment is wrong. but i do not think that animals should not, or do not, have rights. i would argue that all living things should have rights as much as is tenable. the authors are right that human beings can recognize suffering and empathize, although i contend with the statement that animals do not recognize suffering either. to an extent they do, especially the social animals. i have seen enough animals mourn and respond to the suffering of others that i think that it may well be a rebuttable presumption that animals are not that aware of other creatures. but i do believe that human beings, as creatures capable of rationalizing and constructing moral visions have a unique responsibility to mitigate suffering wherever possible. we have philosophy, religion, and socialization to construct and communicate a moral vision.
but none of these positions require that human beings are products of special creation or of a higher worth than the lives of animals. the suffering of all creatures at our hands should be restricted as much as is possible.
btw...later i will discuss why i think that eating is an argument against design and god.
thank you for your time.
eulogy...rebirth...so long...wish you well...show us how you weren't afraid...
hello.
this is the reintroductory post.
we are going to try this again.
i think this time around i'm going to strike out against some of the ideas out there that i object to. i'm going to begin a tirade aimed at religiofascism and the general rejection of reason.
and slowly, you will learn what i am all about.
let's play.
this is the reintroductory post.
we are going to try this again.
i think this time around i'm going to strike out against some of the ideas out there that i object to. i'm going to begin a tirade aimed at religiofascism and the general rejection of reason.
and slowly, you will learn what i am all about.
let's play.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
9/11--loose change recut
i'm watching the film, loose change. it's not that convincing. at this point they keep suggesting that the WTC was detonated. i hear that there are other, pretty bold and extensive claims coming up too.
i think, that it's important to note, that it would take quite a bit of explosives to bring the building down. second, witness claims about explosions and shaking, do not necessarily imply explosives at the base. third, don't listen to reporters on the scene, they are trying to fill up air time at a complex time. fourth, follow up explosions should have been expected, there is gas lines in the building.
finally, i think that the claim that our government planned this, and killed over 2k people, just to invade iraq, seems extraordinarily unbelievable.
i'm not sure exactly what psychological need this fulfills.
someone really needs to just address this stuff, and debunk it.
it's like JFK though, i imagine these claims will never go away.
maybe the psychological need is to have some sort of bad guy, that is really meaningful.
19 nobodies taking all those lives is so unsatisfactory emotionally.
but el Presidente, now that's a good story.
ok. here's an edit.
first...on 9/11/01 i lived in cleveland. i remember mayor white's speech. and the hubbub of the plane landing at hopkins, just about a mile from my house. this information given in the film, is completely inaccurate. this stuff just illustrates the problem with rapid fire news...bad information gets out, and it hovers around the internet for ever.
next, the discussion about free fall...the timing is inaccurate. first, their calculations of free fall are pretty close, in a vacuum. second, the debris away from the main collapse was falling faster than the building itself, which, tells the viewer that the building is not falling at free fall speeds.
that's obvious stuff, without any research.
further, i find it impossible to believe that the pennsylvania state police, and the many other agencies involved are all playing along. this falls under the list of rules i have in life...
1. everyone lies
2. everyone acts for their own self-interest
3. two people in government can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
i can't believe i'm staying up all night for this...
i think, that it's important to note, that it would take quite a bit of explosives to bring the building down. second, witness claims about explosions and shaking, do not necessarily imply explosives at the base. third, don't listen to reporters on the scene, they are trying to fill up air time at a complex time. fourth, follow up explosions should have been expected, there is gas lines in the building.
finally, i think that the claim that our government planned this, and killed over 2k people, just to invade iraq, seems extraordinarily unbelievable.
i'm not sure exactly what psychological need this fulfills.
someone really needs to just address this stuff, and debunk it.
it's like JFK though, i imagine these claims will never go away.
maybe the psychological need is to have some sort of bad guy, that is really meaningful.
19 nobodies taking all those lives is so unsatisfactory emotionally.
but el Presidente, now that's a good story.
ok. here's an edit.
first...on 9/11/01 i lived in cleveland. i remember mayor white's speech. and the hubbub of the plane landing at hopkins, just about a mile from my house. this information given in the film, is completely inaccurate. this stuff just illustrates the problem with rapid fire news...bad information gets out, and it hovers around the internet for ever.
next, the discussion about free fall...the timing is inaccurate. first, their calculations of free fall are pretty close, in a vacuum. second, the debris away from the main collapse was falling faster than the building itself, which, tells the viewer that the building is not falling at free fall speeds.
that's obvious stuff, without any research.
further, i find it impossible to believe that the pennsylvania state police, and the many other agencies involved are all playing along. this falls under the list of rules i have in life...
1. everyone lies
2. everyone acts for their own self-interest
3. two people in government can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
i can't believe i'm staying up all night for this...
Thursday, February 15, 2007
assassination and philosophy of just war
Since the beginning of history, philosophers have recognized exceptions to rules against taking human life, realizing that in certain circumstances an inflexible rule against the taking of life is untenable and unjust. Early legal codes followed the doctrine of nullem crimen sine poena (“no crime without a punishment”), some examples would be the code of Ur Nammu (c. 2100 B.C.E.), the laws of Eshnunna (c. 2000 B.C.E.), and the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1728-1686 B.C.E.). Lex talionis (“exact retaliation”) is a similar doctrine which can be found in three biblical passages, Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deutoronomy 19:21. These concepts echo the claim that are certain circumstances where violent reprisals are appropriate in order to protect the public, dissuade future offenders, and to achieve justice.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “the first precept of law is that good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” St. Thomas Aquinas supported violence against a sovereign who was evil in order to spare innocent lives and punish the individuals who act to cause wars. Aquinas did not recognize a difference between a criminal harming a single victim, and a head of state acting in a tyrannical manner harming every individual living under their authority. Aquinas equated both actions without regard to scale, and he believed that a tyrannical ruler should face the same punishment as an individual that commits a similar crime on a smaller scale. Aquinas was centuries ahead of his time in this regard, laying the philosophical framework for the evaluation of all leaders based upon the legality of their actions, and not giving them free reign and absolving them of responsibility simply because of their status as head of state.
Sir Thomas More takes Aquinas a step further, and in his description of his maximally rational society in Utopia, the first move of the Utopians in any war is to offer a large reward for anyone in the enemy territory who kills a member of the enemy leadership, or double that amount if the leaders are kidnapped and brought to the Utopians alive. More recognized that this policy is at odds with the “irrational law of nations,” but praised the utopians for their prudence, humanity, and compassion. More praised their rationality because these “treacherous” acts brought wars to a conclusion without the waging of battles and “for the price of a few harmful lives they purchase[d] numerous harmless lives.” The Utopians realized that the populace of a nation would typically not be responsible for starting a war themselves, that it is the decision of a few that force the populace to war, and so the Utopians attempt to harm the innocent populace as little as possible while focusing punishment on the guilty—the ruling class which instigated the war.
The first appearance of the treachery-perfidy distinction arose in the work of Balthazar Ayala, who shared the philosophy of St. Augustine, that it was “indifferent from the standpoint of justice whether trickery be used” against an enemy, regardless of their political station. However, Ayala did distinguish between trickery and “fraud and snares,” a distinction which survives in today’s legal codes as the perfidy restriction. Ayala began to recognize that the use of perfidious means of attack runs the danger of making a just cause indistinguishable from the actions of the tyrants they resisted.
Alberico Gentili rejected the philosophy of St. Augustine; however he did further develop the perfidy concept begun in the work of Ayala. Gentili rejected the idea of a treacherous or perfidious attack because of the high probability of chaos resulting from the deaths of the leaders of both sides. Gentili considered three possible methods of taking the life of a sovereign: incitement of the subjects to kill a sovereign, a treacherous attack, or an open attack against an unarmed enemy, and he determined that all three possible methods were untenable and impermissible under natural law. Gentili argued that any secretive or treacherous acts should be illegal, because once “you allow murder, there are no methods and no forms of it which you can exclude; therefore murder should never be permitted.” Gentili defined victory through justice and honor, and expressly denied that the killing of a single leader would save many other lives, in fact he believed that a new leader would emerge and the enemy would be enraged and motivated by the method of the former leader’s death. Gentili’s contribution to the philosophical framework underlying the legitimacy of assassination is the addition of the test for unlawful murder, which focuses on the use of treachery in accomplishing the elimination of the target. Further, Gentili would not only hold the actual killer liable for the death of the target, but also those encouraging or financing the activities of the killer.
Grotius specifically considered the issue of whether assassination could be a legitimate method to kill an enemy, and he expressly distinguished between those with a good faith obligation to support a leader, and those with no such obligations. Those with good faith obligations, such as subjects of a king, soldiers and their superiors, and even strangers and those giving them shelter or aid could not lawfully kill those with whom they have such an obligation. However, those without such obligations are free to kill an enemy wherever they encounter them so long as they do not use treacherous means or offer a reward for the death of an enemy. Grotius saw no illegality in the action of Pepin, who is reported to have crossed the Rhine River at night, snuck into an enemy encampment, and killed the sleeping commander. A fascinating part of Grotius’s philosophy is his stance on treachery used against enemies of all states, such as “robbers and pirates,” who he claims is not morally correct, but is at least accepted by the international community “by reason of hatred of those against whom it is practiced.”
According to Emmerich de Vattal, assassination is “a murder committed by means of treachery,” and condemned the use of such tactics in warfare. Vattel’s major contribution to the philosophy of the laws of war relating to assassination is the emphasis on necessity. The circumstances where Vattel approves of the targeting of leaders are extreme, as “to take away the life of the enemy's sovereign, when it might be spared, is perhaps doing that nation a greater degree of harm than is necessary for bringing the contest to a happy issue.” Vattal only approves of the targeting of regime leaders when the harm done to that leader’s own state is not greater than the harm needed to be inflicted to subjugate that particular enemy otherwise, but the law does not require that the person of the regime leader be spared because of their position. Vattal stated in The Law of Nations, that “[m]en who are by profession poisoners, assassins or incendiaries may be exterminated wherever they are caught for they direct their disastrous attacks against all Nations, by destroying the foundations of their common safety.”
A view of war more in line with our modern conception of total war is represented in the legal philosophy of Bynkershoek. According to Bynkershoek, “war justifies every method of destroying the enemy.” Bynkershoek justifies this approach by arguing that the welfare of one’s own people and state rises above the concern for how that welfare is protected or accomplished. The use of assassins is specifically mentioned as a legitimate tactic to destroy an enemy. There is only one restriction on this provision of virtually unlimited action, which is the banning of the use of perfidy. Perfidy, for Bynkershoek, was defined as the breaking of an agreement, which was unacceptable to him because when an agreement has been made the relationship between opponents has been altered, and in the realm covered by that agreement, because when an agreement “has been made the enemy ceases to be an enemy as far as regards the [agreement].”
Kant described a state of nature that was more dangerous than even that of Thomas Hobbes, in order to demonstrate the necessity of international federalism to protect the community of nations. Interaction between states, including war, must be carried out so as not to preclude future lawful interactions among those states. As a result, Kant specifically outlaws assassination as a legal means of acting on the international stage, even in a time of hostilities. A state which uses assassination as a tactic against its enemies will have destroyed the mutual confidence between states which must exist to enact a subsequent peace and international order, and as a result, Kant believes that assassination is an unlawful tactic.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “the first precept of law is that good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided.” St. Thomas Aquinas supported violence against a sovereign who was evil in order to spare innocent lives and punish the individuals who act to cause wars. Aquinas did not recognize a difference between a criminal harming a single victim, and a head of state acting in a tyrannical manner harming every individual living under their authority. Aquinas equated both actions without regard to scale, and he believed that a tyrannical ruler should face the same punishment as an individual that commits a similar crime on a smaller scale. Aquinas was centuries ahead of his time in this regard, laying the philosophical framework for the evaluation of all leaders based upon the legality of their actions, and not giving them free reign and absolving them of responsibility simply because of their status as head of state.
Sir Thomas More takes Aquinas a step further, and in his description of his maximally rational society in Utopia, the first move of the Utopians in any war is to offer a large reward for anyone in the enemy territory who kills a member of the enemy leadership, or double that amount if the leaders are kidnapped and brought to the Utopians alive. More recognized that this policy is at odds with the “irrational law of nations,” but praised the utopians for their prudence, humanity, and compassion. More praised their rationality because these “treacherous” acts brought wars to a conclusion without the waging of battles and “for the price of a few harmful lives they purchase[d] numerous harmless lives.” The Utopians realized that the populace of a nation would typically not be responsible for starting a war themselves, that it is the decision of a few that force the populace to war, and so the Utopians attempt to harm the innocent populace as little as possible while focusing punishment on the guilty—the ruling class which instigated the war.
The first appearance of the treachery-perfidy distinction arose in the work of Balthazar Ayala, who shared the philosophy of St. Augustine, that it was “indifferent from the standpoint of justice whether trickery be used” against an enemy, regardless of their political station. However, Ayala did distinguish between trickery and “fraud and snares,” a distinction which survives in today’s legal codes as the perfidy restriction. Ayala began to recognize that the use of perfidious means of attack runs the danger of making a just cause indistinguishable from the actions of the tyrants they resisted.
Alberico Gentili rejected the philosophy of St. Augustine; however he did further develop the perfidy concept begun in the work of Ayala. Gentili rejected the idea of a treacherous or perfidious attack because of the high probability of chaos resulting from the deaths of the leaders of both sides. Gentili considered three possible methods of taking the life of a sovereign: incitement of the subjects to kill a sovereign, a treacherous attack, or an open attack against an unarmed enemy, and he determined that all three possible methods were untenable and impermissible under natural law. Gentili argued that any secretive or treacherous acts should be illegal, because once “you allow murder, there are no methods and no forms of it which you can exclude; therefore murder should never be permitted.” Gentili defined victory through justice and honor, and expressly denied that the killing of a single leader would save many other lives, in fact he believed that a new leader would emerge and the enemy would be enraged and motivated by the method of the former leader’s death. Gentili’s contribution to the philosophical framework underlying the legitimacy of assassination is the addition of the test for unlawful murder, which focuses on the use of treachery in accomplishing the elimination of the target. Further, Gentili would not only hold the actual killer liable for the death of the target, but also those encouraging or financing the activities of the killer.
Grotius specifically considered the issue of whether assassination could be a legitimate method to kill an enemy, and he expressly distinguished between those with a good faith obligation to support a leader, and those with no such obligations. Those with good faith obligations, such as subjects of a king, soldiers and their superiors, and even strangers and those giving them shelter or aid could not lawfully kill those with whom they have such an obligation. However, those without such obligations are free to kill an enemy wherever they encounter them so long as they do not use treacherous means or offer a reward for the death of an enemy. Grotius saw no illegality in the action of Pepin, who is reported to have crossed the Rhine River at night, snuck into an enemy encampment, and killed the sleeping commander. A fascinating part of Grotius’s philosophy is his stance on treachery used against enemies of all states, such as “robbers and pirates,” who he claims is not morally correct, but is at least accepted by the international community “by reason of hatred of those against whom it is practiced.”
According to Emmerich de Vattal, assassination is “a murder committed by means of treachery,” and condemned the use of such tactics in warfare. Vattel’s major contribution to the philosophy of the laws of war relating to assassination is the emphasis on necessity. The circumstances where Vattel approves of the targeting of leaders are extreme, as “to take away the life of the enemy's sovereign, when it might be spared, is perhaps doing that nation a greater degree of harm than is necessary for bringing the contest to a happy issue.” Vattal only approves of the targeting of regime leaders when the harm done to that leader’s own state is not greater than the harm needed to be inflicted to subjugate that particular enemy otherwise, but the law does not require that the person of the regime leader be spared because of their position. Vattal stated in The Law of Nations, that “[m]en who are by profession poisoners, assassins or incendiaries may be exterminated wherever they are caught for they direct their disastrous attacks against all Nations, by destroying the foundations of their common safety.”
A view of war more in line with our modern conception of total war is represented in the legal philosophy of Bynkershoek. According to Bynkershoek, “war justifies every method of destroying the enemy.” Bynkershoek justifies this approach by arguing that the welfare of one’s own people and state rises above the concern for how that welfare is protected or accomplished. The use of assassins is specifically mentioned as a legitimate tactic to destroy an enemy. There is only one restriction on this provision of virtually unlimited action, which is the banning of the use of perfidy. Perfidy, for Bynkershoek, was defined as the breaking of an agreement, which was unacceptable to him because when an agreement has been made the relationship between opponents has been altered, and in the realm covered by that agreement, because when an agreement “has been made the enemy ceases to be an enemy as far as regards the [agreement].”
Kant described a state of nature that was more dangerous than even that of Thomas Hobbes, in order to demonstrate the necessity of international federalism to protect the community of nations. Interaction between states, including war, must be carried out so as not to preclude future lawful interactions among those states. As a result, Kant specifically outlaws assassination as a legal means of acting on the international stage, even in a time of hostilities. A state which uses assassination as a tactic against its enemies will have destroyed the mutual confidence between states which must exist to enact a subsequent peace and international order, and as a result, Kant believes that assassination is an unlawful tactic.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
2 legged dog and american troops
please watch this video at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6445f9fdd7
Although I typically do not agree with the stance of PETA, in this situation, this behavior is acceptable. The quality of human beings can be measured by how they treat those that they do not have to treat well. Clearly, these men demonstrated their quality, and it is a sad statement, because their behavior reflects poorly upon the men and women fighting in Iraq and around the world. Causing animals to suffer unnecessarily is a crime in the United States, where citizens refuse to stand for such cruelty. There is simply no excuse for this kind of cruel and barbaric behavior on the part of soldiers.
and, before people comment about supporting the troops, etc., i will not entertain those sort of comments, those fall under the emotional arguments exception. this is not about supporting the troops, this is about the rule of law, which is important to the mission of the united states.
good night.
Although I typically do not agree with the stance of PETA, in this situation, this behavior is acceptable. The quality of human beings can be measured by how they treat those that they do not have to treat well. Clearly, these men demonstrated their quality, and it is a sad statement, because their behavior reflects poorly upon the men and women fighting in Iraq and around the world. Causing animals to suffer unnecessarily is a crime in the United States, where citizens refuse to stand for such cruelty. There is simply no excuse for this kind of cruel and barbaric behavior on the part of soldiers.
and, before people comment about supporting the troops, etc., i will not entertain those sort of comments, those fall under the emotional arguments exception. this is not about supporting the troops, this is about the rule of law, which is important to the mission of the united states.
good night.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
scarborough got this wrong
scarborough was wrong here, in this argument, when he compared jessie ventura's statement to statements made by hitler. in fact, hitler repeatedly remarked about the religiousity of national socialism, and its close ties to the christian belief system. hitler believed that the new germany would be a christian nation, and was clear about this belief in several speeches. a little cursory research of the legitimate historical record and research would have made this fact clear to scarborough. sadly, for talking heads, on both sides, even cursory research appears to be too much to ask. it is perspectives like this, and ad hoc comparisons, and the seemingly common rhetorical technique of comparing opponents to fascists that is polluting our political discussion. this statement goes too far, it is not this alone, but this is a key factor in the weakening of american political discourse.
so, i would like to lay out two basic tenets of understanding human beings:
1] everyone lies
2] everyone acts from a self-interested perspective
and a good piece of advice when having a rhetorical discussion with someone like scarborough, o'reilly, hannity, franken, or any one you meet in a bar; never trust historical examples implicitly, double check their facts, and question their facts, make them back it up.
and when someone compares someone or something to an atrocity, call them on that unfairness.
joshua 6:21
hello. i have created this site, in order to address ideas. my ideas. to explore them, and to begin an intellectual process which will be the basis of my moral, political, and legal philosophy. this site will be a sounding board with a focus on legal, political, scientific, and religious ideas; there will be no discussion of my emotional state or issues, these will continue to be presented on my myspace page, so if you care about me personally, and not simply intellectually, that information can be found there.
welcome.
i hope to have a positive and interesting discussion on these pages.
early copies of my work will most likely be presented here, and in the vein of the blog of University of Chicago professors Posner and Becker, I hope to create a forum for discussion among not only my friend, but others who also wander here. please post comments, the only restriction will be that arguments are logical and based on reason, attacks or emotions will not be tolerated.
i look forward to your participation.
welcome.
i hope to have a positive and interesting discussion on these pages.
early copies of my work will most likely be presented here, and in the vein of the blog of University of Chicago professors Posner and Becker, I hope to create a forum for discussion among not only my friend, but others who also wander here. please post comments, the only restriction will be that arguments are logical and based on reason, attacks or emotions will not be tolerated.
i look forward to your participation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
