Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 164 of 164

Thread: So .... Libya?

  1. #151
    And I argue that it's a bit odd to have standards that are universally rejected by societies similar to that of Libya.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #152
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Wiggin is arguing that there are standards for right and wrong that transcend societal values.
    Which, ironically, is only his position because of the society in which he was brought up. (To provide a slightly different angle on Loki's point.)
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    And I argue that it's a bit odd to have standards that are universally rejected by societies similar to that of Libya.
    Murder was universally rejected by Libya? Really?

    Regardless of whether or not that is true, (it isn't) that doesn't address his point. Slavery was wrong, even when it was widely accepted in our society. Genocide is wrong, even when it is performed with the full consent of society.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Murder was universally rejected by Libya? Really?

    Regardless of whether or not that is true, (it isn't) that doesn't address his point. Slavery was wrong, even when it was widely accepted in our society. Genocide is wrong, even when it is performed with the full consent of society.
    Considering that Libya has no functioning legal system, killing a dictator can hardly be termed murder. And yes, Libyan society does accept killing in retaliation for massive wrongs. As for slavery, I'd argue that the argument against it makes much more sense in the modern age than at the time when it was universally practiced. It wasn't a very nice institution, but it existed alongside plenty of other not-so-nice institutions, making it very difficult for people at that time to view it as the evil that we see it today.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #155
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Wiggin's knowledge/interpretation/appreciation of those standards for what's right and what's not is a result of him being brought up in blah blah.

    I have to admit I did not wake up today thinking I'd see Loki pushing moral relativism! This thread is full of surprises.
    Last edited by Aimless; 11-01-2011 at 05:20 PM.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Considering that Libya has no functioning legal system, killing a dictator can hardly be termed murder. And yes, Libyan society does accept killing in retaliation for massive wrongs. As for slavery, I'd argue that the argument against it makes much more sense in the modern age than at the time when it was universally practiced. It wasn't a very nice institution, but it existed alongside plenty of other not-so-nice institutions, making it very difficult for people at that time to view it as the evil that we see it today.
    Society accepting death as a form of corporal punishment for wrongdoing does not equate to society accepting murder. It's a distinction that I have made before, and more recently one that wiggin made.

  7. #157
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Society accepting death as a form of corporal punishment for wrongdoing does not equate to society accepting murder.
    It surely does, given the definition of "murder." Unless you're using a different definition of the word, which would render the question tautological...
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Wiggin's knowledge/interpretation/appreciation of those standards for what's right and what's not is a result of him being brought up in blah blah.

    I have to admit I did not wake up today thinking I'd see Loki pushing moral relativism! This thread is full of surprises.
    I'm not calling for moral relativism, but rather for moral realism. A given moral must be held by at least some people (preferably by a sizable minority at the very least) before we can say that everyone should abide by it. It doesn't mean that everyone gets to decide what is moral by themselves; nor does it mean that we should be satisfied with individuals or countries engaging in what we view as being highly immoral. But I find it difficult to argue that something is immoral when no one at the time and place believes it to be such. In terms of logic, this is similar to the views of the Catholic Church, which claimed that someone cannot go to hell for not believing in Christ if they had no way to obtain information about him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Society accepting death as a form of corporal punishment for wrongdoing does not equate to society accepting murder. It's a distinction that I have made before, and more recently one that wiggin made.
    Murder = illegal killing. No functioning legal system = no way to define legality. Therefore, murder cannot exist in a society without law.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm not calling for moral relativism, but rather for moral realism. A given moral must be held by at least some people (preferably by a sizable minority at the very least) before we can say that everyone should abide by it. It doesn't mean that everyone gets to decide what is moral by themselves; nor does it mean that we should be satisfied with individuals or countries engaging in what we view as being highly immoral. But I find it difficult to argue that something is immoral when no one at the time and place believes it to be such. In terms of logic, this is similar to the views of the Catholic Church, which claimed that someone cannot go to hell for not believing in Christ if they had no way to obtain information about him.
    It may be unreasonable to do so, but one might argue that some moral positions can be arrived at through reasoning ie. that rational people will agree about what's right and what's not. Granted you can't disregard the social context, but the position that some things are just universally "known" to be wrong isn't exactly unheard of on this forum.

    Murder = illegal killing. No functioning legal system = no way to define legality. Therefore, murder cannot exist in a society without law.
    I wonder what that'd mean for the coming investigation and possible trial
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    It surely does, given the definition of "murder." Unless you're using a different definition of the word, which would render the question tautological...
    Murder is unlawful killing. As societies dictate both laws and punishments, so also do they dictate whether or not death can be a legal punishment for crime. Most societies, however, (Libya included) require some kind of judicial proceeding before such punishments are meted out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki
    Murder = illegal killing. No functioning legal system = no way to define legality. Therefore, murder cannot exist in a society without law.
    I reject your premise. Libya has some semblance of a functioning legal system, even if that legal system is provincial, and often rooted in Sharia law. Granted that's not a legal system I'd want to be subject to, but the whole country is not wallowing in anarchy.

  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It may be unreasonable to do so, but one might argue that some moral positions can be arrived at through reasoning ie. that rational people will agree about what's right and what's not. Granted you can't disregard the social context, but the position that some things are just universally "known" to be wrong isn't exactly unheard of on this forum.
    That logic falls apart when you realize that every single individual in a society is unable to arrive that position through reason. So either every single member of society is incapable of using reason, or that morality is unfathomable in that context.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That logic falls apart when you realize that every single individual in a society is unable to arrive that position through reason. So either every single member of society is incapable of using reason, or that morality is unfathomable in that context.
    I dunno, maybe they haven't had the training, the education, the freedom from passion and other interference, the permission, etc.

    I mean, there are no doubt societies that just don't grok things like reading and writing, science, and maths.

    But, like I said, this sort of approach may not be entirely reasonable, as in sensible and fair.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  13. #163
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Murder is unlawful killing. As societies dictate both laws and punishments, so also do they dictate whether or not death can be a legal punishment for crime. Most societies, however, (Libya included) require some kind of judicial proceeding before such punishments are meted out.

    I reject your premise. Libya has some semblance of a functioning legal system, even if that legal system is provincial, and often rooted in Sharia law. Granted that's not a legal system I'd want to be subject to, but the whole country is not wallowing in anarchy.
    All of which neatly ignores that there's no legal way to kill the king, given that the king makes laws against trying to kill him, dontchaknow.

    Bringing us back to either: accepting murder(s) as not inherently immoral or using a definition of murder that renders the question tautological.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  14. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Considering that Libya has no functioning legal system, killing a dictator can hardly be termed murder. And yes, Libyan society does accept killing in retaliation for massive wrongs. As for slavery, I'd argue that the argument against it makes much more sense in the modern age than at the time when it was universally practiced. It wasn't a very nice institution, but it existed alongside plenty of other not-so-nice institutions, making it very difficult for people at that time to view it as the evil that we see it today.
    It is ridiculous to talk about Libya as if it were a legal tabula rasa because it isn't. Law enforcement in Libya collapsed, but that doesn't mean law collapsed. That is also recognized by its interim government that doesn't act as if there are no laws and they have to start from scratch but from a position where they have to scrap laws they no longer deem fitting for the new Libya. All sorts of crimes were committed during the war and plenty of them will be punished under Libyan law.

    Also, murder is not just an illegal killing, but it is a pre-meditated illegal killing. That makes it very unlikely that anybody will ever be tried for the 'murder' of Muammar Ghadaffi, as the man was not murdered. He died a gruesome death, but that doesn't mean he was murdered. Hell, a good lawyer could even turn this into an act of self-defense. A libyan who lived under Ghadaffi for 42 years and was in Siirte at the time of his flight from that city had reason to fear for his life if the dictator managed to get away from his captors or if his loyalists would attempt to free him.
    Congratulations America

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •