A "Worldwide" Definition of morality

[Tycoon101]

I know that there are quite a few threads about religeous morality, but what about political morality?

Should countries define morality, and try to oppress other nations by forcing it upon them? Should we, as members of "Civilized" societies attempt to define morality, and weaken ourselves?

My thought is the Geneva Convention Laws and terrorism. Why should we define a moral structure that prohibits? Why should we respect human life that is not respected in return?

Please discuss this, and please don't flame each other, I don't want a war on my hands.

 

[.Shane.]

Governments are not moral institutions.

Societies vary too much to impose morals across a world of 6 billion.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

a quick perusing of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli will prove this argument false

 

[Tycoon101]

Governments are not moral institutions.

Societies vary too much to impose morals across a world of 6 billion.

I agree. Governments are here to keep ORDER, NOT impose standards of letting people survive.

And to clarify- This is directed towards war and peace, political relations. NOT inward social problems I.E. The thread about Life Art would not be applicable here.

 

[Tulkas12]

All morals are self-imposed and therefore it would be tough to force others to follow western morals. It would be worth WWIII if we could settle the matter though, and if we could keep from erasing life from the earth while doing it.

Personally, I have often thought that we should pursue immediate families of terrorists. Its one thing to hide as a single person and something altogether different to hide women and children. I say find them and hold them until the fugitive gives hiself up. If he continues acting barbarically, star sumarily executing family members. This would be only terrorism fighting measure and not applicable with normal combatants or citizens. Just a horrible thought.

 

[Tycoon101]

Personally, I have often thought that we should pursue immediate families of terrorists. Its one thing to hide as a single person and something altogether different to hide women and children. I say find them and hold them until the fugitive gives hiself up. If he continues acting barbarically, star sumarily executing family members. This would be only terrorism fighting measure and not applicable with normal combatants or citizens. Just a horrible thought.

But that is an excellent way to wage war against heathens. Even if you must become heathen to win, if you can revert back to your normal self then it is a feasible plan. When fighting against people with no morals, there truly is only one reason to be moral- to keep your sanity. But if you stay sane while being immoral then I say that they have an excellent plan.

 

[Masquerouge]

There is no absolute morals. People in different places will have different morals, people in different eras will have different morals.
And people will keep thinking their morals are the best and eternal, and people will keep on waging wars about it.

 

[Tycoon101]

There is no absolute morals. People in different places will have different morals, people in different eras will have different morals.
And people will keep thinking their morals are the best and eternal, and people will keep on waging wars about it.

Exactly. Then why DO we wage wars about morals if we realise this? Are people of other races and women REALLY equal to our nation's men? (I don't believe that thwey are not equal, but this is what I am talkin about) How about we have the people define the morals, not the government.

 

[Kozmos]

Personally, I have often thought that we should pursue immediate families of terrorists. Its one thing to hide as a single person and something altogether different to hide women and children. I say find them and hold them until the fugitive gives hiself up. If he continues acting barbarically, star sumarily executing family members. This would be only terrorism fighting measure and not applicable with normal combatants or citizens. Just a horrible thought.

All it would do is fuel their cause and give them a real reason to fight. FISSION MAILED!

 

[eyrei]

Even if there are absolute morals (Platonic forms and such), I seriously doubt we have stumbled on any of them since political philosophy hasn't really been practiced for over half a century except that we discovered that fascism is bad. Our governments revert constantly back to those things that democracy was supposed to help get rid of, like corruption, nepotism, propoganda, etc.

This is why the whole idea of 'spreading' democracy is doomed to failure. Our governments are not so far evolved that other cultures see them and say "wow, how truly brilliant!"

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Morality and governments make bad companions. The only use governments have for morality is in justifying their actions to their whiny and squeamish populace.

 

[Tycoon101]

This is why the whole idea of 'spreading' democracy is doomed to failure. Our governments are not so far evolved that other cultures see them and say "wow, how truly brilliant!"

Of course. There is no TRULY GOOD or BAD type of government. Fascism is just as good as a democracy if you look at it from the correct view. And besides, a theocratic government works fairly well for other nations. Unless they have a piece of trash like Saddam Hussein as their leader I don't see the reason to spread Democratic ideals.

The only Government that I would never wish to follow, however, is Communism. *Shudder* don't make me get started on Communism.

 

[Elta]

"Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace". -Benito Juarez as long as no one attacks us I could care less if they all live like apes. When a few radical hijackers steal a plane, we were foreced to impose ourself over a whole societey, now it's time for that society to impose themselfs on those radicals.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

A "Worldwide" Definition of morality

Absolutely impossible.

There is rarely a EU wide consesus on maundane issues such as fishing rights. I doubt there will ever be a world wide agreement on the morality of using force. Cliche it may be but "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" comes to mind.

 

[Tulkas12]

Absolutely impossible.

There is rarely a EU wide consesus on maundane issues such as fishing rights. I doubt there will ever be a world wide agreement on the morality of using force. Cliche it may be but "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" comes to mind.

I agree there will never be, even if you did have, politics would get in the way. . .and by politics I mean money.

 

[CurtSibling]

I agree there will never be, even if you did have, politics would get in the way. . .and by politics I mean money.

I agree 100% with you on this one.

Human groups seem hardwired to oppose each other.

.

 

[Truronian]

Not gonna happen. We just have to stick to our principles and hope the enmy do the same.

Personally, I have often thought that we should pursue immediate families of terrorists. Its one thing to hide as a single person and something altogether different to hide women and children. I say find them and hold them until the fugitive gives hiself up. If he continues acting barbarically, star sumarily executing family members. This would be only terrorism fighting measure and not applicable with normal combatants or citizens. Just a horrible thought.

And in doing so become the evil that you are fighting.

 

[Tulkas12]

Not gonna happen. We just have to stick to our principles and hope the enmy do the same.



And in doing so become the evil that you are fighting.

I do agree with you here. This thread has gone everywhere though. I have to admit my idea is a great counter to this matyrdom crap though. Make ppl realize that they are martyring their whole families, and it would recede.

 

[Truronian]

I do agree with you here. This thread has gone everywhere though. I have to admit my idea is a great counter to this matyrdom crap though. Make ppl realize that they are martyring their whole families, and it would recede.

I doubt it. Terrorists rarely think so rationally. In fact, killing their family would just mean there are four martyrs rather than one.

 

[Tulkas12]

I doubt it. Terrorists rarely think so rationally. In fact, killing their family would just mean there are four martyrs rather than one.

I doubt it. We are obviuosly meant to doubt each other friend.