Where does civilization draw the line?

[Tulkas12]

Ok, I put up this thread yesterday and it was embarassingly bad. I hope to make it more clear for I was in a hurry, anyways I apologize and hope I can make the idea more clear.

Where do we draw the line as humans?

What does a nation or orginization have to do to deserve our reprisal? At what point is it necessary to take action against such said orginization or nation? What actions are viable? What rights would be considered sacred to all of mankind? Should we keep it to human rights ( to live and such), or civil rights too (equality and such)?

It has become apparent that invading your neighbor is a no go anymore. It is also apparent that regarding civil conflicts almost anything is fair game and all human rights generally fail.

So should, for example the UN, draw a line stating that such actions are not allowable? What should the consequences be for atrocities? Do we have the right to impose these ideas?


Lots of questions and little answers I know, but I'm just curious as to people's lines of thought here. I do implore that we keep the discussion secular and only bring up religion as a civil right to choose your own religion.

WE are in the age of mass destruction. . .can we afford to sit idly by while the we destroy ourselves?

If you need clarification further just ask. These questions are philosophical in nature and though examples should be used the principles are what I want to hear about.

 

[warpus]

It depends on the context.

Without details your question is unanswerable.

 

[Tulkas12]

It depends on the context.

Without details your question is unanswerable.

No, I want the point to stay philisophical, this needs no context. What deserves reaction to?

 

[GinandTonic]

Only use force when the good it will do out ballances the bad, same as any other moral choice.

 

[.Shane.]

No, I want the point to stay philisophical, this needs no context. What deserves reaction to?

Sorry, but I agree w/ the other poster. Your thread, while better than the first one, is too vague to be meaningful, at least IMHO.

 

[Tulkas12]

Only use force when the good it will do out ballances the bad, same as any other moral choice.

So a utilitarian veiw? So lets measure this out a bit. What is a society's freedoms worth (assuming the society is ready and in want of rights)? A million lives? 10 million lives? Extended poverty and food shortages?

 

[Tulkas12]

Sorry, but I agree w/ the other poster. Your thread, while better than the first one, is too vague to be meaningful, at least IMHO.

It is meant to be vague for alot of reasons though. If I offer up an example the thread will get bogged down in trivia. I want peoples philosphical beliefs. This is something we have to decide as a species at some point, heck to be honest we are in the middle of drawing our lines. So what are yours?

 

[warpus]

IMO setting down lines without first familiarizing yourself with the details of the situation would be intellectually dishonest.

That, and it wouldn't work.

 

[Sidhe]

Sorry, but I agree w/ the other poster. Your thread, while better than the first one, is too vague to be meaningful, at least IMHO.

If you want to make it more direct then pick a country, pick the USA say make up a scenario where it oversteps it's bounds, and then sit back and wait for a reaction and a lot of people saying yeah but what can the UN or anyone do.

Better still invent a scenario and name a fictional country such as Kreblakistan, state that it's nuclear arsenal has fallen into the hands of a dictator and an irational one, what should we do in such a situation, should war be the first resort or the last, are there diplomatic means to control such a rogue state, make real life comparissons about burgeoning missile tech, and state your reasoning for your answers. I think the OP is fine you just need to use your imagination.

 

[Tulkas12]

IMO setting down lines without first familiarizing yourself with the details of the situation would be intellectually dishonest.

That, and it wouldn't work.

So you do not believe in any standards whatsoever?

 

[Tulkas12]

If you want to make it more direct then pick a country, pick the USA say make up a scenario where it oversteps it's bounds, and then sit back and wait for a reaction and a lot of people saying yeah but what can the UN or anyone do.

Better still invent a scenario and name a fictional country such as Kreblakistan, state that it's nuclear arsenal has fallen into the hands of a dictator and an irational one, what should we do in such a situation, should war be the first resort or the last, are there diplomatic means to control such a rogue state, make real life comparissons about burgeoning missile tech, and state your reasoning for your answers. I think the OP is fine you just need to use your imagination.

I'm trying to avoid that, because that closes down the conversation to particulars. I geuss this might be an impossible discussion in a forum and is only possible w/ verbal communication.

 

[warpus]

So you do not believe in any standards whatsoever?

Standards, sure, but they have to be based on something specific.

 

[GinandTonic]

So a utilitarian veiw? So lets measure this out a bit. What is a society's freedoms worth (assuming the society is ready and in want of rights)? A million lives? 10 million lives? Extended poverty and food shortages?

Greatest utitity to the greatest number. How you way life against liberty is the sticky choice. You may have the courage to say "give me liberty or give me death" but do you have the right make that choice for others? Give my children liberty or give my granny death?

 

[Tulkas12]

Standards, sure, but they have to be based on something specific.

Ok, well use your standards on human and civil rights, that is what I'm after anyways. What abuses and atrocities call for say the UN to react?

 

[Tulkas12]

Greatest utitity to the greatest number. How you way life against liberty is the sticky choice. You may have the courage to say "give me liberty or give me death" but do you have the right make that choice for others? Give my children liberty or give my granny death?

Indeed, good point. Do we have the right to impose this in areas where abuses are rampant and radicalized? Choices are being made regarding this now, so what do you think specifically? In your opinion?

 

[.Shane.]

It is meant to be vague for alot of reasons though. If I offer up an example the thread will get bogged down in trivia. I want peoples philosphical beliefs. This is something we have to decide as a species at some point, heck to be honest we are in the middle of drawing our lines. So what are yours?

Are you talking about relations between nations? Individual actions? Crimes? To what scale? Crimes by individuals or nations? etc.. etc... ad naseum. Plus, too much of it is subjectively stated. For example "while we destroy ourselves." That means about 1000 different things to every person.

@Sidhe, there's a difference between a vaguely asked question and wanting to avoid specifics.

 

[Sidhe]

Fair enough Tulkas, I shall respect your wishes.

I have never been a great advocate of forcing any belief system on anyone, it might of worked when the imbalance of technology was so vast you could force your beliefs on the natives, but these days the game is far too dangerous and complicated to impose agendas on nations that wish little to do with them, this will simply lead to puppet states, and eventual overthrow by the majority who agree little with the imposed state of affairs in the first place. Democracy or whatever at the end of a gun achieves little. It's also frighteningly ironic.

EDIT: I apologise Shane I misinterpreted your intentions.

 

[.Shane.]

EDIT: I apologise Shane I misinterpreted your intentions.

None needed.

 

[Tulkas12]

Are you talking about relations between nations? Individual actions? Crimes? To what scale? Crimes by individuals or nations? etc.. etc... ad naseum. Plus, too much of it is subjectively stated. For example "while we destroy ourselves." That means about 1000 different things to every person.

@Sidhe, there's a difference between a vaguely asked question and wanting to avoid specifics.

Nations and international orginizations. . . corporations, terrorists, and what not. This is not on a person to person thing.

We destroy ourselves is a reference to continual fighting that man has wrought since its birth, the problem now of course is technology, so where do we stand as a species?

 

[.Shane.]

We destroy ourselves is a reference to continual fighting that man has wrought since its birth, the problem now of course is technology, so where do we stand as a species?

This is what I mean. You're making very subjective assumptions. Such as: continual fighting is bad, that technology is a problem, etc....

Where do we stand? In relation to what?