[identity profile] natural20.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 03:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Something must always be done, but there are a very large variety of possible responses.
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)

[personal profile] matgb 2009-02-27 03:54 pm (UTC)(link)
This. Sometimes the "something" proposed is worse than the original problem.

[identity profile] ladysisyphus.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed, with a side helping of, the farther that madman gets away, the more difficult it is to do something, and the more likely it is that said 'something' will make the matter worse, owing to matters of politics, geography, and culture.

[identity profile] chuma.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 03:54 pm (UTC)(link)
You never actually stated something must be done by any particular party until the last question. Personally I believe those more local to the situation would be best to deal with any situation first before bringing in outside help.

[identity profile] girl-onthego.livejournal.com 2009-02-28 05:24 am (UTC)(link)
this, with the added observation that you don't say who's doing the something - only that something must be done (presumably by someone). Something must be done in all situations of justice. Who is best placed to do it is another question.
cdave: (Default)

[personal profile] cdave 2009-02-27 04:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Most (of the three existing) comments focus on the broadness of the something.

It's the forcefulness of the must that worries me.

I know what triggered this, so this may have shaped my answers.

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:06 pm (UTC)(link)
This is ... extremely loaded. I hope that's deliberate.

IMO, the closer to home something is, the more confident we can be that our judgements that it is wrong and that we know what to do to fix it are correct, and the further away it is, the more likely those judgements are to be misguided in some way. I also believe in the right of other countries to be sovereign in their own territory and not be policed by the country that happens to be the most powerful.

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
No, it's not "fine", but I don't think it's morally right for other countries to punish it, either. And, on a pragmatic level, recent world history has shown that we make things worse.

If someone else's child hits his little sister, that's wrong of him, but it would also be wrong of me (a stranger not in loco parentis) to punish him.

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:50 pm (UTC)(link)
See my clarification here (http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/1640141.html?thread=10046669#t10046669). I was possibly jumping to conclusions.

My point was that it would be wrong for me to *punish* the hitter; I was imagining a situation where he only did it once and I then sent him to his bedroom or spanked him or took away his PlayStation.

If he were continuing to hit his sister, then if I could, say, separate the children until their parents got back so that he couldn't hit her, then that would be a good thing to do, obviously.

[identity profile] girl-onthego.livejournal.com 2009-02-28 05:26 am (UTC)(link)
But the statement isn't, "s/he should be punished," it's "something must be done." That could be as much as shooting them in the head, or as little as physically restraining him.

Something must be done, yes, but what that something is isn't covered by the question, so I don't have a problem agreeing. To me, "Something must be done" is very similar in meaning to, "this can't be allowed to go on." How you dis-allow it or stop it being done is another matter.

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-28 10:43 am (UTC)(link)
I know; I said I jumped to conclusions about what was being suggested.
cdave: (Default)

[personal profile] cdave 2009-02-27 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Playing that game.

Given the options presented to Parliament: War in Iraq. Do nothing for several months. Which way do you want your MP to vote?
cdave: (Default)

[personal profile] cdave 2009-02-27 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Because that's the world we live in.

You have to make choices in it, and they would be driven by your moral code.
cdave: (Default)

[personal profile] cdave 2009-02-27 05:11 pm (UTC)(link)
But "Something must be done!"

Unless that something just writing a blog post, writing to your MP is the something that's most likely to have an effect.

(Actually assassinating MPs you think will vote the other way would be more effective. And some must be done.)

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Just to clarify: I'm assuming, possibly wrongly, that the kind of intervention you're talking about is large-scale and probably violent. If that's not the case, then I change my position. For example, if there's a genocide going on and we can give the victims safe passage over here and grant them asylum, then that's a good idea; that's not policing anyone or aggravating situations we don't understand.

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:02 pm (UTC)(link)
I think you're twisting my words; I never said it was OK to rape people anywhere.

"There are ways of trying to stop bad_action_X which are even more wrong than bad_action_X" does not imply "bad_action_X is OK".

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:27 pm (UTC)(link)
"countries" are constructs created by people with no 'natural' state of being

So are laws, human rights, marriages, etc, but I respect those too.

Like I've said already, I think we were originally at cross purposes over the kind of "saving people" being discussed. I'm all for saving people in a way that involves offering them safety as opposed to going in and using our superior might to impose our will on their persecutors and force them to behave.
cdave: (Default)

[personal profile] cdave 2009-02-27 05:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you!

Excellent point.
ext_8559: Cartoon me  (Default)

[identity profile] the-magician.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm with you on this ... there's sovreignty and there's humanity, and they are on different maps :-)

A country that decides that it is ok to have sausages that are less than 75% meat and chocolate and icecream that contain vegetable fat is not a case for sending in an army (well, depends on the chocolate!).

A country that decides it is ok to kill every baby darker than a certain skin tone, that's different.

And then you get the problem ... where is the moral dividing line? If a country seriously believes that life begins at conception sees a neighbouring country practicing abortion (and so, by country A's morals, is killing thousands of human lives) is it ok for Country A to invade Country B?

The first part of any genocide is declaring that some people aren't human (or aren't fully human) and that their lives are worth less than the killing groups. Whether this is done on race, skin tone, relgious belief or intelligence (and does eugenics like the forced sterilization practiced in Sweden in the first half of the 20th century on the mentally subnormal count?)

What about if country A sees women being badly treated, beaten and deprived of education and rights? Is it ok to stand by?

I am not looking for actual answers, I am merely raising the obvious point that as soon as you say it is ok to interfere in another country's affairs for a really good reason, then that opens the floodgates for people to decide their reason is really good. (e.g. to bring democracy, to bring education and sanitation, to bring "freedom", to stop the world being flooded with opium, to bring the "blessing of Christianity to the savages" etc. etc.)

Rwanda was terrible; Kosova, Bosnia the Kurds, and so many other situations equally so ... DR Congo and Zimbabwe ... where is it ok to go in, and what are acceptable justifications?

I can't answer that aside from the "if I point at it and say I think it's valid, then it's valid" level of decision making.

[identity profile] meihua.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, gosh, I'm sure you've seen this already but your comment screams of it:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/three-worlds-collide.html

[identity profile] khbrown.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)
"The genocide is fine, if its legal in the country where it occurs" one is interesting:

Under Nazi law, being Jewish was essentially illegal. So was being homosexual.

After the war, the former was understood as genocide, but the latter wasn't, because - as I understand it - pre- and post- Nazi penal codes still defined homosexuality as illegal.

On this, I've often wondered what someone who was both Jewish and gay would say and where they would fit.

More generally, it's about different understandings - what is murder, rape, psychopathy etc, and are they universals?
ext_8559: Cartoon me  (Default)

[identity profile] the-magician.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I refused to answer the last question because I don't agree with either of the answers.

bad poll

:-)
ext_8559: Cartoon me  (Default)

[identity profile] the-magician.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:52 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not the only one to point it out. Either it's a deliberate ploy on your part to get people to comment, or you need to spend more time thinking about providing a set of answers that actually cover the answer space.

Hint, if you have two radio buttons, then to cover the answer space, the second one has to be the reverse of the first. So for example a bad set would be
What colour should Ferraris be painted
A) green B) pink

and a better set of answers would be
A) green, B) not green

And the actual answers should be a ticky box or similar that accepts black, red and yellow, and NOTHING ELSE (grin!) (oh, all right, maybe white)
Edited 2009-02-27 16:52 (UTC)
ext_8559: Cartoon me  (Default)

Seriously

[identity profile] the-magician.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 04:49 pm (UTC)(link)
Bad Question, so I can't

The world
can be divided into "us" and "them". "They" should help themselves rather then relying on "us".
0 (0.0%)

Nope. The world is both united and endlessly subdivided into groups from one person to family to community to religion to football team to skin colour to country to meatVSvegetarian etc. We are all individuals, we are all unique snowflakes and at the same time we are all parts of many overlapping and disjoint groups.

The world
is made up of people. All people deserve our help equally.

Nope. (well, yes, at one level the world is made up of people, let's ignore all other levels in that statement!). All people deserve our help equally. Nope. My mother deserves my help much more than George W. Bush. My friends deserve my help much more than a random member of the Taliban does.

I call it circles of influece and circles of interconnectedness, but I'm sure there are better sociological terms.

If my mother needed £5,000 for a hip operation, I'd borrow the money immediately and send it to her. If some random person in California needed £5,000 for a hip operation I'd probably send nothing. If one of my fannish friends put an appeal on LJ saying that a filker in California without adequate health insurance needed £5,000 as co-pay on her hip replacement, I might donate £20.

Thus I do not believe that "we" should treat everyone equally because I am firmly committed to "I don't treat everyone in the world equally" and I'm perfectly happy with that.

Re: Seriously

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm motivated by selfishness and altruism, and the "further away" someone is, the less altruism there is. There's probably an inverse square rule or something

[livejournal.com profile] the_alchemist made an interesting post about something similar this recently (unfortunately friends-locked), although her post was purely about time and space proximity, rather than social. She calls it the Proximity Rule, and says she doesn't have one.

Re: Seriously

[identity profile] woodpijn.livejournal.com 2009-03-01 02:50 pm (UTC)(link)
As I emphasised, she means time and space, not social; but on that scale AIUI she tried the latter and found it unsustainable, so moved to the former at the cost of being thought callous.

[identity profile] lpetrazickis.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)
If there's a serial killer next door, then I will call the police and maybe attempt to engage in fisticuffs.

If there's a serial killer in Montreal, what the hell am I supposed to do? Buy a train ticket and hope that they are still in Montreal when I get there, eh? I'll just have wasted my money.

A serial killer in the States or in Switzerland is a matter for the local constabulary.

This is clearly not about Iraq, as you are using a verb in the present tense, whereas Saddam's excesses happenned fifteen years before 2003.

[identity profile] meaningrequired.livejournal.com 2009-02-27 08:16 pm (UTC)(link)
If people even consider the chance of "us" and "then" which is incredibly easy, then there are a whole loads of psychological mechanisms that take over. People will naturally favour the group they perceive to be a part of. Its called ingroup outgroup if you want to look further into the psychology of prejudice.
zz: (Default)

[personal profile] zz 2009-02-27 08:30 pm (UTC)(link)
maybe i've listened to too much Turisas today, but being a madman raping and killing sounds like a fun day out. :)
ext_116401: (Analyse)

[identity profile] avatar.livejournal.com 2009-02-28 11:41 am (UTC)(link)
For the most part, I agree with [livejournal.com profile] the_magician's comment for that last question. My answer was pretty much "both". The world can be divided and they should help themselves rather than relying on us, but it is also made up of people - who, generally, deserve our help equally.

I answered something must be done to all except the last one regarding the different continents. My logic is going to be a little flawed here. First off, I'm in Australia, and the next country over is probably New Zealand, a country which would probably really really need some help in such a situation, and we'd really be obliged. The next continent over, is Asia, which is quite a different story. The thing is, there are rules between different continents - and countries if you look further out - which may suggest that they don't want our help. In which case, interference will just make things worse.

Hell, check out the war on terror between the almighty US and terror-ridden Afghanistan. Textbook.

[identity profile] rhythmaning.livejournal.com 2009-03-03 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Good point!