I wasn't saying that the answer to X was to do _worse_ things. I don't think anyone was.
And you said that if an action was happening in another country then intervening was wrong. I assumed that you mean that intervening was more wrong than whatever was happening. As "countries" are constructs created by people with no 'natural' state of being, it seems you're willing to let these lines get in the way of saving people from awful fates.
"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.
So are laws, human rights, marriages, etc, but I respect those too.
All laws? Because I certainly don't.
And offering safe haven is always a good start. But when the torturers in the other country won't let people go, and are herding them into death camps, I tend to be in favour of action.
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.
And then you get the problem ... where is the moral dividing line? Well, as morals are inherently subjective/intersubjective I'd say that there very much isn't a line, there's a great big blurry grey area.
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?
Ok by who's standards?
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. Me either. I'm ok with that though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
It's possible to understand that group A in a country is using group B as a scapegoat, lining them up and shooting them, I'd assume.
Personally, I don't see why drawing lines on the ground makes it ok to rape people on one side of the line and not on the other. Seems...odd to me.
no subject
"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".
no subject
And you said that if an action was happening in another country then intervening was wrong. I assumed that you mean that intervening was more wrong than whatever was happening. As "countries" are constructs created by people with no 'natural' state of being, it seems you're willing to let these lines get in the way of saving people from awful fates.
But I may be misunderstanding your answers here.
no subject
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.
no subject
All laws? Because I certainly don't.
And offering safe haven is always a good start. But when the torturers in the other country won't let people go, and are herding them into death camps, I tend to be in favour of action.
no subject
Excellent point.
no subject
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.
no subject
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/three-worlds-collide.html
no subject
http://syndicated.livejournal.com/andyduckerlinks/608861.html
no subject
Well, as morals are inherently subjective/intersubjective I'd say that there very much isn't a line, there's a great big blurry grey area.
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?
Ok by who's standards?
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.
Me either. I'm ok with that though.