I agree with you. Once you screw people so badly, then you should expect to be screwed back!
But you’re not going to lay down and die for the sake of morality are you?
You mean there is just the process of change itself withotu a constant self to guide it?
But it’s not a will to express oneself or preserve oneself. its an affect that undoes the self. It’s that undoing which unravels the ‘oughts’ of traditional morality.
This is sounding essentialist, as if there is a true nature that is uncovered by situational exigencies. I’m skeptical of that. But if a gang member comes in and kills a member of my family, I hunt the killer down and kill the person who ordered the hit. If necessary, I kill the entire rival gang to preserve our safety. What could be more natural than this?
I am a spiritual person, and I strongly believe in life after death. Life is, however, so dear to me that I do whatever is in my power to live my life and protect my rights. In fact, morality applies only when both parties respect each other’s rights. If I see a person who is willing to kill me with a knife and I have a shotgun, then I am going to shoot him without any regret.
Sorry, this is supposed to be a reply to @Frank.
1 Like
So war is a situation where morality just doesn’t apply. If you try to apply it, you just end up with a long list of crimes against humanity.
There aren’t really any war crimes.
I get what you’re saying. The reason I like talking to Mok is that he says things that surprise me.
There is no such thing as a war crime. War is a crime in all its dimensions, whether you kill a soldier, rape a woman, destroy civilian infrastructure, etc. Killing, in fact, to me is the worst form of life violation, so killing a soldier is a serious crime.
But you said morality applies when both parties respect each other’s rights.
In war, no one respects anyone’s rights, so morality doesn’t apply
I think I already answered that. Morality does not apply when there is war.
Then why is killing a soldier a crime (if the framework for the event is war)?
You have a right to self defence However, Nation States also have an obligation to their people. While some feel able to justify - mass murder of civilians - many work to hold their countries to the standards expected by International Law.
The party that started the war initiated an unjustified crime; the rest is justified crime.
A nation state is a state where one ethnicity dominates. France is a nation state because the people mostly have French ethnicity.
The US and the UK are not nation states.
There’s no such thing as a justified crime. If an action is justified, it’s not a crime.
Nations have nothing to do with ethniciy
There is in my dictionary. I generally use the crime for any act that violates the rights of individuals. And we have a justified and unjustified way to violate the rights of individuals. Both justified and unjustified ways to violate the rights of individuals are wrong; therefore, they are crimes. But sometimes we have to do wrong things.
If it’s justified, it’s not a crime.
Do you feel good when a criminal is tortured or killed miserably? If yes, then what makes you different from a criminal? If no, then we are on the same page and agree that violating the rights of individuals is wrong/crime.