<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Paul B <<a href="mailto:pb.stuff@gmail.com" target="_blank">pb.stuff@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Bitterman <<a href="mailto:tom@bitterman.net" target="_blank">tom@bitterman.net</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>I never said that self-defense was unjust (or just), simply that your maxim implies that self-defense is unjust.<br> </div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>What on earth are you talking about? I said "It is not a sensible moral response to say that injustice following other injustice is somehow more just", along with "Conquest is unjust".<br>
Following simple logic, we can get "conquest following other conquests is not somehow more just". Self-defense isn't an attack, and reconquest (as I pointed out) isn't a conquest.<br>Your logical proof for the above assertion is not only absent, but hard to imagine.<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think we have some language problems. Here is the way I see things:<br>war = unjust<br>war + spoils = unjust (conquest)<br>war + survival = just (self-defense)<br>war + spoils + survival = just (conquest + self-defense)<br>
And I think situations can occur that fall in the fourth group. So although I think conquest (in a vacuum) is unjust, there are situations which justify it.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote">
The analogy I was after was this:<br>
- country A conquers country B<br>- unrelated country C conquers country B, thus wresting it from country A<br><br>In WW2 we could have A=Germany, B=France, C=United States, whereas in the Crusades we could have A=Muslims, B=Holy Land, C=Christians. The big difference being that the U.S. gave France back to the French, while the Christians looked to set up their own kingdoms. Of course, at that point there were not really all that many "natives" to hand over the Holy Land to, so the parallel becomes inexact.<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Right. Conquest=unjust. The western allies gave Europe back to the Europeans (except the parts needing "re-education"), and were therefore just. The Christians made their own kingdoms on captured land.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I still find this strange. Had the Germans killed all the French, so there was nobody to give France back to, would the Allies have been unjust in invading it, knowing that they would have to occupy it later?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
My imagination rocks!<br><br>What you said, originally, was, "Except maybe the crusades (I'm sure it didn't seem just to those who'd been living in the Levant previous). " To which my (summarized) reply was, "Conquerors have no reason to feel they are being treated unjustly when they are in turn conquered".<br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br>Your imagination is poor, as is your apparent grasp of moral reasoning. Even the above, questionable as it is, doesn't suggest what you said about "big bad Christians" - an attempt to pass off the criticism as a stereotype.<br>
<br>If conquest is wrong uniformly, the morality of the conquered doesn't matter.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Given the nature of the world it's not clear conquest is always unjust. See above.<br> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>If, on the other hand, conquest (not just an attack, but seizure!) can be justified by anyone depending solely on the perceived (because where are you going to get the objective?) morality of the target, then you can't have a rights-based society. Or a decent one, for that matter.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>People resort to what would otherwise be unjust acts every day based on the (perceived) morality of the target. That's what self-defense is. And in the society of nations there is no police force to call when your neighbor acts badly. Nations must, to get along, follow certain rules and punish those who won't. Conquest is a form of punishment.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">To come back to Wolfe, perhaps the Hieros have a right to drown Urth. The analogy is to a causus belli - what humanity did to them in the past was so horrible that they are justified in their present actions. </div>
</blockquote></div><div><br>An eye for an eye! That's advanced moral reasoning. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>It was good enough for Yahweh: Deuteronomy 19:21. And it is hardly unknown in our current justice system. Paying a fine, for example.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">
Or, alternatively, that at some point humanity entered into an agreement with them, knowing the possible consequences, and we are still bound by that agreement.</div></blockquote></div><div><br>Pure speculation. You'd think that Apheta might have mentioned that instead of the rationale she _did_ give.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div> </div></div>My copy is at home, but I seem to remember something about forging humanity between hammer and anvil. And that humanity knew this going into it.<br><br>Enamel<br><br></div>