Quick Question on the Ethics of Peace

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:08 am

Ffs BBS, you have pulled a fast one on me.

If the statement is true then the cost of "solve internal problems" is "strike resulting in regional war". Since israel is not striking, they are not willing to pay the cost to solve ME's internal problems. That's the crux of the problem, now stop pussyfooting.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:11 am

DoomYoshi wrote:Ffs BBS, you have pulled a fast one on me.

If the statement is true then the cost of "solve internal problems" is "strike resulting in regional war". Since israel is not striking, they are not willing to pay the cost to solve ME's internal problems. That's the crux of the problem, now stop pussyfooting.

No, those possibilities aren't as strongly linked. They would be (in general) two separate events. Israel striking Iran doesn't resolve the internal problems of the ME, but it would likely resolve the internal problems of Iran.

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:12 am

Ok. So change the statement to internal problems of Iran.

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:14 am

Let me rephrase the question: why should Iran be forced to suffer from internal problems because Israel refuses to act to solve those problems?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:29 am

DoomYoshi wrote:Ok. So change the statement to internal problems of Iran.

You do understand what's implied about "solving internal problems" of Iran, right? It's not a cupcakes and roses process.

If infighting is a problem for you, and if you support a solution which a harsh dictatorship would provide, then how would you compare the value or potential lost of infighting versus "solving internal problems?"

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:31 am

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Whether or not we use cupcakes or roses, the point is that this is the stated position of Israel, and one that you supported earlier. You can't say in one breath: "a strike on Iran will solve Iran's internal problems" and then in the next post say: "well it won't really". You have switched definitions between 2 statements.

To keep it's simple, let's say "solve internal problems" is a variable, x. Now, whatever is meant by x, a strike on Iran will cause that. Why isn't x then a moral responsibility of Israel?

Are you arguing that x is a bad thing? That it is actually a blessing in disguise for Iran to have internal problems?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:25 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Whether or not we use cupcakes or roses, the point is that this is the stated position of Israel, and one that you supported earlier. You can't say in one breath: "a strike on Iran will solve Iran's internal problems" and then in the next post say: "well it won't really". You have switched definitions between 2 statements.

My position is vague because it depends on the type of strike. (see the last three paragraphs).

A strike may solve Iran's internal problems, but it's not like that outcome would be beneficial for the Iranians. It may be better for the people if the government remains less powerful, so that change for the better has a higher chance of occurring (more democratic reform; less theocracy). Hence, "solving internal problems" is a not cupcakes and roses process.

In other words, current domestic infighting/tension may actually be better than an Israel-induced Iranian revolution or violent Iranian government shift to totalitarianism.

DoomYoshi wrote:To keep it's simple, let's say "solve internal problems" is a variable, x. Now, whatever is meant by x, a strike on Iran will cause that. Why isn't x then a moral responsibility of Israel?

Are you arguing that x is a bad thing? That it is actually a blessing in disguise for Iran to have internal problems?

X is a good and a bad thing--it depends on the individuals. Collectivist reasoning won't let us see this, yet we use it all the time, e.g. "solves the internal problems of Iran." Iran, the government and its beneficiaries, or Iran, the people? And by "government," which sectors and its individuals stand for gain from X? And which people exactly? (see the third paragraph about benefits and costs). So, it depends on the individuals affected.

A moral responsibility? Is Israel even capable of transplanting democratic institutions through militaristic means? If not, then it would be morally irresponsible to attempt to violently create such a change. The US has been exporting democracy for the past hundred years and it's rate of FAIL is 66% (After War), or >80% (I forget the sauce, but I could find it in 10-20 minutes).

If you really wanted to push me, I'd say that X is great for the current Iranian government, bad for Israel and NATO, and bad for most Iranians. Then again, not doing anything may be worse for everyone, but that would lead us into the problem of counterfactuals.

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:55 pm

Ok. Thank you for that, and I believe those democracy stats.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:13 pm

Peace for the sake of peace is not the best goal. We could "pacify" an entire land with a brutal war, and then we'd get plenty of peace--after all dissidents are dead! Unfortunately, the US did this effectively, and look at the outcomes. Israel failed at this, and look at the outcomes.

Another example: we could all be put into self-sufficient canisters and live in a peaceful, 'alternate' reality. At the very least, the human population would be very peaceful--sitting in those canisters, doing nothing violent in the actual world.

These are only two points, and I'm not sure about the pattern of the first one, but it's worth considering that if peace is the end, then certain, abhorrent means can be justified.

What's so great about seeking peace? Aren't there better goals?

by **DoomYoshi** on Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:28 pm

It doesn't matter if there are better goals. Dagan was considered prescient for being a warmonger who saw the error of his ways. I just think that if one is only selectively choosing peace then all types of peace must be considered.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:17 am

Pick any country going through internal and/or foreign turmoil. The military and/or police are yours to command. What do you think would be the best path to peace?

by **PLAYER57832** on Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:07 am

DoomYoshi wrote:So Israel/America/France/wherever aren't external enemies? I don't understand

I thought your premise, or the premise of the article you posted, was that our safetly essentially depended upon those groups not uniting?

That is a failing tactic, because at some point they will decide that they can deal with their neighbors more readily than us.
Few people today outside of Ireland think that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants are worth physically fighting over.