ohwilleke

I think that the answer to the Nazi Germany v. U.S. question is in reference to the morals of the people in the nation itself. Has the U.S. held more closely to its own people's morals than Nazi Germany held to the morals of the German people. I believe that it has. Germany still feels a pall of shame, and not pride, at its own behavior 47 years ago. Ask any German.

Similarly, the U.S. has not always lived up to its moral ideals in wartime. Most Americans are shamed by our own act of interning the Japanese from the West Coast during WWII. This was a wrong to loyal citizens in violation of our ideals. Yet, far fewer Americans feel shame over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, because they were directed at a country we were at war with, and the leaders who ordered those strikes believed that this part of the war effort would save American lives.

But, does India properly consider the U.S. morally inadequate because we slaughter millions of cows each year? No. Very few Americans are shamed that we kill and eat cows.

And, should the U.S. properly consider Saudi Arabia morally inadequate because polygamy is the law of the land there? No. Most Saudi's are not shamed that some members of their society are in polygamous marriages.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Gosh Pompous Bastard, you took all the fun out of leading her down the primose path for me.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Similarly, the U.S. has not always lived up to its moral ideals in wartime. Most Americans are shamed by our own act of interning the Japanese from the West Coast during WWII.

Actually, you've confused two programs here. About 11,000 Japanese were interned as foreign nationals (about 16,000 Europeans were). The rest were foreign nationals living in the US, not yet citizens, who were relocated. Of the relocated groups, the majority of citizens were children kept with parents. About 60% of the ADULTS who were evacuated were Japanese nationals (enemy aliens) and most of the remaining 40% ADULTS were dual-citizens (U.S./Japanese). The remaining U.S.citizens among the evacuees were minor children. Europeans, by contrast, were yanked from their homes and the children left to fend for themselves (the US gov't was more brutal toward Europeans than Japanese, though few AMericans know this).

By interning enemy aliens, the US was following standard procedure legal under international law.

See Hopwood, a valiant crusader on this issue:
<a href="http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1999/mojohopw.htm" target="_blank">http://vikingphoenix.com/news/stn/1999/mojohopw.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.foitimes.com/internment/rel_int.htm" target="_blank">http://www.foitimes.com/internment/rel_int.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.pnorthwestbooks.com/docs/jai_summary.html" target="_blank">http://www.pnorthwestbooks.com/docs/jai_summary.html</a>

The "concentration camp" where "Japanese-Americans" were brutally relocated is a myth.

Michael

Pomp

Gosh Pompous Bastard, you took all the fun out of leading her down the primose path for me.

Sorry, Michael, I wanted to have some fun too. It's been a while since we've had a real objective moralist in here.

Interesting info the treatment of Japanese living in America during WWII, by the way. I'm reading through your links now.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

luvluv

him.

luvluv

"1) Try to persuade them that their actions are incompatible, in practice, with values that they do, in fact, hold. As I noted, I think that a strong case can be made that racist policies are incompatible with a number of commonly held values. If this fails to persuade them, then I can..."

So you're saying it's okay to push your morality on people?

"2) Initiate cooercive force to change their behavior. For those of us subjectivists who do not hold pacifism as our supreme value, this is a perfectly ethical response."

So your saying it's okay to kill people who have different beliefs from yours?

ohwillke says:

"I think that the answer to the Nazi Germany v. U.S. question is in reference to the morals of the people in the nation itself. Has the U.S. held more closely to its own people's morals than Nazi Germany held to the morals of the German people. I believe that it has. Germany still feels a pall of shame, and not pride, at its own behavior 47 years ago. Ask any German.
Similarly, the U.S. has not always lived up to its moral ideals in wartime. Most Americans are shamed by our own act of interning the Japanese from the West Coast during WWII. This was a wrong to loyal citizens in violation of our ideals. Yet, far fewer Americans feel shame over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, because they were directed at a country we were at war with, and the leaders who ordered those strikes believed that this part of the war effort would save American lives."

Okay, but just because it is the moral position of the nation doesn't make it the moral position of the individual. So what if you met a German who still believed in Aryan science, and he killed a bunch of Jews. He obviously would not be said to be morally wrong, since there is no such thing.

Also, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, is also a paragon of virtue. Who are we to say that his hatred of blacks is wrong, if he values that hatred above all other values. We can't push our morality on the Klansman.

Pomp

luvluv,

So you're saying it's okay to push your morality on people?

You're falsely equating persuasive argument with "pushing."

Let's look at an analogy. Say you are a professional basketball player who likes to shoot from three point range (that is to say, you value shooting from that range), but you are a very poor outside shooter. If I were to suggest to you, under the assumption that you value winning games at least as much as you value shooting from outside, that your game would improve if you were to start taking closer shots, would you accuse me of "pushing" anything on you?

In any case, I cannot realistically change your values (or the values of the Nazi party), but I can persuade you that there are better means by which to pursue your values.

So your saying it's okay to kill people who have different beliefs from yours?

No, I am saying that it is sometimes ethical to use cooercive force, which may or may not include killing, against people whose actions are a threat to my values.

Also, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, is also a paragon of virtue. Who are we to say that his hatred of blacks is wrong, if he values that hatred above all other values. We can't push our morality on the Klansman.

You are repeating the same error I already pointed out. We do not have to label his actions "morally wrong" in order to object to them.

ohwilleke

You asked about the morality of nations, because that is what C.S. Lewis was talking about. And, no, there will never be 100% consensus in any nation about its morality. But, the point is that the morality of a nation derives from its people, and not from the people in other nations.

Most Christians say all non-Christians are going to hell. Pretty, hateful, eh.

And, an individual who is acting in accordance with his own morals is at the very least, not evil. Now, do I think that society is right in imposing rules upon its members. Yes, I do, as long as society doesn't get out of hand. I don't want society to punish the German man for believing that Jews are inferior. I don't want society to punish the Ku Klux Klansman for hating blacks. But, I do want society to punish the German man for killing another person. It's the old, your freedom of movement stops at my nose theory.

We as humans must live as a society. We are not solitary creature. Indeed, morality really only pertains in the context of a society. It is a set of rules about how to relate to other people. There is nothing a man on a desert island alone can do that is immoral. Morality does not make sense when the only things involved are a person and innamiate objects. It may be imprudent to crush a rock into oblivion, but it isn't immoral in and of itself.

Society cannot function if it does not impose limits on the behavior of its members. Moreover, successful societies get the vast majority of its members to internalize its societal limits as personal morals. But the fact that a society gets its members to internalize those morals does not, in and of itself, make those morals absolute or universal.

Veils may work for Islamic society. They may be limits imposed upon members of the society that help maintain social order. Individual practioners of Islam may internalize this sense of modesty. But, this does not mean that viels are right for all cultures. The convention of wearing veils, is no more or less compelling, than the American taboo against revealing breasts or genitalia in public. Both are social conventions devised to maintain social order. It may even be entirely appropriate for each respective society to punish violations of these social rules. But, this doesn't mean that an American woman who walks down a Saudi street without wearing a veil is an immoral person (she isn't a part of that society and is following her own morality by wearing underpants and a bra), even if she is violating a law and may be punished by the society she is in for doing so. And, a devout Muslim who doesn't even bother to cover her hair in an airport despite her beliefs might be immoral, even though she won't be punished for it.

diana

luvluv,

What do you consider "moral"?

Do you have a working definition for us?

d

Vorkosigan

BTW, Pomp, if you search Joseph Fallon and Internment, or Arthur D Jacobs and Internment, many articles on the J-A interment issue will fall out. Fallon has a giant website called VDARE with a number of useful articles.

Michael