On ethics, morals, and human 'rights'

outside looking in

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
With so many threads approaching this topic, and then wandering back on the original thread topic, I thought maybe we should have a separate thread to discuss this fairly complicated philosophical question.

A thread that is removed from the current Iraqi conflict. A thread that is about the question in a more general sense.

What 'right' does one people/country/organization/etc. have to affect changes in another?

If a leader is executing foreign citizens by the millions, does another country have the 'right' to intervene? Do the executed foreign citizens have the 'right' for help?

If that leader is executing his own citizens by the millions, does that change the answer?

If he is starving his own people to death, slowly, by the millions, does that change the answer?

If he is executing his own people by the hundreds of thousands, does that change the answer? By the thousands? Starving by the thousands?

If they are only on the very edge of poverty and starvation, but not dying in great masses, does that change the answer?

If he is depriving them of some other 'right' (i.e., freedom, or anything else another group might think is a basic human 'right'), does that change the answer?

If the citizens ask for help, does that change the answer? If they are denied the freedom to ask, does that change the answer?

Does the intent of the leader make the difference? i.e., if it is intentional starvation, or only a lack of resources, intelligence, or otherwise that leads the people to die in great numbers, does that change the answer?



What are your thoughts on this? Don't worry, many great philosophers have struggled with these questions, so no one expects anyone here to have all the answers. Just wanted to know what the trend in thinking was on these issues.
 
I think that if there is a country where the leader is killing or starving millions or even thousands of his own people, it is not just a right for another country to step in and do something, it is a responsibility.

I know alot of people would disagree with a one world government, but to me that is the only way I see ever attaining some kind of world peace. We have to look at each and every person in the world as equal, no bearing as to what kind of government that country has, nor what religon the people are. As humans, we have the responsibility to take care of other humans that are not able to do so for themselves.
 
I see...you're looking for a barrier or line that has to be crossed? It's not going to happen...lines get crossed so often that they've become blurred.

Wars, in this case, begin with popular opinion. Saddam's the monster today...like al Queida before him, and the Shah of Iran before him, and PLO before him, and Cuba before him etc...ad nauseum.

The bar used to measure tyrany isn't fixed...it can't be. It's all situational. I'd write more, but I don't have the time today.
 
PuterTutor said:
it is not just a right for another country to step in and do something, it is a responsibility.
Click to expand...

I agree...but the question was...not should we do it, but when...or rather...under which circumstances. WHere do you draw the line before it becomes our responsibility. Do we invade Saudi Arabia beacuse of their treatment of women? Do we invade Zimbabwe because of their female circumcision? Do we invade Canada because of their socialist...er...

Where do you draw the line?
 
MrBishop said:
PuterTutor said:
it is not just a right for another country to step in and do something, it is a responsibility.
Click to expand...

I agree...but the question was...not should we do it, but when...or rather...under which circumstances. WHere do you draw the line before it becomes our responsibility. Do we invade Saudi Arabia beacuse of their treatment of women? Do we invade Zimbabwe because of their female circumcision? Do we invade Canada because of their socialist...er...

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as the threshold argument.
 
There are no answers here, only questions. Thats the problem. As PT said, one world government might be a "solution." At least in this case there might be some answers, and the issue of 'right' and 'wrong' might disapear. However, how do you create a world government, if nations aren't willing to give up their status as a nation state. What if the world government we formed by force rather than the free will of the people. In any case, that would almost certainly be the reality of it. The world government would be formed based mainly by force or some sort of pressure to join. It wouldn't formed by the free will of the people, therefore even this has many more questions than answers. No matter what you do, it will be viewed as 'right' by some, and 'wrong' by others. The answers and views on the matter will be completely relative. In which case, there will be no univerally right or wrong conditions. People will always disagree as to when it is right or wrong. However, maybe many decades after the formation of a world government, these issue may start to fade away. I don't expect it in my lifetime though. I may be wrong though, it happens frequently ;)

The best argument would probably be when the citizens ask for help. Although, you still have the issue of what citizens are asking, how many of them are asking, and whether it is more a case of part of a nation wanting assistance to break away from the rest of the nation, as in Kosovo. There are no answers here. The assisting nation or coalition will be viewed as 'right' by some, and 'wrong' by others in any case!

I guess the only way that it could be 'acceptable' is when you have a vast majority that thinks the action is 'right.' And even then, it may or may not be 'right' depending on the specific circumstances.
 
MrBishop said:
Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd have to go back to your post to answer that. You can't specify "Ok, as soon as you kill your 43,987th person, we're coming to kick your ass." Or "As soon as you cut the clit off of the 10,544th girl, you're getting bombed." It's not something you can just say a certain point is enough.

Now, there is something we can do, and in a sense we are doing it. We tell the country that we really don't like what they are doing, and urge them to stop. If they don't, and we're giving them foreign aid, the aid stops, and we issue another warning, "Stop now, and the aid will return." If it still doesn't, then we threaten to actually use military force to overtake the government. The really tough problem here is in cases like female circumcision. Is that not a religous thing? Governments don't have any right to tell religons what to do, especially if the members of the religon have the choice to not be part of the religon. Now if it's an official government religon, and the people aren't given a choice, then we should do something.

As for the timeline for all the preceding events, I don't have a fucking clue. I guess it starts when the treatment is discovered, and each step proceeds as it needs attention. The old axiom is true, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." So when the public demand, or international demand is to do something about it, that's when we do it.
 
MirlynOtherwise known as the threshold argument. [/quote said:
Or in this case...the Threshold question.

The question wasn't should we...it was when should we. It supposes that the action will happen, but asks for the form of the trigger.

I'd like to modify the question at hand...using both of the first two posts.
Click to expand...
 
WHo should decided if/when one country has the right to force another country to change it's ways?
 
PT's world govt would be a good start. They should decide. I guess the closest thing we have at this moment is the UN, so THEY should decide until PT can put together his world gov't :D
 
I've got the plans, but I should let you know, you may not like it.

The world government idea is a valid one, and I think it is possible, although it will obviously be difficult. We probably won't see it until China finally decides enough is enough and becomes at least halfway democratic. Then it would be possible. The big problem then is leadership. In my book, we should have a council, where each country, based on it's population, land size gets a certain number of representatives to decide the issues at hand. Government would eventually get alot cheaper to deal with, as the only military necessary should be to control rogue groups around the world, not superpowers, and foreign aid would become welfare.
 
PuterTutor said:
land size gets a certain number of representatives to decide the issues at hand.
Click to expand...

Russia: ~6.6 Million square miles
USA: ~3.6 Million square miles (total)
 
The problem is disproportionaly powerful nations like say the US, would simply go around the world gov't and do things on its own if it was in that nations interest. I know, I know, it doesn't seem like something like this could happen, but at least in theory, it could ;) That might undermine the whole thing. I guess as a qualifacation for membership all nation states would have to give up their armies and leave all military actions soley in the hands of the world government. That shouldn't be too much of a problem. I'm sure everyone would trust the new government.

Well, ok, this doesn't work so well either. I expect its gonna happen at some point, I'm just not sure how you convince the powerful nations to take this huge step that most certainly would be required. Giving up your right to sovereignty and to defend yourself is a huge step, and a big leap of faith. We'll see I guess. It bound to happen some day, either that or nuclear winter. One or the other is certain though.
 
PuterTutor said:
where each country, based on it's population, land size gets a certain number of representatives to decide the issues at hand
Click to expand...

That should have read (Where each country, based on it's population and land size gets a certain number of representatives to decide the issues at hand.
 
MrBishop said:
The question wasn't should we...it was when should we. It supposes that the action will happen, but asks for the form of the trigger.
Click to expand...
The question wasn't intended to be nearly so narrow, even if the string of subsequent quetions made it appear that way.

Do we ever have a responsibility to intervene? Do we ever have a right? Is it acceptable for one body to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong regarding another body?

Our government(s) do(es) this routinely on our behalf. Does the philosophy naturally extend outside our border(s)?

And yes, after tackling that question, we can also tackle the more difficult one of under what circumstances.
 
As RD said, the UN is the closest thing to a world government and we have decided to defy it in our own interest. I don't personally believe that the world, as it is, could ever come together with the degree of cooperation needed to make it work. Capitolism, despite its ability to drive a democracy, is also its greatest polluter. History will testify that human rights eventually slide to the back burner in favor of financial considerations and the power they yield. On the other end, oppression will eventually lead to revolution and renewal. Unfortunately, the age of technology has diminished the chance of successful revolution by creating a tremendous imbalance of force between the people and their governments.
If the world was not able to find common ground against a man as evil as Saddam, how could a world government possibly be effective?
 
The problem with a world government would also be in it's form, as well as its function. Do we have a congress/senate type? Federal/Provincial (or in this case Countrial), purely beaucratic?

Can you imagine the huge problems with voting? Burocracy? Law of the land interpretation? 1 govt. means one court system and set of laws...
Whose laws? Only the common ones? Only the best interpretations? Rights? Welfare? Health Care? Food parceling?

Holy Crow Batman....it would be chaos!!!

Long live the World Government and it's leader for life Puter-tutor!:headbang:
 
I've only got one question before I accept your nominations. Do I get interns? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top