I don’t think it makes it the lesser of two evils-it could depend on the size of the country and the magnitude of the crimes in how brutal they are.
I also don’t care if Somoza didn’t intend to go beyond the borders-he was still being a brute.
Agreed. It would also depend on other factors as well (e.g. what positive offsetting factors might be involved, motivations etc.). Nonetheless, it is valid to make a comparison.
Something tells me that had you thought Somoza might impose his dictatorship on the US you would have cared a lot more. But even if you personally wouldn’t have, you surely must appreciate that other people might. It is not hypocracy.
I would also like to suggest that while Communism is a fairly well thought out and idealistic (though fataly flawed, IMHO) socio-political system, tyranny is basically megalomania. The former is clearly far better packaged for selling to a general populace (hey, if you can sell aryan supremacy…) while the latter is not quite as marketable.
So just because one is better suited for world domination does not make the other any less evil.
Saddam Hussein would not have been satisfied with Kuwait alone, doesn’t make his intentions any less ambitious or evil - just less suited to world domination.
Absolutely true. But it does provide legitimate justification for people to focus on it more.
This is so succinclty put I wanted to reiterate it.
Moral relativism does not have “the lesser of two evils.” In moral relativism, one choice is clearly good. It isn’t that we have to side with the bad guys to accomplish good, its that we are good for siding with someone (their evilness doesn’t come into play in this judgement at all). That is, “We were good in doing this.”
Situational ethics is usually based on something utilitarian or pragmatic in nature (but not based on utilitarian morals), such as, “Well, we have no moral choice here, but we have one choice that is less heinous than another.” Such as siding with someone evil in order to wipe out someone more evil. That is, “We had to do this to bring about good.”
The true utilitarian wouldn’t bring what is commonly referred to as morals in to play at all. It would simply set a goal, find a solution(or set of solutions) to reach this goal, then act on it (or whichever one was most efficient). This act is what is good because it achieves the greatest good (resolution of goal). (there is also rule based utilitarianism but that isn’t necessary to bring into play here). That is, “We did this to bring about good, and in this way were good in doing so.”
You need to look up Moral Relativism and find out what it says. A moral relativist would totally disagree with your statement because he wouldn’t label other countries as “evil” or “more evil,” that is the whole point of moral relativism. Moral Relativism states that morality is based entirely on the culture and that there aren’t moral absolutes, and therefore it is inappropriate for one society to judge the morality of another based on their own moral standards (morality is relative to the cultural context). For instance, they would argue that it is wrong for us to judge the Taliban because they come from a different society and aren’t subject to the same moral standards we are. They would also make the argument that slavery was ok then but not now because of the changes in society. This theory has been for the most part discredited by philosophers because of numerous problems like these.
What a lot of you are debating is consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a subcategory), looking at the consequences of our moral decisions and making decisions based on reason. A utilitarian would look for what would provide the greates happiness, others what would provide the least harm. Is a small number of deaths a reasonable tradeoff for the benefits of society from cars, planes, medicine, etc.? Yes.
OK. Guess I’ll have to try some specific logicspeak instead of all that general ethicspeak…
december states that the atrocities committed in Chile under Pinochet are trivial because “only” 20,000 people failed to survive their brutalization, compared to the 100 million he alleges were killed WORLDWIDE by “communism” in some unspecified period of time. This incredible comparison is based (apparently; it’s often hard to tell with december) on the belief that Pinochet was the only alternative to Allende. When several posters expressed dismay at this type of justification, december posted this thread to tell us “moral absolutists” who consider such comparisons vile nonsense that we are fuzzy thinkers.
The problems with december’s line of thinking are myriad. Let’s look at a couple logical problems first.[ul][li]It presents the false dilemma: Pinochet or Communism. No cites are given to present the case that Pinochet’s reign of terror on his own citizens was necessary to prevent a return to a communist regime.[]The comparison between Chile between 1974 and 1990 and the entire world under “communism” between ca. 1917 and 2001 (presumably) presents the fallacies of irrelevant conclusion (december draws the inane conclusion that, since 100 million people were killed by communism in eighty years worldwide we should be unconcerned with 20 thousand Chilenos murdered in a 16 year span) and equivocation (december treats total murders perpetrated by one regime the same as total speculated deaths under all communist regimes).[]The alleged “100,000,000 deaths” is an appeal to anonymous authority, giving us a horrible sounding number with absolutely no support for either the figure itself or its connection to communism as a system of government.[/ul][/li]By trivializing the brutality of Pinochet’s policies in such a way, december may not be applying moral relativism, but is definitely guilty of fuzzy thinking.
As far as your remarks, Izzy, I’ll just say that the statement “a policy which causes 100,000 deaths is always morally preferable to a policy which causes 200,000 deaths” gives us a definition of political morality which is far too narrow for my taste.
xenophon41
Hmm…not only am I not debating the definition of “moral relativism”, I am also not debating the specific instances of Communism vs. dictatorships. My understanding is that the central points of debate are the statements by Fiver:
and Dr. Ennig:
I disagree with both these statements in a general sense, and my first post to this thread should be interpreted in this context. How and whether this applies to the situation in SA is another matter.
Mine too. I did not use the term “always” in my post. I also made this same point in my third post (addressed to Guinastasia).
So we may not be in disagreement about anything (other then what this thread is about, evidently).
What I mean is, even though he remained in Nicaragua, that doesn’t make him any less of an evil or a disgusting being.
Of COURSE I would have cared had he tried to take us over. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean we should have supported the guy.
IzzyR
Well, we’re a confused pair, aren’t we? I’ve been arguing against december’s closing statement in the OP: “So, my thesis is: Clear thinking requires moral relativism.”
You’ve been arguing against the inflexible application of moral standards (I think).
I apologize for including you in my argument with december.
*Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime…
But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near… *
…Andrew Marvell
Izzy has done such a good job of explaining what I was trying to say that there’s nothing left for me but to dot a few i’s and cross a few t’s.
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**
december states that the atrocities committed in Chile under Pinochet are trivial because “only” 20,000 people failed to survive their brutalization, compared to the 100 million he alleges were killed WORLDWIDE by “communism” in some unspecified period of time. **
I said, “relatively trivial.”
**This incredible comparison is based (apparently; it’s often hard to tell with december) on the belief that Pinochet was the only alternative to Allende. **
Partly that, but mostly the enormous difference in the magnitudes of the atrocities.
** Let’s look at a couple logical problems first.[li]It presents the false dilemma: Pinochet or Communism. No cites are given to present the case that Pinochet’s reign of terror on his own citizens was necessary to prevent a return to a communist regime.**[/li]
I did debate this on another thread, and don’t want to go there again. But, xeno raises an interesting moral question. Suppose, hypothetically, 3 things: [li]Pinochet saved Chile from communism. []Communism would have done more harm that the 20,000 deaths caused by Pinochet []There was some other way to have prevented Communism without as many deaths.[/li]
Then, is Pinochet a hero for averting Communism or a villain for having done it so cruelly?
**[li]The comparison between Chile between 1974 and 1990 and the entire world under “communism” between ca. 1917 and 2001 (presumably) presents the fallacies of irrelevant conclusion. (december draws the inane conclusion that, since 100 million people were killed by communism in eighty years worldwide we should be unconcerned with 20 thousand Chilenos murdered in a 16 year span) **[/li]
xeno weakens his/her case by exaggeration. I said one should be much less concerned, not unconcerned.
xeno I don’t understand your point is contrasting 84 years of communism vs. 16 years of Pinochet rule.
[li]The alleged “100,000,000 deaths” is an appeal to anonymous authority, giving us a horrible sounding number with absolutely no support for either the figure itself or its connection to communism as a system of government.[/li]
Actually, I didn’t identify authorities for either figure, but the authorities do exist. Either of us could locate them quickly through a search engine, but the exact figures don’t seem key to these philosophical issues.
By trivializing the brutality of Pinochet’s policies in such a way, december may not be applying moral relativism, but is definitely guilty of fuzzy thinking.
This gets to my intended point, which Izzy has explained so well. There isn’t enough time or energy or resources to fight every evil. Focusing on certain issues inevitably means ignoring many others. I’m arguing that a moral person should consider the magnitudes. To imagine that one can fight every evil simultaneously is unreasonable.
Further, one is continually holding firm or making compromises. E.g., many people would like to see Pinochet tried for Crimes Against Humanity, but then, why not try Castro as well? These people don’t generally argue that Castro was less brutal; they simply ignore him when this issue arises.
december
“Trivial” versus “relatively trivial” is a distinction without a difference. “Trivial” is itself a relative term.
Let’s not suppose your hypotheticals about Pinochet. They are not supported by the historical facts. Instead, let’s apply them to a purely hypothetical circumstance:[ul][li]A man takes control of a country and forms a military dictatorship.[]Under the previous system many atrocities would’ve been perpetrated under government auspices. However, under the new system, a fewer number of atrocities are ordered by El Dictatore.[]Without allowing the previous system to be reestablished, El Dictatore could’ve avoided ordering those atrocities.[/ul]Is El Dictatore a hero, or a villain?[/li]
My point is that, if one is going to measure morality by the number of “sins”, one must take into account the amount of time and effort expended to create those sins. Your math is incomplete. You would have to compare not only the raw number of deaths-by-atrocity under communist regimes, you’d have to take them per capita, per unit of time and per controlling regime:
# deaths / (mean population during study period x time period of study x # of governments included in study)
This would yield something like “per capita deaths by atrocity every year under each government” and would give you a valid basis for quantum comparisons between Pinochet’s level of evil and various communist governments.
Really? I would think that if you’re going to base moral judgements purely on quantitative results, those results are key to the issue. Make up your mind. Are you a situational ethicist (“If Pinochet eats 10 babies but Allende would’ve eaten 20 babies, I should support Pinochet over Allende.”) or a moral relativist (“If Allende eats babies, it’s bad; if Pinochet eats babies to keep Allende from eating them it’s good.”)? Either you’re applying the same moral values and judging the ethics of the situation by results, or you’re applying different moral values based on who’s eating babies.
As it is unreasonable to imagine that one can fight evil in one place by creating evil in another place. Lacking absolute certainty of consequences, a moral person should compare their own actions to their ideal morality, not to some other’s actions.
xeno, you and I have each laid out our positions. Readers can make of them what they will. I cannot think of anything to add.
OK.
Actually, Allende, while a marxist, was also a democrat who believed in the will of the people and I don’t believe there were any goon squads or mass executions under him.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kreuz_missile *
**
Which philosophers have discredited it and by using which axioms?
To address this I would say he is a villian fighting a villian. If a wolf kills a tiger whom was attacking you then he eats your arms and legs he is not a good guy.
In prison the pecking order has murderers just above sex offenders. The reason is that most murderers will do it only once and aren’t considered part of the criminal population by either the prisoners or the administration. Murders often are given jobs in the office or in the home of the warden. Now if you belong to Murder, Inc or held up a service station and murdered someone in the process then you are not considered a garden variety murderer you can hang with the cons. There is probably no difference in Bundy and Hitler, because they were never sorry for what they did and would have continued if left to their druthers. Murder is an evil act but all murderers are equally evil. If they were the only fair thing would be to give them all the same penalty.