Wolfe Heretic?

Thomas Bitterman · 21 Jul 2008, 14:23 · from 2008-July.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: tom at bitterman.net (Thomas Bitterman)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:23:06 -0400
Subject: (urth) Wolfe Heretic?
In-Reply-To: <3e1fa2e90807181238y717bec8ref3bf7422a4124a1 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <487EE33F.4020802 at io.com>
	<3e1fa2e90807170912g7bd79776v5cdf51b8b5c91137 at mail.gmail.com>
	<e11bddb60807170949t7eac5a49h2bdfcda70dfa865 at mail.gmail.com>
	<3e1fa2e90807180831t42c381a1q38a0a33ce8dce58a at mail.gmail.com>
	<4880BB92.3000807 at io.com>
	<3e1fa2e90807180930y18e8a0ej3db993d133dd66f0 at mail.gmail.com>
	<e11bddb60807181052t249b7f57xd950b6019634a889 at mail.gmail.com>
	<3e1fa2e90807181105rfd8870bt2209c0db0a6c898f at mail.gmail.com>
	<e11bddb60807181216g7a55ba65ne7e1d6743364c119 at mail.gmail.com>
	<3e1fa2e90807181238y717bec8ref3bf7422a4124a1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e11bddb60807210723s3fdd0686m48d7e72f247b1d1b at mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Paul B <pb.stuff at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I never said that self-defense was unjust (or just), simply that your
>> maxim implies that self-defense is unjust.
>>
>>
> 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".
> 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.
> Your logical proof for the above assertion is not only absent, but hard to
> imagine.
>

I think we have some language problems.  Here is the way I see things:
war = unjust
war + spoils =  unjust (conquest)
war + survival = just (self-defense)
war + spoils + survival = just (conquest + self-defense)
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.

 The analogy I was after was this:
>> - country A conquers country B
>> - unrelated country C conquers country B, thus wresting it from country A
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.
>

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?


>  My imagination rocks!
>>
>> 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".
>>
>
> 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.
>
> If conquest is wrong uniformly, the morality of the conquered doesn't
> matter.
>

Given the nature of the world it's not clear conquest is always unjust.  See
above.


> 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.
>

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.


>
> 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.
>>
>
> An eye for an eye!  That's advanced moral reasoning.
>

It was good enough for Yahweh: Deuteronomy 19:21.  And it is hardly unknown
in our current justice system.  Paying a fine, for example.


>  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.
>>
>
> Pure speculation.  You'd think that Apheta might have mentioned that
> instead of the rationale she _did_ give.
>

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.

Enamel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20080721/d9f5b302/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net