Good arguement. Heck, the US doesn't even follow the Geneva Convention at all times. However, I don't need the countries that signed the Geneva Convention to be liberal democracies that signed of their own free will (it just helps).Bubbalo wrote:
But you assume that your set of ethics is that single, universal set of ethics. Keep in mind, that not all countries who have signed the Geneva convention follow it. Further, many of the countries who have signed it are dictatorships, meaning they do not fit your set of ethics. And those countries who did sign it may have done so out of fear of what would happen if they didn't. Also, the fact that everyone agrees something is true doesn't make it true: everyone used to agree that the world is flat, but that isn't true.
Further, based on you assessment, those who fought the British in the American War of Independence were murderers not soldiers.
Finally, my lower education is finished. And I don't make a habit of assuming those who disagree with me are children: I merely assume they have a different viewpoint, either due to different stimuli or different interpretation.
Lets say for example, that I believe that it isn't right to kill innocent people and I make the statement that this principle is universally binding to all people.
Now, if some agent S comes along and says that it is legit to kill innocent people, it is more reasonable to me, to disprove agent S's logic by lack of ethics, rationality, or societal ignorance, than it is for me to rethink the validity of my statement.
now, its actually more valid to think of these in terms of an objective nature. They are prima facie, when they come into conflict, one may trump the other, depending on the situation.
However, since society is built upon the principle of reciprocity, one can assume that by holding these objective morals as universal, it creates a system in which 2 different societies can co-exist.
What I am basically saying it is more valid for me to say that the 9/11 hijackers were either morally void, irrational or possibly even evolutionarily inferior, than it is to try and validate their slaughter of 3,000 innocent people.
in response to your second part, thats probably a historical debate. I leave that open. I personally feel that the Colonies had, in their declaration of independance, formed their own state, and thus, were acting in a war capacity. Some say that Britain didn't recognize that state, so it discredits what I just said, but I believe that whether or not a state actually exists hinges on your ability to defend your claim to statehood, which the US did.
And I'm sorry I called you a child, I was being stereotypical there and I apologize.
But that just strengthens my arguement. They don't have combatant status as soldiers, nor do they qualify for protected status under the new Protocols, and they openly break the laws that afford them that protection, so to suggest that we should afford them that protection anyway is ridiculous in my opinion. (However, I am also of the opinion that US troops that break the convention should be treated the same. I know it won't happen, and its just a sad consequence US hegemony).CameronPoe wrote:
I think, Elamdri, that the people being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are not themselves signatories of the Geneva Convention, especially given that they are non-governmental.
Haha, thats because I screwed up, and wrote the wrong theory. I meant to write the objective theory, which takes that into account, but instead I wrote the universal theory.Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, but his argument is that the fact that it isn't their set of values has no relevance on whether it is the right set of values.
Of course, his theory of absolutism rather than relativism falls apart as soon as you start looking at moral conundrums.
