site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  11mo ago (text post)   29282 thread views

Israel-Gaza Megathread #1

This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is Joe more immoral than Fred if the action Joe takes is of the same quality Fred would take, were Fred in Joe’s position? The weight of moral philosophy says no. At worst they are equally immoral. But Joe can’t be worse than Fred, if Fred would do the same thing. Joe is only morally worse than Fred if he would behave worse than Fred.

How would one restrain the temptation to justify any actions by saying that your enemy would have acted like you did? It seems like a fully general way to excuse bad behavior on the part of an underdog in any conflict.

By reasoning? The same way we use our reasoning to predict other future contingencies. There’s a reason so many people were on board with invading Iraq over WMDs and after hearing about Iraq killing innocents. There was then intense backlash once it was realized that this intelligence gathering was horribly faulty and in some cases fraudulent. So it’s actually already normal to consider what our geopolitical enemies would do if they could, and to make judgments as a consequence.

It’s the bloody inverse of the golden rule: do unto others what you imagine they might do unto you. It’s the tribal justification for the cleansing fire of war since human history began.

The weight of moral philosophy says no.

Then the weight of moral philosophy is approximately the same as the weight of the angels dancing on pinheads.

"You would have done the same if you were in my position, therefore what I did is OK" is probably false and certainly unprovable in this case.

Do you think that one group is more immoral than another simply because of chance? So if two people try to kill each other equally, the one whose gun didn’t jam is more immoral? If two people attempt adultery, the immoral one is the one who is more attractive? I don’t think I’m representing your view correctly here. In the case of Hamas vs Israel, I’m saying Hamas can’t be “more immoral than Israel” if Israel would do the same to them all things being equal. This doesn’t imply that international law is suddenly abolished or that the actions can’t be censured by some third party nation. I’m only making an assertion about morality relative to the two. So an application would be that neither Hamas nor Israel get to claim righteousness or moral high ground.

It’s unknowable but we can still consider things that are likely.

I am saying your imaginings about what Zionists would do if in the same situation as Hamas have no weight. You're taking it as a given that the two groups are morally equivalent, using that belief to assert that the Zionists would do the same in reversed circumstances, and then using that assertion to claim the two groups are morally equivalent. It's entirely circular. In reality, we've got no evidence that, in a reversed situation, that the Zionists would target civilians and rape and murder them and drag their bodies through the streets. Their big well-known terrorist action was the bombing of British administrative headquarters in the King David Hotel, which isn't similar.

I am not taking it as a given.

Per Richard Catling regarding the Deir Yassin massacre in the 40s by Zionists, just weeks before the creation of Israel:

On 14th April at 10 a.m. I visited Silwan village accompanied by a doctor and a nurse from the Government Hospital in Jerusalem and a member of the Arab Women's Union […] I interviewed many of the women folk in order to glean some information on any atrocities committed in Deir Yassin but the majority of those women are very shy and reluctant to relate their experiences especially in matters concerning sexual assault and they need great coaxing before they will divulge any information. The recording of statements is hampered also by the hysterical state of the women who often break down many times whilst the statement is being recorded. There is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young schoolgirls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested. One story is current concerning a case in which a young girl was literally torn in two. Many infants were also butchered and killed. I also saw one old woman who gave her age as one hundred and four who had been severely beaten about the head with rifle butts. Women had bracelets torn from their arms and rings from their fingers and parts of some of the women's ears were severed in order to remove earrings

The men were paraded in the streets of Jerusalem and spat on before being executed.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats