Are civilians guilty in some wars?

Michael,

You make so many statements and seem to play every side. You seem to be saying everyone is right and everyone is wrong, and there is really no difference anyway. What is your position on Clarence’s question? What should we have done about Japan? Can you sum up your position?

Jon

Post 21

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:10pm

Next Level wrote: "How many of you writing this stuff about the guilt of civilians during wars (and by extension, peace time) have actually lived under a military dictatorship or an unfree country where political power is maintained using guns?"

I spent my first few years on this planet living under socialist dictatorship in the so called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR). I admit that I wasn't old enough to get a real impression then, but I heard a lot of things from the stories my family told me. When I was in kindergarten there, I had to do marching, singing socialist party songs and keeping up a banner. Youths were compelled to organize in the so called "Free German Youth" organization where they were indoctrinated with socialist stupidity and had to learn how to disassemble machine guns and reassemble them properly. There was the Stasi, who had a lot of secret agents surveilling everybody, and you could never know who belonged to the Stasi and who didn't because virtually everybody surveilled everybody, even children their parents. It could happen that your best friend got you into prison because of something you thoughtlessly said against the regime when being in private. People who wanted to flee were either arrested (including their families in case that the flight was successful) or shot at the border when trying it. And so on. These countries really were evil, and a lot of people either supported them (because they wanted to be practical and reap some benefits for themselves) or out of sheer ignorance of the evil happening right in front of them.

Michael Marotta wrote (including the next quotations): "1. What about failed revolutions? If people rise up and are defeated, do they lose their moral cover? By your standard, having fought and lost, they then become targets for your bombs."

No, not necessarily. The point I am after is the following: A moral person living under an immoral regime uses every opportunity to sabotage the functioning of this system and to overthrow the rulers. I admit that I have to modify my argument in reference to your second point: Also "intellectual resistance" is virtuous - especially when it is questionable that you can concentrate enough forces to blow up the regime. But whenever there appears a good opportunity to do so, one should try. And I think exactly that is the case in times of war.

"First you have to establish which country is "moral" and which is "immoral."

I think Ayn Rand made quite a clear point concerning that. When I remember correctly, a morally justified (and therefore fully sovereign) government is a government that protects the individual rights of its citizens, especially their civil liberties, and provides for their security and protects them against the threat of internal and external aggressors. A government that does not fulfil this task but instead plunders, tortures and/or murderes its citizens is immoral - in fact, it is a gang of criminals. Criminals do not have sovereignity. Everybody may do away with them - be it the countries' own citizens or foreign powers - as long as in the aftermath a morally justified government, i.e. rule of law, is established.

"So, when bank robbers take hostages, do the police have the right to slaughter everyone in the bank because the hostages failed to resist?"

No, but I think the context of the situation is a different one. The citizens of an immoral government are not its hostages. In such a situation the term "hostage" might only be applicable to political prisoners in the nation's prisons but not to the average "subject". Hostages are people directly confronted with the government's or criminal's guns. Usually no-one under totalitarian rulership is at the point of a gun all the time (besides those in prinson).

Post 22

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:26pm

Michael F. Dickey wrote: "Given the enormous amount of japanese casualties at Okinawa (90,000 - 100,000) it is reasonable to conclude that the atomic bombs used in japan not only saved many American soldiers lives but also many japanese civilian and soldiers lives compared to an outright invasion."

Actually, I draw a different conclusion from the facts about Japanese losses. It is a fact that socialism is inferior to capitalism.

The great Japanese war machine was a myth of propaganda, first for themselves, and also as our own "muscle mystic" leaders bought into it. Japanese losses all across the Pacific islands were horrific because the soldiers had very little materiel with which to fight a war. That was their loss -- a hard lesson to learn.

The fact remains that it was not necessary to fight a military war when a commercial "war" would have been just as effective and less damaging to America.

Cutting them off, bottling them up, isolating them would have been the optimal path. At the same time, keeping the channels open would, for instance, have allowed their young people to continue to come to our colleges and thereby be assimilated to our ways. There were many other alternatives to war. War is for looters.

Post 23

Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 6:00pm

Mr. Marotta

Hell yeah I'm better off now then a hundred years ago. For one, I voted something a black person a hundred years ago in Southern Louisiana could only dream of. I live comfortably (don't work in the fields), I didn't drop out of school in the 6th grade (going to grad school in the fall), and I can go wherever the hell I want. Yes I know there are problems, big problems, but I can easily say I would be better off and that this is a more moral country then a hundred years ago. Just look at the net changes and you'll see we've done better in some areas and worse in others but the overall result is for the better.

As for the rest, fine you can go appease a dictatorship if you want and when the bombs start to fall, you can blame yourself for your inaction. You said, "violence is the last resort of the incompetent". I say that it is sometimes the first choice of the righteous. Evil must be opposed, violently if necessary. You say put my money where my mouth is, alright if I ever live under a dictatorship I will revolt but I don't. While we still live under a democracy that at least sometimes respects individual rights, there is still a chance to accomplish what we want democratically.

And you completely missed Jon Letendre's point; you have a right to do anything you can in order to save yourself. If a person is trying to kill you and unfortunately there are innocents in the way, you have every moral right to save yourself. You may disagree (you probably will) but that is what he was saying

Post 24

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:49am

In post #18 Michael Marotta makes a moral equivalency between the USA and Imperial Japan. He also states that the difference between us and our enemies during WWII was merely a difference of degree. I always wonder what kind of a human being could say such absurdities. It’s not often that I have a visceral response so severe that civility requires that I say nothing further.

Post 25

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:11am

Clarence Hardy wrote: Hell yeah I'm better off now then a hundred years ago. For one, I voted something a black person a hundred years ago in Southern Louisiana could only dream of. I live comfortably (don't work in the fields), I didn't drop out of school in the 6th grade (going to grad school in the fall), and I can go wherever the hell I want. Yes I know there are problems, big problems, but I can easily say I would be better off and that this is a more moral country then a hundred years ago. Just look at the net changes and you'll see we've done better in some areas and worse in others but the overall result is for the better.

I grant your points, Mr. Hardy. The evolution of American society, and our moral judgment of that, are both complicated. There is no doubt that tolerance is a social virtue today. We all may have more net freedom than we did 100 years ago because we have more choices available to us. The loss of specific freedoms remains a problem. How the gains and losses came about is a more basic problem.
For a historical analogy, the Roman emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free people within the empire. On the other hand, he did that in order to tax them. His excesses -- including the assassination of thousands of Romans in Rome -- bankrupted the empire. Were "most" people "better off" than they had been under the Pax Romana? The ones he killed were not. Also, the decline of the empire was probably beyond his control, and yet, his reign did nothing to stop that and probably accelerated it. Therefore, I have to ask if you believe that being unmolested by your neighbors is worth 40% of your income and your right to sell pharmaceuticals of your own invention? I ask that only as a preface to a more basic question: Should you have to make that choice?
In the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, women enjoyed more personal freedom than they do now. Islamic fundamentalism has blossomed in wake of Saddam. A "democratic" Iraq, operating by the exchange of political powers among competing thugs and their gangs, may or may not be better than the old Iraq. On the other hand, Saddam's victims have suffered horribly and nothing will bring them back or undo the carnage. That destruction contiues, carried out ad hoc by a multiplicity of smaller killers, rather than being centrally directed by one. Is that better? Should that even be considered a "choice?"
If the United States wanted to destabilize and eventually remove Saddam, a "war of ideas" would have been better. Such a war would not even have been necessary if America's political leaders had been certain of the value of reason and the efficacy of freedom. Instead, they played a game of power politics in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was only the last in a line of killers who were viewed with equanimity by Western monopolists and politicians.

Clarence Hardy wrote: As for the rest, fine you can go appease a dictatorship if you want and when the bombs start to fall, you can blame yourself for your inaction. You said, "violence is the last resort of the incompetent". I say that it is sometimes the first choice of the righteous. Evil must be opposed, violently if necessary.

Clarence, you and I obviously have very different values, even within the context of Objectivism. I believe that those values existed for each of us before we read anything by Ayn Rand. You and I both use the philosophy of Objectivism to validate attitudes that we already hold. Sure, having read Peikoff's "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" gave me a better understanding of how the world works. Not only was I pre-disposed to accepting what he wrote because it appeared in The Objectivist, more to the point, I was already open to its fundamentals, having spent about 10 of my 17 years pursuing "science." A validation of high school physics in a magazine devoted to philosophy pretty much told me what I wanted to hear.

Basically a peaceful person, I have embraced mercantile (commercial; bourgeois) values in pursuit of solutions to broad social problems. That is the considered decision of an old man. When I was young, I was all for manning the barricades. My favorite character in Atlas Shrugged was Ragnar Danneskjold. Now that I am older, I am averse to risk because I have more to lose. That belief has little to do with Objectivism, per se. So, too, is your willingness to go out and kill people who threaten you, independent of the tenets of Objectivism. Given that difference, and given that you believe that I cater to dictatorships, does that mean that if we ever meet in person, that you will launch a physical attack against me as a pre-emptive self-defense?

Clarence Hardy wrote: And you completely missed Jon Letendre's point; you have a right to do anything you can in order to save yourself. If a person is trying to kill you and unfortunately there are innocents in the way, you have every moral right to save yourself

Thank you for pointing that out. I will go back and read Jon's posts with a more open mind in order to understand what he meant by what he said, as opposed to what I read in what he wrote.

Post 26

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:16pm

Mr. Marotta, you're right I shouldn't have to make that kind of choice. But as they say, we all have a limit and mine hasn't been reached yet.

You talk a bit about how bad it is in Iraq, like i've said repeatly, it dosen't matter. We went there to defend ourselves, not do the Iraqi's any favors and if they end up better, thats just a cherry on top and I hate cherries.

Actually I've changed my values since becoming an objectivist. For some reason I can't even fanthom, I was a Democrat and pretty religious. I believed in some social welfare and even supported the Serbian war. All those I see now as wrong so objectivism has changed me.

As for you "catering to dictatorships" I never said that but you did say you should live the best you can reguardless of where you live. If we meet in person, I'd probably shake your hand as it's rare to meet another objectivist. Now if someone grabed you and tried to use you as a shield as they were trying to shoot me, nothing personal but you'd better break free real fast.

Post 27

Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 8:15pm

Michael,

Xie xie ni. Thank you.

Oy, this caught my attention. Bu ke qi. (No need to be so polite).

I am not sure whether the question can be formulated as "are civilians guilty or not". As I have been on "the other side" before, I knew that I (and my dear uncle, as kind as he was) would have done our best in joining our country's effort to destroy our people's enemy (as told by our government), which included you, the American imperialists. It would be unrealistic to assume that we should have known otherwise.

Actually my uncle and aunt had worked in an Army factory all their lives. To this day I still don't know what exactly that factory make, probably some Army uniforms and such supplies, and not ammos or weapons, judging by the rather lax security. The factory never had a name plate at its guarded gate. It was simply known as "3605 factory".

I am here not really joining any side of the debate, just trying to provide some ideas of what kind of mentality the enemy civilians (as I used to be) might have.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 12/26, 8:57pm)

Post 28

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 7:46am

Clarence Hardy wrote: "I believe that the citizens of Japan were in fact guilty and while I wouldn’t say they deserved to die, they were definitely not innocent and largely responsible for what Japan had done, not just to the US, but to the entire Far East. Now Japan wasn’t a democracy but the fact is virtually everyone either supported the wars or were complacent in their execution."

It is kind of funny, but over in the topic, "Working for a PublicUniversity" Robert Bidinotto wrote:
"... morality presupposes freedom of choice in the face of rational alternatives. Where the use of force and coercion deprive you of any rational, life-serving options ... then no morality is possible. In such a situation, you shouldn't deem any coerced victim as "immoral" for trying to make the best of a bad, harmful situation. ... The EVIL of coercion is that it imposes such morally impossible "choices" on people, and twists moral principles ... under governmental force and duress, rights aren't recognized, and ... one is simply trying to survive ... The aim is simple self-defense. ... Where you cannot advance your self-interest because coercion has rendered all your moral principles self-sacrificial, then you are forced to seek your self-interest by more primitive means. ..."

Would anyone care to take it from here?

(Personally, I choose neither of the above. I do that because I am more consistent in my understanding and application of the principles of Objectivism than is either Clarence or Robert. However, I also choose not to go any farther with this right now.)

Post 29

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:58pm

Finding an entire nation guilty based on your beliefs - that's subjectivism, right?

And since it's the SOLO board - what exactly is the sense of life of someone who seems to really desire a justification for bombing civilians? Wanting to see people dead on a large scale, because they 'deserved it'....I know that Atlas Shrugged has that kind of bloodlust, but don't pretend it's benevolent. It's just ugly, mean spirited, and anti-life and anti-man in the most fundemental sense.

Post 30

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:52pm

Lee, I agree entirely with your moral indignation about this, except that I don't find "bloodlust" in Atlas Shrugged. The example that I've heard most cited to this effect--the tunnel disaster--was a dramatization of the fact that the people on the train had supported premises leading to their own demise, rather than any example of glee on Rand's part that they were all dying deserved deaths. I just didn't get any tone of emotional satisfaction out of those scenes.

Post 31

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:00pm

Robert,

The train sequence is one example, but I was referring to the end - where much of the world seems to be destroyed or on it's way to destruction. We don't really know what happens after the lights go out, but it doesn't seem pretty...and it seems like they deserved it. Whatever it is, it's not benevolent. Sense of life wise, I greatly prefer the Fountainhead on that count.

Post 32

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:46pm

It astonishes me that anyone would think the civilian men, women and babies who were unnecessarily incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were somehow to blame for the actions of their murderous government. They were victims of that government, and to blame them, and to believe the nonsense that the bombings – which were condemned by Eisenhower, McArthur, and numerous other top dogs of the U.S. military – were necessary, is to turn one's back on history and individualist morality.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey of 1945 concluded that the bombings were wholly unnecessary. It's funny to see Objectivists defend that Communist-sympathizer and UN-fetishist Harry Truman.

Post 33

Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:27pm

The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not require the guilt of those killed.

Post 34

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 9:47am

The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not require the guilt of those killed.

Exactly!

I have read the 1945 strategic bombing survey, and it is true that the bombing of civilian populations as a means of creating terror and "destroying morale" was counter-productive. However, other forms of bombing an interdiction were not, nor was the evidence quite as clear then as it is now (though the Allies should have taken a clue from the fact that it didn't work against England). Those other forms of bombing also killed many innocents. In any case, that is not the same as the use of the atomic bombs, which fortunately were the last time such weapons were ever used.

Ask yourself a couple of questions as to alternatives - what would have happened had the USA (and mind you, Russia as well by then) been forced to invade? What would have happened had Atomics been used first at a later date when many more were available and lethality had dramatically increased?

Would the world be better off as it is now, with no major power war since 1945, and even minor nation wars a thing of the past, or if the USA not been involved in WW II - divided into Communist, Fascist, and the Anglo-Sphere?

Post 35

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:27pm

Well I didn't think ya'll would bring this topic back up.

Anyway, I never claimed guilt was a requirement for the bombings, read the earlier posts; Jon I was defending you when Micheal misinterpted you on that before.

I agree, morality does presuppose choice. But in this context can you really say the Japanese people had no choice? For most of the population, there was never any need for coersion other then giving orders, enforcement was mostly unnecessary.

And Micheal, your not more consistent in you're understanding of objectivism, we just have completly different takes on it and we both KNOW we are right.

Lee. Bloodlust? I only get that when I'm doing the killin! (just kidding). Seriously, is your point that anyone who bombed enemy cities during WWII or supported the bombings had some sort of bloodlust against those people.
(Edited by Clarence Hardy on 2/22, 3:28pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:27pm

"The justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not require the guilt of those killed."

Intentionally initiating lethal force against innocent people that leads to their deaths is murder.

Post 37

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:56pm

Anthony,

America is invaded. The enemy is placing an infant is each tank. You look out to the front of your house and see an enemy tank, its gun pointed at you. You have an armor piercing shoulder-fired gun and context-free ethics that prevent you from using it. You are dead.

Now the tank is at my front door and you are complicit in the murder of my entire family.

Jon

Post 38

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:01pm

Clarence,

I wasn't saying that, although I might conditionally agree with it.

I was saying that there's bloodlust in the personality of people arguing in favor of something like 'all the Japanese who died in Nagasaki had it coming'...

Post 39

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 9:20pm