Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Famine]

Who decided this. Did I miss a memo?
Source?

Feel free to come up with an alternative solution that remains moral.

Neither the nation of Palestine (not to be confused with the region or area of Palestine - the former is a very recent construct while the latter is archaic and pre-Biblical) nor the nation of Israel is more entitled to the land than each other. They were both ceded the land by the League of Nations, with the landowners' consent (Great Britain) in 1948. Previously one group had been largely nomadic people - travellers who didn't work the land (combine labour with land and you confer ownership) - living in the region (including what's now Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon) for 5,000 years and the other were settlers living in the region and working the land for at least 3,000 years, displaced after being conquered by and absorbed into the Roman Empire.

For either nation to cease to exist and those who live on and own the land, calling it home, removed is immoral. For either nation to conquer the other and seize ownership of the land is immoral. To turn the whole area into glowing glass is immoral.

Neither is entitled to the other's land. At some point one nation needs to say "You know what... we're going to stop throwing rockets at you to seek revenge for past wrongs." - and since Israel largely only retaliate militarily (plus collateral damage, which seems unavoidable when you base your military in your citizens' homes) and occasionally while Palestine leaderships hurl ordnance at Israeli civilian homes on a daily basis, it needs to be Palestine. Particularly since they have the most to lose when they keep poking at a nuclear-capable nation with a runaway military budget and the entire population enlisted as servicemen.

 

[Dennisch]

Remove the internal borders and call the new land Palesrael or Israstina.

And never look at it again.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Read the reasons we have stated above. This thread is ull of the reasons why it wouldn't work.
What if we try it a different way.....


What makes you think it will work?

You have to take into account our earlier reasons why it wouldn't work in your explanation.

I don't know if it will work or not, I know that the conventional arms do not work right now. Which is why I am okay if they use it, I am simply do not object to such measure and will support their decision if it comes to extreme measures. I do not dwell into the future, will it work well ? will it cause more issue ? If the means are available, why not use them ?

I understand most people sees that it won't work, well that is fine with me, I respect that. I am just pointing out my thoughts of using nuclear weapons.

For a whole variety of reasons you've been ignoring and contradicting yourself on (if they can lower the yield so much that it would be a true surgical strike, why use nuclear weapons in the first place?), but I'll bring up another one: If Israel starts lobbing nukes, their open secret would no longer be a secret. They have nuclear weapons, they are willing to use them when they don't need to, and they don't care about the international pressure against even having them (including against countries that are only a stone's throw away). If Israel started using nuclear weapons against insurgents against them, even if it doesn't just glass every country surrounding them, the political fallout would be immense everywhere. Countries, (not pseudo-terrorist sects like Hamas) that currently don't have a beef with Israel would line up to declare war. All of their backing by the West would vanish. Not even the U.S. would be able to keep support up.

And for what? To accomplish something that wouldn't be any more effective than normal missiles and artillery? To destroy the very land that they kinda want to have in the first place?

I agree the repercussions on the Israel side and the region, war is never a good risk to take. We have different way of thinking, but I still would support any decision for using tactical nuclear, regardless if it will work or not.

I am sorry if I offended anyone for supporting nuclear usage and whatever it takes thinking.

 

[Skuh]

Feel free to come up with an alternative solution that remains moral.

Neither the nation of Palestine (not to be confused with the region or area of Palestine - the former is a very recent construct while the latter is archaic and pre-Biblical) nor the nation of Israel is more entitled to the land than each other. They were both ceded the land by the League of Nations, with the landowners' consent (Great Britain) in 1948. Previously one group had been largely nomadic people - travellers who didn't work the land (combine labour with land and you confer ownership) - living in the region (including what's now Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon) for 5,000 years and the other were settlers living in the region and working the land for at least 3,000 years, displaced after being conquered by and absorbed into the Roman Empire.

For either nation to cease to exist and those who live on and own the land, calling it home, removed is immoral. For either nation to conquer the other and seize ownership of the land is immoral. To turn the whole area into glowing glass is immoral.

Neither is entitled to the other's land. At some point one nation needs to say "You know what... we're going to stop throwing rockets at you to seek revenge for past wrongs." - and since Israel largely only retaliate militarily (plus collateral damage, which seems unavoidable when you base your military in your citizens' homes) and occasionally while Palestine leaderships hurl ordnance at Israeli civilian homes on a daily basis, it needs to be Palestine. Particularly since they have the most to lose when they keep poking at a nuclear-capable nation with a runaway military budget and the entire population enlisted as servicemen.

How does what you have just said mean that this...

The only moral solution is for Palestine to just give up. Israel exists properly, and they need to stop attacking it in a ridiculous holy war.

That is the only proper solution. Yes, it would be a solution to nuke Israel, or nuke the entire region, but it would not be a moral solution.

Is the only moral answer. I'll ask you then.
Who decided this is the only moral solution? Have you got a source for this please?

 

[Dennisch]

I am sorry if I offended anyone for supporting nuclear usage and whatever it takes thinking.

You are not offending anyone. You are talking about pointless things.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

You are not offending anyone. You are talking about pointless things.

Okay, that would be the end of it, promise

 

[Famine]

How does what you have just said mean that this...

Is the only moral answer. I'll ask you then.
Who decided this is the only moral solution? Have you got a source for this please?

Uhh... I included it in my post...

Neither is entitled to the other's land. At some point one nation needs to say "You know what... we're going to stop throwing rockets at you to seek revenge for past wrongs." - and since Israel largely only retaliate militarily (plus collateral damage, which seems unavoidable when you base your military in your citizens' homes) and occasionally while Palestine leaderships hurl ordnance at Israeli civilian homes on a daily basis, it needs to be Palestine. Particularly since they have the most to lose when they keep poking at a nuclear-capable nation with a runaway military budget and the entire population enlisted as servicemen.

There is no other solution I can see that remains moral. You are welcome to suggest others.


I'm sure "Why don't Israel stop responding to having their citizens killed by indiscriminate Hamas shelling?" might register, but remember that the function of government is to provide a body of force to protect their citizens' rights. Allowing a belligerent state to obliterate them is not a fulfilment of that function - and it's somewhat unfortunate that in fulfilling that function, due to the nature of Hamas stationing its military forces in amongst its citizens, civilians often die as a result. But if there were nothing to respond to, no civilians would die.

Of course folk say that Israel makes its own illegal incursions into Palestinian territory, including settlements. That too is immoral.

Remove the internal borders and call the new land Palesrael or Israstina.

And never look at it again.

Oddly, that already is how things work in Israel. Israel isn't just full of Jews - there are Arabic Israelis too (20% of the population), some even with political positions (10% of the parliament).

Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Abbas (of Fatah) says, of Palestine:

If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it.

 

[Skuh]

Uhh... I included it in my post...



There is no other solution I can see that remains moral. You are welcome to suggest others.


I'm sure "Why don't Israel stop responding to having their citizens killed by indiscriminate Hamas shelling?" might register, but remember that the function of government is to provide a body of force to protect their citizens' rights. Allowing a belligerent state to obliterate them is not a fulfilment of that function - and it's somewhat unfortunate that in fulfilling that function, due to the nature of Hamas stationing its military forces in amongst its citizens, civilians often die as a result. But if there were nothing to respond to, no civilians would die.

Of course folk say that Israel makes its own illegal incursions into Palestinian territory, including settlements. That too is immoral.

No, that is just your opinion. Tricky thing morals. I don't have to come up with an alternative either.
I will ask or a final time. Who decided that the only moral solution was for the Palestinians to give up their claim for a land of their own.

You are entitled to your opinion on what is the moral solution, but your opinion is not fact.

 

[Dennisch]

Oddly, that already is how things work in Israel. Israel isn't just full of Jews - there are Arabic Israelis too, some even with political positions.

Ah yes, but the second part of my post is more important:

And never look at it again.

Let's all just turn around, and walk away.

 

[Famine]

No, that is just your opinion. Tricky thing morals.

Not really. It's based in logic.

I don't have to come up with an alternative either.

If you reject logic you must prove an alternative that is more logical - or you're just taking things on faith and faith is irrelevant to truth.

I will ask or a final time. Who decided that the only moral solution was for the Palestinians to give up their claim for a land of their own.

Morality.

You are entitled to your opinion on what is the moral solution, but your opinion is not fact.

It's not my opinion, it's logic.

Feel free to demonstrate any more logical solution. Bear in mind that:

• It is immoral to take land from Palestinians by force.
• It is immoral to take land from Israelis by force.
• It is immoral to kill Palestinian citizens.
• It is immoral to kill Israeli citizens.

Any solution you propose to be moral must not include any of the above. This leaves two possibilities:

• Israel ceases attacks
• Palestine ceases attacks

Since we've determined (and agreed) that, in conflicts such as this one, Palestine is the instigator and aggressor against civilians while Israel strikes at military capability to prevent the deaths of its citizens it stands to reason that Palestine should be the one to cease its initial attacks to prevent the responses that cause the deaths of its own citizens as collateral damage.

In situations where Israel is the aggressor and settles illegally in Palestinian territory, Israel should be the one that stops behaving immorally.

 

[Skuh]

Not really. It's based in logic.



If you reject logic you must prove an alternative that is more logical - or you're just taking things on faith and faith is irrelevant to truth.



Morality.



It's not my opinion, it's logic.

Feel free to demonstrate any more logical solution. Bear in mind that:

• It is immoral to take land from Palestinians by force.
• It is immoral to take land from Israelis by force.
• It is immoral to kill Palestinian citizens.
• It is immoral to kill Israeli citizens.

Any solution you propose to be moral must not include any of the above. This leaves two possibilities:

• Israel ceases attacks
• Palestine ceases attacks

Since we've determined (and agreed) that, in conflicts such as this one, Palestine is the instigator and aggressor against civilians while Israel strikes at military capability to prevent the deaths of its citizens it stands to reason that Palestine should be the one to cease its initial attacks to prevent the responses that cause the deaths of its own citizens as collateral damage.

In situations where Israel is the aggressor and settles illegally in Palestinian territory, Israel should be the one that stops behaving immorally.

What are you on about?
I have never said taking any land by force is moral. I have said the opposite in this thread.

I questioned somebody who said the only moral solution to this was for Palestine to give up. the person who said this has made it clear he thinks that Palestinians have no legitimate claim to this land.

I have asked him to provide the source for who decided this is the only moral solution, and if you are taking his position. It is for you to prove that this is the only moral solution. Not for me to provide you with an alternative answer.
So you have decide that the only moral solution is for Palestinians to give up their claim for land?
Then it is for you to prove why this is so.

Morals decide morals is not an answer.

 

[Famine]

What are you on about?
I have never said taking any land by force is moral. I have said the opposite in this thread.

I questioned somebody who said the only moral solution to this was for Palestine to give up. the person who said this has made it clear he thinks that Palestinians have no legitimate claim to this land.

No. He said Palestinians have no legitimate claim to Israeli land and they should stop attacking it as if they do.

I have asked him to provide the source for who decided this is the only moral solution, and if you are taking his position. It is for you to prove that this is the only moral solution. Not for me to provide you with an alternative answer.
So you have decide that the only moral solution is for Palestinians to give up their claim for land?
Then it is for you to prove why this is so.

Morality is based wholly in logic. I've demonstrated the position that neither state is permitted to kill each other's citizens or take each other's land with logic.

Should you disagree it is for you to prove, with logic, why this isn't the case.

Morals decide morals is not an answer.

What is moral is based in logic.

You are free to reject this notion, but then your opinion on what is moral becomes opinion, based on faith and relative strength - morality becomes "might makes right" and whatever you can force becomes just. This is not a sound position.

 

[Skuh]

No. He said Palestinians have no legitimate claim to Israeli land and they should stop attacking it as if they do.

No. Incorrect

No, we should definitely not be sending money to protect them, they can do a wonderful job all on their own. I think we should stop interfering and let Israel be... which would mean Israel will probably seize territory by military force.
Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

This where he suggests by inference that Palestine has no right to exist in the first place and says it is ok for Israel to take land my force.

Perhaps Palestine should not survive.

Palestine has no right to exist. The forfeited that the moment they attacked Israel and vowed to slaughter everyone in it.

Some of the Palestinians have a right to life, but Palestine as nation does not have a right to exist.

This is where he said it exactly.

The only moral solution is for Palestine to just give up. Israel exists properly, and they need to stop attacking it in a ridiculous holy war.

That is the only proper solution. Yes, it would be a solution to nuke Israel, or nuke the entire region, but it would not be a moral solution.

Morality is based wholly in logic. I've demonstrated the position that neither state is permitted to kill each other's citizens or take each other's land with logic.

Ok, A man has his wife and daughter raped and murdered. One person who believes in an eye for an eye and kills the culprit.

Another man, same thing happens to his family and he chooses not to kill the culprit but forgive him.

tell me which one is morally correct/incorrect? Explanations for the logic behind it please. Morals are not tricky they are based in logic apparently so I expect a black and white answer.

Should you disagree it is for you to prove, with logic, why this isn't the case.

No, see above.

What is moral is based in logic.

Sometimes logic, sometimes emotion, sometimes religion.

You are free to reject this notion, but then your opinion on what is moral becomes opinion, based on faith and relative strength - morality becomes "might makes right" and whatever you can force becomes just. This is not a sound position.

Exactly!!

What is moral is opinion.
Yes

 

[arora]

If we are nuking the entire Middle East, think of the innocent civilians that have a potentiality of getting killed! The drone strikes already had only a 2% accuracy, I don't think Nukes may solve the overall problem.

Can you elaborate on this 2% deal?

 

[Dennisch]

Hamas shot a rocket towards Jerusalem. Missed the city though. Would have been pretty giggly if it hit the Dome. How would the Islamic world react to that? Collateral damage?

 

[Famine]

No. Incorrect

This where he suggests by inference that Palestine has no right to exist in the first place and says it is ok for Israel to take land my force.

It's valid for Israel to defend its citizens - and Palestine's continued contempt for its existence and attempts to murder its citizens most certainly would justify Israel responding in the most forceful manner it could to prevent it. This is what I explained when I referred to the function of government.

This is where he said it exactly.

This is what you quoted and are rejecting as the "only moral solution":

The only moral solution is for Palestine to just give up. Israel exists properly, and they need to stop attacking it in a ridiculous holy war.

That remains the only moral solution. You've not demonstrated that a solution that involves Palestine continuing to shell civilians as primary targets is moral.

Ok, A man has his wife and daughter raped and murdered. One person who believes in an eye for an eye and kills the culprit.

Another man, same thing happens to his family and he chooses not to kill the culprit but forgive him.

tell me which one is morally correct/incorrect? Explanations for the logic behind it please. Morals are not tricky they are based in logic apparently so I expect a black and white answer.

It is moral to kill the culprit in the act - or under threat of the act - to preserve the rights of those whose rights are being violated. It is moral to not act to preserve the rights of those whose rights are being violated.

It cannot be held to be moral to kill where no immoral act has been committed or threatened.

No, see above.

Sometimes logic, sometimes emotion, sometimes religion.

Exactly!!

What is moral is opinion.
Yes

No.

Morality is independent of opinion, or it is not moral. Subjective morality is not morality but feigned justification. A morality which is mutable by opinion permits rape, ethnic cleansing, murder, paedophilia, theft and any other thing you care to mention - whatever you can force becomes just (and you just agreed with that...). It permits anyone who can force you to do anything to do anything to you that they wish and it remains moral for them to do so.

If you're truly arguing that rape can be moral I don't think there's any benefit to sustaining this discussion. If not, you're arguing for an absolute morality that is objective, and objectivity is based in logic alone - contrary to what you just opined.

We have a very large thread discussing morality and rights that I suggest you avail yourself of.

 

[Skuh]

It's valid for Israel to defend its citizens - and Palestine's continued contempt for its existence and attempts to murder its citizens most certainly would justify Israel responding in the most forceful manner it could to prevent it. This is what I explained when I referred to the function of government.

Never said it wasn't. In fact In one of my first replies. I agreed with this. Now you are changing the subject.

It is moral to kill the culprit in the act - or under threat of the act - to preserve the rights of those whose rights are being violated. It is moral to not act to preserve the rights of those whose rights are being violated.

It cannot be held to be moral to kill where no immoral act has been committed or threatened.

So it would be immoral to kill the person who commited the act after the
fact?
Countries with death sentences, disagree with you. So it cannot be an absolute. They say they are acting morally when they are doing this so morals must be subjective.

A priest would give a wholly different view and would more than likely advocate forgiveness.
Again this proves that there is no one set of morals, and is just opinion. unless of course you can tell me who decides the morals for everybody else.
Constantly hiding behind the word logic is not an explanation.

No.

Morality is independent of opinion, or it is not moral. Subjective morality is not morality but feigned justification. A morality which is mutable by opinion permits rape, ethnic cleansing, murder, paedophilia, theft and any other thing you care to mention - whatever you can force becomes just (and you just agreed with that...). It permits anyone who can force you to do anything to do anything to you that they wish and it remains moral for them to do so.

If you're truly arguing that rape can be moral I don't think there's any benefit to sustaining this discussion. If not, you're arguing for an absolute morality that is objective, and objectivity is based in logic alone - contrary to what you just opined.


No what i am saying is that one man has different morals to another.


lol, that is the best argument you can come up. That I am condoning rape morally. you are now grasping at straws. At no point did I say this.

We have a very large thread discussing morality and rights that I suggest you avail yourself of.

I suggest that you widen your horizon to look outside of this forum for what is actually correct about morals.

morals plural of mor·al (Noun)
Noun:
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.



Edit: Apologoes for lack of quotes, it wouldn't let me quote the post itself.

 

[Famine]

Never said it wasn't. In fact In one of my first replies. I agreed with this. Now you are changing the subject.

Given that I was answering your direct statement...

So it would be immoral to kill the person who commited the act after the fact?

Are they still a threat?

Countries with death sentences, disagree with you. So it cannot be an absolute. They say they are acting morally when they are doing this so morals must be subjective.

Do not confuse morality with legality. This is why I directed you to the relevant thread.

Legality is mutable and subject to all sorts of whim. This is why we currently have people in prison for making jokes and why black people were owned by white people.

A priest would give a wholly different view and would more than likely advocate forgiveness.
Again this proves that there is no one set of morals, and is just opinion. unless of course you can tell me who decides the morals for everybody else.

Not really. All it shows is that various people think their subjective opinions somehow confer morality.

I pointed out how that wasn't logical.

No what i am saying is that one man has different morals to another.

What someone considers moral is irrelevant to morality.

lol, that is the best argument you can come up. That I am condoning rape morally. you are now grasping at straws. At no point did I say this.

Nor did I say you did. I pointed out that determining morality is subject to will implies that the strongly willed have absolute control of morality - might becomes right and what you can force becomes moral.

If morality is subjective, rape is moral - it can be forced and thus it's moral.

I asked if that was your position. If it isn't then you reject the subjectivity of morality. If it is... there's little to talk about.

I suggest that you widen your horizon to look outside of this forum for what is actually correct about morals.

Oh dear. When sensible discussion fails, go for the get out more line. Then quote a favourable dictionary definition at the exclusion of the unfavourable ones.


I suspect we're done here.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I used to support the Palestinian cause when I was younger, but now, I can't manage to find one ounce of sympathy to their cause.

I think the best solution is to make "Palestine" a territory with Israel as it's sovereign and give Palestinians representation in the Knesset. I know what I just said would probably get me killed over there, but this conflict is just sad now. The holy lands should not be shrouded in war and hatred.

Now for the question of Jerusalem; it should be under UN administration with equal access to all parties wanting to visit. It is not only important to the Jews, but to Christians and Muslims too.

Palestinians need to wake up and realize Israel would rather die than hand it over to them. But Israelis also need to understand that a Jerusalem under the white and blue of Israel does not bode well at all with her neighbors. Hence my UN thinking.

It's pretty much down to nobody can have it.

 

[Skuh]

Given that I was answering your direct question...
Given that the original point was somebody said palestine didn't have a right to exist which you denied he said, which i subsequently proved he said.....


Are they still a threat?



Do not confuse morality with legality. This is why I directed you to the relevant thread.

Legality is mutable and subject to all sorts of whim. This is why we currently have people in prison for making jokes and why black people were owned by white people.

don't confuse opinion with fact. Who decides what opinion is correct.



Not really. All it shows is that various people think their subjective opinions somehow confer morality.

I pointed out how that wasn't logical.



What someone considers moral is irrelevant to morality.

Morality is a human construct.
there is no morality to the universe.
What someone considers moral is the only relevance

Nor did I say you did. I pointed out that determining morality is subject to will implies that the strongly willed have absolute control of morality - might becomes right and what you can force becomes moral.

No, it says people have different morals. Don't confuse morals with legality. Legality is what makes right.

If morality is subjective, rape is moral - it can be forced and thus it's moral.

I asked if that was your position. If it isn't then you reject the subjectivity of morality. If it is... there's little to talk about.
That would be one point of view.
No i reject the notion that all morals are an absolute.



Oh dear. When sensible discussion fails, go for the get out more line.
This was in direct response to that old favourite of the failed argument "If you don't agree with me then I suggest you read this other thread where people think I am right"

Then quote a favourable dictionary definition at the exclusion of the unfavourable ones.

ah yes that old favourite. When faced with the absolute cast iron definition that categorically proves them wrong, we try end the discussion. Claiming there is nothing else to be said.

Tell me. What about that definition in the dictionary do you dislike?

I'm sorry but you can't just dismiss the definition when it doesn't suit. The only way we can have any of these discussion is if we know the definition of words. The gold standard for this definition is the dictionary.
You don't get to dismiss it i'm afraid.



I suspect we're done here.[/COLOR]

Yes, i suspect we are.

 

[Swara]

Can you elaborate on this 2% deal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981

In the middle it shows the 2% number. So tell me what the other 98% is? It is mainly citizens.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Yeah those drones aren't exactly stellar for our image...

 

[arora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981

In the middle it shows the 2% number. So tell me what the other 98% is? It is mainly citizens.

Are you referring to this?

An Associated Press investigation on the ground in Pakistan found that a significant majority of those killed by the drones were combatants. The report, by Stanford University and New York University's School of Law, upholds that conclusion, adding that the vast majority of those targeted were low-level militants and not senior commanders.

It says top commanders only account for an estimated 2% of drone victims.

I asked a simple question because I did not know what you where speaking of, I'm still confused lol.

 

[Swara]

Are you referring to this?

I asked a simple question because I did not know what you where speaking of, I'm still confused lol.

What are you asking for, haha?

 

[arora]

You didn't clarify anything, are you saying that only 2% of the drone attacks hit the higher ups while the rest hit combatants? That is what your link says.

BTW I have repeatedly voiced my opinion against drones on this site.

 

[Danoff]

This where he suggests by inference that Palestine has no right to exist in the first place and says it is ok for Israel to take land my force.

Nope, read it closely. I said they probably would, and that we should not intervene. That's not the same as saying that that action is moral. Here's what I wrote:

No, we should definitely not be sending money to protect them, they can do a wonderful job all on their own. I think we should stop interfering and let Israel be... which would mean Israel will probably seize territory by military force.
Israel has a right to exist in the first place.

Note how I said we should stop interfering, and then I guessed at the various military strategies Israel would employ. Note that I failed to mention the various strategies that Palestinians would employ. Yet I suggested that we not aid either one.

I then also stated that Israel has a right to exist in the first place - which was in response to someone claiming that Israel should be "disbanded" as though that were possible without killing Israelis.

This is where he said it exactly.

Perhaps Palestine should not survive.
...
Palestine has no right to exist. The forfeited that the moment they attacked Israel and vowed to slaughter everyone in it.

Some of the Palestinians have a right to life, but Palestine as nation does not have a right to exist.

That doesn't speak to the morality of invading them - though I do think it is moral to conquer someone who declares war on you and swears to kill every last one of your citizens.

So yes, I do think what you're claiming I think, but nothing of what you quoted actually supported that.

The reason I would consider it a moral response for Israel to conquer Palestinian land, is because the Palestinian "government" has declared war on Israel and announced that their goal is genocide. This forfeits their rights as a nation.

Ok, A man has his wife and daughter raped and murdered. One person who believes in an eye for an eye and kills the culprit.

Another man, same thing happens to his family and he chooses not to kill the culprit but forgive him.

tell me which one is morally correct/incorrect? Explanations for the logic behind it please. Morals are not tricky they are based in logic apparently so I expect a black and white answer.

They are both morally correct (black and white enough for you?). The murderer has forfeited his right to life, it is up to you whether to kill him.

What is moral is opinion.

Uh... no, that would render morality moot. I suppose you think it was moral for Hitler to commit genocide because it was his "opinion" that genocide was moral. I suppose you feel the same about Saddam Hussein's genocide, or Stalin's, or any of the nasty examples of "opinion" that we have in the history of humanity.

And differing opinions on morality are expected, but have no bearing on the existence of an objective morality. That's like differing opinions on whether or not there are black swans in the world. There either are or are not, whether we have consensus makes no difference.

 

[Skuh]

Nope, read it closely. I said they probably would, and that we should not intervene. That's not the same as saying that that action is moral. Here's what I wrote:

Then why say Israel has a moral claim unless you are infering Palestine doesn't have a moral claim?

I never claimed you said the action was moral. I said you claimed that Israel didn't have a right to exist.

You did say this. Do not deny it. I have quoted you saying this.


The reason I would consider it a moral response for Israel to conquer Palestinian land, is because the Palestinian "government" has declared war on Israel and announced that their goal is genocide. This forfeits their rights as a nation.

I never asked why you think it is moral. I asked who decided this is the only moral outcome.


they are both morally correct (black and white enough for you?). The murderer has forfeited his right to life, it is up to you whether to kill him.

then you agree that morals can be subjective.



Uh... no, that would render morality moot. I suppose you think it was moral for Hitler to commit genocide because it was his "opinion" that genocide was moral. I suppose you feel the same about Saddam Hussein's genocide, or Stalin's, or any of the nasty examples of "opinion" that we have in the history of humanity.

oh hum, you should really read what I have said. I said thar morality is not some wider universal fact. There is no law throughout the universe for morals.
Morals are a wholly human construct. If it wasn't humans who decided it was morally wrong for hitler to commit those crimes, tell me. Who did decide?
As we have now established they are down to humans, I'll ask you again. Who decides what is morally wrong. We have already established that humans have different opinions on what can be morally right or wrong. You disagree with Famine for instance on the whether it is morally right to kill the person in my scenarion who comiited the rape, after the fact.


And differing opinions on morality are expected, but have no bearing on the existence of an objective morality. That's like differing opinions on whether or not there are black swans in the world. There either are or are not, whether we have consensus makes no difference.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Tell me who decides what is the objective morality when you have just stated that we have different opinions on what is moral.

 

[Danoff]

Tell me who decides what is the objective morality when you have just stated that we have different opinions on what is moral.

Logic. Opinion is meaningless in this discussion.

 

[Famine]

Given that the original point was somebody said palestine didn't have a right to exist which you denied he said, which i subsequently proved he said...

You seem to have missed your own original point now, which was to deny that Palestine stopping aggression was the only moral solution...

Don't confuse opinion with fact. Who decides what opinion is correct.

No opinion is correct unless it is also correct.

Morality is a human construct.

Nope. Legality is though. Even the universe runs on basic rules.

There is no morality to the universe.

There's plenty of it. Just no legality to it.

What someone considers moral is the only relevance

This means you do not deny that rape, paedophilia, murder, ethnic cleansing and theft are moral - if someone considers them to be.

Which is, once again, an argument that rape is moral. You deny this yet argue for it...

No, it says people have different morals. Don't confuse morals with legality. Legality is what makes right.

Legality is what makes it law. Right is what makes it moral.

What someone considers to be moral is irrelevant to whether it is moral - just as what someone considers to be truth is irrelevant to what is true.

That would be one point of view.
No i reject the notion that all morals are an absolute.

Either morality is absolute or it is subjective - there isn't a middle ground because each denies the other. If morality is not absolute, might makes right and rape is intrinsically a moral act.

I suspect you're fusing together the notion of a person's morals and morality.

This was in direct response to that old favourite of the failed argument "If you don't agree with me then I suggest you read this other thread where people think I am right"

Actually it was a suggestion that, since this argument has been done over and over again in a thread purpose made for it, the discussion should continue there (and that you might read some excellent posts) - while the Israel/Gaza discussion carries on here.

Whether or not anyone agrees with me is irrelevant, of course. Since that would be subjectivity.

Ah yes that old favourite. When faced with the absolute cast iron definition that categorically proves them wrong, we try end the discussion. Claiming there is nothing else to be said.

Tell me. What about that definition in the dictionary do you dislike?

The fact you've treated it as the only valid definition because it's one of several that agrees with you.

What happens to your viewpoint if someone quotes one that disagrees?

I'm sorry but you can't just dismiss the definition when it doesn't suit.

And you cannot dismiss all the others because you've found one that does.

You disagree with Famine for instance on the whether it is morally right to kill the person in my scenarion who comiited the rape, after the fact.

No, he didn't.

 

[Danoff]

they are both morally correct (black and white enough for you?). The murderer has forfeited his right to life, it is up to you whether to kill him.

then you agree that morals can be subjective.

No. The fact that morality doesn't weigh in on the action does not make it subjective. It is not moral or immoral for you to buy a stick of gum today. That doesn't make morality subjective, it makes it an amoral act.

Killing a murderer is an amoral act. It is a choice whether or not to kill him, he has no right to life because he took the life of an innocent.

Morals are a wholly human construct.

In much the same way that mathematics is a human construct. We developed it because we grasp logic, but it exists independently.

If it wasn't humans who decided it was morally wrong for hitler to commit those crimes, tell me. Who did decide?

Logic.

You disagree with Famine for instance on the whether it is morally right to kill the person in my scenarion who comiited the rape, after the fact.

I don't think I do - but even if we did, disagreement doesn't demonstrate anything. Consensus on the truth is not required for truth to exist.