|
The American Medical Association has a bit of ethics policy based around the concept of paternalism based on a utilitarian approach. It's not by any means 'objective' (there's no such thing as objective morality), but I find it useful as a universally applied rule. It is considered ethical for a doctor to employ paternalism (acting on a patient's behalf without their consent) if and only if the following three criteria are met: 1) Great harm will come if paternalism is not employed. You can't use paternalism for a 'greater good', only to avoid great harm. 2) The patient is irreversibly ignorant (comatose, clinically insane, mentally handicapped, a child, etc. 3) It must be reasonable to assume that, at a later time, if no longer 'irreversibly ignorant', the patient would ratify your decision to intervene. I find this 'rule of thumb' has many applications, from deciding when it's 'acceptable' to break a promise to international intervention. Substitute 'sovereignty' for 'autonomy', and regard the population as a whole (with their government as an expression of the will of the people) to be the 'person', with analogies to insanity etc. I believe intervention here can be justified on ethical grounds (and it could not have been in Tunisia or Egypt). Whether a response that produces a positive outcome (that outweigh negative consequences) is possible is another question entirely.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Pretty much. Not endorsing or opposing this view, just pointing out that "the people get the government they deserve" and "democracy has to be earned" were republican talking points, prior to Bush's presidency. Hell, Bush himself used them during his 2000 campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Priapist posted:This would explain the injuries shown in the video posted earlier. It's likely the video and the rumor have the same source - and the claim seems credible, but remains unconfirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
roundmidnight posted:If the United States goes in and removes Gadaffi and sets up a puppet government - which they would[CITATION NEEDED] - how do you think that would be percieved in the Middle East?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
roundmidnight posted:And when has the U.S. government NOT set up a puppet government when it has invaded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction This statement does not prove your conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Syphilicious! posted:No, yeah. They'd definitely let the Libyans et al decide their own course for government and foreign/market policy after large-scale intervention. It would be the perfect opportunity to install leaders who wouldn't change the status quo and keep things the way America wants them, but democracy is democracy and that just wouldn't be right!!!!! I didn't say by necessity they would. I pointed out that your assertion - that you have certain knowledge they would not - is unsupported. And it remains so. roundmidnight posted:Logic and realpolitik don't often match up. Now seems like a good time to push for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
roundmidnight posted:If you want to be deliberately dense, go ahead. History supports my assertion. You significantly limit yourself, your nation and the world by believing the future cannot differ from the past.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
roundmidnight posted:Yes it is, if it means real and legitimate democracy. Otherwise, you get the same poo poo in 20, 30, 40 years, except in the meantime the other dictators have slaughtered many times the number of people who have died in the past few days. Governments don't fall because they come from 'illegitimate' roots; they fall because they cease to serve the needs of the people. If a government emerges that makes the people feel free, safe, and involved - there will NOT be another revolution '20, 30, 40 years' down the road. If it does not, regardless of how the next government is formed - there will be. In truth, NO government has true 'legitimate' roots. The 'social contract' is bullshit. Read some loving Hume, his ideas (on social contracts, on the is/ought gap, on the problem of induction, and the problem of causation) are directly relevant to the situation today.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
MortuusLupus posted:"Maybe this time when I reach into the fire it won't burn my hand!" Really? I've got a racist neo-con evangelical co-worker who insists that Egypt will be incapable of establishing a true democratic government because 'Egypt has NEVER been a democracy!' His reasoning is identical to yours.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Billy the Mountain posted:gently caress you it would save lives. I don't give a gently caress if the protesters who happen to live through this inhumane massacre feel emasculated or put out that they needed someone else to come in and stop the wholesale slaughter of thousands of their country men women and children. The idea that political considerations should be taken into account when a vast mass murder is taking place is an abhorrent thought and the greatest example of cowardice I can think of. You're right for the wrong reasons. It's not our place to adopt a strong paternalistic stance; But we can 'justify' paternalism if and only if the following 3 circumstances are met: 1) It's (exclusively) to avoid great harm (and not to achieve some 'greater good') 2) The people are unable to express their will themselves (they are being repressed; there is no dispute that their government no longer represents them) 3) It's reasonable to assume that, at a later time, the people would ratify the decision. You can't justify intervention because you can't stomach a youtube video. And you can't justify intervention if you can't satisfy those three conditions. And these criteria are really just a bunch of ideas some utilitarian philosophers came up with for doctors, they're not divine law of Objective Morality (as determined a priori with absolute confidence). There are subjective and cultural value judgments even in these criteria. But I think it'd be the strongest sell any international body could make for intervening in the current situation. Your argument, however, would be an embarrassment to any military that attempted to intervene on those grounds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Syphilicious! posted:It's reasonable to claim that Egyptians will move towards democracy despite them "never having it" because there's a conceivable reason for them to want to. The same does not exist for capital and allowing client states to slip away. The fact that supporting client states out of (perceived) self-interest has ended horribly is sufficient to assume a self-interested organization might rethink that approach.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:This precise situation, where no one country has the mandate to interfere in the internal affairs of another, but the international community as a whole does, is what the UN Security Council is supposed to be for. Good thing they haven't even met about Libya yet. Just as these revolutions are happening too fast for organized, coordinated military/police responses (in advance of massive turnout), the revolutions (and chaotic military responses to them) are happening too fast for a bureaucratic international peace-keeping body.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Syphilicious! posted:I dunno champ we had a pretty good run. The end doesn't sting so much when you realize that you had however many decades of absolute control. This is true for the dictators themselves specifically; they've had lives of extraordinary indulgence and the only reason they wouldn't approach their deaths with smug grins on their faces is because we humans tend to lose sight of the big picture like that when the end is near. For us, the ending is even less horrible because it is often all too easy to start things up again. That's certainly a direction the western leadership could pursue. I believe it would be unwise. But there's no a priori reason they couldn't pursue a different path. Say, one where they respect a population's right to self-determination, but refuse to sit idly by while a military force is slaughtering innocent civilians for daring to speak and peaceably assemble.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
Syphilicious! posted:There's no reason they couldn't no. Nobody has ever said that. Capital can do a lot of things. They wouldn't, however, because there's no point. It introduces a chance for things to not go your way. Why risk it for the sake of moral obligations that have no hold on you? An election might provide someone friendly to your interests, but that's a lot less likely and a lot less durable than a puppet. Right. They've not gotten involved (thus far) because 1) it's all happening so fast, and they need time to react, and 2) because there's no real advantage in intervening. But that doesn't mean that IF they intervene, they are doing so for purely and naively selfish reasons. IF they intervene, they've clearly decided it is in their self-interest to do so. Not disputing that. But the assertion that the only thing they would possibly view as being 'worth it' is to seize control of resources and dominate the people is absurd. There are plenty of other (self-interested) motivations that nations could pursue that would lead to intervention in /loving war crimes/.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
Heran Bago posted:So is every dictator snapping and trying to outdo the last or something? It's small consolation at the moment, while untold atrocities are occurring, but we've seen an incredibly diverse set of reactions to uprisings in the last month. Some leaders try to stem the unrest with concessions (some more earnestly than others), some leaders pull the plug on communications technologies and media, some violently crack down (to different degrees). All rulers not yet under scrutiny are taking notes. I'm optimistic that few other leaders will resort to a complete internet blackout or hardcore violent crackdown, for fear of being associated with the failures that are Mubarak and Gadhaffi. Iran's seems to have managed to employ these vile techniques successfully, but knowing that the BEST you can do is 'be like Ahmadinijad' (and if you fail, you'll be like Mubarak or Gadhaffi) would give you pause before pursuing this course of action. I'm not sayin' it's guaranteed, and any leader could fail to learn the obvious lessons from the last month, but I'm optimistic that there will be a positive effect, that the right to free speech and the right to assembly will be emphasized, understood and (largely) respected. But I'm always trying to look for a plausible, optimistic narrative. That narrative is not assured, and should not distract from the immediate situation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
wildmamboqueen posted:Can I ask? Where is Anon on this? http://blogs.aljazeera.net/africa/2011/02/22/live-blog-libya-feb-22 Check the entries for 3:07 and 3:32 http://feb17.info/media/anonymous/ http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=215454646984933465708.00049c59184ae1136341a Uglycat fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Feb 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:What's the end game in all of these Revolutions? Of course not. Brown people are incapable of democracy. 
Uglycat fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:How long until there are conservatives demanding the Libyan protesters thank George W. Bush for disarming Gadaffi of his WMD's to fight the WAR ON TERROR. Honestly, I think that rhetoric - as ridiculous as it is - is far better than the 'radical Islam' fear-mongering I hear from the right-wing. I'd rather they get on board with the optimistic, positive narrative (in a self-serving, historically ignorant fashion) than actively work to undermine that (possible) outcome. A world where stable, sound, secular democracy takes hold in the middle east; where the Right falsely claims "credit" for that outcome; and where the Left insists that the people on the ground who overthrew their oppressors (while utilizing a variety of intelligent methods including but not by any means limited to new communications technologies) - is preferable, to me, to a world where the Right works to erode support for and confidence in the possibility of a peaceful, prosperous future. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Feb 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
iceaim posted:There really is no scientific merit to brainwashing according to the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. Hi, I'm Consensus. I explained all this 'brainwashing' stuff to chanology in tedious detail back in the day. I also inoculated many of them against these effects, which really post the most significant risk to any organized movement. Anonymous isn't by any means the only player on the board, but it's pretty well positioned to deal with (and understand) the systems by which tyrants maintain their power. That's something they learned by necessity in taking down Scientology. Anonymous is, however, one of the only players on the board that white western folk can meaningfully contribute to. Sign up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 11:28
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'm really surprised at how fast this Libyan revolution is moving. I remember it taking years of brutal civil war for something like this to depose a dictatorship. Or maybe this is what happens when the media and the world at large pay close attention to daily events. Basically, a civil war is an effort at reaching a consensus. A 'social contract' (the recognition of a single legitimate government) depends upon a consensus. Often they can be reached by non-violent means - debates, discussion, voting, etc. Sometimes they cannot. When communication fails to produce a consensus, guns are drawn. But the end goal of any war is to create a consensus. You can do this either by killing every last member of the opposition, or by demoralizing the opposition to the point where they stop fighting.* The latest communication technology affords us much greater ability to reach a consensus non-violently, and accelerates the process of reaching a consensus even when violence is involved. Even if the people on the ground in Libya are not all 'digital natives', they still get media from television. When the people of the world are watching daily events, producing detailed maps of troop movements, compiling a large sampling of tweets from across the region into a coherent narrative, and when networks like Al Jazeera are reporting that narrative (in a way that is accessible to people on the ground in Libya), the consensus can be reached MUCH faster - and with much less bloodshed. *I cribbed this bit from Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu basically says 'killing off every last enemy is impractical; so you should work to demoralize the enemy so they stop fighting.' Media and communication is absolutely essential to such an effort. 'War Crimes' such as genocide and mass murder are best understood (imho) from this perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:This is an interesting point, but I really should've clarified that by "support", I really meant "external support". There's no one funneling guns or sending military advisors to Qaddafi or the protesters, as of yet. That's what I meant. It really puts an emphasis on how much pain this "rotten apple", "he's our son of a bitch" proxy war mentality has caused over the last half-century. That's kind've the other thing... It used to be that little wars were fought as proxies for larger conflicts. Russia might back the enemy of the US, etc. We've reached a point where larger powers generally stay out of smaller conflicts - and outside support has been key in perpetuating these little wars. This may be partially facilitated by a mutual understanding by all major powers that prolonged wars are bad, and that the goal must be to reach a consensus rather than to win a larger ideological war. Unfortunately, there are forces in the US Gov't (and in Russia, and presumably in China) that still believe there's a larger ideological war to be fought. Certainly Israel feels that way. This mindset is the biggest threat to humanity, with respect to these revolutions. Israel needs to get their poo poo in order, accept the new world that's forming around them, make the right concessions, and find a way to exist peacefully with their neighbors. I worry it's too late for them to do so - as they've been so bold and bull-headed in past negotiations. edit- the end of the cold war is very key here. And wikileaks makes transparency a reality, whether the superpowers want it to be or not. This dramatically weakens support for cloak-and-daggar efforts to fight a covert ideological war on the shores of dark-skinned people. Furthermore, the reach of the internet allows folks like us to better empathize with the people who suffer in war-torn regions, eroding support for such prolonged conflicts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Rooney McNibnug posted:Apparently these files are being passed along like crazy. I don't speak Arabic, so I can't tell what they're about, but this facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/AmnDawlaLeaks - has been constantly dumping for days.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Xandu posted:They attacked an airbase near Misrata, think they completely wiped Libyan air defense and radar, 124 total tomahawk missiles, coalition forces (including navy and marines) bombed Libyan mechanized ground forces 10m south of Benghazi and seem to have succeeded in stopping movement of Gaddafi's ground forces, they are shifting to a "consistent air presence" over Libya. Someone yesterday said that Al Jazeera, which had been blocked within the country, is now available (following the missile strikes). I never heard it confirmed. I'm hopeful that someone in the military is wise enough to understand the significance of information in this conflict, and deliberately targeted Qaddafi's jamming/scrambling hardware (whatever that might be - I know little about that stuff). Has there been any confirmation regarding this? Was there any mention of it in the press conference? Does anyone have a source that backs up the idea that AJ had been blocked, or that it is presently accessible? I believe this to be far more significant to the pro-democracy efforts than people realize, and have seen next to nothing discussed about it...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Ghadaffi knows that if he wants a cease-fire, he has to stop firing too, right? It's like he thinks it's like a game of freeze-tag or something. Do we have any reason to suppose Ghadaffi really has strong top-down control of those fighting on his side at present? If his communications are knocked out, or if he lacks the proper channels to get an immediate order to his soldiers, they may well keep fighting even if he calls - in earnest - for a cease fire. If the soldiers only hear about the cease-fire on television, they may imagine it to be disinformation. Especially since they'd likely hear it second-hand - I doubt those doing the fighting are sitting around the TV at night.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Would it have any strategic value to blanket the country with wifi and cell phone signal capable of carrying a heavy load? Don't know if we have the capability (though I'm sure it could be created in a relatively short time frame, we have all the pieces necessary), but if we did ... just brainstorming. Thoughts?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
^do we have any evidence to help us determine to what degree communications has been undermined, or how much they're being censored?Brown Moses posted:It would certaintly give the Gaddafi forces a way to communicate now the coalition are blocking their communication equipment. It certainly would. Is that really the extent of your thoughts on the matter?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
QuentinCompson posted:Do you ever stop bleating about the power of the internet to destroy oppression or are you on like this all the time with no full-stop? All the time, with no full-stop. Do you ever consider the point, outside of when you're berating the very idea and insisting it's not worth even a moment's thought?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Pedrophile posted:To be fair, Gadaffi has been jamming cell and radio in tripoli for some time now. SSHHH!! You might make me out to be something other than a nutcase. (If it's jamming, and not merely shutting down cell towers by force, then a military effort to broadcast a signal to that city probably wouldn't work anyway. But I don't know. And there'd still be the option of identifying the source of the interference, and blowing /that/ up. Y'know, if you don't think the very concept of an 'information war' is utter bollocks.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Simtex posted:A little more on that Russian situation from the New York Times: Seems more like a 'feeling out.' If this action ends up a quagmire, and the Arab world ends up feeling that this is just one more example of western imperialism and aggression against Muslims, they can point to the fact that they did not vote for it, were not involved in it, and offered exactly that criticism from the beginning. Which is to say, if this turns out to be a powder keg that sparks a larger regional (or global) conflict, Russia has not yet formally 'chosen' a side.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
MilkDud posted:I've been following this since the beginning and lurking this thread, never adding anything. It's crazy to finally see this coming to an end. End? This is just one more stage. On to Bahrain, Syrian, Iran, Yemen... But even then, tearing down a regime is the easy part. Building up a just, democratic society is the real challenge. It's the real story. And that part's still ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Gaddafi being reported as having fled to Algeria on Fox News but I have no idea where they got that. They hacked his mobile.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
This is incredible to watch. And, like most in this thread, I owe a lot to Brown Moses for keeping me informed. But it's important to remember that this is just one (very dramatic) day in a very long process. Establishing a just democratic government is not easy. There's a lot of ways it can get derailed. One easy way to gently caress it all up would be to make the simple transition from excessive jubilation to looking for scapegoats. Kangaroo Courts can provide a sense of closure, but killing dictators does not make a country free. Furthermore, as I understand it (and I'm just some white guy sitting comfortably at a computer in midwestern America), the rebels have committed some atrocities while pursuing liberty. The early rumors that Qaddafi was bringing 'black African mercenaries' in resulted in some degree of genocide against dark-skinned persons. The nation should celebrate tonight, but cool heads need to prevail tomorrow. They need a 'truth in reconciliation' program. They need to come up with a constitution. They need to take stock of their resources, and plan their economic future. Of course, I got laughed out of the Egypt thread for making the same points.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Hexium posted:I think a lot of Libyans would disagree with that being just some "rumors". I hope you don't imagine that makes what I said any less important, or justifies the genocide, or diminishes the need for healing within the country.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
IRQ posted:You cheapen actual genocide by throwing the word around like that. Just so you know. You cheapen the revolution by white-washing the real horrors of war - committed by both sides - that have led up to this moment. I'm not by any means arguing that the revolution was not a good thing. It could have gone better. A lot of people have suffered. And the Libyan people have to put their nation back together again. Ignoring this unpleasant truth is unwise.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
To clarify, I was strongly in favor of NATO intervention. And as I understand it the early rumors (which may well have been true!) that Qaddaffi brought in 'Black African mercenaries' inflamed already existing racism (Arab Africans often fancy themselves superior to Black Africans) and resulting in widespread atrocities against blacks by pro-rebel Libyans (sometimes as reprisals against specific atrocities committed by pro-Qaddafi forces). If these facts are accurate - and I acknowledge I may be mistaken - they should not be diminished or dismissed. They are directly relevant to the question of how to build up a new, just, democratic society.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
pylb posted:I think people mostly took issue with your use of the word "genocide". Which is why I carefully avoided it in the post you quoted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Why? You seemed happy to defend it 2 pages ago. I don't know if you realize this, but modifying your position is not a sign of weakness.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Yeah maybe if you'd admitted you were wrong you could get out from under it like that, instead you go with "oh I've modified my position" after accusing me of trying to whitewash genocide. gently caress you. I don't know if you realize this, but getting butthurt is not a sign of strength.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
empiricus posted:Shut up. You backed away from the first claim you made. You literally changed your argument after you were proven wrong and then made a new one. Just admit you were very wrong. I stopped using the word 'genocide' when it became clear that people in this thread were equivocating upon my meaning*. Do you know with certainty that none of the violence perpetrated against blacks by the Libyan rebels meets the definition of genocide? But none of that matters. I shifted to the word 'atrocities', which seems uncontroversial. This was in an effort to avoid a pointless semantic argument while working towards reaching a consensus. You are stamping your feet, holding your breath and getting red in the face over the fact that I changed one word - 'genocide' - to a very very similar word - 'attrocities.' And you're doing so because 1) you are not interested in the project of reaching a consensus and 2) you're uncomfortable thinking that the rebels were not the North African equivalent of the Rebel Forces from Star Wars. You must be very simple-minded to not be embarrassed by your behavior. *y'know. Killing a large number of people based solely on the color of their skin. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:21 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Lindsey Hilsum of Channel 4 is tweeting from Tripoli: "Greeted as liberators"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 10:36
|
|