Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
harihari
Trad climber
Squampton
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
|
Fattrad--
The Americans broke the Japanese naval code in 1937, and allowed the Pearl Harbour attack to happen. Indeed, they wanted it, because they wanted a war with the Japanese, and an isolationaist U.S. public wanted nothing to do with a big, costly faraway war.
The Japanese, who were rapidly industrialising and were doing very well, were looking to replace American and European hegemony in the Far East (e.g. in the Phillipines, Viet Nam) with their own power. They needed access to raw materials, as Japan doesn't have much in the way of processable stuff. They were also cut off in early 1940 by the U.S. embargo, which pretty much killed all trade they had from the reastern Pacific. The upshot of this was, they struck at Pearl Harbour to hurt the U.S.' long-distance capacity for war (and anti-Japanese trade disruption)in the Pacific. In a sense, the Japanese dind't have much choice-- the American embargo basically killed half their trade. The Americans welcomed this attack, which galvanised the U.S. public into suport for the war.
Regarding the Horishma etc bombings, there is lots of evidence that the Japanese wanted to surrender pre- A bomb, but their terms were unacceptable to the U.S., who wanted to ensure that a pliant, pro-U.S., non-militarised, neoliberal regime would be established. So, they bombed, in order to force the Japanese hand.
So...when we discuss H-bomb usage historically, let's keep the facts in mind ;-)
|
|
harihari
Trad climber
Squampton
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:19pm PT
|
HFCS--
SPanking *has* been studied, thoroughly, and it's been well-proven that it's bad news in the long term. Smacking a kid seems to work in the short term (it will shut up, or not steal cookies, or whatever), making the parent happy.
However, in the long term, kids (superficially) learn behaviour because of fear, not because they understand what is inherently right/wrong. If you want robots, smack away. Corporal punishment is also strongly associated with lower emotional intelligence, self-control, etc later in life: in essence, kids who get smacked don't learn to reflect on their behaviour, or think about the future, because they are being conditioned, not raised.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 17, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
|
Hari-
So the subject of your post then would be a case of science "informing" our morals - specifically it would be a case of science informing (a) our "moral decision-making" (at least among those who would take heed) and (b) our moral declarations if any (which we might set down in writing - in law, in a contract, in a bible, etc.), and (c) our moral behavior.
Now suppose we used science in this way regarding dozens, in time even hundred of subjects, not just one or two, such as spanking. People might then refer to this morality, or these models of morality, as "scientific." -e.g., (a) scientific morality (b) scientific models of morality, (c) scientific morals.
This could cause problems, couldn't it. Is science (a) in the facts business or (b) in the prescriptive do and donts business? Again, I think we need language help here. Where are our language engineers? -To keep up with the greater nuanced thinking and nuanced framing of 21st century modernity.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 17, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
|
Paul- All good points. Which to me means it is time we thought about all these subjects more - both in and out of science - and worked to develop a competing model (or two) of morality - apart from the ones that worked in ancient and medieval times (that relied on supernaturalist belief for authority) and to which most in American culture in the 21st century still turn.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 03:59pm PT
|
Hari,
You serious?
You state that the US WANTED the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor?
We wanted thousands of our soldiers bombed and our Pacific fleet destroyed?
Please elaborate with some credible proof, or at least give us better logic as to how you came to this stunning decision.
Thank you
|
|
harihari
Trad climber
Squampton
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
|
Norton--
Yes absolutely, the US wanted war. You can look at one perspective here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
There is good info on Wiki, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
There is a documentary about this, based around the Sinnet book.
For the contrarian argument, see this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1889/did-roosevelt-know-in-advance-about-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor-yet-say-nothing
The US government doesn't give a crap about soldiers or equipment, unless the loss of these threatens its objectives. Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan have no immediate real benefits to the US, other than showing the rest of the world not to f**k with it, yet your government has gone ahead and accepted staggering casualties etc. Pearl Harbour was a drop in the bucket for the US military apparatus.
Post Bay of Pigs, the U.S. government also planned on faking a Cuban attack on the U.S., which would give them an excuse to invade Cuba and reinstall somebody less like Castro and more like Batista. You can read the Operation Northwood memos (in the original) here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html?q=northwoods.html
Sucks, I know.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 11:53pm PT
|
Who said that? That is YOUR hyperbole. I've said time and again science is (only) a tool for investigating how the world works in terms of facts, in terms of "what is" or "what are."
Oh, puuuhhhlleeeessse!
YOU are the one that has said time and again that science is THE realm of facts, not A realm of facts. YOU are the one that has again and again stated that philosophy is dead! No hyperbole from me.
So, WHAT are the moral facts??? Is or is not this investigation in the purview of science? If yes, then I wait with bated breath to hear you take a stab at how science "experiments" to discover the moral facts. (Oh, this is really going to be good, so PLEASE leap on this!)
If no, then please inform us of what method of investigation will lead us to the moral facts. Keep in mind that, if no, then by your lights, there are no moral FACTS, as "facts" are solely the purview of science.
So, are you committed to science in your pursuit of the moral facts, or are you claiming that there are no moral facts?
Werner, honestly, I've tried before, and it's not worth the effort. "Philosophy" gets exactly zero traction with this crowd, even though they themselves do it badly with every sentence. Now, I'm strictly in entertainment mode. Really, to me at this point, all this blind groping is genuinely funny.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 09:49am PT
|
Yes, and we've come to some pretty solid conclusions. One conclusion is that the anthropological/sociological approaches to ethics fail dismally. The relativism shared by most everyday people is indefensible and fails dismally. And, finally, that authority-based ethics is the most defensible, promising line of ethical thinking.
Now, you can appeal (as do most deontologists) to human authority in the form of human reason as the moral authority, in Kantian fashion. Or, you can appeal to some other authority to ground the ethical facts (Christians, would, of course, cite God). But egoism, cultural relativism, and the so called "objectivism" are demonstrably dead ends.
So, I'm still waiting to hear what sorts of experiments would reveal what the moral facts are. Don't just appeal in broad strokes to, for example, anthropology! TELL us exactly what moral facts anthropology reveals!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 10:03am PT
|
Ok Hari, thanks for the links.
I read all of them and came to the opposite conclusion that you did.
Too far a stretch in logic to believe that President Roosevelt "wanted" or was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Navy personnel and half of our Pacific fleet of warships in order to "start" a war with Japan.
Good conspiracy theory however with lots to speculate about.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 10:51am PT
|
Don't just appeal in broad strokes to, for example, anthropology! TELL us exactly what moral facts anthropology reveals!
As an anthropologist I can say that the moral fact that anthropology reveals is that human beings do whatever it takes to survive and then invent a moral system afterward to justify it. All of the ideas of God and morality that Christians refer to are from a particular time and place and historical circumstance. Judaism with its sheep and goat analagies, especially the Torah, is fully reflective of a pastoral society. Christianity with its mustard seeds, sowing on fertile soil, and separating wheat from chaff images comes from an agricultural society.
Today we live in a different world but our religions do not reflect this global multicultural technocratic existence as yet. Looking for a science of morality is one such attempt. Another approach could be an anthropological search for human universals which would guide human behavior in a general way and enhance survival.
Some things about an anthropological approach are fairly transparent. Survival no longer dictates that we be fruitful and multiply. Meanwhile the technology of contraception has made many previous sexual mores obsolete. Nuclear weapons and global capitalism have made the search for peace and justice more important.There are no absolutes but something workable could be found.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:21am PT
|
LOL
Dingus -- "I have no need to appeal to any authority, mythical or otherwise."
Every day there is the stop light and stop sign .......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2010 - 11:23am PT
|
There it is, in a mere three paragraphs, Jan emasculates MB1!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:29am PT
|
Jan -- "There are no absolutes ....."
But you ultimately do not know that ......
At the same time you are making an absolute.
No matter how hard one tries to get away from an absolute one will continually be faced by one.
It's impossible to get rid of "THE" absolute.
One may see it from a far distance and not understand it clearly but the closer one comes to it the more it is revealed.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:39am PT
|
In the ultimate sense you're right Werner. I was speaking in the human social sense that anthropology deals with.
In either case I feel confident that the universals would be much more general than what most codes of morality specify. More Golden rule like and fewer thous shalt nots.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:42am PT
|
The Ultimate can never be watered down.
This is the mistake and defect of those whose vision is obscured by distance .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
|
Just look at everything so-called "morality" involves.
(1) moral circuitry (every species, every individual, has it)
(2) moral feelings (output from the moral circuitry)
(3) moral decision making (individually, socially, culturally)
(4) declarations of moral feelings, moral decision making in verbal and written forms (customs, rituals, laws, bibles, contracts, etc.)
(5) enforcement
So to get traction (progress) in "morality" a first step, it seems to me, is being willing and able to talk about it in terms of its many and various components. Just as we already do regarding just about everything else.
Compare: (a) "Engine broke." (b) "Need climbing sh#t." Insofar as your goal, interest, is progress in (understanding, declaring your, etc.) morality, you have to be willing and able to get specific. Let's face it, not everybody at an internet forum wants to do that. Sometimes they would just rather shout something out like, Pleeeeaazzzzzz!!
re: moral circuitry (1) it's pretty clear, we're born with it. We're not empty shells. Our moral feelings are sourced, they arise from our brain structures.
re: moral feelings (1) Knowing about microbiology, about E.coli, and knowing not everyone washes their hands after going to the bathroom, "Tom was offended" when he saw the cook handle his burger and cheese with his bare hands straight away after leaving the bathroom and handling the knob on the bathroom's door. (2) The mullah was offended to learn a menstruating woman had eaten at his table that evening.
re: education, science education, science community, scientific research, investigation (1) Certainly education incl science education (derived from scientific research, progress) informs, influences, moral decision making, moreover moral feelings. For instance, I am not "offended" to hear that menstruating women eat at my favorite restaurant. (2) Knowing right whales are an endangered species, Janet was "offended" to hear three more were slaughtered overnight.
re: morality in written form (1) A necessary item so umpteen million people trying to live together (we are by a large a social animal) know what's expected of them, what the offenses are, what the punishments are in case of transgression. (2) Subject to amendment as circumstances and "moral decision-making" changes.
I think, till people are willing to parse things out in this subject, respecting its many and various components and till it's communicated clearly (like a Steven Jobs engineer might) - as opposed to esoterically (like a conventional academic philosopher or traditional theologian spouting their -isms might) - not much progress will be made. That said, I do see lots of room for progress in the future for a greater understanding of the "components" above, for a greater input from the sciences and engineering disciplines (which are "prescriptive" sciences, too, that express themselves in terms of dos and dont's, ethics); I also see lots of room for progress for greater adaptability to changing times.
That's good news, I'd say, because I think we'll be needing it!
.....
There. That's MY piece. Thanks Sam Harris for the inspiration. Still, your book only gets 2 out of 5 stars. Much preferred End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
|
That's where you draw on your so-called lifeworks model, dear Dingus. Mine, needless to say, is scientific. My grandmother's is different. Apparently yours is, too. Alas.
Some already know my model for how life works. Life derives from matter, it is not independent of it. There is no ghost in the machine. (That is so 1st through 16th century, only Abrahamic religions and their theology support it.)
.....
But I do get my grandmother's. And yours. Life works through matter but is INDEPENDENT of it. So we agree to disagree. And of course a repercussion of this, down the line, is potentially different moralities, ethics models, etc.
.....
EDIT 10:27 As I've stated numerous times, language is a challenge. In your latest post, both "science" and "morality" are vague, indefinite, almost poetic terms nowadays; be specific - what do YOU mean in YOUR use of these terms? YOU help us understand. If you want.
Specifically, I initially made two points (1) I read Sam Harris' morality book, thought it was lacking and (2) science (by science I mean here science education and science analysis and science data), I think, can inform - and does inform - morality (specifically, moral decision-making, morality (ethics) in written forms) - then again, does it inform our innate "moral feelings" (species-specific, for e.g.,) I believe not so much.
So when you spoke of the 'science' of morality, you really didn't mean it, did you?
You? Don't you mean Sam Harris?
Later...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
|
"Oh and if you don't mind, what sort of progress do you envision?"
Note: There will always be "progress" in the sense of adaptation as long as there are changing circumstances.
That you can count on.
.....
In the future, one belief system's "moral weakling" might be another's moral superman. Where there is education, there is hope.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 02:18pm PT
|
Hey MB1,
Thanks for sharing a bit of your views. I was wondering where you were headed. I suppose your writings and thoughts are fully available elsewhere, but supertopo is my only exposure to them.
Yes, and we've come to some pretty solid conclusions. One conclusion is that the anthropological/sociological approaches to ethics fail dismally. The relativism shared by most everyday people is indefensible and fails dismally. And, finally, that authority-based ethics is the most defensible, promising line of ethical thinking.
When you say, "....we've come to solid conclusions.", who are you referring to? Obviously yourself, but who else. Were you also referring to me and Jan and HCFS, Dingus and Werner?
authority-based ethics is the most defensible, promising line of ethical thinking. My thinking seems to be going in the opposite direction, but I am curious to know more about what leads you to this statement. Will you elaborate or link to sources that directly deal with this idea? I will google as well, to see what I find.
I listen to lots of people who say there are moral absolutes, but they don't seem any less confused or more psychologically competent than those who say that morals are relative. Their lives don't appear to me to be any better.
Now here is a good question for scientific research! Are people who believe that morals are absolute and come from authority any different from people who believe that morals are relative. It is easy to divide up the two groups, but then we have to figure out what differences to try and measure and figure out how to measure them. We can ask, is one group richer, poorer, more successful, happier, better liked, longer lived, more children, better climbers, believes they are going to heaven or not, viewed by others as more moral, etc. Lots of possibilities! Thanks for the idea MB1. If I run with it, I will give you credit.
Jan, I always enjoy your posts. They always seem reasonable, interesting to me and sincere. Thank you.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2010 - 02:45pm PT
|
On another note, we of the modern age are "getting around to this" (arguably, at long last; re: modern morality "modeling" as reflected in our thinking, national discourse, also our regulations, statutes) because we have the time and opportunity to. In most any earlier era, we (commoners) would not have had it - these luxuries of time and opportunity.
.....
.....
It is not just "science" education that informs our morality (our moral decision-making, our moral laws, contracts) either. It's other forms of education, too.
.....
Dingus, curious how much time and energy you've invested in neuroscience. (-Which doesn't mean in any way you had to be a "formal" student.) I mean, how much study have you given to it? You balk at "moral circuitry." The brain isn't "just" a 3 lb bowl of jello. -Which is the classic caricature. Nor does it just sit up there filtering O2 from the nose. It's chock-full of circuitry whose schematics (in principle) would shame any supercomputer. This fact should inspire the person who prides himself on due diligence and thoughtfulness to give brain circuitry (responsible for attraction to repulsion to survival) its due. Just sayin. Also, in Abrahamic religious societies esp, innately skittish about change, the custom is to amply disrespect this fact.
.....
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/human-morality-v-the-secular-conscience/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/human-morality-part-iv-role-of-religion/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/human-morality-part-iii-moral-intuition/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/human-morality-ii-objective-morality/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/human-morality-i-religious-confusion/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!