[Aardwolf]

Wtf guys. It did not "come out of nowhere". Everything on the past page or so has been about the theory of ethics zookeeper + I have been advancing, versus the half-baked not-a-proper-theory-of-ethics Mongoose and Scotty have been advancing.

[Scotty]

I so desperately want to educate you on the concept of the social contract, but something tells me you're just going to refuse to believe that preserving life is not the apex of all human decision.

[Aardwolf]

When I learned about the "social contract" in school, it was an implicit agreement individuals made with the rest of society, not an implicit agreement governments made with their citizens. Are you going to tell me they taught it wrong?

Tell me again, what was the rationale that said that 200 non-Israelis were worth 1 Israeli? You consistently rejected those terms, but at the end of the day your rationale still dictates that the 200 dead non-Israelis are preferable to the 1 dead Israeli.



Wait, have you just been describing the rationale Israel has been using, rather than your own personal opinion on what is or is not ethical?

[Scotty]

I have been describing both.  You continue to misunderstand that the number of lives does not matter for ****.  Period.  It could be one Israeli life for zero Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.  It could be one Israeli wounded for a thousand Palestinian lives, and the calculus would be the same.

A government must protect its people.  This does not mean that a government must endeavor to prevent as many casualties as possible, this means that a government is duty-bound by the terms of the social contract (more on that later) to come to the defense of its citizens.  A government that does not defend its population is not living up to those terms.

The social contract is an implicit agreement individuals made in order to form a society.  Society cannot exist without the social contract.  Society, and by extension the government that embodies that society's direction, must abide by those terms.

The terms in particular fluctuate as much on a geographical basis as on a cultural one (please do not confuse culture with society).  There are some, however, that are fairly immutable.  The first is that the individuals that form this society must give up certain freedoms and liberties that do not lend themselves to cooperation and beneficial action.  Indiscriminate killing, theft, rape.  You probably get the point.

In exchange for the relinquishment of those freedoms and/or liberties, individuals in a society also abdicate their responsibility to defend themselves from outside threat.  I will repeat this for emphasis.  Members of a society are not expected to defend themselves from external threat.

I want to be quick to point out that this doesn't always happen.  When a government fails to defend its population, it is in breach of the social contract.  It has, at the very basest level, failed in its most important objective.

This is why, ethically and morally speaking, it is reprehensible and irresponsible for Israel to not retaliate when Hamas launches attacks that are explicitly intended to kill or wound its population.

Battuta explains it best with his apartment metaphor, which I will re-appropriate.  The members of an apartment complex, upon moving in, are not responsible for the security of the facility in any except the most basic terms (keep your doors locked when you're away).  It is the responsibility of the land lord and/or management of the facility to ensure a safe environment for the tenants to live in.  In the event of a threat, the management must respond or lose all credibility as to providing a safe environment.  If the management cannot guarantee safety, the tenants will move, and the complex will fail.  Such as it is with society and its government management.

[zookeeper]

Yes, you have described in detail how the social contract works. That does not have direct relevance to any argument on how right/wrong something is, because you can't draw the ethicality of something from what the social contract dictates. The social contract is basically a model describing how to form and run an orderly society, or, if you will, a handy tool for building one, but it's not a moral authority in the sense that anything done in accordance with the social contract must be right or that the social contract must be followed in every situation in the first place.

You're of course free to use the social contract as your source of ethics, but that does not make the social contract a proper argument unless you're arguing with someone who likewise subscribes to it (in the same extent as you).

EDIT:

Assuming this was even in part directed towards me:

I so desperately want to educate you on the concept of the social contract, but something tells me you're just going to refuse to believe that preserving life is not the apex of all human decision.

I can see why based on this thread you might come to that assumption, but I find it hilarious regardless considering that my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible. In the meantime though, the apex of all human decision ought to be minimizing suffering.

I might be arguing for about the same thing in this case than Aardwolf, but I bet that's about where the similarities end.

[Boomer20]

I recently read that the U.N. is investigating Israel for war crimes. Does anyone with better knowledge of the events know if there just investigating Israel, or are they investigating both Israel and Hamas.
I find it absurd that only Israel would be under investigation for war crimes and not Hamas (if that's the case).

[zookeeper]

I recently read that the U.N. is investigating Israel for war crimes. Does anyone with better knowledge of the events know if there just investigating Israel, or are they investigating both Israel and Hamas.
I find it absurd that only Israel would be under investigation for war crimes and not Hamas (if that's the case).

I've seen a headline or two only mentioning Israel for some reason, but it seems to me the U.N. has clearly referred to both.

[Grizzly]

On Hamas winning the propaganda war

Social contract

Quotes are problematic for me right now...

Anyway, True, true, true. Yet I have trouble fitting Operation Brother's Keeper into this, the massive manhunt and equally massive amount of arrests that preceeded this whole affair, which I find rather troubling in the face of all this as Israel has invaded another nation (okay, it's a lot more complicated then this, but let's roll with the Israeli version, who say that they don't occupy the west bank anymore) and has been seemingly obstructing, detaining, and even shooting people for alledged connections to hamas for alledged connections to the kidnapping. Israel handed Hamas the moral high ground on a silver platter with that one.

[Lorric]

I can see why based on this thread you might come to that assumption, but I find it hilarious regardless considering that my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible. In the meantime though, the apex of all human decision ought to be minimizing suffering.

I don't understand you. You think every living thing should die (why?), but you opt for the option that involves the least amount of people dying.

As for the social contract, it's the first time I've heard the term. It's pretty interesting, but I don't refrain  from murdering, raping and thieving to hold up my end of some bargain with the government, I do it because it's the right thing to do.

[Luis Dias]

...my views on life are exactly the opposite, meaning every living thing everywhere should die, preferably right now or at least as soon as possible.

Ok, now that this discussion has turned into Twillight Zone, either you explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on.

Israel handed Hamas the moral high ground on a silver platter with that one.

Wow, let's not go *that* far. Israel would have to go full Nazi before it could be compared with Hamas.

[Colonol Dekker]

Social contracts are a social thing.
But I think it all depends on the government in charge as to just how valid a national social agreement is. .

Nazi party was efficient at some things but not great at others .(separate debate as to which and what)

Kim Jong senior was a bit media controlling / restrictive. Is that in the best interests of social progress / information?

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm

covers most bases of social contract theory.  I'm just throwing in another avenue of discussion as social contract theory is subjective in my opinion.

[zookeeper]

I don't understand you. You think every living thing should die (why?), but you opt for the option that involves the least amount of people dying.

Ok, now that this discussion has turned into Twillight Zone, either you explain this really really well, or I can dismiss the entirety of your views from this moment on.

This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance.

[InsaneBaron]

Wtf guys. It did not "come out of nowhere". Everything on the past page or so has been about the theory of ethics zookeeper + I have been advancing, versus the half-baked not-a-proper-theory-of-ethics Mongoose and Scotty have been advancing.

Lest this fester and become a longer quarrel, I guess my choice of words last post wasn't very tactful. You caught me way off guard with the whole "liar" misunderstanding, and that threw me for a minute, that's all. Shall we shake and move on? 

Regarding social contract, I think Lorric put it in a nutshell pretty well. Social contract theory is a valid theory as to why government exists in the first place, but it's a the result, not the source, of morality. That said, the only way to stop the violence in question is a quick and decisive response, which is more-or-less what Israel is doing.

[Grizzly]

Wow, let's not go *that* far. Israel would have to go full Nazi before it could be compared with Hamas.

Yeah that was a bit of a hyperbole. Still, it could be construed as a casus belli rather easily.

[Luis Dias]

This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance.

Yeah why not rolleyes on my comment asking for clarification after you making that wowzer of an ethical point about how everyone should be dead right now. That is really appropriate. Welcome to my ignore list.

[The E]

This is certainly not the thread for that, nor do I care to attempt a discussion on it on a forum such as this anyway. And as for the latter, I don't have much interest in arbitrary dismissal and/or acceptance.

If this isn't the forum to discuss it, then don't bring this up in the first place. If you make a point in here, you should be able and willing to elaborate on it. You either participate in a discussion fully, or not at all.

[Aardwolf]

*re-reads*

Seems to me, he's saying he hates everything, and wants to see the world burn (like Nuke!). Or maybe he just thinks death and suffering are inevitable, and we might as well get all the dieing done at once instead of prolonging it. But since that's not going to happen any time soon, in the meantime he's going to optimize for minimal human suffering (like me!).

@The E: I suspect it really wasn't a "point", more of a personal "aside", which as he said was (for practical discussion purposes) secondary to the "minimize human suffering" bit.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, but I didn't want to misinterpret anything in the wrong direction so I asked for clarification. I got one of a kind, so I'm cool.

[Aardwolf]

Aside: zookeeper, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me when he said that thing you quoted

Returning to a slightly earlier topic:

preserving life is not the apex of all human decision

Indeed; "minimizing human suffering" would seem like a better utilitarian metric. But then you get into silly stuff like "no humans = no suffering". [/tangent]

In exchange for the relinquishment of those freedoms and/or liberties, individuals in a society also abdicate their responsibility to defend themselves from outside threat.

I disagree, for several reasons.

• In the conventional scenario of "nations with enemies", someone has to join the army.
• Practicality trumps "society has got me covered". If it's raining bombs, you get to a bomb shelter. If it's raining meteors, you get to a bomb shelter.
• You are treating Nation A as "a society" and Nation B as "a different society". We are all one big society.

Was it not apparent earlier that this was my philosophy here?¹ Why do you choose to regard each nation as a separate society?<sup>1



1</sup>Srs question

[Ulala]

So if Nation A attacks Nation B with rockets, and Nation A surrounds their launchers with innocents, the responsibility falls to Nation B to not counter-attack to keep the loss of life to a minimum? Seems to me like the responsibility should fall to Nation A to not surround their military targets with innocents. /shrug