[FrikgFeek]

So you're saying they were morally wrong in killing 2000 people in one big spectacular blaze of glory because it was tactically and strategically bad?
So if they killed 4000 people over a year with small, repeatable shootings they would've been right?

If you're not doing anything spectacular then you could just blend in with the other weekly mass shootings not done by terrorists.

And it's not very significant when talking about objective morality as they made a mistake in planning. They were morally right if they were truly convinced what they were doing was the best course of action, misinformed or not.

[karajorma]

It was a tactically and strategically terrible choice that cost them support, bases, personnel, and credibility.

None of which has anything to do with the morality of the choice to do it or not.

[Aesaar]

It was a tactically and strategically terrible choice that cost them support, bases, personnel, and credibility. It set AQ in particular and that brand of extremism in general back decades, if not more. It fundamentally misunderstood that terrorism is successful by the application of continuous pressure rather than by spectacular but brief and unrepeatable gestures.

If not for the entirely unpredictable and completely unlooked-for result of the United States eventually invading Iraq with a considerable amount of bungling, things would have likely stayed that way.

Doubtless, if you explained the consequences as they stand now to Osama bin Laden, he would be delighted with them. (Or maybe not, al-Baghdadi's new brand of radicalism may not have appealed to bin Laden any more than it does to his other surviving AQ contemporaries.) However what happened was very much unlikely at the time to his knowledge, and if you explained the short-term consequences prior to Iraq it's likely he and his immediate circle of advisers and supporters would have perceived them as catastrophically unwelcome.

Thus, they ultimately should have realized they were acting against the interests of the causes they believed in, and against the interests of those people they had chosen to follow; wrongly, in simplest terms.

None of this is morally relevant.  Morally right and strategically right are two different things.

[The E]

This makes at least some sense. But I still don't completely buy it. Yes, I'm willing to concede that, considering the amount of brainwashing he was exposed to, an individual Nazi soldier, for instance, may or may not have been fully culpable for his actions. But culpability isn't what's at stake here, but accuracy. The German soldier may have thought "Jew are Pigs" was true, and we in general think "All Men are Created Equal" is true, but to claim that these two statements are equally true? That's unacceptable. The sincere beliefs of a specific person might effect their guilt, but we must always bear in mind that even if he believed them to be true, they were still false and evil. And there are some pretty clear and obvious guidlines we can use in sorting right from wrong. To begin with, Malice is obviously inherently bad, Charity is obviously inherently good.

EDIT: A question. According to your reasoning, is there even such a thing as an evil person?

Aesaar already answered this, but yes: There are evil persons out there. Just not people who are objectively evil, meaning evil in all possible moral frames of reference.
The thing is, if you insist on there being universal standards for good and evil, you have to explain why people disagree on what they are. So far, neither you nor centuries of philosophical debate on the subject have managed to come up with that explanation.

[Phantom Hoover]

this thread is bad because everyone who is arguing against objective morality would still act to force their own subjective morality on hitler or bin laden, and that's the thing insanebaron actually seems to take objection to the questioning of

[GhylTarvoke]

Why are we still discussing this? We already agreed that the word "objective" is meaningless. There are no facts, only opinions.

[The E]

No, you agreed. We did no such thing.

[Scotty]

This discussion isn't as simple as you seem to want to make it, Ghyl.

[GhylTarvoke]

I'll elaborate. This is my position:

Prefacing "this is wrong" with "I believe that" seems like a solipsistic caveat. Yeah, nothing is provable beyond cogito ergo sum. Who cares? To have an ethical discussion, we must relax our definitions of "provable" and "objective".

When I say "Mengele was evil", what I really mean is "I believe that Mengele was objectively evil".

Objective morality exists independently of our beliefs. We can't know what it is, in the same sense that we can't know what anything is. The point is that some subjective moralities are better than others.

If you use fully rigorous definitions, then nothing is provable or objective; every statement depends on a worldview. That's why using rigorous definitions is silly.

I assume the existence of objective morality for the same reason that I assume the existence of objective reality. Because it's a useful assumption. We recognize that our understanding evolves, we accept that we can never know the true state of things, and then we move on.

[NGTM-1R]

But that's all post-9/11 reasoning.

No it's not. Frankly anyone who didn't think the United States would invade and destroy the government of Afghanistan over 9/11 was a moron.

More to the point, you didn't read the bit about the history of terrorism and the value of grand gesture vs. constant pressure.

None of this is morally relevant.  Morally right and strategically right are two different things.

Reread the last line. To them, tactical failing on this magnitude is moral failing. When your cause is taken up solely because it is just, because it is the only correct, moral course of action, what is it when you set it back? Injuring good is, pretty much by definition, evil. (To say nothing of the personal loyalties this action would ultimately betray even in the attempt to serve them.)

It's absolutely morally relevant if you advance the cause of evil and harm the cause of good.

[Phantom Hoover]

i'm probably with ghyl on this, the distinction between objective/subjective morality is meaningless because ultimately you, individually, are not going to compromise on your subjective morality so you essentially think it's objective

[Scotty]

Explain how societal and personal morals can change over time, then.  If they do, clearly they are not objective (and they clearly do).

[GhylTarvoke]

Explain how societal and personal morals can change over time, then.  If they do, clearly they are not objective (and they clearly do).

We recognize that our understanding evolves, we accept that we can never know the true state of things, and then we move on.

[Scotty]

Not you, PH.

[Bobboau]

I stopped following this thread for a while, how the **** did you get from abortion to... are you arguing something about 9/11?

[GhylTarvoke]

@Scotty: Sigh. "Explain how scientific theories can change over time, then. If they do, clearly they are not objective (and they clearly do)."

@Bobboau: We're now discussing moral subjectivity... which isn't a huge leap from discussing abortion.

[Phantom Hoover]

Explain how societal and personal morals can change over time, then.  If they do, clearly they are not objective (and they clearly do).

What difference does that even make? Like, you obviously believe that it is wrong to make gay marriage illegal, and that people who disagree should be forced* to acknowledge it. I don't see a consequential difference between you doing this because you believe that it's objectively or subjectively right.

*In the sense of being denied means to enforce their disagreement.

[karajorma]

What difference does that even make? Like, you obviously believe that it is wrong to make gay marriage illegal, and that people who disagree should be forced* to acknowledge it. I don't see a consequential difference between you doing this because you believe that it's objectively or subjectively right.

The difference is that when you believe you are objectively right there is no reason whatsoever to listen to other viewpoints or examine your own morality. Why bother, you are objectively right.

Subjectively right means that although you may believe you are correct, there is always a chance that you are wrong about something. Maybe something minor, but it's always worth examining your beliefs.


You could make the argument that a large number of problems in the world are due to people who act like they are objectively right.

[GhylTarvoke]

No. If you believe that you're objectively right, there's always a chance that you're wrong in your belief. This makes you more likely to listen to other viewpoints, because you want to approximate objective morality as closely as possible - and your approximation may be a poor one.

If you only believe in subjective morality, there's no reason whatsoever to listen to other viewpoints or examine your own morality, because it's not even possible to be wrong.

[FrikgFeek]

Now you're just getting into determinism. If you believe you are right subjectively you also have to accept that everyone else is right subjectively. If you believe in subjective morality you're then using your own guidelines and your own reasoning instead of deluding yourself into following a system you don't really believe in.

In the end, you're still bound by your own beliefs, the difference only comes whether you accept that or not. Those beliefs can always be changed and it's easier to change them if you don't try to force yourself into following an 'objective' standard you don't believe in.