On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 04:30:25PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> I really don't like to answer this message, because I don't see a point.
> We speak now which ethics is better, but this is irrelevant, the
> developers (at least the ones who answered) expressed a wish not to mix
> ethics with software.
>
> Anyway, it seems Dominik wants to talk about ethics, so I will show my
> point of view. It was evolved with years, I was pretty much maximalist,
> cosmopolitan and idealist in adolescence, anti-yankee too. Since then I
> decided it was mostly rubbish and there is a much more clean position -
> minimalism, that means try not to add anything you can't verify or feel
> yourself, like religion or ethics. Operate only on the ego basis if you
> don't want to be a hypocrite. Any universal ethics is bullshit designed
> to hide someone's ego as something more superior than others.
>
> On 29 Mar 2003 17:11:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:50:00PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > > On 29 Mar 2003 11:24:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Killing millions with nuclear weapons is equally unethical as
> > > > putting a knife in the back of a mass murderer.
> > >
> > > I can't agree. This may be true by your ethics, not by my ethics.
> > > (Read: by your ego, not by my ego.)
> > >
> > > You may only afford to be a humanitarian when you are not directly
> > > involved in a conflict. When you are involved, you should choose sides.
> >
> > That's the one big lie I always hear from people who do not even
> > want to consider if what they are supporting might be wrong.
>
> Do you know what is right and what is wrong? I don't know. By a chance,
> do you know what is right for me? I don't have such ethical problems
> about what is _right_ and what is wrong, I (just like everyone else)
> support only what is _good_ for me, pure egoistical. I know the regime
> you are indirectly supporting breaks human rights and kills innocent
> people in its own country.
Wait a moment, how did you get that idea? From what I have said
up to here it should be *perfectly clear* that I support *no* use
of weapons. I reject the logic behind your statement. I am
against the use of weapons, yes. I am against it in wars claiming
to be righteous, I am against it to suppress people, I am against
it in any possible case. Full stop. Claiming that I indirectly
support unjust use of weapons is one-sided at best, maybe even
malicious.
> I know it used inconventional weapons in the past against other
> countries.
Yes, Iraq did use chemical weapons in the war against Iraq. I do
not accept that in any way. However, as a citizen of a country
which has not only used chemical weapons but also nuclear weapons
in the past, you should be careful with that resoning.
> I know the regime finances thousands of
> terorrists and their families. These same terrorists killed several
> thousand of innocent people (I may give their names if you like).
Excuse me, but there is absolutely *no* proof for your claims
that was released to the public. I don't want to see what would
happen in the world if a mere suspicion would be enough to justify
killing. There are other, non-violent ways to deal with such
threats.
> I don't want this to happen to me. You would also not want this to happen
> to anyone, but unfortunately only after feeling all this on yourself.
> Please don't say you already don't want this to anyone, what you
> effectively do is quite an opposite.
No, it is not. You claim the right to react to a threat in any
way. I deny the right to react to a threat in violent ways. That
still leaves a broad range of non-violent reations. History and
common sense teach us that violence never works to solve
conflicts. It may seem work if one of the opponents is far
superior to the others, but unless you completely wipe out the
opposition, you will regret it later.
> > At least I can afford to be a humanitarian, regardless of what happens
> > - as you see: I am attacked from all sides right now.
>
> I don't think anyone attacks you, really, we all love peace, it just that
> some people have another view of the situation.
>
> Anyway, expect to be attacked if you activelly fight against a natural
> people's wish to live in peace and prosperity without uncontrolled
> dictators. You simply don't know what people in all countries close to
> this war feel and want.
All I can say is: wake up. We (the people in the western
democracies) all want peace. Sure. But we usually do not care
one bit about the peoples in other countries, humiliate them, let
our secret services murder democratic governments or encourage
terrorists to do so, suport vile dictators for economic reasons,
exploit their resources and let people die from thrirst and
hunger, deny them modern medicines because they are too poor to
pay the license fees. And then, when people become so desperate
that some individuals hate us and throw bombs in our direction we
are surprised and whine "They have no reason to do this, they must
all be fanatics, intent on killing us beyond reason."
Yes, we all want peace, but we are still not prepared to pay the
price for it. You do not get peace for free, you have to fight
for it.
> > > > > To continue, think also about wars against the drug business and
> > > > > other mafias. What is more ethical, to kill several drug
> > > > > traffickers in a skirmish or to let them to break thousands of
> > > > > people? It's clear to me.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, for me too. Both is utterly unethical. A human life is a
> > > > human life is a human life.
> > >
> > > What is a human life? The god's creature, shrine? I am not religious, so
> > > this is not my ethics. Does the animal life is as important as the human
> > > life? If it is as important, you should fight against killing locusts,
> > > midges, cockroach and dosens of others. If it is less important, it is a
> > > human despotism. Since I believe that the basis of all ethical beliefs is
> > > egoism, I have no problem to state that a human life is more important.
> >
> > I am not religious either. The only 'definition' of morality I
> > have ever seen that I can agree with (although nobody can justify
> > it) is Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to
> > maxims of which you can want that they become a common law. All
> > other attempts of definition i can think of eventually run down to
> > treating some people differently than others.
>
> Does this mean you never treat some people differently than others?
I try not to.
> If so, I think you would want to remove ETHICAL_LICENSE that treats a lot
> of people differently than others based on your criterion not even laws.
When I ask that my work is not used, for example, to manufacture
weapons, how does this wish discriminate between people? I assume
that nobody is forced to do this.
> > Regarding the "human despotism": I acknowledge there are two
> > fundamental aspects of human existence. The first is the human
> > being as a product of evolution, as an animal among others. As
> > far as I know, animals are not capable of considering ethical
> > questions. In so far it makes little sense to talk about ethics
> > in this sphere. The second is the human as a thinking being who
> > has an at least partially free will (if not, we can as well stop
> > talking now). In this sphere, it does not make much sense to
> > think about ethics in other than human matters. But then, both
> > spheres overlap in many areas, which makes talking about ethics
> > immensely difficult.
>
> Again, I don't have such ethical ambiguity. You make a distinction
> between humans and animals, this is pretty much how religious people
> describe things. For me it is still a human ego (or evolution whatever
> you call it). People don't kill animals for the sake of it, because it
> hurts the nature balance (means hurts people), but kill animals for self
> defence and for food (or shortly for survival). I am pretty comfortable
> with my minimalistic ethical basis. I would feel very uncomfortable with
> your ethical basis as you described above regarding humans and animals.
>
> > > Although I would egoistically fight for my own life and the life of my
> > > family, I don't see my life as something holy by itself. I believe in
> > > evolution. If I die, it is ok as long as the humanity in the whole
> > > prospers. Similary about the lives of others. Thinking otherwise is
> > > caprisious by my ethics.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > But that does not mean that ethics are a private decision. Quite
> > > > the opposite, if you accept that people choose ethics too their
> > > > liking, you must accept too if terrorists who kill people do it
> > > > because they see it as their ethical duty to do so.
> > >
> > > I fully realize a terrorist has his own ethics. Since our ethics are
> > > quite opposite (he wants to kill me in name of his gods), I prefer to
> > > fight him and kill him to live myself.
> >
> > Does this not run down to: whoever is stronger should kill his
> > opponent before the opponent kills him?
>
> Yes, exactly, if one opponent tries to kill another, it is likely only
> one will survive.
And you think peace can be achieved with this reasoning? What you
say is the ultimate justification for *any* war and *any* murder.
It almost *demands* that people who can kill you have to kill you,
because they might feel threatened by your attitude.
> Fortunately people don't usually want to kill each other, so there is
> usually a time for talks. The smarter both sides the smaller probability
> of conflicts. If one side is fanatical (not smart), no talks are
> possible.
> You don't really want to defend the fanatics, they don't know
> your ethics and may kill you without any ethical problem.
That assumption is not correct. I do acknowledge the right not
to be killed, even for people who want to kill me. That does not
mean I want to be killed. But it does forbid me to force them
into a situation where killing is inevitable.
> Just because
> you are not currently on their way, does not mean it will not happen.
>
> > No, I believe that it is vital to not respond to a threat in kind. To
> > prevent falling back into barbarity we have to accept the same verdict
> > that you are deliver upon others.
>
> Did you ask yourself why democratic countries usually don't fight each
> other? Because free people would not allow this. They would change a
> leader (or maybe he would leave himself) if he is stupid enough not to
> prevent a war between countries that surely can solve conflicts with
> talks/resources, not wars. Only uncontrolled regimes may allow wars
> between countries and unjustified deaths of their own people.
>
> > Just consider this for a minute: If through some unforeseen
> > events the 'western' democracies became more or less irrelevant
> > countries, and the Arabian peoples came to control the world.
> > Wouldn't we (the citizens of the western democracies) all have to
> > fear for our lives, because we humiliated the Arabic peoples for
> > decades, claiming our way of life is inherently better than
> > theirs?
> >
> > That may be a purely hypothetical situation, but isn't that the
> > whole idea of ethics: do *not* do everything you *can* do without
> > having to fear the consequences, but acknowledge certain rules to
> > help maintaining a certain level of order.
>
> I know only facts. "Arabian peoples" is too much millions to throw into
> one basket. There are some democraties like Turkey. Most of the Iraq
> neighbour coutries are against this dictatorship, some activelly support
> this war, so please don't try to image the war as "western" against
> "arabical", this is bullshit. But I don't really want neither support nor
> condemn this war, I don't know all details. Just like we all.
>
> Democratic countries are more developed, free people are more effective.
> These are facts. In some non-democratic countries you have uneducated
> masses and poverty. Do you think people in these countries enjoy their
> situation? How do you know, did you ask them? If you want to be real
> humanitarian, you may consider to support increasing of the education
> level in these countries, not to speak about basic human freedoms.
Yes, much of what you say is true, as far as I can judge. But
please, why do we have to *bomb* these peoples to democracy,
freedom and prosperity. These must be ways that at least do not
cost the lives of civilians.
> I do want all these countries to eventually become democratic (means
> rich, educated and developed), this seems to be the only effective way to
> win terrorism.
> No, wars are not solution, but any indirect support of the
> dictatorship regimes only hurts people in these and all other countries.
Well, you ask for it, so I can not spare you the comment. The
USA (and other countries exporting wepons) has equipped Saddam
Hussein with weapons to fight a war against Iran more than a
decade ago. Later these and other weapons were used to suppress
the Iraqi people. These are facts nobody can deny. This does not
justify anything, but it can teach us that we *really* should
think more of what purpose weapons do serve.
> Unfortunately the war protesters do not realize they hurt real people.
You are reducing the peace novement to "No to all wars". But that
has never been the message. The message is that all goals for
which ("just") wars are started can be achieved with peaceful
means. You can only claim that war protesters hurt people if you
think they would do nothing if the war stopped. What makes me sad
is that nobody listens to pacifists *before* a war has started.
> Hmm, I don't believe I speak politics on this list. Shame on us both.
Well, I tried not to, but some replies forced me to. Of course I
do not want this list to become a political forum, but on the
other hand, wueations of life and death are definitely more
important than mailing list discipline. You may remember my plea
not to discuss 9/11 here, but that was basically because I feared
it would turn into a flame war.
> Again, a question of supporting or not supporting some war is fully
> irrelevant
> when the developers do not want to go away from pure GPL.
Sigh! Again: the "ethical license" does not, read: *not*, affect
the GPL. Claiming that it does is just plain wrong.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
