iambiguous wrote:
In other words, it is calculated more as a means to an end than as an end in itself. Faust wrote:Haven't you spent the last several months complaining about philosophy that is an end in itself?
Only in the sense there are those who imagine philosophy can disclose actual Kingdoms of Ends.
iambiguous wrote:
How many ethicists are employed by those who make the world go round? Faust wrote:Firstly, you never tire of telling us how much you dislike philosophers. Secondly, you don't have to be a professional philosopher to employ ethical considerations, so what difference does it make?
I do not dislike philosophers. I merely question the philosophy of those who espouse philosophical realism, political idealism, objectivism, essentialism and/or deontological ethics. And those who have little or no understanding of Karl Marx's rendition of "political economy".
Ethical considerations are always situated out in a particular world and viewed from a particular vantage point. And they are always subject to change in a world that is bursting at the seams with contingency.
iambiguous wrote:
And how would they weigh in the balance the assassination of Osama bin Laden against the manner in which American foreign policy thrives on the blowback that reinforces all the more the need for a national security state? Faust wrote:That's a loaded and therefor rhetorical question, of course.
You're not really discussing this in good faith.
I am merely putting the "limitations of language" in an existential [political] context. Over and again I make it clear that I am only interested in discussing the language of philosophy
out in the world. And my point is "loaded" only in the sense it reflects my own narrative, my own political prejudices. On the other hand, I never try to argue they are [or can ever be] more than that. I merely suggest this holds true for all others in turn. Language can only go in so far in explicating human moral and political interaction. And in explicating human emotional and psychological reactions. And in explicating the nature of any particular flesh and blood dasein.
Faust wrote:Students of history can see how violence between nations can escalate. Proportionality speaks to managing that. "An eye for an eye..." and very rough calculations of justice as fairness employ the same considerations. Moral philosophy does, that is.
All of this will be seen from different [conflicting] vantage points as men and women weigh means and ends pertaining to particular conflicts.
Why then
as a moral philosopher don't you propose the optimal manner in which to approach proportionality with respect to the killing of bin Laden. Was this particular attack proportional to this particular target? And how would you discuss this without putting global capitalism, 9/11 and the fake "war on terror" in historical perspective?
Here for example is my own take on that from another thread:
....American foreign policy has little or nothing to do with the pursuit of freedom, justice, democracy or human rights. It has everything to do with the pursuit of markets, cheap labor and natural resources.
Like, for example, oil.
In other words, American foreign policy is predicated on the Bilderberg Group agenda. Go ahead, Google it.
The Bilderberg agenda aims to carve up the 3rd world [and in particular the Middle East and South Asia] in order to secure from it access to plentiful natural resources. It is an imperialistic foreign policy in this sense. And when your foreign policy revolves around imperialism and you plunder 3rd world nations for all you can get there is going to be what is called “blowback”.
And that blowback will include Osama bin Ladens, 9/11s, shoe bombers and undie-terrorists. But if your whole frame of mind is twisted by the folks [in the military industrial complex] who profit from imperialism you can easily be duped into believing we are in Iraq and Afghanistan [and now Libya] only because we are peace-loving, freedom-loving purveyors of democracy around the globe. You might then fail to figure out how these relationships really work instead.
Colin Powell:
What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
and this:
These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes-scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.
It’s not for nothing that bin Laden and Al Qaeda chose to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They symbolize to many around the globe the utterly pecuniary relationship between Washington and Wall Street as they plot [through the Council on Foreign Relations] how to use folks like Osama bin Laden and 9/11 to perpetuate a global economy that strives always to perserve the interests of the ruling class.
Or don't you believe there is one?
Now, I don't personally subscribe to many of the "truther" [and now "deather"] conspiracy theories. But I have little or no doubt that 9/11 and radical jihad are being used as the latest bogeyman to replace Fascism and Communism in perpetrating and perpetuating America's imperialist foreign and economic policy.Or is it your argument here that "proportionality" has nothing to do with this? Or perhaps you concur with BlurredSavant that my points are extraneous to what
she wanted to discuss? But what she wanted to discuss could only [in my opinion] be grasped more clearly by exposing a larger context. The one embedded in "political economy". And Marx always took that out into the world even if you don't share his take on it. Which in some respects I don't.
Faust wrote:Moral philosophy examines "proportionality" itself, and not just what exactly is "porportionately right". Really, you might want to stop reading secondhand accounts of third-rate philosophers written by fourth rate commentators - you might learn this on your own.
Proportionality
itself? But: What
in the world does that mean. Ah, but for some, that's the whole point: To take the word out of the world. To examine it "theoretically". To define it. To tell us what it [purely] means.
But it will always mean different things to different people in different contexts and at different times.
And you are the one who perfers things rhetorical. Always intent on explicating the proper use of language. I always [at least try] to weight the words down with the world in which they are actual used to motivate behaviors.