When and how is the use of force justified? (Political Theory)

reply to post by darkbake

The western world is used to some kind of philosophical rule, called "Truth," to keep as a moral compass.

Speaking of the compass , I recalled GWB who said "god told me to invade Iraq"

And that 9/11 was not a simple terrorist attack.

And the other fact that there is moral compass which tells MSM what to reveal and what to hide and what to repeat , what to start and what to end.

IT is the compass which tells US govt to use Agent orange in Vietnam and Nuclear bomb on Japanesse.

It is the compass which says UK , 300 years ago , to make new sects of Wahhabiat and Bahayiat to torn Islam appart from within.

It is all the compass which let to WW1 and WW2.

The moral compass which allows govt to let international corporation loot middle east.

So , suppose that you have a compass , but I believe that that is the compass which shows benefits and disadvantages.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by mideast

 

Which is why I am more of a proponent of Anarchism than any other ideology. Why empower a person or people to rule over you when history has shown, over and over again, that with power comes corruption?

But I do believ that there were good people who were helped by god to govern people by justice , such as David , Solomon , Imam Ali AS.

reply to post by tachyonmind


I have spent my life debating academic people m but I like to speak practically , not academically. So consider this.

i live in a british democracy,

Which the army has a finger in every looting around the world. Which has been looting countries in old and new and neo form. The one way democracy ? Which just cares about the english people and squash other nations ? Which has been spying on people for the longest time ?

government doesn't have to be big, nor particularly powerful to be effective, it simply has to be rational.

Which means should do anything to support it's own interest and the interest of the people. Is that the ration ?

the problem with current forms of centralised government as i see it is that they try to do too much.. they don't have the power to change minds, or even educate them, because they wont allow themselves to be educated.

I think that those who want to change mind , should themselves have a good mind or they just waste the people like Hitler wasted. And I do not believe in seducing people , I believe in logical and rational education + heavenly art.

also, the empahsis of "profit", the turning of basic human needs and inalienable rights into commodities to be traded, like food, water, shelter, gives an unjustifiable level of power over people, to people who have made more profit.. this is completely wrong.. some things should be free and guaranteed by government regardless of "monetary cost"..

I do believe in starting an age when people should demand justice . But do the self-sentered self-caring people care about it ?

I don't think so. As long as these people need something follow the justice line and if the have to pay something back to revive justice , they ignore it.

Much remembers me of 3rd Imam who said before being beheaded that "people are slaves of this world , and religion is a gum in their mouth. Whenever the sweet taste is gone they spit it out"

So , how could we teach people to demand justice ?

IMO , start by acting according to justice. Not according to the self interests.

I hope I haven't write too much.

That was my opinion.

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by mideast

 

Which is why I am more of a proponent of Anarchism than any other ideology. Why empower a person or people to rule over you when history has shown, over and over again, that with power comes corruption?

But I do believ that there were good people who were helped by god to govern people by justice , such as David , Solomon , Imam Ali AS.

agreed, some people are worthy of the charge, the problem is humanity has no idea how to judge such worthiness outside of educational and employment history.. there is no objective judge of character.. a convict for instance is instantly disallowed the opportunity to be the leader of the government that convicted him.. is that how it should be?

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by mideast

 

Which is why I am more of a proponent of Anarchism than any other ideology. Why empower a person or people to rule over you when history has shown, over and over again, that with power comes corruption?

But I do believ that there were good people who were helped by god to govern people by justice , such as David , Solomon , Imam Ali AS.

agreed, some people are worthy of the charge, the problem is humanity has no idea how to judge such worthiness outside of educational and employment history.. there is no objective judge of character.. a convict for instance can never be allowed the opportunity to be the leader of the government that convicted him.. is that how it should be?

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

IMO , that is how it should not be because you said that a convict should not be a leader.

But I agree that there is no assurance about how we should choose the leader.

I talk about the ideology of Shia Muslim and you judge it.

It is said and taught that god cleared who should be leading the community of Muslims. But there are some criterion to determine who should be leading and the common sense accepts that.

One is that the leader should not do something against justice. He should be educated and informed about the community.He should be very careful and cautious about what he is doing and.....

But in the end there is no assurance that the leader I chose does not want to do as his interests tell him. And that only assurance is given from god.

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by mideast

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by mideast

 

Which is why I am more of a proponent of Anarchism than any other ideology. Why empower a person or people to rule over you when history has shown, over and over again, that with power comes corruption?

But I do believ that there were good people who were helped by god to govern people by justice , such as David , Solomon , Imam Ali AS.

agreed, some people are worthy of the charge, the problem is humanity has no idea how to judge such worthiness outside of educational and employment history.. there is no objective judge of character.. a convict for instance can never be allowed the opportunity to be the leader of the government that convicted him.. is that how it should be?

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

IMO , that is how it should not be because you said that a convict should not be a leader.

not quite, i said that under the current system a convict can not become leader..

But I agree that there is no assurance about how we should choose the leader.

I talk about the ideology of Shia Muslim and you judge it.

It is said and taught that god cleared who should be leading the community of Muslims. But there are some criterion to determine who should be leading and the common sense accepts that.

One is that the leader should not do something against justice. He should be educated and informed about the community.He should be very careful and cautious about what he is doing and.....

But in the end there is no assurance that the leader I chose does not want to do as his interests tell him. And that only assurance is given from god.

any human will chose to do what their interests tell them.. the trick is finding the people whose interests tell them to be honest and fair, a servant of justice.. unfortunately, a degree in business communications or economics or political science speaks more to the people than any actual judgement of character by more than just their "peers"...

also of note is the fact that no individual actually chooses their ideal leader, they choose one of those offered and pre-approved by the current establishment, which in itself only perpetuates the standards of the current establishment, and leaves little room for adaptation..

"'i think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs..'

'really? i think the puppet on the left is more to my liking..'

'wait a minute! there's one guy holding up both puppets!'

'GO BACK TO BED HUMANITY, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL'" -bill hicks

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by RAY1990

 

I'm not sure violence can be justified, not in any universal or objective sense at least. My main concern is with doctrines of legitimacy, where a social contract is put into place to legitimize one persons/peoples use of force over another, while de-legitimizing the secondary peoples ability to use force in return. In this sense, the former is considered "righteous" while the latter is considered "unrighteous" (ie. the noble vs the ignoble, the state vs the terrorist). To me, either the use of force cannot be legitimized for anybody, or violence is legitimate for everybody.

Good point, lets use Syria as an example with your thoughts. Western nations are talking right now on wiping out Assad's forces at least enough to put the fighting on an equal footing (apparently). By devastating those forces with cruise/tomahawk missiles, we would be using an escalated use of force. A little like picking off Galleons with Aegis class destroyers, the justification would be those galleons are run by a tyrant and although the method of handling it was extreme it is justified because we are legitimate. Who made us legitimate though? or our escalated use of violence legitimate?

In the case of self-defense, as the previous poster mentioned, I still am not sure that violence can be legitimized in any coherent way. A person will naturally defend themselves, a loved one, or a stranger in need of help, whether or not they have a legitimate, legal or philosophical right to do so. To create a moral framework for violence is to solidify the use of violence within what is often a very fuzzy and subjective perspective of events leading up to that instance.

For instance, the aggressor may himself or herself feel morally virtuous in their actions due to various reasons. The impoverished laborer who stole some food may have already felt he has been robbed by the wealthy businessman who owns all the land. Or, the terrorist may have previously felt terrorized and victimized by those who are now his victims. When the conflict started may be entirely dependent on ones perspective. So, to me, neither side's use of violence can be legitimized, and to do so is to corrupt any notion of morality or ethics.

edit on 25-8-2013 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)

Again good point, the ending of violence should always be the priority and ending violence with violence should always be last resort. Understanding and reasoning is usually the best route to take.

Take Libya as a study point this time, we understood (apparently) that Libyans wanted freedom from another tyrant who was torturing and killing he's own people, ruling with an iron fist of despotism. The reasoning for our airstrikes and support of the "freedom fighters" was the case that Gaddafi would not stand down. He reasoned that he was not an actual leader but just a figure head. The freedom fighters never got heard...

Disguising warfare and violence as diplomacy before diplomacy was ever given a chance is just deception. It is also an unnecessary escalation of force. Force can be used without it needing to be physical.

I guess the point I am getting to is the same as yours, violence can never really be justified or harnessed into a tool to force diplomacy. Doesn't matter what form of rule or governance you use to morally justify it, it will always be wrong. A saddening point in your own history, a time you have failed to reason before force is used.

Did we even try to reason with Gaddafi? did or will we reason with Assad?

Probably not, they are tyrants and must stand down right? You cannot deal with such entities, especially when you sit on legitimate high ground.

We should always fight vigorously and feverishly with reason and understanding and solemnly with actual physical force. It is a failure when your tongue and brain has failed and fists remain your only tools.

Moral compasses be damned because they all point to hell in the hands of modern day leaders.

reply to post by darkbake


reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


I was half drunk when I invented equalism, it is in essence something that could never be achieved. So yes it would be a case of constant conflict, conflict of rights and righteousness.

In my mind it would be something akin to Anarchist Liberalism without Democracy, nobody has any moral high ground to govern and nobody has any right to violence. Instead the only justification for anything is it stands unequal, you rule yourself in essence and everybody else has that right. Abuse that single right then you have lost that right and no longer a member of the Equalism form of rule. To implement such an idea you would have to do away with borders, laws and government.

Like I said I just made it up, it's probably flawed to bits.

Moral compasses be damned because they all point to hell in the hands of modern day leaders.

indescribably sad but nonetheless utterly true.. sad also is the fact that so many have to die just so these "leaders" can settle their particular countries' differences..

what is needed is a revolution independent of any one state or nation's ideologies, a revolution in the people's personal thinking.. instead of thinking "my countrymen are being oppressed by tyranny, we must revolt", they should consider "all men are oppressed by the tyranny of a few, we must revolt against the disproportionate control of influence, form unity beyond our borders, so when it comes time to overturn the system there is a whole earthfull of people to support it"..

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Moral compasses be damned because they all point to hell in the hands of modern day leaders.

indescribably sad but nonetheless utterly true.. sad also is the fact that so many have to die just so these "leaders" can settle their particular countries' differences..

what is needed is a revolution independent of any one state or nation's ideologies, a revolution in the people's personal thinking.. instead of thinking "my countrymen are being oppressed by tyranny, we must revolt", they should consider "all men are oppressed by the tyranny of a few, we must revolt against the disproportionate control of influence, form unity beyond our borders, so when it comes time to overturn the system there is a whole earthfull of people to support it"..

edit on 26-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

The thing about revolutions is once they are big enough to make any change then they are hijacked by nefarious people with even more nefarious deeds in mind. We have had revolutions brewing recently you could say. Brazil, occupy wall street, Arab spring and many more. All will or have been hijacked, they unfortunately always are.

What you speak of is still possible though, if we cannot do such things in the age of the fibre optic then I reckon it's a lost opportunity that can never be had again.

reply to post by tachyonmind


The last lines shows the illusion that all the people are equal and some one wants us to fight.

That is not true.We are choosing beings and our job is to investigate.

As long as we don't betray our innerself , we can trust ourselves , otherwise we can not even trust ourselves any more.

also of note is the fact that no individual actually chooses their ideal leader, they choose one of those offered and pre-approved by the current establishment, which in itself only perpetuates the standards of the current establishment, and leaves little room for adaptation.

God didn't leave us unguided inside and outside. He shows us the truth and people leave it when they like.

And at some points , they ask god to show his outter guide which they have been betraying for long time.

Another point is that he hasn't givven two leaders to us and has not givven the right to choose between them.

There is Noah and his opponent
there is Ibraham and nimrud
there is moses and pharoah
there is Jesus and corrupted monks
there is Muhammad AS and corrupted idol worshipers.
There is guidance of god and guidance of Satan.

So , this kind of democracy doesn't have meaning in divine leadership.

The freedom is to choose to support or to leave.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

The last lines shows the illusion that all the people are equal and some one wants us to fight.

how so? there is noone that wants us to fight, we fight of our own accord..

That is not true.We are choosing beings and our job is to investigate.

As long as we don't betray our innerself , we can trust ourselves , otherwise we can not even trust ourselves any more.

what's the difference between the inner and outer self, other the former being your perspective of yourself and the latter being other peoples' perspective?

also of note is the fact that no individual actually chooses their ideal leader, they choose one of those offered and pre-approved by the current establishment, which in itself only perpetuates the standards of the current establishment, and leaves little room for adaptation.

God didn't leave us unguided inside and outside. He shows us the truth and people leave it when they like.

And at some points , they ask god to show his outter guide which they have been betraying for long time.

agreed, although i would not call it "betrayal".. the "outer guide" can be represented by anything and anyone, as long is it agrees with the "inner guide" or voice..

Another point is that he hasn't givven two leaders to us and has not givven the right to choose between them.

he's given many many leaders to us, but we have not chosen to follow them..

There is Noah and his opponent
there is Ibraham and nimrud
there is moses and pharoah
there is Jesus and corrupted monks
there is Muhammad AS and corrupted idol worshipers.
There is guidance of god and guidance of Satan.

So , this kind of democracy doesn't have meaning in divine leadership.

The freedom is to choose to support or to leave.

indeed.. divinity is undemocratic, but i thought the topic of this thread was political theory, rather than theological theory..

reply to post by tachyonmind


inner guide is the wisdom which understands , it can determine the truth from lies. And it alarms us when we want to do something against the truth. And we may make it suffocate by burying it.

According Qur'an

89:7-10
by the soul, and the proportion and order given to it;
and its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
truly he succeeds that purifies it,
and failed is he who buried it!

The outer guides are for example the messengers and prophets who came and taught us about god and afterlife.

33:45-46
o prophet! truly we have sent thee as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and warner,-
a caller to allah by his permission and as a light shedding lamp.

By inner self I meant the inner guidance which condemns our evil actions and decisions

75:2
nay! i swear by the self-accusing soul

IMO leader who is confirmed and recognized by god acts according to justice rather than one-side interest.

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

inner guide is the wisdom which understands , it can determine the truth from lies. And it alarms us when we want to do something against the truth. And we may make it suffocate by burying it.

According Qur'an

89:7-10
by the soul, and the proportion and order given to it;
and its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
truly he succeeds that purifies it,
and failed is he who buried it!

The outer guides are for example the messengers and prophets who came and taught us about god and afterlife.

33:45-46
o prophet! truly we have sent thee as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and warner,-
a caller to allah by his permission and as a light shedding lamp.

By inner self I meant the inner guidance which condemns our evil actions and decisions

75:2
nay! i swear by the self-accusing soul

IMO leader who is confirmed and recognized by god acts according to justice rather than one-side interest.

agreed =)