|
Feb 2024
4:17pm, 20 Feb 2024
31,780 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Philosophy has tried to answer the question, “How do I lead a good life?” for thousands of years and has never reached a conclusive answer. Course not. I have no doubt that many pacifists have this question in mind when they conclude that pacifism and non-violence is a part of the answer. But, as always, life is a bit more complicated than maximalist positions tend to allow.
|
|
Feb 2024
4:28pm, 20 Feb 2024
21,127 posts
|
Chrisull
Amen to that.
|
|
Feb 2024
1:40pm, 21 Feb 2024
2,731 posts
|
Canute
It is likely that in everyday interactions with our immediate surroundings, for millennia, we humans have based most of our deliberate actions on predictions about the consequences of our actions and subsequent observation of the outcome. However philosophy has not reached definitive conclusions about the 'proper' way for humans to act, at least in part because we have not had a good understanding of the degree to which the consequences of actions can be predicted.
We have often filled the gaps in our understanding by invoking ‘supernatural’ forces.
In the past few centuries we have learned that the natural world behaves in a way governed by natural laws, but nonetheless, the prediction of the outcomes is inherently unreliable because of the complexity of the natural world.
In matters of inter-personal and international aggression and violence, we have ambiguous evidence regarding outcomes. We have good evidence that sometimes others will harm us to achieve their own ends. We also have evidence that others share our own inclinations towards peaceful prosperity.
My personal conclusion that that we do, as individual and as a society, need to be prepared to defend ourselves. However, we also need to do what we can, as individuals and as a society, to promote peaceful prosperity throughout the world.
In my own lifetime, I have experienced peace in Western Europe sustained via cooperation between nations, including mutually beneficial trade. I have also experienced a fragile peace between East and West maintained by nuclear defence and the threat of mutual annihilation. That fragile peace is now more fragile than ever.
We need to strengthen our defences but face an even greater imperative to promote peaceful collaboration between nations and to minimise inequality between nations. Our own individual actions have meaningful, albeit small, consequences.
|
|
Feb 2024
1:56pm, 21 Feb 2024
49,462 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I'm very glad and thankful for the reconciliation and courtesy that posters on this thread (and FE in general ) reach, even when they have strongly
differing underlying opinions. Thank you all for your courteous discourse.
Some really interesting views, information and perspectives being shared.
To follow up on a couple of posts on the power of mutual interest and prosperity to prevent conflict vs threat of consequences through military might (carrot vs stick if you like)... is it then the majority biew that you *always* need some physical defensive capability and that just law and commerce will never be sufficient?  G
|
|
Feb 2024
2:16pm, 21 Feb 2024
49,463 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
*view obv. Bliddy phone keyboard!
|
|
Feb 2024
2:22pm, 21 Feb 2024
2,732 posts
|
Canute
I suspect we will always require the capacity for forceful action at the level required by a police force in a well-ordered society governed by widely accepted laws. I do not see an intrinsic reason why it would be possible to achieve a well-ordered society governed by laws that are accepted worldwide. But we have a long way to go to achieve this. Almost certainly, we will need world-wide equality of opportunity for an enjoyable life.
|
|
Feb 2024
2:54pm, 21 Feb 2024
23,422 posts
|
3M
Basically, we're talking about needing a "World State" - to remove international conflict we probably need an end to nations (and Nationalism).
(Gene Roddenbury put it in the 24th Century.... after a fairly significant global war or two.)
|
|
Feb 2024
3:48pm, 21 Feb 2024
31,788 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Even Kirk had his Klingons, though.
Also Romulans, Borg and Kardashians.
|
|
Feb 2024
4:32pm, 21 Feb 2024
16,543 posts
|
jda
Law isn’t really law if it isn’t enforced.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that collective self-defence is one of the cornerstones of civilisation. I don’t think I’m particularly at the warmongering end of the spectrum of views and I don’t object to some people adhering to a pacifist philosophy, I just think they’re a bit naive and wrong-headed in their view of the world. But so are lots of other people in different ways.
|
|
Feb 2024
8:57am, 22 Feb 2024
2,733 posts
|
Canute
We are a long way from a situation where peace might be maintained by international collaboration including mutually beneficial trade, supported by a level of force typical of a police force to enforce laws. We do not need to abolish national identity; merely reduce its jingoistic character. In many parts of the world there are 4 layers of government: Local (eg local council), Regional (eg county in UK, state in US); Country (usually national), United Nations. There is value in decisions being made as near to the local level is feasible. At present, national governments probably have too much power. It might be better if some spending power was transferred down to regional level, while maintenance of peace was transferred upwards to UN. At present, it is the Security Council members who often obstruct wise decisions. But as I see it, such transfers of power do not present insuperable problems.
|
