quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB]So now intent does matter-the intention of the commanding officer? Seems to me you want to have it both ways. Intent doesn't matter on behalf of those who do the actual dying, but does on the part of the CO.
Here's where intent specifically does not matter: No matter what I intend as an individual sent into battle, this intent does not have any power to keep my death from being a complete waste if, in fact, my death was a complete waste. If I were one of Pershing's soldiers, could have the most noble intentions in the world as I charge over a hill into a bloodbath that consumes my life. If my death was for nothing, my death was for nothing.
quote:But so far you haven't really been making many arguments at all.
Strange, I never knew that not really making arguments forces so much in the way of counterarguments. But, at this point, I can keep reiterating a single argument over and over (which is what is actually happening): that motive can't void one's death from being a complete waste. It was either the waste of a soldier's life, or it wasn't a waste of a soldier's life.
The lives of pershing's soldiers were wasted.
None of your arguments have as of yet been very convincing in their intent to say that this can't be the case because of anything having to do with the state of mind of a soldier whose life is garrulously thrown away.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Stories of that sort of sacrifice inspire others. Stories of that sort of abuse of sacrifice also inspire outrage, which is also quite useful.
The problem is, to my mind, stories like that of the 3,000 who died because of Pershing's orders also may inspire anyone who's ordered to do something which may result in self-sacrifice for the greater good to question whether they're actually serving a great cause or a petty one. Even in those who might be perfectly willing to make that sacrifice in the case of that great cause.
I'm fairly certain that I would make a very bad soldier in most circumstances; there are people and causes that I'm ready to fight and die for, but I would find it hard to take it on faith that someone issuing orders for me to advance actually knows the greater scale, knows what they're asking me to do and knows full well why it is necessary. I have real problems with the very idea of unflinching, unhesitating obedience to the chain of command, even as I understand that some momentous things can only be accomplished with such obedience. There isn't a lot of time for reasoned discussion and democracy on a battlefield.
Perhaps the greatest ill is not Pershing's betrayal of the soldiers under his own command, but the loss of faith his deeds might cause in soldiers under later commands, whose officers might well be both more pragmatic and more compassionate.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB]So now intent does matter-the intention of the commanding officer? Seems to me you want to have it both ways. Intent doesn't matter on behalf of those who do the actual dying, but does on the part of the CO.
Here's where intent specifically does not matter: No matter what I intend as an individual sent into battle, this intent does not have any power to keep my death from being a complete waste if, in fact, my death was a complete waste. If I were one of Pershing's soldiers, could have the most noble intentions in the world as I charge over a hill into a bloodbath that consumes my life. If my death was for nothing, my death was for nothing.
Well, we're back on the merry-go-round again it seems. "If it's a waste it's a waste," if it's an argument at all, isn't much of one, Samprimary. For one thing, I don't agree that if someone's service is stolen in that way, there is absolutely no benefit to be derived from the sacrifice. I've explained why in detail why I think that. For another thing, somewhat like Orincoro you appear to be arguing against some notion you think I have that the theft of sacrifice by Pershing was somehow overall a good thing. I definitely don't think that's true, either, as I've explained repeatedly.
You appear to inextricably link intent with outcome. I don't. I've explained why more than once, and your rebuttal has largely been to ignore that explanation and say, "If it's a waste it's a waste."
quote: quote:But so far you haven't really been making many arguments at all.
Strange, I never knew that not really making arguments forces so much in the way of counterarguments. But, at this point, I can keep reiterating a single argument over and over (which is what is actually happening): that motive can't void one's death from being a complete waste. It was either the waste of a soldier's life, or it wasn't a waste of a soldier's life.
You haven't forced counterarguments. I'd already made those arguments to Mucus, and referred you back to them. That's a different thing. Since you're refusing to address my response, unlike Mucus and Juxtapose for example, your repetition isn't much of an argument at all.
quote:None of your arguments have as of yet been very convincing in their intent to say that this can't be the case because of anything having to do with the state of mind of a soldier whose life is garrulously thrown away.
I'm not surprised my arguments haven't been persuasive towards that point, since I wasn't reaching for that point in the first place.
quote:So those soldiers of Pershing's, the thing to do isn't to deny their heroism. It's to acknowledge their heroism while casting out the selfishness of those who abused it. I see no reason why both can't be done at once.
That was my initial argument, and I expanded on it. This is the last time I'll say it: your response has largely been, "Well you can't do both at once, and that's all there is to it."
----
Sterling,
quote:The problem is, to my mind, stories like that of the 3,000 who died because of Pershing's orders also may inspire anyone who's ordered to do something which may result in self-sacrifice for the greater good to question whether they're actually serving a great cause or a petty one. Even in those who might be perfectly willing to make that sacrifice in the case of that great cause.
Yup, the unintended consequences of setting an example. You aren't always around to interpret for those following you what example you were actually setting.
But even then, the intention carries with it a real world impact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... That's why I was likening Pershing's awful action to charitable contribution to a church. Does that make sense?
Kinda. I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from even if I personally disagree with it.
quote: ... Thanks for putting it in terms so easily understood-did a better job than I did, certainly!
Thanks, making this sort of summary is always risky, especially on Hatrack, but that is interesting. I'll have to ponder the ramifications a bit.
quote:
quote:It seems like the algorithm you're using is to go into each of those results and regardless of whether the result was intended or not, if the result is positive and the soldier intended something good (regardless of whether that intention is similar to the result or not), then "they were doing good."
Well, it depends to me on whose point of view you're looking out of ...
Well, who's point of view do you generally use when as in the opening post you characterized the soldiers as doing good?
More specifically, would you qualify the "good intentions" in the above quote as defined as good intentions from your POV or their POV?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: The problem is, to my mind, stories like that of the 3,000 who died because of Pershing's orders also may inspire anyone who's ordered to do something which may result in self-sacrifice for the greater good to question whether they're actually serving a great cause or a petty one...
Glass half full, eh? While I don't expect many to agree, like I said before I think the world would be better off with less people willing to self-sacrifice and more people willing to question what kind of cause they are serving. Especially those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and doubly so for those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and simultaneously the lives of their enemies.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, we're back on the merry-go-round again it seems. "If it's a waste it's a waste," if it's an argument at all, isn't much of one, Samprimary.
Calling a spade a spade is actually probably the easiest and most important argument one can make, logically. When someone doesn't realize that a spade is, in fact, a spade, it's also rather vital to make the core of one's counterargument.
quote:I've explained why more than once, and your rebuttal has largely been to ignore that explanation and say, "If it's a waste it's a waste."
Your rebuttals are largely (if not now totally) just to tell me that I'm not providing you an argument. Save your time and don't bother typing stuff like "You're just repeating that I'm wrong" out from now on, I will simply remember that it is in all your subsequent posts forever. Thanks!
now, sans the distractions:
quote: For one thing, I don't agree that if someone's service is stolen in that way, there is absolutely no benefit to be derived from the sacrifice.
let's say I'm a general, and I "steal someone's service" by jamming them into a meat grinder. As long as I am only 'stealing their service' as opposed to just 'wasting their lives,' benefit for their being jammed into a meat grinder sort of .. mysteriously .. appears, I take it? Such that I can't say that their lives were wasted anymore?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Calling a spade a spade is actually probably the easiest and most important argument one can make, logically. When someone doesn't realize that a spade is, in fact, a spade, it's also rather vital to make the core of one's counterargument.
This would be very, very compelling if I hadn't explained in some detail (see discussion between Mucus and I, for example) why I dispute that the spade is a spade, and you keep ignoring that entire section of this thread. I suppose that's a step up from suggesting I'm probably too frightened to accept the world as it is, though.
I'd love for you to try and convince me that the spade is a spade. You know, with some sort of persuasive argument. "But it's clearly a spade!" isn't a persuasive argument! I'm beginning to honestly wonder if you're being obtuse just to irritate me. If so, it's working, of course.
quote: quote: For one thing, I don't agree that if someone's service is stolen in that way, there is absolutely no benefit to be derived from the sacrifice.
let's say I'm a general, and I "steal someone's service" by jamming them into a meat grinder. As long as I am only 'stealing their service' as opposed to just 'wasting their lives,' benefit for their being jammed into a meat grinder sort of .. mysteriously .. appears, I take it? Such that I can't say that their lives were wasted anymore?
Boy, here's an absurd comparison. I'll try and work with it, though.
First of all, when did I say you couldn't say their lives were wasted? I said it was wrong to suggest they died for nothing. Now I'll admit that's not very clear, but talking about it with Mucus led me to clarify my thoughts a bit. I'm not going to go into that again. It's there. You can read it or not.
Second, I've explained that the benefit gained isn't gained from the specific action itself - in this case the ridiculous being jammed into a meat grinder - it's from the willingness to act on an ideal of self-sacrifice for a good cause. Which is, y'know, where your silly metaphor falls apart: no soldier would think there was some good cause served by being forced into a meat grinder; many soldiers, quite likely not knowing the orders were improper, might think a good cause was being served when they obeyed an order to 'attack those Germans'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
So if I lied to the soldiers and told them that they had to jump into the meat grinder in order to save their country, and they believed me and jumped into the meat grinder honestly believing that they had to do so to save their country and this is what they thought were achieving, now, suddenly, it is no longer appropriate to say that their lives were wasted, because of a 'willingness to act on an ideal of self-sacrifice?'
Now, you've stated that your defense of the deaths of Pershing's men is that it wasn't a complete waste because the world is a better place anytime someone is willing to make that sort of noble (or at least assumed to be noble) sacrifice for the sake of others.
I'd like to see how the answer to that question matches up to your prior defenses.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
So if I lied to the soldiers and told them that they had to jump into the meat grinder in order to save their country, and they believed me and jumped into the meat grinder honestly believing that they had to do so to save their country and this is what they thought were achieving, now, suddenly, it is no longer appropriate to say that their lives were wasted, because of a 'willingness to act on an ideal of self-sacrifice?'
OK. I wasn't as clear as I should've been in the opening post-I've said that at least once already. I can see how you might think, reading the earlier conversation, that I was saying this.
But exactly how many times do I have to explain that I don't think this situation is a net gain, that all I am saying is that I don't think it's a complete, 100% waste-that there is some small amount of good mixed up in the overall wickedness, before you'll stop hounding me on this?
Because I'm running out of ways to repeat myself that aren't either outright quotations or full of profanity, Samprimary.
quote: Now, you've stated that your defense of the deaths of Pershing's men is that it wasn't a complete waste because the world is a better place anytime someone is willing to make that sort of noble (or at least assumed to be noble) sacrifice for the sake of others.
This, at least, is finally an accurate restatement of my position.
quote:I'd like to see how the answer to that question matches up to your prior defenses.
I'd like to see even more how your question is supposed to be as new and incisive as you think it is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK. I wasn't as clear as I should've been in the opening post-I've said that at least once already. I can see how you might think, reading the earlier conversation, that I was saying this.
Actually it comes from the post immediately prior and does not rest on the assumption of a net gain.
quote: I've explained that the benefit gained isn't gained from the specific action itself - in this case the ridiculous being jammed into a meat grinder - it's from the willingness to act on an ideal of self-sacrifice for a good cause.
therefore you don't have to explain at all that you don't think it is a net gain. You have to explain why you don't think it is a total waste as you are saying that it inherently, your words, 'makes the world a better place.'
Anyway, you can elect to answer the question or you could go with the profanity, I am fine with either.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually it comes from the post immediately prior and does not rest on the assumption of a net gain.
Show me where, please. I'm pretty irritable right now, but I ask that at least without snark.
quote:therefore you don't have to explain at all that you don't think it is a net gain. You have to explain why you don't think it is a total waste as you are saying that it inherently, your words, 'makes the world a better place.'
I've explained why I don't think it's a total waste and that the sacrifice itself, even in a very small amount, makes the world a better place. I've done so repeatedly. It's because I think such sacrifices - even when stolen - inspire others to follow in the example of the sacrifice, and to be vigilant against future thefts.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I did. That was the first thing I did. I put in the quote. I bolded it for emphasis. You said straightforwardly that the benefit gained is from the willingness to act on an ideal of self-sacrifice for a good cause.
When you said that, I responded to you saying it in the post immediately above it. Not in the 'prior conversation.' It was in the post immediately prior. Directly. I quoted you verbatim.
You need to decide whether things like the Pershing sacrifices are
1. not a net gain, or
2. make the world a better place
You are assuring me that you think (1), but you are also insisting to me that it is (2). If you don't think you aren't asserting both to me, re-read your posts. You're delivering me contradictions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are assuring me that you think (1), but you are also insisting to me that it is (2). If you don't think you aren't asserting both to me, re-read your posts. You're delivering me contradictions.
The two are not necessarily a contradiction, Samprimary. I think #2, but not in a net way. See Mucus's little metaphorical set of numbers. I'm not delivering you contradictions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Let's say I send some kids on a school bus and the school bus is heading for a cliff and I know it. Let's then say that the kids briefly get off the bus at a rest stop and share their cookies with some starving kids hanging out near the restroom. The bus kids then get back on their bus and continue on to their grisly deaths as the bus goes over a cliff.
I'd say (and I think Rakeesh would agree after all he's said in this thread) that at least the cookie sharing was a good act, even though it was incidental to the overall terrible mass murder of school children.
I suspect you'd agree too. It's relatively easy because the cookie sharing is a discrete act, and not necessarily inherent to the bus murder. (Though keep in mind it's causally dependent on the mass murder.)
Even if the rest stop was at the bottom of the cliff and the starving kids who received the charity cookies were then killed by the falling bus, I'd still point to the act of cookie sharing and call it a good act. I would not even call it pointless or completely wasted, since I think the happiness and relief that it temporarily caused are of value (indeed a small example of what I consider to be the entire point of existence).
Of course, this kind of evaluation breaks down when we look at war. There IS no immediate value in the fighting of a war, in fact the immediate effects are all horrible. There's no cookie sharing, there's only differently motivated killing and being killed, and some ultimate outcome which might be good or bad.
I think where you're not being fair is that you're dismissing the point of view that an act of sacrifice might have some moral quality independent of the ultimate outcome. It's no cookie, but Rakeesh clearly thinks it can be a good thing to act with honorable motivations and to set an example of sacrifice and service to a higher cause, even if you're unknowingly serving a bad cause.
If we get back on the bus, Rakeesh says that if the kids know they are headed for a cliff but believe they must do so to prevent infecting others with a fictional flu I've convinced them they all have, their act is noble, and worthy of praise, and even potentially a useful example to others who might someday have an exclusively bus-crash curable virulent disease for real.
I'm not sure I agree because I'm not sure I can assign any value to their intent, what I value is human life and experience, but I can at least see the argument about example and say that's not crazy; it's possible such willingness to sacrifice is a net good to humanity (over the long, long run) even if instances of it are manifest in actions that are harmful.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that people are arguing about the second-order effects. It looks to me that everyone agrees the first-order effects, lots of dead soldiers, are awful; the question is, can any value be salvaged? I don't think this is easily knowable. Unintended consequences are always very difficult to measure. Maybe someone is inspired by his dead grandfather's example of sacrifice and throws himself on a grenade, saving three comrades' lives; maybe someone is made cynical by the waste of his father's life and dodges the draft, and two others are killed in his stead. You can't know this sort of thing. Rakeesh's insistence that the mere existence of sacrifice is good strikes me, therefore, as wishful thinking; there's no way to measure the net effect.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think Rakeesh is separating the moral quality of an action from its effects in ADDITION to postulating some potential second order beneficial effect. I could be wrong.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Maybe someone is inspired by his dead grandfather's example of sacrifice and throws himself on a grenade, saving three comrades' lives; maybe someone is made cynical by the waste of his father's life and dodges the draft, and two others are killed in his stead. You can't know this sort of thing. Rakeesh's insistence that the mere existence of sacrifice is good strikes me, therefore, as wishful thinking; there's no way to measure the net effect.
I'm not suggesting I know in every single case. Lemme put it this way: if there's no way to measure the net effect or even the specific effect, that's why I'm suggesting it's wrong to say that the deaths were 100% waste, serving zero purpose whatsoever.
---
quote:I actually think Rakeesh is separating the moral quality of an action from its effects in ADDITION to postulating some potential second order beneficial effect. I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Glass half full, eh? While I don't expect many to agree, like I said before I think the world would be better off with less people willing to self-sacrifice and more people willing to question what kind of cause they are serving. Especially those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and doubly so for those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and simultaneously the lives of their enemies.
I sort of agree. Which is part of why I said "I understand that some momentous things can only be accomplished with such obedience". You will note that "momentous" is neither positive nor negative. Evacuating a flooding city is momentous. So is protecting a vulnerable population from genocide. So is attempting to bring about that genocide.
On a personal level, the sentiment "Well, I'm sure those in power have a higher-level view of things and understand what's going on and why they're ordering us to do what we're doing" inspires a borderline knee-jerk reaction that's roughly the equivalent of throwing the emergency brake at 60 mph. As I've said, I'd probably make a crappy soldier.
It's not hard to find real-life examples that put what you say into harsh relief. Just about every damn suicide bomber, for a start.
But I can't help but recognize that good things can also be brought about with obedient self-sacrifice. One hopes that those who put themselves in the position to display that virtue (or "virtue", as the case may be) did so with an understanding of what they were setting themselves up for, but like so many things in civilized society, that's an ideal, one which we may not always achieve.
I also can't help but think that, like many extremes, there's something of a "fudge factor"; there's no easy way to seperate those who decide not to practice obedience and self-sacrifice out of serious thought about the consequences and ramifications and those who decide not to because they don't see the personal benefit or simply can't be bothered.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not suggesting I know in every single case. Lemme put it this way: if there's no way to measure the net effect or even the specific effect, that's why I'm suggesting it's wrong to say that the deaths were 100% waste, serving zero purpose whatsoever.
Any action, up to and including the Holocaust, has so many side effects that some of them are bound to be good just by plain random chance. If you do not know anything specific, it is reasonable to assume that the good and the evil is a wash. It follows that you should judge actions only by the specific effects you can measure; saying "But there are bound to be good side effects" is not very helpful because there are likewise evil ones.
quote:I actually think Rakeesh is separating the moral quality of an action from its effects in ADDITION to postulating some potential second order beneficial effect. I could be wrong.
I have not been following this thread closely, so I may have missed this; but it looked to me as though the argument was that the existence of sacrifice-willing people is good through their inspirational effect. That is a second-order benefit, it seems to me. I may have misunderstood the argument.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not suggesting I know in every single case. Lemme put it this way: if there's no way to measure the net effect or even the specific effect, that's why I'm suggesting it's wrong to say that the deaths were 100% waste, serving zero purpose whatsoever.
Deaths by people with noble intent, sacrificed by people with ignoble intent, could easily be found to just be a waste, though. I mean, it can even be worse than that. They can easily make the world a worse place. They can serve BAD purpose. Hence my incessant needling of the logic behind either proposition. You can take any event, no matter how hideous, and infer some good benefit that, by chance, befell the world due to that event. This doesn't infer the other stuff though.
idk, at this point KoM is putting it better than me right now. Postulated potential second order beneficial effect is not equal to being able to claim that necessarily world is a better place for virtue of having soldiers obsequious enough to be used as pawns for wicked ends. :/
quote:While I don't expect many to agree, like I said before I think the world would be better off with less people willing to self-sacrifice and more people willing to question what kind of cause they are serving. Especially those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and doubly so for those that are willing to self-sacrifice their lives and simultaneously the lives of their enemies.
I certainly agree. Strongly. And The Rabbit has more or less pwned the demonstration of this case, so, people have agreed vociferously. Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So everyone who serves a higher cause, if their offering of service is genuine, can still be said to be truly serving it no matter what specific actions they take-so long as negligence doesn't crop up, and their sincerity is still there. I think that's just the way service and sacrifice works, rather like CS Lewis had Aslan say of service to him and to Tash.
It's a shaky comparison, but I think it fits. No one doing and intending to do good can be said to be serving evil, even if through error they serve evil in name. No one doing and intending* to do evil can be said to be serving good, even if they mistakenly believe they serve good.
I think this is exactly correct.
Even though a sacrifice in a given instance can be a waste because it did not achieve what it was intended to achieve, it might also simultaneously NOT be a waste because as a rule the willingness of people to commit such sacrifices without knowing for sure that they will result in success results in overall success. As any casino knows, some rules will fail in many given instances, yet result in a greater success when applied consistently and viewed as a whole.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, these are second-order effects. You can't know whether they are net good or bad; it doesn't make sense to proclaim them good just because you approve of the intention.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
