Canadians in Afghanistan

[Undertoad]

Oh yea, and via the Wiki entry for Kohlberg's stages:

While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.

The question then becomes what you do with people who fail to become "adults", in the tw model. Most people operate in that "law and order" stage. Their moral development is weaker than tw's. I wonder what the true moral relativist does about these sorts. If they steal your bike, it isn't right or wrong, good or evil; they just do it. Maybe we should walk in the bike thief's shoes for a while, appreciate their perspective. Maybe the bike thief has the right idea.

[Griff]

I guess this is why rule of law is so important. Law need to be predictable and rational so that it is operational for everyone. Like you mentioned a long time ago about the alcohol laws we used to avoid by crossing state lines, they undermined our belief in law due to their irrational nature.

[AlternateGray]

Originally Posted by tw

AG, this is not a court of law where the only purpose is to beat the other guy.

I know. Which is exactly why I'm not going to go into an overly-long spiel detailing every point of my belief system with careful attention paid to every word lest it be misunderstood. I posted a simple, somewhat flippant, point- and I think most understood it. "I rest my case" refers to the assertion that you are not understanding that point, as evidenced by the "animals are evil" interpretation you gave. Sure, if you want to take it to ridiculous levels you might interpret my post as saying that lions, tigers and bears will comprise the Fourth Reich and that ko-ko was the anti-christ; but you would be blazing that mental trail all by yourself- I'm still back at camp wondering where the hell you're going.

Not to be callous, tw, but it's not worth my effort to insure that you understand what I mean. The complexities of human nature dictate that any in-depth discussion of a true definition of "evil" is going to be long and tedious, and that's far beyond the scope of my post. My point was simply that evil exists. Undertoad nailed it pretty well. He's actually kind of eerie sometimes- he knows too much...

I find it both annoying and dangerous that many people still insist that the ten commandments need to be the basis for our laws (I don't see many people on this forum leaning that direction, but it's still a popular idea). I think we've evolved as a civilization to the point where we should be able to agree on a common set of non-religious morals and principles (note that this undercuts "evil dude" #1's power). I had no clue about Kohlberg's stages, I'll have to look that up, but it rings true.

I like to think of myself as having put some effort into understanding the world around me, but I'm still a simple guy. If someone steals my bike, I'm finding him and kicking his ass. :p

I have always thought that calling something or someone "Evil" was a cop-out.
There is no such thing, just a way to get out of empathy for those too lazy or mean to want to look at both sizes.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Rules said that when a fire alarm sounded, then all astronauts were to open the escape hatch, slide down a cable, get into an armoured personnel carrier and drive away like hell. The alarm went off. But a shuttle commander also understood WHYs. The shuttle commander violated well established rules.

The commander did the "right" thing.

What is the source for your quote? What you are talking about is a command decision. I don't know which incident you are discussing, but the bottom line is that many, if not most, rules are there for a reason. Considering the danger involved in a fire, the commander was automatically taking a risk by not responding appropriately. By using reasoning, he or she may have reduced that risk, but there was always the risk that it was a real alarm. It is ok and even desirable for commanders to take risks, as long as they take the responsibility for any mistakes that arise. Soldiers and quasi-military origanization members usually understand that they will bear the burden for their commanders mistakes. That's why they are not civilians.

And sometimes the WMD's just aren't there and you have to hunt for excuses and scapegoats.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have always thought that calling something or someone "Evil" was a cop-out.
There is no such thing, just a way to get out of empathy for those too lazy or mean to want to look at both sizes.

I've met a couple of people that have absolutely no socially redeeming qualities...none.
You can be sure they will do the bad thing in every situation.
Evil is the best heading/description for their catagory.

[Undertoad]

The source for my quote is tw's post.

[9th Engineer]

I find it both annoying and dangerous that many people still insist that the ten commandments need to be the basis for our laws

I've found that you can break these types of people into two subgroups. One is the religious fanatic who thinks that everyone has to live by the Bible no matter what, and the other truly believes that they are the best rules for producing good human beings. We need to limit the power of the first, but remember that you cant tell someone "We can trace your ideas back to a religion so you no longer have the right to vote according to your own values". There is a huge difference between someone forcing their religion on others and another who supports a candidate who mirrors their values, whatever they may be.

[AlternateGray]

No, I wouldn't go that far. Religion will always be the linchpin of the majority's moral system. That's a big "should" I put in there. But, really, I don't want to be a indirect convert to someone else's religious beliefs just because they're the majority and can pass them into law. Check out Utah. Admittedly, if you don't like it there you can move, but if it happens on a national level it's going to be highly annoying at best, and it's not necessary. I guess I just have a very conservative viewpoint when it comes to the gov and morals (true conservative). I don't need the feds to help me find my way to heaven, and moreover, sin should not be illegal- this is not a theocracy. I recognize that that's only my opinion, but it's one I'm pretty militant about.

[tw]

Originally Posted by AlternateGray

No, I wouldn't go that far. Religion will always be the linchpin of the majority's moral system.

And where does that morality belong? Long after one has logically evaluated the situation, then one stands back, compares that conclusion to morality biases, and ask, "Does it make sense?"

If not, one puts morality back in a drawer and restarts the logical analysis to find the error. When done, morality is again brought out to be compared to that logical solution. Morality never belongs in a decision making process – in part because it is an emotional concept. Morality is simply a 'check function' so that you don't make wild and unacceptable mistakes.

If, as Bible thumpers do, one uses morality as logic, then such people are easily converted to the dark side - as Hitler did to make it obvious that Jews were so immoral. Scopes trial did same when evolution was declared as evil. They were only using emotional morality rather than logic to condemn the science. If we blindly followed morality in the bible, then charismatic podium thumpers rather than fundamental science would be the source of man's advancement. Such moral people even created the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.

The ten commandments were man's first attempts at forming civilization. We also no longer blindly follow old English law even though such laws are a fundamental basis of our own laws. As we advance mankind, we learn more of god laws from god's prophets that have existed in every decade. We then discard those guidelines that were wrong. But those who refuse to learn, instead, insist that an early science book, the Bible, is all that one must know. They would use morality rather than logic as a basis for all decisions. IOW they would impose their religious beliefs on all others.

Your morality is your circuit breaker. It is protection so that you don't make bad mistakes. It is not a tool for making decisions; only a tool to check yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

On the Boeing web today;

Has tentative contract with Ottawa Tories want firm's Chinooks, C-17s
Toronto Star 06/23/2006
Author: Bruce Campion-Smith
Copyright (c) 2006 The Toronto Star

OTTAWA--Despite public claims that no decisions have been made, the federal government is negotiating tentative contracts to buy four mammoth C-17 Globemaster transport planes and 15 Chinook helicopters from aerospace giant Boeing.

In return for the lucrative deals, worth upwards of $7 billion, Boeing is ready to promise Ottawa a "robust" industrial benefits package to ensure Canadian aerospace companies reap a share of the windfall, especially those in Quebec.

The Chinooks and C-17s are key components of a military spending spree worth an estimated $17 billion that will be unveiled by the Conservatives next week.

The federal cabinet is expected to give its final blessing to the ambitious program when it meets today in Quebec City. And officials are putting the final touches on the logistics of a publicity campaign that will see cabinet ministers fanning out to tout the spending blitz.

The "mobility" package will promise the military new aircraft, trucks and choppers to move troops and equipment on missions around the globe and is meant to tackle some of the most pressing problems facing the armed forces.

Just this week, military officials in Afghanistan warned that Canadian troops travelling in convoys were being hurt in roadside attacks because they didn't have Chinook helicopters to move by air.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday the government is still "finalizing" its procurement plans for the armed forces but made clear he would act soon on campaign pledges to rebuild the military.

"This government, in our campaign, laid out that we would correct 13 years of Liberal neglect, that we would move forward with major military purchases including new supply ships, new trucks, new helicopters, and strategic and tactical airlift," he told the Commons.

However, in at least two of those deals, the government has already made its choice, industry sources confirm.

For both the C-17 and Chinook, the government will announce that it's done what's called an advanced contract award notification, which means officials have already negotiated contracts with Boeing.

Competing firms will have 30 days to submit a proposal, but the award notification signals the government has made up its mind on aircraft it thinks fits its requirements.

The government will start its military road show Monday in Halifax with the announcement it is moving ahead with the design of three new joint support ships. New trucks for the army will be announced in Quebec on Tuesday, and the Chinooks on Wednesday. On Thursday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor will be in Trenton to announce plans for new transport aircraft.

Related Stories
Boeing: C-17 money OK'd; program still at risk - Seattle Times 06/23/2006
Boeing to get deal worth billions for military transport planes - Ottawa Citizen 06/21/2006
Ottawa to spend $15-billion to boost military - The Globe and Mail (Canada) 06/23/2006

It looks like Canada is getting serious about gearing up for their role as UN peacekeepers......at least.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

On the Boeing web today;

It looks like Canada is getting serious about gearing up for their role as UN peacekeepers......at least.

The Economist on 1 July 2006 says

But while Canadians want their troops well equipped, they do not necessarily want them to fight. ... Anti-American feeling - and hostility to George Bush in particular - has been strong norht of the border since the invasion of Iraq, which many Canadians refused to join. There are many Canadians "who cannot stomach the notion of helping Mr Bush"

The order is not just for aircraft. Canada is also purchasing 2,300 supply trucks. The new government is upgrading its military with C$15 billion now and another C$5.3 billion over next five years.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Nothing to do with Bush, except maybe preparing to defend Canada against a Bush invasion.

But, they have been tapped pretty regularly as UN peacekeepers and should provide their troops with the best equipment they can.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nothing to do with Bush, except maybe preparing to defend Canada against a Bush invasion.

You beat me to it. I may have to go out and rent Canadian Bacon.

R.J. Hacker, President of Hacker Dynamics: Here he is now. The man that a thin majority of you chose to be the president of the United States.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Morality is really carefully and often finely reasoned survival behavior, which reasoning in some circumstances sets your group's/family's/nation's/planet's biosphere's survival in a higher priority than your personal survival. If a behavior isn't conducive to survival, it is not moral.