The Art of Philosophy #2: Is anything legal when protecting your country?

[Razor]

Wowzers, have I got a thread here. First of all, Spinoza..has some ideas. fromthesouth, you should read his thoughts as he puts them forth in Theological-Political Treatise. They're...interesting.

---------------------------------------------------------

Is it ok to do anything; when it is in the interest of the state? Machiavelli has a rather famous argument. And it's from Wiki. I didn't feel like reading back through all of that:

...the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state, and actions to protect the country are therefore justified even if they are cruel. Machiavelli suggests, however, that the prince must not be hated. He states, "...a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred, as is noted.

So. Machiavelli argues that the greatest moral imperative is a stable state. Which makes sense, considering good only exists in a stable state. Therefore, in the act of preserving this stable state, anything is justified. However, you must not be hated by your citizens. Your citizens will rise up. ...and you don't want that.

Spinoza offers a strange sort of argument. Strange in that it goes against basic logic. Spinoza argues:

I cannot fail to say here that it is equally dangerous to depose a monarch, even if it is clear by every criterion that he is a tyrant....For how will [the replacement monarch] inevitably regard citizens whose hands are stained with royal blood, citizens glorying in parricide as in a noble act, an act which cannot fail to be an ominous example for him?

Basically, don't overthrow the monarch. A people accustomed to having someone in ultimate royal authority need an ultimate authority, so the overthrown monarch will be replaced. The only problem? He must now somehow regain authority over a citizenship that killed his successor. Even if the monarch is detrimental to the overall state of the society, you musn't give into temptation and kill that son of a bitch.

According to Spinoza, The Ides of March never should have taken place.

So. Is any action excused if it is in the best interest of the state? Does Machiavelli have it wrong? Is Spinoza off his rocker? Stake your claim.

 

[X]

I have absolutely NO respect for anyone who supports these Machiavellian ideas. None. You might as well enlist in the Fascist Party while you're at it.

The idea that anything is acceptable as long as it's in the interest of country, God and state is not only ridiculous, it's frightening. These are the philosophies that lead to fervent nationalism and the rise in fascism across the globe.

So. Machiavelli argues that the greatest moral imperative is a stable state. Which makes sense, considering good only exists in a stable state. Therefore, in the act of preserving this stable state, anything is justified. However, you must not be hated by your citizens. Your citizens will rise up. ...and you don't want that.

The idea of a stable state being the greatest moral imperative is the very definition of absurd for an anarcho-Collectivist like myself. The idea that the greatest morality lay in crushing all opposition in the name of the state is ridiculous on several levels, the biggest one being that "morals" are something concrete and universal that everyone can agree on. The quote in my signature sums up my feelings on morality pretty well.

I get the feeling this is just going to be one big thread of people agreeing with each other. I challenge ANYONE to take up the Machiavellian side of this argument and present a logical debate.

Basically, what Machiavelli is saying is The Holocaust > Unstable Germany. That's an extreme example, but a perfectly fitting one, and one that showcases just how wrong of an ideology this truly is.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Well, if anyone was going to defend Machiavelli, it was going to be me.

I'm not going to do it.

The problem with Machiavelli is that he uses a stable society as an end, whereas western culture uses it as a means. Maintaining a stable society is important so that every citizen can receive their just due. This is the basis of every social contract theory. Machiavelli's idea is that rights can be taken away to promote the social order. I would argue that man enters into an orderly society in order to gain rights beyond those of nature. A stable society is a foundation for rights, for growth, for innovation, it is not the ultimate end.

Spinoza is wrong too, in my opinion. I was trying to think of a time in history where people deposed a king with no successor planned, or more importantly, at the command of the ordained successor.

Making this a little more current, according to Spinoza, no one would want to be President. We often depose (through elections) all kinds of people in the ruling class, and replace them. There is no shortage of people who want high office. Weren't there 18 Presidential candidates at the start of the last election season?

 

[Loveless]

Is it ok to do anything; when it is in the interest of the state? Machiavelli has a rather famous argument. And it's from Wiki. I didn't feel like reading back through all of that:
So. Machiavelli argues that the greatest moral imperative is a stable state. Which makes sense, considering good only exists in a stable state.

There you go with that Good and Evil thing again, when they don't even exist as solid ideas.
Regardless, what a ridiculous statement in bold that is. Not only is it wrong, I'd argue it's completely the opposite. Good things come from unstable states, problems, issues etc. Necessity of the mother of invention and peace is anathema to progress, allow me to quote Orson Welles

In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Therefore, in the act of preserving this stable state, anything is justified. However, you must not be hated by your citizens. Your citizens will rise up. ...and you don't want that.

You have to remember this was written in a very different time when countries were essentially dictatorships, ruled by one man and answerable only to God. They also didn't have the dissenting voices of the press to publicise their wrongs. The idea may still exist today but with the extremely important part of "Whatever you do, don't get caught" tagged on the end. Essentially, what's best for a nation is keeping the peace so this "anything is justified" idea when out the window for exactly that reason. Because if you get caught, you undo everything.

Basically, don't overthrow the monarch. A people accustomed to having someone in ultimate royal authority need an ultimate authority, so the overthrown monarch will be replaced. The only problem? He must now somehow regain authority over a citizenship that killed his successor. Even if the monarch is detrimental to the overall state of the society, you musn't give into temptation and kill that son of a bitch.

There seems to be quite a lot of assumptions about how a new monarch secedes. If it's the peoples choice, then there is no reason for the new monarch to be stained with blood. The people would hardly get rid of a dictator and then allow someone who isn't their choice to take over.

So. Is any action excused if it is in the best interest of the state? Does Machiavelli have it wrong? Is Spinoza off his rocker? Stake your claim.

Any political system has to be seen as just or can't survive, unless control is absolute. It's really the people that decide what is allowed and no leader in their right mind would act unless he thought he could get away with it.

 

[Razor]

There you go with that Good and Evil thing again, when they don't even exist as solid ideas.
Regardless, what a ridiculous statement in bold that is. Not only is it wrong, I'd argue it's completely the opposite. Good things come from unstable states, problems, issues etc. Necessity of the mother of invention and peace is anathema to progress, allow me to quote Orson Welles

An unstable state brings about good? How? What does Anarchy bring to the table that is better than a society in which everyone follows basic laws and doesn't go around doing what they want? This is basic good and evil 101. You can't even argue that civilizations were the first basic step towards the human race joining together and not being completely animalistic in our ways, which is a good for the evolution of society. So please, continue to be uppity with me and argue an innane point.

You have to remember this was written in a very different time when countries were essentially dictatorships, ruled by one man and answerable only to God. They also didn't have the dissenting voices of the press to publicise their wrongs. The idea may still exist today but with the extremely important part of "Whatever you do, don't get caught" tagged on the end. Essentially, what's best for a nation is keeping the peace so this "anything is justified" idea when out the window for exactly that reason. Because if you get caught, you undo everything.

But that's just it, Machiavelli is arguing you should do everything to keep the peace and keep the people from hating you. If you can get something done to keep the state stable without the people being mad at you, then why not, according to Machiavelli.

As Machiavelli would argue, why can't George Bush invade Iraq when he's got the entire citizenry behind him? We supported him 110% in those first days, and we loved him for fighting our fight against the dirty Terrorists. His only problem is that he stayed until we got pissed.

Though, answer why a man can't do everything he can without his citizenry getting upset to keep his state stable and you've killed Machiavelli's point.

There seems to be quite a lot of assumptions about how a new monarch secedes. If it's the peoples choice, then there is no reason for the new monarch to be stained with blood. The people would hardly get rid of a dictator and then allow someone who isn't their choice to take over.

You apparently didn't pay attention to the implications of the quote. It implied violent deposition against a violent monarch. You can't vote out a monarch, and Spinoza is implying that the people don't want a violent monarch to stay in power. Which I would suppose is the case.

Then, if the man is to hold power, how is he going to gain it against a citizenry that just violently overthrew his successor? An even more violent crackdown on the people who lead the overthrow of the first person. And a deadly cycle is created. Which is Spinoza's entire argument. Answer that, and you've shot Spinoza's argument.

Any political system has to be seen as just or can't survive, unless control is absolute. It's really the people that decide what is allowed and no leader in their right mind would act unless he thought he could get away with it.

Which is why the monarchs of the Middle Ages were beheading everyone they wanted to. They knew they could get away with it, and the citizenry would just take it in stride. Which really satisfies Machiavelli's point.

The problem here is if a man is justified in doing what he wants as a ruler to keep the state stable as long as the citizenry don't mind. As you said, the citizenry give the man his power. Can he go around killing his own people as long as they don't get angry and stay frightened?

 

[Razor]

I have absolutely NO respect for anyone who supports these Machiavellian ideas. None. You might as well enlist in the Fascist Party while you're at it.

Hell. I'll try to defend him. I, for one, don't believe a word he says. But I can't really write a thread and then let the man hang in the wind.

The idea that anything is acceptable as long as it's in the interest of country, God and state is not only ridiculous, it's frightening. These are the philosophies that lead to fervent nationalism and the rise in fascism across the globe.

Well. It also lead to the stability that allowed many early kingdoms to survive. A Middle Age king who beheads 50 citizens and has the citizenry afraid of him will have a stronger country than a Middle Age king who doesn't do anything. The king doing the beheading had that citizenry afraid of him, and they will damn sure follow his laws. The king who does nothing will have citizens who respect him, but not necessarily the laws that he sets down.

I'll try to put forth a highly simplified metaphor. Well, maybe not simplified. Call it what you will:

A child is brought up by parents who do nothing but say "NO!" really loudly. They never back up the threat, and by age 5 the child knows he can do whatever he wants. He'll never be disciplined.

Another child is brought up by parents who discipline their child. They may spank it, give it a "time out," whatever. Doesn't matter. Point is, the child will learn to respect it's parents and do as it is told.

Another child is brought up by parents that beat the shit out their child. He is brought up to be frightened of his parents, and after a few years he rebels. How he rebels is variable. Either way, they crossed the line into a pissed off citizenry.

The idea of a stable state being the greatest moral imperative is the very definition of absurd for an anarcho-Collectivist like myself.

Well. It also rests on the inherent good of the people, does it not? A stable state, as Machiavelli argues, is the only way to ensure that the majority of people follow basic moral laws. We ARE nothing more than smarter animals, Xfear. We have those animalistic tendencies that make Gorillas go batshit and tear another monkey apart.

The idea that the greatest morality lay in crushing all opposition in the name of the state is ridiculous on several levels, the biggest one being that "morals" are something concrete and universal that everyone can agree on. The quote in my signature sums up my feelings on morality pretty well.

Well, Machiavelli is arguing that the greatest moral act would be to uphold the stable state. Inside of the stable state people can live happily amongst one another. How is that bad?

I get the feeling this is just going to be one big thread of people agreeing with each other. I challenge ANYONE to take up the Machiavellian side of this argument and present a logical debate.

I'm trying, I'm trying. It's hard though, considering I have no idea how one so utilitarian would argue.

Basically, what Machiavelli is saying is The Holocaust > Unstable Germany.

1) You just broke Godwin's Law. You lose.

2) No, he's not. The Holocaust would only be acceptable if it helped make Germany stable. As a matter of fact, not many German citizens knew about the Death Camps.

3) Now, consider the Germans DID know about the Death Camps, and were happy about them. Then.....yes. According to Machiavelli, it would be justified. But only because the people you are governing don't hate you, so you can defend yourself and country against the billions who ARE pissed off at you for killing millions of Jews.

That's an extreme example, but a perfectly fitting one, and one that showcases just how wrong of an ideology this truly is.

Your entire argument for why Machiavelli was wrong is:

the biggest one being that "morals" are something concrete and universal that everyone can agree on.

Is that not what you are doing here? You are assuming that Machiavelli is completely wrong in a moral aptitude for wanting his state to be as secure and happy as possible. Not only that, but you're assuming we all agree with you.

 

[Razor]

Well, if anyone was going to defend Machiavelli, it was going to be me.

I'm not going to do it.

I wouldn't advise it either. It's really rather hard to argue ideas that you don't really believe in. We need Machiavelli here, today. He can do it.

The problem with Machiavelli is that he uses a stable society as an end, whereas western culture uses it as a means. Maintaining a stable society is important so that every citizen can receive their just due. This is the basis of every social contract theory

.

Yep. That's Machiavelli wants. He's just keeping his society stable by completely doing whatever he wants, as long as the citizens don't care.

Machiavelli's idea is that rights can be taken away to promote the social order. I would argue that man enters into an orderly society in order to gain rights beyond those of nature. A stable society is a foundation for rights, for growth, for innovation, it is not the ultimate end.

But without that stable society, there is not "growth, innovation," and the like. Machiavelli is arguing that in order to defend that state, you can do whatever you want. As long as the citizenry don't get pissed.

Spinoza is wrong too, in my opinion. I was trying to think of a time in history where people deposed a king with no successor planned, or more importantly, at the command of the ordained successor.

Did you read the link to Wikipedia? He's got some...one of a kind ideas. One of which is that the Jews have survived for so long because of circumcision. It makes them one of a kind, or something like that. I haven't exactly read that part in his book. I have it though. I just gotta get to it.

Making this a little more current, according to Spinoza, no one would want to be President. We often depose (through elections) all kinds of people in the ruling class, and replace them. There is no shortage of people who want high office. Weren't there 18 Presidential candidates at the start of the last election season?

No, I think you misunderstand. Or maybe that quote is a little vague. I should go back and edit it, if it is.

Spinoza is arguing that a violent monarch should never be deposed through violent means. Such as, a revolt. Or else the successor will have to gain power of his citizens, and the most likely way is a bloody vengeance for the death of a monarch. A bloody cycle, as it were.

An example of this would be the French Revolution. Louis VII (?) was fucking the people around. I don't remember if he was particularly violent, but he might as well have been. He was an 18th century monarch. At any rate, the citizenry led a very violent overthrow of the king. Chopped his head clean off.

Then what happened? The government elected to run in his place led the infamous "Age of Terror," during which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were killed if they were even so much as hinted at as traitors. Hell, one man got his head chopped off for "excess of zeal." How you can be killed for being really zealous, you got me.

 

[laxfan41]

Almost any thing goes when protecting your country. It depends on your definition of torture though.

What I think crossing the line in torture is depriving POWs of religous meals (not giving Jews kosher meals, or giving Muslims forbidden food and giving Hindus beef to eat), religion goes above all. Giving POWs injuries that endangers their life, and then not giving them proper treatment is crossing the line and the people in on that should be locked up. torturing/killing family members is definitely crosing the line. And anything else in that realm is crossing the line.

However, I don't think that waterboarding, as long as you don't end up drowning them is crossing the line. And the allegations against the guards at Guantamo are exagerated, some people said that our troops were starving them, even though the prisoners actually gained weight.

I'm a Catholic, and I don't know about other religions, but the Catholic Church says that if the war is justified, if it is an act of self defense, or sticking up for those who can't do so themselves, so killing in war is definetly acceptable if the war is justified. I respectfully disagree with those of you that don't agree with me.

 

[Goo Punch]

As Machiavelli would argue, why can't George Bush invade Iraq when he's got the entire citizenry behind him? We supported him 110% in those first days, and we loved him for fighting our fight against the dirty Terrorists. His only problem is that he stayed until we got pissed.

Wait, who's "we"? The American people? 'Cause there was a lot of Americans who realized Bush was invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and only wanted to "make his Daddy proud". A lot of Americans knew his "weapons of mass destruction" declaration was bullshit, the second he said it. So, the entire citizenry certainly wasn't behind him and it would pretty much be impossible for that to ever happen.