CVByrne Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 World War I was the worst war to be a soldier in having to climb out of a trench and charge machine guns was suicide. So poor soldiers faced a decision charge german guns to your death or be shot by your own for desertion. Everyone who went to war should be remembered regardless of which way they met their death and both were inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 thing is Mich, you can not judge on what our standards our now Again I have to ask why? In my opinion, moral standards are not relative to time and space. To accept the disgusting acts of cruelty and inhumanity that took place during WWI because "that's what they did back then" is taking relativism too far. Way too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Second World War was just as bad - especially for German and Russian troops. They had SS or NKVD loons following them at the Front and if they turned back it was a bullet in the head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 yeah just read this on skynews , will be interesting as Serbs see Kosovo as the birthplace of Serb identity for want of a better word and not sure how they will feel about it becoming a sort of mini Albanian sate There is a fear in some circles that it will turn into a little Al-Quaeda camp in Europe, one of the reasons the EU is sending a 2000 man nation building team next week; I'm helping to recruit the reconstruction teams at the moment that will follow them in. I'd leave the travelling for a few weeks and observe if you have the option mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 thing is Mich, you can not judge on what our standards our now Again I have to ask why? In my opinion, moral standards are not relative to time and space. To accept the disgusting acts of cruelty and inhumanity that took place during WWI because "that's what they did back then" is taking relativism too far. Way too far. your wrong, morals change all the time just look at our the treatment of sex has and the way the media follows war is obviously a major factor and was since Vietnam your not naive Mich but your statement above is very naive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Second World War was just as bad - especially for German and Russian troops. They had SS or NKVD loons following them at the Front and if they turned back it was a bullet in the head! Aboslutely, but at least allied soldiers where fighting a just cause. We wouldn't blame a German soldier for deserting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HJ Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 World War I was the worst war to be a soldier in having to climb out of a trench and charge machine guns was suicide. So poor soldiers faced a decision charge german guns to your death or be shot by your own for desertion. Everyone who went to war should be remembered regardless of which way they met their death and both were inevitable. Exactly. Also when you consider how detached from reality the high command and generals in both sides were when technology caught up with warfare tactics turning attack maneuvers into meat grinders, the lack of respect for soldiers' lives when trying to reach silly tactical goals, the rampant diseases, chemical weapons, etc.. Anyone having to go through some of that deserves respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 thing is Mich, you can not judge on what our standards our now Again I have to ask why? In my opinion, moral standards are not relative to time and space. To accept the disgusting acts of cruelty and inhumanity that took place during WWI because "that's what they did back then" is taking relativism too far. Way too far. your wrong, morals change all the time just look at our the treatment of sex has and the way the media follows war is obviously a major factor and was since Vietnam your not naive Mich but your statement above is very naive I don't think you understand what I'm saying if you're calling my above statement naive. Of course society's ideas of right and wrong change - any fool would know that. But that does not mean that what actually is right and wrong changes, and I hope you can see the difference. Slavery wasn't considered to be morally wrong in ancient Greece - that does not mean that slavery in ancient Greece was morally acceptable. Discrimination of women wasn't consider morally wrong before the last few decades - that doesn't discrimination of women before the last few decades was morally acceptable. Execution of deserters wasn't considered morally wrong during WWI - that doesn't mean shooting a deserter during WWI wasn't morally wrong. To say otherwise would be more than relativist, it would be conformist. There is a set of moral standards that are not relative to time and place, and certain things were just as wrong during WWI as they would've been today. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to judge the crime against humanity that was WWI by today's standards, and you can not convince me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 no you just said standards change yet are applying standards which have changed therefore at the time it was considered right for the time of course it is not now but you can not in hindsight reapply it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 So, Ian, slavery in ancient Greece was fine? You are okay discrimination of women before the last few decades? We can go on if you want - serfdom was common practice in near all of Europe before the French Revolution. Nothing wrong with that? Torture of prisoners, noone really cared much about that before modern times, should that just be accepted as "right for the time"? All these things were considered "right for their time" and you're saying I can't apply my absolute set of moral standards and say these things were horrible and wrong? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that philosophy. Moral comformism is, for me, a bizarr concept. If I see something is right or wrong here and now, then certainly I would have to say it was right or wrong there and then? At least if I claim to care about anyone besides myself and my compatriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 you miss the point if we lived in 1914 then Gays were persucted by teh majority public hanging was legal and many others the so called 'liberal views' now would have been so much the minority by a long way at the time there was little fuss over this in fact modern warfare changed with vietnam when American viewers saw how the troops were being treated and treated others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 and at the outbreak there was overwhemingly public support for itJust like there wasn't for the iraq invasion - public opinion counts for natch, World War I was the worst war to be a soldier in having to climb out of a trench and charge machine guns was suicide. So poor soldiers faced a decision charge german guns to your death or be shot by your own for desertion. Everyone who went to war should be remembered regardless of which way they met their death and both were inevitable. Cor blimey, I agree with one of CV's posts, will sit down for a while. no you just said standards change yet are applying standards which have changed therefore at the time it was considered right for the time of course it is not now but you can not in hindsight reapply it Nope, I agree with the scandanavian. People were poorly treated by people who thought they were dispensible. That is nothing to do with the overriding morals of the time, it was institutional homicide. If you don't accept that the leaders of the time were inept, cowardly, feckless and fuckwitted then you can't move on and build a better society. The people who died at the front, died for a broken view of the world, for the inability of the smart people to make it work. Yes you can list the causes of the war, the road to war, the alliances, the german increase in warships and the british double strength standard, competing colonisation, the trade links different sides sought to maintain and grievances over disupted terroritories. All Causes. No Reasons. Stupid War, Killed Miilions. Solved Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 All these things were considered "right for their time" and you're saying I can't apply my absolute set of moral standards and say these things were horrible and wrong? The problem that I have with your view is that you say you're judging them by a set of absolute moral standards, but you aren't really, are you? I'm sure in ancient Greece thought they could apply absolute moral standards, yet we'd claim that they're wrong now. The current beliefs in our culture have a huge influence on what we consider to be absolute moral standards; Our view of the "absolute" isn't absolute,, so I don't believe them to be a useful philosophical tool for ethical discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 the so called 'liberal views' now would have been so much the minority by a long way And how does that make the oposite view right in any way, and how does that mean I can't apply my "liberal" views to judge cruelty of the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I'm putting £100 on Michelsen winning this argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 lets face the Media has shaped outr current moral staandards hasn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 lets face the Media has shaped outr current moral staandards hasn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 All these things were considered "right for their time" and you're saying I can't apply my absolute set of moral standards and say these things were horrible and wrong? The problem that I have with your view is that you say you're judging them by a set of absolute moral standards, but you aren't really, are you? I'm sure in ancient Greece thought they could apply absolute moral standards, yet we'd claim that they're wrong now. The current beliefs in our culture have a huge influence on what we consider to be absolute moral standards; Our view of the "absolute" isn't absolute,, so I don't believe them to be a useful philosophical tool for ethical discussion. I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're saying, but I'll answer according to the way interpreted your post: When I say I have an absolute set of moral standards, I'm saying that I have a set of moral standards that I would apply to judge any action that requires any moral thought anywhere at any time. My views could be seen as wrong by people everywhere, and people everywhere could be right, but my moral standards are still absolute in that I would apply them on everyone everywhere throughout history. Even if I say the Greeks were wrong when they held slaves, but if the Greeks said that it would be right at any place at any time to keep a slave their view would still be absolute even if it would've been, in my opinion, wrong. So, absolutism is philosophy that stands in contrast to relativism, and I'm sorry but I don't know exactly how your post is relevant to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The problem that I have with your view is that you say you're judging them by a set of absolute moral standards, but you aren't really, are you? I'm sure in ancient Greece thought they could apply absolute moral standards, yet we'd claim that they're wrong now. The current beliefs in our culture have a huge influence on what we consider to be absolute moral standards; Our view of the "absolute" isn't absolute,, so I don't believe them to be a useful philosophical tool for ethical discussion.Of course if you believe civilisation has progressed that argument becomes invalid, as today's morals standards should be higher than those previously heralded as the absolute. However if you, like me, believe we have regressed then I look forward to enslavery and flogging at regular intervals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 the so called 'liberal views' now would have been so much the minority by a long way And how does that make the oposite view right in any way, and how does that mean I can't apply my "liberal" views to judge cruelty of the past? orrect we can judge it now, but we can not apply restropective judgement to descions made lawfully 90 years agin in times and condtitions none of us know about therefore unfortuanlty none of the the so called cowards should be excused but they should be remembered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts