"I think, therefore I am" so said Rene Descartes in his conclusion to his quest for reducing existence to the minimum that cannot be doubted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

One could just as easily say "I do...therefore I am".. "I Kill, therefore I am.".... "I 'anything'....therefore I am"

Descartes wanted to avoid all possibilities of being deceived by outside forces. (Including a malevolent deceptive god/demon)

If such a position was our basis for ethics.. how would this effect our attitude to WAR ? (and of course every other aspect of life)

We have the Geneva convention, but what (apart from a simple signature) binds us to the contents of it ?
Is it any better morally, than its opposite ?

Article 4 includes protection against:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I wonder how Descarte would define 'Civilized' ?

There are grave problems with seeking to follow this convention in the face of such groups as Al Qaeda. The convention clearly presupposes a 'normal' war as had been experienced up to that time.

So... on what grounds is the Geneva Convention morally superior to its opposite ?

this is an easy one bd, for those of us who subscribe to the golden rule: as confucius put it, "don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."

however imperfectly, international law is aiming for that standard. by enunciating rules that most people would would be willing to submit to, we enlist the support of most in applying those rules.

i would be astonished that a religious person didn't understand this, except i have met many religious people and quite a few confuse religiousity with morality. many do it on purpose, as a camouflage for their amorality, others are simply dim and confused, or consumed with a fear of dieing and hopeful that bible clutching will improve their fate. which sort are you?

I sense a great deal of confusion here, Boaz.

>>So... on what grounds is the Geneva Convention morally superior to its opposite ?<<

There is no "opposite" to the Geneva convention, or any convention for that matter. The Geneva Convention simply attempts to codify forms of behaviour that societies occasionally indulge in under stress, or duress, or when attacked.

But let's get back to Rene for a moment.

>>One could just as easily say "I do...therefore I am".. "I Kill, therefore I am.".... "I 'anything'....therefore I am"<<

Actually, you can't. And that was the sole purpose of cogito ergo sum, to avoid diluting the essence of being with a whole load of extraneous paraphernalia. Moving on...

>>If such a position was our basis for ethics<<

But how can it be, except at the most fundamental and personal level? Descartes used the concept as a building block, only in the sense that an individual can, at least, be certain of this one thing. But I don't believe he extended it, on its own, to encompass ethical concepts. "Being" is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for the existence of ethics.

>>There are grave problems with seeking to follow this convention in the face of such groups as Al Qaeda.<<

This is, I think, either a troll or a furphy, and since it is a Tuesday I'll opt for the latter. The simple fact is that Al Qaeda is not, as I understand it, a signatory to the Geneva Convention, so its terms do not apply.

With that out of the way, and Rene Descartes despatched to a neutral corner (I doubt he would have used "je pense, donc je suis" as a tool to define "civilized", for example), what are we left with?

I know there is a question, Boaz, somewhere deep down, and it is probably worth serious discussion. Are you suggesting, for example, that in our defence against Al Qaeda terrorists we should ignore our commitment to the Geneva Convention?

It's certainly something to think about, but Descartes is not the right guy to help us work it out.

Thanks for pointing out the above Pericles. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" because he knew that in order to think some part of him had to exist, in order to carry out those thoughts. Saying I kill therefore I am is invalid because, using the example of a brain in a tank, our mind could be tricked into thinking we are killing someone when in fact we are only a brain in a tank.

Even the other thread started about how all pathways of human consciousness could be a computer simulation holds true to Descatre's statement along the same lines, because if we are merely simulated program we are still thinking and still exist, albeit in a simulated and very deterministic form.

Given this I don't understand how war and international law can be equated with Descarte's statement.

I have always seen international law as a train. The more people (nations) get on board and contribute ideas then the more weight it will hold and more progress in reaching a final destination of totally agreed upon rules can be made.

Pericles... on the question about Al Qaeda... my point was not to troll.. simply to use them as an example of an 'alternative' morality/ethical system' which as you rightly point out, is not based on the Geneva Convention..and that is primarily my point.

Such conventions are quite arbitrary, and while well intentioned, are rather outmoded these days when 'the enemy' is either within us, or coming.. and does not wear a uniform...

The reason I approached this from Descartes standpoint.. is that without the Divine input.. (u will know where I'm coming from there) we are left with "I think...therefore I am" and ethics could...go in any direction from there. They could be purely self serving, other serving.. a combination.. etc. The most consistent ethical outcome of his conclusion of personal reality being the only thing we are assured of... is to pander to that personal reality in ways which nourish its sense of self.

So in relation to war.. the GC lacks authority apart from what we ourselves ascribe to it.

DEMOS.. Confucious said that ? Ok..fine.. but he could have said the opposite :) get me ? his saying is no more authoritative than the extent to which we or others agree with it.

What I'm doing here is 'pushing' non Christian world views back to their ultimate starting point..back to the presuppositions.

As Pericles demonstrated, and quite likely will continue to expand on.. possibly wiht you at his side :) the non Christian tries to build up a framework of ethics which is completely inconsistent with their presuppositions about life, but then denies this very thing.
I say 'inconsistent' because the ethics usually arrived at, are the 'feel good' type.. such as Confucious, or..in the case of westerners, the inherited ethics of a Christian historical tradition going back 2000 yrs.

BD, the problem with your viewpoint is that it ignores that the fundamentals of our morality codes existed well before 2000 years ago. So while Christianity has no doubt had an influence I think its a bit of a stretch to say that it forms the basis for ethical codes such as the Geneva convention. Particularly when one of the core messages of the Christian faith is "turn the other cheek". The 10 commandments are not Christian, they're Jewish and are more than 2000 years old.

Even the 10 commandments appear to be supportive of older existing morality codes. Eg, killing for the sake of killing (murder) is something not tolerated in aboriginal society well before the christian message got here. I picked them only because the hisotry reference is pretty recent.

Apart from the fact that our mores and norms will change over time in relation to our prosperity and social system, there appears to be a deeper link within most humans that certain things are just "wrong". And now that we are more connected globally, it makes sense to try to codify these where they can be agreed on, so as to have a raft of measures that can be held up against those individuals who DONT subscribe to the same basic morals.

If the Geneva Convention was based on Christian morality (and I mean proper Christian, not church-warped), then there would be a ban against not only pre-emptive strikes, but relatitory strikes. The only avenue open would be defence.