"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.

Come on, people - the Geneva Convention wasn't in the Bible, so it's just another example of MIUAYG and can be dispensed with as a wicked humanist conspiracy!

CG... to be truthful.. as you point out if the GC was based on 'REAL' Christian morality....etc....

Thats an interesting thought. True "Christian" morality in the sense of it being 'Christ Centered' would not even have an army. It would rely solely on the power of its ideas... the central one being mankind reconciled with its creator through repentance and forgiveness.

You said :

[there appears to be a deeper link within most humans that certain things are just "wrong".]

Another interesting insight, to which I reply -"appears....to you" :)

I think most of our 'common' feelings about justice and fairness can in fact be traced back to either Jewish/Old Testament or Christian/New Testament concepts, but the 'degree' of that is not crucial to what I'm trying to get at here.

All I'm saying is that without Divine reference... all ethics are relative and 'in any direction'... your point about the 'deeper link' I suggest could be better put as 'between societies of a Western/Judao/Christian heritage'.. because there are others who have very different ethics and moralities.

A more serious problem arises in regard to 'War' and that is the Islamic stream of history which itself derives its ethics and morality from what is believed to be a divine origin.

So.. that's where we find the irresistable force meets the immovable object. *clash*.

So.. for western society... I grieve terribly that we seem to have lost our sense of moral direction, and only time will show just how weakened we have become.

CJ.. full marks for remembering MIUAYG :)

BD, its very handy that you completely ignored my reference to pagan societies. It can also be applied to Hindu and Buddist societies, and so the "deeper" morality issues can be shown to potentially have NOTHING to do with Judeo/Christianity. Even Islam has a somewhat similar set of basic moral codes (and punishment for breaking them). You are conveniently restricting your discussion to Islam vs Christian, which I suspect was the motivation behind opening up this thread.

Actually and accepted Western war practices are probably more based on Judaic systems than Christian ones. The whole eye for an eye thing etc.

I do agree that the GC is potentially somewhat outmoded in these days of terrorist movements. It was designed more for fights between countries and so proves somewhat troublesome when wanting to "deal with" small groups. However, I put it to you that by ignoring the GC and resorting to the same tactics that these terrorists and their supporters use, we will sink to THEIR level of morality, which will have ongoing impacts for our society even if we "win". Better that we suffer small losses from extremists than turn into something like them by using their methods.

Despite its pretentious headline, this is obviously going to be nothing more than yet another opportunity for you to preach at us, Boaz.

Isn't it?

If you believe that Descartes philosophical reductio has anything at all to do with ethics, then you have been sadly misled.

>>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.<<

Of course "ethics could go in any direction from there". The value of Descartes observation is not to be found in its contribution to ethical debate. Nevertheless, it will be found there, au fond, when all the other constructs that we have woven - good and bad - are cleared away.

It doesn't of itself inform the creation of an ethical framework. But it is there, inevitably, because we exist.

But this is just too much:

>>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.<<

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of je pense, donc je suis.

You may choose to "pander to that personal reality", or you can choose not to. Either way, the concept is neutral - there is no reason to expect any "consistent ethical outcome" to be encouraged by, or discouraged by, such a simple expression of "being".

Boaz, I know that you are never short of ideas with which to start threads that form pulpits upon which you can preach at us. I don't really mind that, so long as you don't dissolve into whack-a-mozzie mode. But it is a mistake to venture into areas of philosophy with which you have no connection.

So I'm happy to discuss the value of a Geneva Convention in today's difficult world.

But "I think therefore I am" has nothing at all to do with it.

there are no ethics of war. if you fight for survival, it's right to do what is necessary to win.

if you make war to enrich yourself, you are a bandit and deserve nothing but a bullet. who then can practice 'ethics' on a battlefield?

so i have no sympathy for soldiers killed or maimed while standing on someone else's nation, when they have been dispatched there for wealth or political advantage. the right to choose who you kill should not be handed over to anyone, much less a politician known to be a moral cripple.

we developed the league of nations and the united nations to stop war. both failed when a militarist nation felt strong enough to command, or ignore. world opinion. without a military power, the league, and u. n. could only use ethics and law as trip wires to marshal opinion against military force. i'm not sure the u. n. has done any good at all, but it can be argued that things might be even worse.

the ethics of war, like religious morality, are gossamer constraints often ignored. but it's worth paying attention to them, supporting them even when little advantage is visible. social evolution is slow, but sustained effort will have an effect over time.

and pressing for better human behavior, however slow, is the only game in town.

The Geneva convention and the United Nations will prove to have no effect whatsoever as long as mankind needs territory and territorial resources to survive. An example of this. America, the most powerful military force in the world today cannot stop the slaughter between the Sunnis and the Shiites over territorial control in Iraq.

The slaughter in Rwanda was over before anybody could do anything about it.
The same in Bosnia, a huge percentage of the ethnic cleansing was done before action was finally taken. The Geneva convention and the united nations could not stop the IRA.
I very much doubt that the Geneva Convention or the United Nations could have stopped the German War machine either. The ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Germany was well and truly carried out before anybody could stop it. Nobody will be able to stop the eventual bloodbath that's coming between Israel and the Arabs either.

CG... my drawing of a parallel between Islam and Christianity was not the reason for the thread. The fact is, only these 2 faiths make a similiar claim of 'revelation' in the direct sense from God to man.
The only point of mentioning Islam is that, and to highlight the difference in ethical or moral guidelines for war.

The rest.. such as Buddhism.. does not have anything remotely resembling a doctrine or guide for war. Hinduism.. I have to plead ignorance there, apart from being aware that they revere various incarnations of gods, which are more stories than anything.

Pericles.. CG says I want to hunt down the Muslims..and you say I'm trying to preach to you. You are both wrong. While I never miss an opportunity to poke at the philosphical weakness of humanism and MIUAUG.. the goal of the topic was to show how depleted is our moral foundation for a code of war.

I also wish to draw attention to something I tried to start as a thread, but which was rejected for some reason. Christian values in a time of war. "love your enemies".

There is a vid on YOUTUBE of a Marine being sniped. Saved by his flack jacket and the snipers poor aim. They wounded the sniper as he was fleeing...found him, and the marine he shot (who is a medic) provided medical attention to the bloke who just tried to kill him.

This is the kind of thing I'm alluding to.. 'ethics of war'.....
Why did that marine not just finish the sniper off ? hack of his head.. kick him a few times ?

I suppose you could get 'preaching' out of that if you looked for it.
But why does it have to be 'preaching' rather than discussing ?