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.