RE: Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?
August 9, 2022 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2022 at 2:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Wouldn’t matter if angrboda were an anarchist. I think it’s likely that there’s just some confusion over what the social contract is, or is supposed to do. Hence the comparison to the invisible hand. Which , for example, is supposed to get rid of shitty producers, eventually.
I would certainly agree that there have been people with unrealistic expectations from it, or that insist on such and such as part of it in contradiction to fact.
Americans don’t eat dogs. It’s not official. We don’t sign anything saying we won’t. There’s no law. No god told us not to. Sets of shared taboos are a social contract, and social contract theory exists as an exploration of human behavior and organizing in the absence of official pronouncements (such as an organized religion or state) to explain why they think they have the responsibilities they think they do. Even when it’s as silly as “eating dogs bad”. Social contract theory is probably the oldest discussion of descriptive moral relativity, and stood in contrast to the idea that people only got their own moral ideas from strictly true (or false) deontological authority.
This thread is actually a good example of the social contract expressing itself. It’s implied iby our social contract that there ought be a moral justification for executing a war criminal, though there’s no legal requirement that there be one.
I would certainly agree that there have been people with unrealistic expectations from it, or that insist on such and such as part of it in contradiction to fact.
Americans don’t eat dogs. It’s not official. We don’t sign anything saying we won’t. There’s no law. No god told us not to. Sets of shared taboos are a social contract, and social contract theory exists as an exploration of human behavior and organizing in the absence of official pronouncements (such as an organized religion or state) to explain why they think they have the responsibilities they think they do. Even when it’s as silly as “eating dogs bad”. Social contract theory is probably the oldest discussion of descriptive moral relativity, and stood in contrast to the idea that people only got their own moral ideas from strictly true (or false) deontological authority.
This thread is actually a good example of the social contract expressing itself. It’s implied iby our social contract that there ought be a moral justification for executing a war criminal, though there’s no legal requirement that there be one.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
