Milutin writes:
> >> Jess, how can morality be objective?  Martin, think about this one.
>
> >If you and I have the same moral code with respect to bombing, then
> >our moral code on bombing is objective with respect to us.
>
> I still don't understand.  Can you explain this statement a little better(or
> someone else try)?  Cause I'm having difficulty getting it.

Subjective/objective

When writing philosophically, if I say a moral is objective, I mean
it is the same for all of us.  If only you and I are involved, then
a moral is objective if it is the same for both of us.  It is
subjective if it is not the same for you as it is for me.  You could
also say it is subjective if it is the same for both of us, but we
don't *know* it is the same for both of us.  Then you could say that
since we can never *know* it is the same for both of us because we can
never know another person's thoughts, then morality is always
subjective, never objective.  But that would mean you must believe we
can't communicate, and you *do* believe we can communicate, or you
wouldn't be a member of this list.  If we can communicate, then we can
know that we have the same moral code.  We use this knowledge all the
time here and everywhere else where communication is important.

I have come to see, by your writing, that bombing people is immoral
to you.  It is immoral to me too.  For us, the immorality of bombing
people is objective, not subjective.  But there is a problem:

I wrote earlier: "With respect to the normal, objective code for
protesting bombing on moral grounds, you have a double standard."

You responded: "I follow that principle.  I protest bombing on moral
grounds.  How that turns out to be a double standard baffles me."

You're lying.  You don't protest bombing on moral grounds.  You did
not protest the bombing of Chechnya.  If bombing people is immoral,
then Russia's bombing of Chechnya is as immoral as NATO's bombing of
Yugoslavia.  If you protest the one on moral gounds, you must protest
the other on the same moral grounds.  Otherwise, you are not
protesting on moral grounds.  You *are* claiming the moral high
ground, but simply because it is convenient to do so.  It supports
your agenda, but your agenda is *not* to stop bombing because it is
immoral.  That is what the US does when it uses the moral high ground
of UN authority to condemn Iraq but then refuses to accept that same
moral high ground when it is used by other countries to condemn
Israel.

You can't say that you are not responsible for the actions of the
Russian government, because you are an anarchist.  You don't recognize
the authority of governments in a moral context.  If you say you are
not responsible for protesting the bombing of Chechnya because it is
the Russian government that is doing it and you are not paying taxes
to the Russian government, then you are recognizing the authority of
those government structures and their taxations systems and you are
*not* an anarchist.

If you claim to be an anarchist and you claim to be against bombing on
moral grounds, then if you protest the bombing of Yugoslavia, you must
protest the bombing of Chechnya.  If you don't, you are operating on a
double standard, or your beliefs are not what you say they are.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701