Most Definitely in Our Name

[jordan179]

Human morality derives from the implications of game theory on sociobiological evolution. All successful social strategies are a variant on "nice tit for tat," which is to say that their basis is to first attempt to cooperate with others, then do as was last done unto oneself. Which is to say, to "retaliate

Comments

[jordan179]

So you do not see a distinction between justice and revenge?

"Justice" is "justified revenge." That's the fundamental distinction.

All the rest is procedural.

Justice which does not include revenge -- for the victims, for their friends and family, for society at large -- is hollow. And, if institutionalized, gnaws away at its own foundation, as the unavenged cry for meaningful justice, and eventually take it themselves.

Remember why courts were first instituted.

[anonymous]

Courts exist for no other reason than to make rich lawyers even richer.

You want justice, you "settle out of court".

[juliet_winters]

I was disgusted to read that Mr. O's 9/11 speech today called for a renewed committment to public service and more disgusted that the "world" can't agree on who caused 9/11.

If it weren't for the Dems bickering and equating Bush to Hitler for the sake of elections, all of America would recognize her enemies. Is it going to take another attack before they all come to their senses? If Obama is elected and there is, as there probably will be, another attack, what will he do? What will he DO?

[jordan179]

... the "world" can't agree on who caused 9/11.

Any countries who don't believe that the Terrorists caused 9-11 should, at a minimum, be moved to the back of the line when it comes time to pass out foreign aid.

If it weren't for the Dems bickering and equating Bush to Hitler for the sake of elections, all of America would recognize her enemies.

Yes.

The price the Democrats paid for this has been the loss of one Presidential election (2004) and may be the loss of another (2008). But in the process they are doing severe damage to American unity and resolve.

Is it going to take another attack before they all come to their senses?

Ironically, it's been Bush's very success at so pressing Al Qaeda as to make another large-scale attack impossible (there have been a few small-scale ones) that has led to American complacency, and thus war-weariness. Yes, another big attack would re-light our fury, but it would be a terrible price to pay for victory.

If Obama is elected and there is, as there probably will be, another attack, what

[juliet_winters]

But in the process they are doing severe damage to American unity and resolve.

Until our only remaining hope becomes a Fuehrer who Will Do What Has To Be Done.

Hem and haw and fuddle about. His Administration would be utterly unprepared for war, as he would have selected his Cabinet on the assumption that he could avoid war merely by desering to do so.

And if not, OBAMA will walk on water across the oceans to bring PEACE, roses cascading from His hands outstretched in blessing. And all of al-Qaeda will fall to their knees in Adoration.

"HOPE! CHANGE! HOPE! CHANGE! HOPECHANGE!"

Carter, 1979-81, on Iran. That would be the model.

Carter, 1979-81. When I kept hearing talk of joining the Communist Party "to get onto the winning side".

[mindstalk]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080911.ELEVENPAKISTAN11/TPStory/International

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080910/ts_nm/afghan_usa_pakistan_dc;_ylt=AuWkPcReVF9dMDrzd3cjoNKs0NUE

We're losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even the Pentagon says so.

"These are the keys to success in Afghanistan," said Mullen. "We cannot kill our way to victory." -- that's Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But I'm sure you know better.

[juliet_winters]

I want to hear what Petreaus has to say on the subject.

[operations]

Yeah, the guy on the ground, and not at a desk in an office.

[banner]

A yes, a man who if I recall correctly, has no say or control over any fighting that goes on.

he's a paper pusher, not a fighter. It is possible to kill your way to victory, saying you can't is rather stupid, the Romans did it constantly. But most Americans do not have the stomach to completely wipe out an enemy.

[starblade_enkai]

I think it rather silly to base morality on winning some kind of game.

Why not base it on the essential requirements for human life? I mean, this is already implicit in most people's usage of game theory, but game theory has never been proven to be even roughly accurate. On the other hand, human rationality is the basis for proof of anything, and must be accepted implicitly, so it stands to reason that it is the necessary arbiter of what validly constitutes acceptance of a social context.

[jordan179]

I think it rather silly to base morality on winning some kind of game.

Do you know to what "game theory" refers? It means more than just "games" in the sense of "entertaining competition."

Why not base it on the essential requirements for human life?

The essential requirement for human life is "winning" this "kind of game."

I mean, this is already implicit in most people's usage of game theory, but game theory has never been proven to be even roughly accurate. On the other hand, human rationality is the basis for proof of anything, and must be accepted implicitly, so it stands to reason that it is the necessary arbiter of what validly constitutes acceptance of a social context.

Human rationality is precisely what led to game theory, which demonstrated the mathematical basis for the biological, and cultural, evolution of morality. This constituted a considerable conceptual advance over previous models, in which morality was viewed as irrational and purely optional.

[starblade_enkai]

I know what game theory is. And game theory is much too constraining to be considered a 'be-all' and 'end-all' of rational systems modeling. It exists in the world of numbers, while we exist in a world of concepts