Today is Memorial Day. In a park near my home is a plaque that reads: We honor all those who fought for our community. There is probably a similar plaque near you. I would be more proud to live in a community with a plaque that read:
As a Quaker, I have a big problem with holidays like Memorial Day, since I'm convinced that war is always against God's will, and, moreover, that such holidays are rituals of a civic religion that is in opposition to the Gospel.
I can't put my thought as pithily as you did, but it seems to me that honor is due to those individuals who, in accordance with the measure of the Light they were granted, acted as they thought necessary to preserve their community.
But then you should honor your community as well, even though it was wrong, because it was opposing another community when that community was wrong. So you'd be honoring both warring camps, equally, simply because each made war against a community in the wrong. Ad absurdum, you might honor both the Nazis and the Soviets. It seems to me that neither community should be honored -- though, per Truman, we might want to arm whichever side is losing so they'll kill as many of each other as possible. We should only honor those who fight for or against our community when they do so for the right reason.
Brian,["Our community" has waged wars against murderous terrorists, fascists, Nazis, slave masters, communists, totalitarians, genocidal dictators, or megalo-maniacs bent on world domination. I cannot think of a single one of "our community's" enemies that does not fit one of the descriptions above, aside from the Spanish.]Apart from the examples given above, What was the US trying to do when they were fighting against all of the above types and many more innocent ones?megalo-maniacs bent on world domination seems a reasonable guess :)
"So I guess the real issue is not to attempt to overcome all biases, but rather to choose wisely which biases we do and do not want to overcome."
Possibly there are two sorts of bias. (Forgive me if this has come up before and I've missed the posts.) There is clearly a bias involved in mis-mapping reality to one's mental picture. The Monty Hall Problem describes a bias; probabilities are what they are, regardless of whether we intuitively grasp them. Likewise for overconfidence and more mudane mis-mapping like "the sky is green", "the Moon is made of cheese" or, with somewhat more serious consequences, "the Jews are out to destroy Germany".
OTOH, some bias would appear to not be a matter of mis-mapping. I am clearly going to feel it more and in a very different way if I break my leg in a car accident than I will if you do. I might feel a great deal of sympathy/empathy for your leg, but the break in mine might well have me screaming in agony.
"I agree that most people agree, but most people haven't allocated sufficient attention to noticing the degree to which 'beliefs' are typically simply signifiers of group loyalties (hence part of the importance of overcoming bias)."
This raises two objections in my mind:
A) As I stated previously, to some extent we _are_ our biases. A dislike of slavery and slavers is, to some extent, an arbitrary one. Unless you take as received knowledge some base set of morals, a great deal of behavior you don't like really only boils down to arbitrary taste, with no error in mapping reality to mental picture involved. A slaver might be quite rational, simply taking advantage of a chance to confiscate somebody else's labor simply because he can. I'm not sure you want to give up your biases in that situation.
B) In some cases, arbitrary group loyalties (and the signaling of same) might actually be the rational response to a given set of circumstances. Keep in mind the theory that the rapid evolution of human language is a response to the free-rider problem which allows a given group to easily identify outsiders who are less likely to carry the group's genes.
"Our community" has waged wars against murderous terrorists, fascists, Nazis, slave masters, communists, totalitarians, genocidal dictators, or megalo-maniacs bent on world domination. I cannot think of a single one of "our community's" enemies that does not fit one of the descriptions above, aside from the Spanish.
U.S.-Philippine War (against Philippino ex-allies, not against the Spanish), the early wars in Panama, the wars with Mexico... the examples are really not hard to find. And if you include various smaller scale interventions, then "our community" has a regular history of fighting democracies.
In case you are referring to war protester-types: To dissent before war is declared is one thing, but to sympathize with, encourage, or in any way give comfort to an enemy is not honorable.
Why? Where does this singular belief come from, that once war has started, "honourable" people stop acting on their beliefs and simply follow the crowd? Now, I admit that wars are difficult to stop, and that it may be more rational to support a war, and hope it ends quickly, rather than oppose it. But if you believe that the best possible outcome is that your community lose the war (for us Brits, this used to happen quite often in various colonial adventures) then legally undermining your own military is the moral thing to do.
To risk the wrath of Godwin's Law, I would ask you if you believe that Richard Sorge was wrong to spy on his Nazi masters and their allies for the Soviet Union. "Honourable" wartime behaviour depends on who your community is, and on what war they're waging.
Pseudonymous: You forgot the natives of the Phillipines, the British in 1812, and most notably, depending on who counts as 'our community', the Northern opposition to slavery.Do little conflicts like that with the Mormons count?Ongoing semi-conflicts with 1M people in jail at any given time like the war on 'Drugs'.The expected collateral dammage from MAD?
Regarding the statement'I cannot help but think of the czarist officer in Darkness at Noon who says that “Honour is fighting for a cause you believe to be just.” I tend to agree with him, and I suspect that most people do.'
I agree that most people agree, but most people haven't allocated sufficient attention to noticing the degree to which 'beliefs' are typically simply signifiers of group loyalties (hence part of the importance of overcoming bias). In such cases, 'believe to be just' degenerates into 'are convenient to support given my social environment.' In typical situations, overcoming bias, and hence, reaching beliefs that map onto the world rather than simply vocalizing the 'beliefs' supported by one's community is not seen as admirable. In fact, Brian's quote
'In case you are referring to war protester-types: To dissent before war is declared is one thing, but to sympathize with, encourage, or in any way give comfort to an enemy is not honorable.'
seems to me to suggest that this is the case even among some posters here, at least in certain circumstances including '[after] war is declared'
Robin and Bernard,So I guess the real issue is not to attempt to overcome all biases, but rather to choose wisely which biases we do and do not want to overcome.
Robin, you write as if our community being wrong implies that those who fight us are just. I claim that it's common for both sides in a fight to be wrong.
James, it's not obvious that a stronger military will produce a safer society. In particular, the ability to fight wars of questionable justness may do more to create enemies than to deter them. Robert Pape's book Dying to Win provides some fairly clear evidence that U.S. mideast policies have been doing that.
As a Quaker, I have a big problem with holidays like Memorial Day, since I'm convinced that war is always against God's will, and, moreover, that such holidays are rituals of a civic religion that is in opposition to the Gospel.
I can't put my thought as pithily as you did, but it seems to me that honor is due to those individuals who, in accordance with the measure of the Light they were granted, acted as they thought necessary to preserve their community.
But then you should honor your community as well, even though it was wrong, because it was opposing another community when that community was wrong. So you'd be honoring both warring camps, equally, simply because each made war against a community in the wrong. Ad absurdum, you might honor both the Nazis and the Soviets. It seems to me that neither community should be honored -- though, per Truman, we might want to arm whichever side is losing so they'll kill as many of each other as possible. We should only honor those who fight for or against our community when they do so for the right reason.
Eliezer, I would be very proud to live in a community with the plaque you suggest.
Michael, I might not honor them as much if they had the wrong reasons, but I would still probably honor them.
How about: "We frankly admit that we don't know whether or not we should be honoring these fallen soldiers."
Do you honor those who fought against our community when it was wrong, even if they did so for the wrong reasons?
How about
We honor those who fought for principles promoting our community's most coherent values.
Never mind, more than one level of abstraction loses nearly all the popular audience.
At the risk of devolving into a Judean Peoples' Front meeting, how about
We honor and dishonor all of those who fought and didn't fight for and against our community when it was right and/or wrong.
Amazing,
There have been long essays and books written to express all that you have expressed in just a few lines...
I salute you for that...
Pareen
Brian,["Our community" has waged wars against murderous terrorists, fascists, Nazis, slave masters, communists, totalitarians, genocidal dictators, or megalo-maniacs bent on world domination. I cannot think of a single one of "our community's" enemies that does not fit one of the descriptions above, aside from the Spanish.]Apart from the examples given above, What was the US trying to do when they were fighting against all of the above types and many more innocent ones?megalo-maniacs bent on world domination seems a reasonable guess :)
Joe,
"So I guess the real issue is not to attempt to overcome all biases, but rather to choose wisely which biases we do and do not want to overcome."
Possibly there are two sorts of bias. (Forgive me if this has come up before and I've missed the posts.) There is clearly a bias involved in mis-mapping reality to one's mental picture. The Monty Hall Problem describes a bias; probabilities are what they are, regardless of whether we intuitively grasp them. Likewise for overconfidence and more mudane mis-mapping like "the sky is green", "the Moon is made of cheese" or, with somewhat more serious consequences, "the Jews are out to destroy Germany".
OTOH, some bias would appear to not be a matter of mis-mapping. I am clearly going to feel it more and in a very different way if I break my leg in a car accident than I will if you do. I might feel a great deal of sympathy/empathy for your leg, but the break in mine might well have me screaming in agony.
Michael Vassar,
"I agree that most people agree, but most people haven't allocated sufficient attention to noticing the degree to which 'beliefs' are typically simply signifiers of group loyalties (hence part of the importance of overcoming bias)."
This raises two objections in my mind:
A) As I stated previously, to some extent we _are_ our biases. A dislike of slavery and slavers is, to some extent, an arbitrary one. Unless you take as received knowledge some base set of morals, a great deal of behavior you don't like really only boils down to arbitrary taste, with no error in mapping reality to mental picture involved. A slaver might be quite rational, simply taking advantage of a chance to confiscate somebody else's labor simply because he can. I'm not sure you want to give up your biases in that situation.
B) In some cases, arbitrary group loyalties (and the signaling of same) might actually be the rational response to a given set of circumstances. Keep in mind the theory that the rapid evolution of human language is a response to the free-rider problem which allows a given group to easily identify outsiders who are less likely to carry the group's genes.
"Our community" has waged wars against murderous terrorists, fascists, Nazis, slave masters, communists, totalitarians, genocidal dictators, or megalo-maniacs bent on world domination. I cannot think of a single one of "our community's" enemies that does not fit one of the descriptions above, aside from the Spanish.
U.S.-Philippine War (against Philippino ex-allies, not against the Spanish), the early wars in Panama, the wars with Mexico... the examples are really not hard to find. And if you include various smaller scale interventions, then "our community" has a regular history of fighting democracies.
In case you are referring to war protester-types: To dissent before war is declared is one thing, but to sympathize with, encourage, or in any way give comfort to an enemy is not honorable.
Why? Where does this singular belief come from, that once war has started, "honourable" people stop acting on their beliefs and simply follow the crowd? Now, I admit that wars are difficult to stop, and that it may be more rational to support a war, and hope it ends quickly, rather than oppose it. But if you believe that the best possible outcome is that your community lose the war (for us Brits, this used to happen quite often in various colonial adventures) then legally undermining your own military is the moral thing to do.
To risk the wrath of Godwin's Law, I would ask you if you believe that Richard Sorge was wrong to spy on his Nazi masters and their allies for the Soviet Union. "Honourable" wartime behaviour depends on who your community is, and on what war they're waging.
Pseudonymous: You forgot the natives of the Phillipines, the British in 1812, and most notably, depending on who counts as 'our community', the Northern opposition to slavery.Do little conflicts like that with the Mormons count?Ongoing semi-conflicts with 1M people in jail at any given time like the war on 'Drugs'.The expected collateral dammage from MAD?
Regarding the statement'I cannot help but think of the czarist officer in Darkness at Noon who says that “Honour is fighting for a cause you believe to be just.” I tend to agree with him, and I suspect that most people do.'
I agree that most people agree, but most people haven't allocated sufficient attention to noticing the degree to which 'beliefs' are typically simply signifiers of group loyalties (hence part of the importance of overcoming bias). In such cases, 'believe to be just' degenerates into 'are convenient to support given my social environment.' In typical situations, overcoming bias, and hence, reaching beliefs that map onto the world rather than simply vocalizing the 'beliefs' supported by one's community is not seen as admirable. In fact, Brian's quote
'In case you are referring to war protester-types: To dissent before war is declared is one thing, but to sympathize with, encourage, or in any way give comfort to an enemy is not honorable.'
seems to me to suggest that this is the case even among some posters here, at least in certain circumstances including '[after] war is declared'
Robin and Bernard,So I guess the real issue is not to attempt to overcome all biases, but rather to choose wisely which biases we do and do not want to overcome.
Robin, you write as if our community being wrong implies that those who fight us are just. I claim that it's common for both sides in a fight to be wrong.
James, it's not obvious that a stronger military will produce a safer society. In particular, the ability to fight wars of questionable justness may do more to create enemies than to deter them. Robert Pape's book Dying to Win provides some fairly clear evidence that U.S. mideast policies have been doing that.
Bernard, your point is well worth exploring further.