tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post113602980067451054..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: RenditionAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1136173697874556702006-01-01T20:48:00.000-07:002006-01-01T20:48:00.000-07:00NickThere is no need to apologize. As I write, it ...<B>Nick</B><BR/><BR/>There is no need to apologize. As I write, it becomes less and less reasonable for me to expect somebody to have gone through everything that has come before. I can direct commentors to the relevant posts if I have covered something before.<BR/><BR/>I can offer as a preliminary suggestion, we should treat prisoners of war the way we expect our soldiers to be treated when captured. Accordingly, anything we do to captured prisoners we imply may be permissibly done to our soldiers.<BR/><BR/>This is one of the larger problems that I have with Bush's policy. Bush is creating a situation where captured Americans may be subject to the same treatments that we inflict on others.<BR/><BR/>I would rather have a President saying, "You had better treat our soldiers with the respect due to prisoners of war." The best way to do this is still to do unto others as one would have them do.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, if we would call an enemy a moral monster if they do A, B, and C to prisoners, while we are doing A, B, and C to those we capture, then it seems to follow quite directly that we are the moral monsters.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1136138027103960592006-01-01T10:53:00.000-07:002006-01-01T10:53:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I've been reading your blog for a few weeks...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I've been reading your blog for a few weeks. From what I've seen so far, nice work!<BR/><BR/>The idea, however, that Constitutional rights reflect moral principles that we must apply equally to those of other nationalities seems problematic in a couple of cases.<BR/><BR/>First, what about war? I generally hold that we, and others, have a moral right to, and should be expected to, defend ourselves from attack or the imminent threat thereof. Yet, wholesale attack of another country -- which remains an inaccurate game that almost inevitably leads to <I>some</I> non-combatant casualties -- would be unacceptable against, say, Missouri.<BR/><BR/>Admittedly, the above isn't something written into the Consitution -- whereas the assumption of war against other nations clearly is -- but I'd argue that this is a pretty clear moral conviction we hold, even if it's not one implicitly embodied in the Constitution. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding consistent treatment of Americans vs. non-Americans here.<BR/><BR/>Second, what about spying on other nations and their communications? If Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure reflect a moral principle that applies to all human beings equally, why shouldn't our government refrain from all intelligence gathering without establishing some kind of judicial process?<BR/><BR/>(I apologize if you've previously covered these issues elsewhere in your writings on this site.)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>--NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com