Intervention

[dilettante]

Some recent discussions have gotten me thinking about the idea of intervention, so I thought I'd try raising the issue in a broad sense:

When (if ever) should one individual, group, or nation intervene in the private, internal, or separate affairs of another/others?
Or,
When should individual/group/national sovereignty be violated?

Some possible scenarios:


A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?
A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?
A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?
A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?

---


A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene?
The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance?
An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene?


Possible considerations:


Is there a connection (loose or strict) between when one should intervene and when it is in one's personal/national interest to intervene?
There are many types of "intervention", ranging from offering suggestions to direct physical coercion. What type is appropriate? Is there a kind which is never appropriate?
Do the same rules apply to nations/group-entities as to individuals? What about relations between national/group-entities (e.g. the government) and individuals?
Finally, there's a difference between intervention being a good thing, intervention being obligatory (i.e. not intervening is bad), and non-intervention being obligatory (i.e. intervening is bad).


Thoughts?

[Dominick]

I would answer all of those with at most 'Depends' and in some cases with a clear 'No'.

To answer your specific scenarios:

"A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?"
Here the answer is 'Depends'. One doesn't know the circumstances or background of what's going on. If it's some internal reckoning inside a gang or a criminal organization you can be entirely sure that both or all adversaries will turn upon you. And that's definitely not something you'd want.
Such cases should be considered individually.

"A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene? "
'Child' or 'pet', I'd say Yes. 'Spouse' is a different matter. It's a very frustrating experience of social workers that abused women (or men) tend to go back to the abuser, even if the abuse is horrific. Children or pets on the other hand can't make that decision -at least not with full information- so there the intervention is more unequivocal. If you make the decision to intervene in the case of the spouse, here too one should consider that the case may turn against you.

"A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene? "
No. This is a personal decision.

A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?
No. Mostly because it's pointless. In this phase the alcoholic is already entirely incapable of assessing his or her situation rationally. He or she will hit rock bottom no matter what his or her environment does or tries to do. I know no exceptions to this and my personal experience here is extensive to say the least.

To summarize concerning individual cases, it all depends on how well you know the situation. Unless in blatantly obvious cases, such as child abuse, one should consider that your intervention may well be either useless or even aggravating the situation.

As to the other scenarios:

"A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene? "

"The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance? "

"An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene? "

Those are politics of course. In no such a case in reality will the intervention be entirely or even moderately altruistic or benevolent. The elites that govern the intervening countries will unquestionably have ulterior motives to make the intervention. The motivation wil never be humanitarian.
Therefore these actual motives would have to be discovered and evaluated before one could make the assessment. For instance, removing Saddam Hussein from power is in itself a good thing. But is the price Iraq has paid and is paying really worth it ? That's a question that's not easily answered from an objective, non-ideological perspective.

[Daktoria]

Awesome thread topic, really. Had to write my mid-term paper on this for my international conflict class.

I'll hold off the long answer for now, but the short answer is a perceived conflict of interests with an affordable solution or a "do or die" predicament.

Responding to your scenarios with contingencies in red:"A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?"
Self-preservation, police institutional reform, and assault's definition aside, citizens should always be good samaritans in order to honor the rule of law they believe in that a State is obligated to preserve."A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?"
Property and privacy rights aside, be a good samaritan. Call their residence and the police to be tactful pending upon intensity though." A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?"
Yes, but be passive. If you're too assertive, then you're going to scare her which could mean you have dishonest intentions, you have immature intentions, you are unprepared, she stumbles and kills herself, she gets intimidated and walks away traumatized, or she becomes a maniac and does something crazy and/or walks away traumatized. Ultimately, it has to be her decision to live on, and if you're going to approach her, it has to be with understanding and at least an opportunity to retrieve/find meaning in life even if it only means promising that you (and others) will miss her. The last bit is controversial because it could push her over the edge, but if her actions are a result of intimidation or coercion, then they aren't justified and there will be problems later on that get swept under the rug.
"A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?"
Lol, stereotypes. Odd though that much more men commit suicide despite how much more women attempt it. (http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html)

If the man's a breadwinner with a family at stake, then make sure the family can be taken care of.

Beyond that, it depends on what kind of intervention is being proposed. Cutting off supply is difficult unless there's some sort of government program which labels individuals as alcoholics and requires cashiers to swipe IDs before making sales. Even then, there's always backdoor channels, having a friend purchase for them, or paying someone to buy some liquor.

Same thing as the suicide attempt really, you gotta be passive yet proactive. Admission might be the first step, but don't focus on blame, and if you can't be both, don't bother since it doesn't matter if the individual is coerced into reform. This doesn't mean take the easy way out though of just letting them waste themselves over and over only because they don't seem appreciative of help. If his addiction has been traumatizing enough, then his real character won't show, so there's a lot of personal better judgment at stake here that's dependent upon the intervener's honesty and maturity." A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene?"

" The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance?"

"An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene?"Unless economic interests, regional stability, ideological integrity, or reputation are VITALLY at stake, no. Governments serve their own citizens, not other citizens, and even humanitarian interests backfire because corrupt interests know that it's only foreign elements which keep corruption at bay. Ergo, if they push nationalism or ethnocentrism hard enough, they can push the foreigners out and revert back to the status quo. Likewise, if the victims aren't willing or able to pull themselves up, then hey, that's natural selection at work. ASYLUM, however, is always a fair option.

--------------------

I believe I've clearly answered all but one of your considerations so far, but this one deserves distinguished attention:
"Do the same rules apply to nations/group-entities as to individuals? What about relations between national/group-entities (e.g. the government) and individuals?"
Groups bear dynamic internal politics among members with varying degrees of honesty and maturity as well as different systemic alignments. Yeah, individuals have to deal with internal struggles as well while having to consider their unconscious desires, but in groups, information is far less symmetrical especially when they have informal hierarchies.

Still, the same rules apply. The only difference is that they're a lot harder to follow.

[Korimyr the Rat]

When (if ever) should one individual, group, or nation intervene in the private, internal, or separate affairs of another/others?

Not the most useful answer, but I'd say first is when it benefits them, and second when they feel like it, as long as they have the power to succeed and endure the consequences. I don't feel like it's ever morally obligatory, unless the victim is someone you specifically owe moral obligations to. On the other hand, I also never really consider intervention to be prohibited-- sometimes it's just pointless, and you have to stop and consider how much it's going to cost you. Silencing a nagging conscience is usually worth the effort.

Most of these questions, the deciding factor is either the victim's relationship to me, or whether or not the conflict is irritating me.

A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?If it's one on one, I'm not getting involved unless the loser's really getting his ass handed to him or the fight itself is interfering with my business. If it's a group of people stomping on one person, I'll jump in if I feel like getting my knuckles bloody or call the police if I don't. Calling the police doesn't cost me anything.

A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?

Again, calling the police is free. If it's a spouse, a house guest, or a pet, I'll only get involved beyond that if it's louder than my stereo. Or unless the spouse in question might be worth the trouble.

If it's a kid? I tend to take that personally, and I will happily exhaust all of my legal options before I decide whether or not it's worth killing the bastard over. It's not like anything less will work, if all the legal options didn't.

A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?

No. This is a personal decision.

Might be worth the effort to talk her out of it. Certainly wouldn't use force here-- perfect example of pointless intervention. If she's doing it in public, she probably wants to be talked out of it, but if talking doesn't work she's just going to try again later. Possibly after pressing charges.

A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?

Maybe if I work with him. Otherwise, not my problem and not worth the effort.

---

As far as the country next door goes... Dominick's got the right of it.

Those are politics of course. In no such a case in reality will the intervention be entirely or even moderately altruistic or benevolent.

This is absolutely true. Even if the government were altruistic, the question on my mind would be "what's in it for me?" And the answer's probably "not a damn thing."

[dilettante]

When (if ever) should one individual, group, or nation intervene in the private, internal, or separate affairs of another/others?
Or,
When should individual/group/national sovereignty be violated?


While obviously specific circumstances matter, I find that I don't have a general 'rule-of-thumb' for this kind of thing except perhaps "Whenever doing so will cause more good than harm." However, I'm unsatisfied with that, which is perhaps why the issue intrigues me.

Here's my take on my own scenarios.


A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?


Yes, unless there is some reason to believe that doing so will be counter productive (and that alone is more likely to shape the nature of the intervention rather than preclude it). At the least, it seems likely that calling the police would not be inappropriate in the vast majority of circumstances.
Standing by and watching an individual being killed or severely beaten when one could provide useful aid is, IMO, morally unacceptable.


A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?


A stickier situation. Maybe. In the case of a pet, a call to the local SPCA (or police) would probably be about as far I'd go unless something truly bizarre and horrific were going on. Though I suppose that would count as an intervention.
On the other end of the scale are children where I'd consider a more drastic response appropriate, ranging from mere outcry through alerting authorities to physical intervention, depending on the extremity of the case.
Spousal abuse is doubtless the most complex and where intervention is most likely to be counter-productive. On one hand, as a general rule, I'd be disinclined to interfere unless aid was requested. I the other, one can certainly envision extreme circumstances where, IMO, aid would become morally obligatory.


A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?


As a rule: Yes. With possible exceptions in cases of terminal, painful disease and such.


A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?


In the case of a friend or family member, Yes (though the sort of intervention would vary). In the case of a stranger, I doubt any intervention would be productive.




A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene?
The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance?
An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene?



Short answer: Yes to all.
However the nature of the response varies, and here I can appeal to "will it do more good than harm" rule. In the case of mass genocide or starvation, its easier to imagine more extreme forms of intervention passing that test (though I expect the types of intervention would vary considerably). In the case of illegitimate government and suppression, its far easier to imagine how extreme forms of intervention could do more harm than good; condemnation and offers of asylum may be the only appropriate paths.




I'll try to respond to other posts later, but here's one last scenario I should have included (because it brings more than one nation into play) but did not:


One nation launches an aggressive, openly unjustified war against another; it seems likely that the government of the aggressor nation will attempt to exterminate the population of the victim nation (or do various other horrible things). However, the conflict is unlikely to spread affect the interest of other nations. Should other nations intervene if they are able?

Short answer: I don't know.

[andrewl]

hmmm i spend a lot of time considering this general question in terms of the ecological life support systems of the planet.

The scenario is this: Industry/corporations/government are busy converting all of the earths biomass into human mass, poisoning the air, poisoning the water, filling the oceans with plastic, displacing (murdering,raping) all those who stand in the way (indigenous). They conspire to rapidly consume the earth for short term profit and glory. And it is all "legal".

do i intervene?

Andrew

[dilettante]

" A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene?"

" The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance?"

"An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene?"Unless economic interests, regional stability, ideological integrity, or reputation are VITALLY at stake, no. Governments serve their own citizens, not other citizens, and even humanitarian interests backfire because corrupt interests know that it's only foreign elements which keep corruption at bay. Ergo, if they push nationalism or ethnocentrism hard enough, they can push the foreigners out and revert back to the status quo. Likewise, if the victims aren't willing or able to pull themselves up, then hey, that's natural selection at work. [COLOR=Red]ASYLUM, however, is always a fair option.


Suppose the popular will among the citizenry was for intervention? E.G. People in Elbonia are outraged about the genocide/starvation/oppression in Knebonia and demand that their government do something about it. Would intervention then be considered "serving their own citizens" even if Elbonia had no material interest in the status of Knebonia?

[dilettante]

hmmm i spend a lot of time considering this general question in terms of the ecological life support systems of the planet.

The scenario is this: Industry/corporations/government are busy converting all of the earths biomass into human mass, poisoning the air, poisoning the water, filling the oceans with plastic, displacing (murdering,raping) all those who stand in the way (indigenous). They conspire to rapidly consume the earth for short term profit and glory. And it is all "legal".

do i intervene?

Andrew

The scenarios above were meant to capture moments when intervention was not directly or obviously in the individual's or nation's personal/national interest. There seems to be a general acceptance that, if one's own interests are being affected, then it is one's business and therefore one naturally has the right to intervene.

Would your motivation in intervening in environmental issues be based on your own interests in an ecologically stable planet or on something else?

[Daktoria]

hmmm i spend a lot of time considering this general question in terms of the ecological life support systems of the planet.

The scenario is this: Industry/corporations/government are busy converting all of the earths biomass into human mass, poisoning the air, poisoning the water, filling the oceans with plastic, displacing (murdering,raping) all those who stand in the way (indigenous). They conspire to rapidly consume the earth for short term profit and glory. And it is all "legal".

do i intervene?

Andrew

What about consumer sovereignty? Just because crap is produced doesn't mean crap needs to be consumed, and if consumers don't feel that institutions are being socially responsible, what's stopping them from boycotting and protesting them?

Likewise, if consumers previously bought into investors' enterprises, why shouldn't said enterprises be allowed to use their wealth however they want to? After all, that is the whole premise as to why they created and sold their products in the first place, to accumulate wealth. Take away that incentive, and you're effectively enslaving producers.

[Daktoria]

Suppose the popular will among the citizenry was for intervention? E.G. People in Elbonia are outraged about the genocide/starvation/oppression in Knebonia and demand that their government do something about it. Would intervention then be considered "serving their own citizens" even if Elbonia had no material interest in the status of Knebonia?

Well that's ideological integrity and reputation, isn't it? The government serves its citizenry, so if the citizenry want an intervention, then the government is obliged to pursue one.

Mind that I'd personally feel demand for such an intervention would be irresponsible, but if I'm the government and my Constitution is legitimatized by popular sovereignty, then I would eagerly do what I'm expected to do.

[Lily]

Great topic. Specifically...

A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?

Able is one thing, willing is another. Shoulda, coulda, woulda... I suppose if one were a Clint Eastwood character, pulling out a large weapon and putting it up against the forehead of the perpetrator would break up the assault. Personally, since I don't own the stature or weaponry, I would call the police.

A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?

Again, calling the police would be my option of choice.

A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?

This is a tough one for me. I lost my daughter to suicide. I've come to realize her death was not an act of impetuousness. Another friend, a long-time member of the Hemlock Society, recently took his life. Again, not a cry for help, but a well-planned, reasoned suicide. I would have to say "depends" on this one.

A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?

As a nurse and patient advocate, I do this routinely. If I saw a friend heading down this path, I would also intervene. A stranger on the street? I don't know.



A national government initiates a genocidal program against some element of the its population; should other nations intervene?
The population of a nation is starving en masse because of political mismanagement and a drought; should other nations intervene? Does the answer change if the nation's government has/has not explicitly requested assistance?
An armed group lays claim to political power in a nation through a combination of force and fraud and uses brutal coercion to silence all resistance and dissent; should other nations intervene?
In an ideal world, all such govenment interventions would be altruistic; but, they are not. My answer is each should be considered case-by-case.



Possible considerations:


Is there a connection (loose or strict) between when one should intervene and when it is in one's personal/national interest to intervene?
There are many types of "intervention", ranging from offering suggestions to direct physical coercion. What type is appropriate? Is there a kind which is never appropriate?
Do the same rules apply to nations/group-entities as to individuals? What about relations between national/group-entities (e.g. the government) and individuals?
Finally, there's a difference between intervention being a good thing, intervention being obligatory (i.e. not intervening is bad), and non-intervention being obligatory (i.e. intervening is bad).

Sometimes my professional and legal responsibilities as a nurse run headlong into my personal beliefs. In these cases, I have little room to move. Evidence of abuse, of attempted or threatened suicide, of attempted or threatened harm against others call for pretty strict adherence to protocol. In those cases, I defer to my profession's dictates.

[andrewl]

What about consumer sovereignty? Just because crap is produced doesn't mean crap needs to be consumed, and if consumers don't feel that institutions are being socially responsible, what's stopping them from boycotting and protesting them?

They are coerced by advertising to continue consuming.

They are dependent on some level of consumption, given that they cannot function in this culture otherwise. I.e., oil is required for even the most basic of economic activity in today's industrialized world, and this causes direct displacement, murder, rape, and ecological destruction.

Likewise, if consumers previously bought into investors' enterprises, why shouldn't said enterprises be allowed to use their wealth however they want to? After all, that is the whole premise as to why they created and sold their products in the first place, to accumulate wealth. Take away that incentive, and you're effectively enslaving producers.This is the question, they essentially can use their wealth to kill the life sustaining systems of the planet - so do i (we) intervene to stop them?

Andrew

[andrewl]

The scenarios above were meant to capture moments when intervention was not directly or obviously in the individual's or nation's personal/national interest. There seems to be a general acceptance that, if one's own interests are being affected, then it is one's business and therefore one naturally has the right to intervene.

Would your motivation in intervening in environmental issues be based on your own interests in an ecologically stable planet or on something else?

This is the point - intervening to stop the industrial economy is in the interests of life in general. Not just my life, not just human life, but all life.

Similar to you scenarios i actually just attempted to intervene in what i saw as a potential burglary yesterday. I was holding my baby daughter and singing and dancing in my living room when i noticed two young teenagers skulking about in the back alley peeking over fences and into yards. I immediately put down my daughter and walked out into my backyard and demanded to know what these young lads were looking for.... turns out they were looking for a rocket they launched in the field across the street and they were not burglars at all.

But essentially i was intervening in the interests of the community, not directly or obviously my own interests.

Its the same for the intervening to stop the industrial economy.

Andrew

[Daktoria]

They are coerced by advertising to continue consuming.

They are dependent on some level of consumption, given that they cannot function in this culture otherwise. I.e., oil is required for even the most basic of economic activity in today's industrialized world, and this causes direct displacement, murder, rape, and ecological destruction.

This is the question, they essentially can use their wealth to kill the life sustaining systems of the planet - so do i (we) intervene to stop them?

Andrew

Advertising.

Coercion.

:ummm:

You're really going to have to explain this one for me. Never once have I ever come across an ad that said something along the lines of threatening to wring my neck if I didn't buy its stuff.

And culture? Why does it matter if we can function in culture, and what do you think culture comes from anyway? It isn't just something that spawns out of the blue and crashes onto us. No no no no no. It's a set of societal norms that are created and subscribed to because we LIKE them. If we don't like them, then guess what?

They go away!

Tada!

Oil.

Rape.

Unless someone's using it for lube, I really don't get what you're saying here either.

[andrewl]

Advertising.

Coercion.

:ummm:

You're really going to have to explain this one for me. Never once have I ever come across an ad that said something along the lines of threatening to wring my neck if I didn't buy its stuff.

Advertising is a form of coercion. It is a force that causes a certain behavior. It need not imply direct threat of violence.

Even if you don't want to call it coercion, the point is that people are and have been manipulated into being consumers, it is not simply by choice.

And culture? Why does it matter if we can function in culture, and what do you think culture comes from anyway? It isn't just something that spawns out of the blue and crashes onto us. No no no no no. It's a set of societal norms that are created and subscribed to because we LIKE them. If we don't like them, then guess what?

They go away!

Tada!

I had no part in creating the culture i was born into.

Its not really relevant whether the majority likes it or not. Do we intervene to stop the injustice is the question.

Oil.

Rape.

Unless someone's using it for lube, I really don't get what you're saying here either.

The production and consumption of oil causes both social and environmental injustice.

Andrew

[Michael]

Advertising is a form of coercion. It is a force that causes a certain behavior. It need not imply direct threat of violence.

Even if you don't want to call it coercion, the point is that people are and have been manipulated into being consumers, it is not simply by choice.
I object to the "coercion" accusation against advertising. Manipulative yes, decieving yes, out-right lies even, but still, no one is forcing you to run out and buy a brand new Mercedes Benz, no matter how manipulative that advertising might be.

I refuse to exonerate the general public from the implications of their own decisions. We live in the world we created. Our daily choices have directly contributed to make the world the ugly place that it is.

I don't blame corporations for taking advantage of stupid consumers who desperately want to buy stuff.

Indeed, I'll invoke Hegel to argue about the way people 'purchase' products in order to create an identity for themselves, and/or Marx to argue about the fetishization of commodities. Both of these arguments point the finger of blame at the consumer, not the seller.

[Daktoria]

Advertising is a form of coercion. It is a force that causes a certain behavior. It need not imply direct threat of violence.

Even if you don't want to call it coercion, the point is that people are and have been manipulated into being consumers, it is not simply by choice.

Influenced, maybe. Manipulated, no. Advertising is dispersed from privately controlled broadcasts, billboards, publications, etc., and consumers are not forced to subscribe to them or respond proactively. Nobody has to watch TV, nobody has to listen to the radio, and nobody has to look at billboards; and nobody has to like what's expressed commercially on them. Heck, 90-95% of the time I see an ad, I don't care about the product being advertised at all. The two things I do think about are how stupid consumers are from being tricked into them and how stupid ad designers are to have to make a career out of tricking stupid people.

The other 5-10% of the time, I'm laughing because someone actually managed to come up with something funny, but I still don't care about the product (or even know what it is sometimes).

TBH, the thing that turned me off from reading magazines and watching TV was the amount of advertisements on them. When I buy a 100 page magazine, I don't want 40 pages dedicated to advertising, and when I sit down to watch an hour long show, I don't want 25 minutes dedicated advertising either. As for internet sites, I use ad blocker on firefox to just cut all the crap out, but if some site manages to bypass it, I just don't go there anymore since it's such a waste of time and attention....

...and if other people exert the same initiative, then it sucks to be them and they deserve to be herded as the sheep they are.

Mind that there's a point where advertising becomes overwhelming, but markets like that don't last very long because they become obsessed with cheap crap that drives out key sources of wealth, and if a local community wants to bar excessive advertising from invading it, there's nothing stopping it from passing advance restrictions on land zoning and airwave contracts or establishing a consumer bloc that boycotts certain forms of media.

I had no part in creating the culture i was born into.Your ancestors competed to though, and they did so in order to shape the world into what they believed in. Take away that incentive and you're again enslaving production among those producers who produce to make the world into what they believe is a better place.

Its not really relevant whether the majority likes it or not. Do we intervene to stop the injustice is the question.Sure, like I said in my first response here, intervention takes place when there is, ...a perceived conflict of interests with an affordable solution or a "do or die" predicament.

Whether or not you can get support for your movement is a matter of indirect strategy though, not direct justice. I mean those guys who chain themselves to trees and sabotage logging equipment don't exactly garnish support from logging businesses or workers to save the environment, do they?

The production and consumption of oil causes both social and environmental injustice.

I don't see how this happens directly or how it happens any differently from any other natural resource whether its spices, wine, timber, furs, iron ore, fish, or whathaveyou; and if we're not justified in processing natural resources for our own intentions, then how about we just throw out civilization altogether and revert back to the state of nature where violent might makes right rules all in the pursuit of natural selection?

[Michael]

Its the same for the intervening to stop the industrial economy.

How would this be different than others intervening to stop your eco-jihad or intervening to ensure we have an industrial-based society?

How is your intervention justified by anything other than your own subjectivity when put up against someone else's subjectivity?

[Michael]

1. A man on the street is assaulted by a another man or perhaps of group of unruly teens; should onlookers intervene if they are able?

That is an individual moral choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer. That being said, one can reasonably judge the quality of the moral character of any given person according to their decision in this case.

In many cases, I have and would again intervene in such a case.

2. A neighbor is in the process of in some manner abusing/assaulting their spouse (or child, or guest, or pet...) in their home; should the neighbors intervene?

That is an individual moral choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer. That being said, one can reasonably judge the quality of the moral character of any given person according to their decision in this case.

In many cases, I have and would again intervene in such a case.

3. A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?

Absolutely not. If a person does not have the right to control their own life, they have no rights at all.

Any person who intervenes in these cases I consider to have highly questionable motives.

4. A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?

If a father with children, then yes. If a public official, then yes. In these cases, every public citizen has a vested interest. Otherwise, no.

I like to respect liberty - and oppose those who violate it.

[andrewl]

How would this be different than others intervening to stop your eco-jihad or intervening to ensure we have an industrial-based society?

How is your intervention justified by anything other than your own subjectivity when put up against someone else's subjectivity?

I'm not sure what you mean... to me the act of killing all life on this planet for short term profit is not a subjective view that i hold, it is the reality of the economy we live in.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Influenced, maybe. Manipulated, no. Advertising is dispersed from privately controlled broadcasts, billboards, publications, etc., and consumers are not forced to subscribe to them or respond proactively. Nobody has to watch TV, nobody has to listen to the radio, and nobody has to look at billboards; and nobody has to like what's expressed commercially on them. Heck, 90-95% of the time I see an ad, I don't care about the product being advertised at all. The two things I do think about are how stupid consumers are from being tricked into them and how stupid ad designers are to have to make a career out of tricking stupid people.

The other 5-10% of the time, I'm laughing because someone actually managed to come up with something funny, but I still don't care about the product (or even know what it is sometimes).

Advertising is no different than what the Bush admin did to sell the iraq war. This is manipulation in every sense of the word. It is devious for the express purpose of one's own interest. Advertising is ubiquitous in this culture, it is forced on children in schools, community sports, market places, etc... you just said yourself it is trickery. This is manipulation/coercion. And traditional advertising has been remarkably effective at this, even to those who pretend not to be influenced by it.


TBH, the thing that turned me off from reading magazines and watching TV was the amount of advertisements on them. When I buy a 100 page magazine, I don't want 40 pages dedicated to advertising, and when I sit down to watch an hour long show, I don't want 25 minutes dedicated advertising either. As for internet sites, I use ad blocker on firefox to just cut all the crap out, but if some site manages to bypass it, I just don't go there anymore since it's such a waste of time and attention...
...and if other people exert the same initiative, then it sucks to be them and they deserve to be herded as the sheep they are.

Mind that there's a point where advertising becomes overwhelming, but markets like that don't last very long because they become obsessed with cheap crap that drives out key sources of wealth, and if a local community wants to bar excessive advertising from invading it, there's nothing stopping it from passing advance restrictions on land zoning and airwave contracts or establishing a consumer bloc that boycotts certain forms of media..

I have read that in the advertising 'world' there has recently been a concern that people are starting to not respond to traditional advertising like they used to. Now you have corporations and ad agencies hiring people to join discussion boards to push products all the while sounding like unbiased consumers. And they are undoubtedly up to other tricks as well. It is devious, dishonest, and manipulative even more so than it used to be.


Your ancestors competed to though, and they did so in order to shape the world into what they believed in. Take away that incentive and you're again enslaving production among those producers who produce to make the world into what they believe is a better place.Im suggesting stopping mass production and conmsumption altogether.

And my ancestors did not conspire to make a world economy based on the mass production of waste and the mass consumption of disposable widgets. The generation that came before me did not beleive in any of that, otherwise they would have partaken in it.

The world is created by the minority of those with power for their purposes exclusively. Be it religion or consumerism.


Whether or not you can get support for your movement is a matter of indirect strategy though, not direct justice. I mean those guys who chain themselves to trees and sabotage logging equipment don't exactly garnish support from logging businesses or workers to save the environment, do they?If i was stopping an intruder from murdering my family im not exactly concerned about whether they support me or not. My desire is not to join or create a movement, its not to make people love me, and its certainly not about the magical thinking that goes into mainstream environmentalism... its simply about recognizing an injustice and then acting to stop it.


I don't see how this happens directly or how it happens any differently from any other natural resource whether its spices, wine, timber, furs, iron ore, fish, or whathaveyou; and if we're not justified in processing natural resources for our own intentions, then how about we just throw out civilization altogether and revert back to the state of nature where violent might makes right rules all in the pursuit of natural selection?Its not any different from any natural resource that the industrial economy must over-exploit that other people live on. Oil is just another example. We could easily consider another ubiquitous product in cell phones and see the direct cause of rape and murder. Cell phones require a mineral called coltan which is abundant in the congo. This partly fuels the civil war there. Armed gangs vie for control of the mining, pushing poeple off their land through rape and murder when these people don't want their water polluted and their sons and daughters enslaved. Its all directly connected to the industrial economies insatiable need for cell phones.

And yes, i have long suggested we throw out civilization. It will eventually collapse on its own anyway, but we cannot afford to wait too long, the damage might then become too severe for life as we know it to stand any chance. Hence the need for intervention, sooner rather than later.

I think we can do far better than civilization.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I object to the "coercion" accusation against advertising. Manipulative yes, decieving yes, out-right lies even, but still, no one is forcing you to run out and buy a brand new Mercedes Benz, no matter how manipulative that advertising might be.

I refuse to exonerate the general public from the implications of their own decisions. We live in the world we created. Our daily choices have directly contributed to make the world the ugly place that it is.

I don't blame corporations for taking advantage of stupid consumers who desperately want to buy stuff.

Indeed, I'll invoke Hegel to argue about the way people 'purchase' products in order to create an identity for themselves, and/or Marx to argue about the fetishization of commodities. Both of these arguments point the finger of blame at the consumer, not the seller.

When my son comes home from school with corporate logos on his homework he is being coerced. When he joins the community soccer team and they slap a tim horton's jersey on him and the rest of the kids this is coercion.

Pulling my son out of school or community activities are nt an option i have.

Andrew

[Michael]

I'm not sure what you mean... to me the act of killing all life on this planet for short term profit is not a subjective view that i hold, it is the reality of the economy we live in.

Andrew
Would not the Nazi, the slave-owner and the industrial rapist say the same?

[dilettante]

3. A woman is attempting to commit suicide; should those who see her intervene?

Absolutely not. If a person does not have the right to control their own life, they have no rights at all.

Any person who intervenes in these cases I consider to have highly questionable motives.

No intervention at all? Not even trying to "talk them down"? No evaluations of whether its a long thought-out decision or just the result of a "rough patch"? No consideration of mental illness, clinical depression, or chemical imbalance (natural or drug induced)? Not even friends or family members?


4. A man is obviously sliding into extreme alcoholism/drug abuse/other-self-destructive-behavior; should those aware of his problem intervene?

If a father with children, then yes. If a public official, then yes. In these cases, every public citizen has a vested interest. Otherwise, no.

I like to respect liberty - and oppose those who violate it.

Curious. What if the "father with children" is attempting to commit suicide?

And, as above, no intervention at all? No suggestions to "seek help"? No offers of support? What about the classic 'intervention' in which friends/family confront an addict with the affects of his/her addiction? And you'd do nothing for someone close to you?

And why are these two scenario's not examples of "an individual moral choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer." Why are there right and wrong answers here?

[dilettante]

Advertising is a form of coercion. It is a force that causes a certain behavior. It need not imply direct threat of violence.

Even if you don't want to call it coercion, the point is that people are and have been manipulated into being consumers, it is not simply by choice.


Is anything "simply by choice" in that sense? All our choices are shaped by the way the options are presented to us.

You seem to be saying "attempts at persuasion = coercion". If so, then there is no escaping from coercion and some of histories shining individuals (Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, etc) were all coercive on a massive scale, for they actively attempt to alter people's behavior via persuasion.

Surely we can't afford see persuasion and coercion as the same thing! That man who tries to convince you with words is not the same as the man who puts a gun to your head and makes demands.

[Michael]

No intervention at all? Not even trying to "talk them down"? No evaluations of whether its a long thought-out decision or just the result of a "rough patch"? No consideration of mental illness, clinical depression, or chemical imbalance (natural or drug induced)? Not even friends or family members?
Well yes, I'd grant the humanitarian exception for friends & kinfolk of course. They have an obligation or interest to ensure a good outcome to the situation.

But if total strangers, I don't see why one ought to be obliged. Indeed, this touches on the God & freewill issue. What is morality if not something that one has to make choices about?

Btw, I'll retract my earlier statement about questionable motives. That was just rhetorical flourish - I normally don't consider motive all that important.

Curious. What if the "father with children" is attempting to commit suicide?
I'll go with liberty one this one. Probably best for the kids in the long run.

Beyond a vague and general public interest in the longterm welfare of the children, I see no reason to be obliged to interfere.

And, as above, no intervention at all? No suggestions to "seek help"? No offers of support? What about the classic 'intervention' in which friends/family confront an addict with the affects of his/her addiction? And you'd do nothing for someone close to you?

And why are these two scenario's not examples of "an individual moral choice that each and every individual must make for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer." Why are there right and wrong answers here?
I answered your questions personally. My statements represent my moral choices. I'm no Kantian insisting that my choices ought to be rules for others.

If you want me to answer the question from the perspective of law or public policy, I'd probably have a different viewpoint (I'm not sure - I haven't thought about that yet) ;)

I'm with Nietzsche on morality - one must express it or actually choose it for it to be real. Those who only follow the morality of others have only the morality of followers. True moral agents actually express morality.

[Daktoria]

Advertising is no different than what the Bush admin did to sell the iraq war. This is manipulation in every sense of the word. It is devious for the express purpose of one's own interest. Advertising is ubiquitous in this culture, it is forced on children in schools, community sports, market places, etc... you just said yourself it is trickery. This is manipulation/coercion. And traditional advertising has been remarkably effective at this, even to those who pretend not to be influenced by it.

Yes, it's just a tricky as magic is. We can believe in the illusion, or we can wise up and know that it's just shifty hands which prevent us from seeing what's really going on even if we don't understand it. You're making as though citizens don't have a choice for who they vote for, as though it's impossible to be resilient, as though we're being brainwashed all the time.

No, I find this to be absurd. If human beings have free will, then citizens don't have to accede. If human beings don't have free will, then the brainwashers can't control themselves anymore than the brainwashed, so no brainwashing is really taking place since no intentions to do so exist.

BTW, GWB wasn't exactly the first politician in history to use propaganda, and you might want to consider that it was under Clinton that NAFTA was passed considering your own economic concerns.


I have read that in the advertising 'world' there has recently been a concern that people are starting to not respond to traditional advertising like they used to. Now you have corporations and ad agencies hiring people to join discussion boards to push products all the while sounding like unbiased consumers. And they are undoubtedly up to other tricks as well. It is devious, dishonest, and manipulative even more so than it used to be.


This sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory, but even if it's true, 1) I'd love to debate some of these advocates and make fools out of them, 2) I see no reason why businesses shouldn't be allowed to partake in such practices, and 3) plenty of discussion forums establish advertising as a form of spamming, so if they do hire advocates to take on neutral approaches, it's for the better since they challenge consumers' intelligence and character.

Im suggesting stopping mass production and conmsumption altogether.

And my ancestors did not conspire to make a world economy based on the mass production of waste and the mass consumption of disposable widgets. The generation that came before me did not beleive in any of that, otherwise they would have partaken in it.

The world is created by the minority of those with power for their purposes exclusively. Be it religion or consumerism. Mass consumption I agree with because of my own opposition to complacent, compulsive, cosmopolitan consumerism that esteems the Bohemian Bourgeois for politically correct humility. Mass production's a bit unavoidable though because there are plenty of industrial goods that need to be interchangeable parts in order to be afforded cheaply enough.

Regarding your own ancestors, they happened to be on the losing side of the competition as most competitors are, but if we say that the winners are unjustified to influence culture, then the whole competition goes kaput such that the only ones left producing for wealth are gluttonous and immature hedonists who hardly care about culture at all. Civil disobedience can exist all you want, these producers will still strive to steer industry in such a manner that they will literally enslave the masses with an eventual direct work and consume or die threat similarly to European Feudal lords, Egyptian Pharaohs, and Indian twice born Varnas.

If i was stopping an intruder from murdering my family im not exactly concerned about whether they support me or not. My desire is not to join or create a movement, its not to make people love me, and its certainly not about the magical thinking that goes into mainstream environmentalism... its simply about recognizing an injustice and then acting to stop it.

Its not any different from any natural resource that the industrial economy must over-exploit that other people live on. Oil is just another example. We could easily consider another ubiquitous product in cell phones and see the direct cause of rape and murder. Cell phones require a mineral called coltan which is abundant in the congo. This partly fuels the civil war there. Armed gangs vie for control of the mining, pushing poeple off their land through rape and murder when these people don't want their water polluted and their sons and daughters enslaved. Its all directly connected to the industrial economies insatiable need for cell phones.Violence in these incidences is not a result of natural resources themselves, but rather a result of neglect against the rule of law, property rights, and police institutions. You can get rid of natural resources all you want in these environments, the character of the actors involved will still reveal themselves and abuse will still take place. The Huns, Goths, Vandals, Mongolians, Moors, and Ottomans ravaged Europe throughout the dark ages not just for natural resources, but for political, social, and economic control in general. Likewise, the Italian and Russian Mafias, Yakuza, Triads, MS-13, Crips, Bloods, and other criminal organizations behave similarly today. Control comes in many forms; money, wealth, and natural resources exist as only one form of it, economic.


And yes, i have long suggested we throw out civilization. It will eventually collapse on its own anyway, but we cannot afford to wait too long, the damage might then become too severe for life as we know it to stand any chance. Hence the need for intervention, sooner rather than later.

I think we can do far better than civilization.When I originally read your post, I planned on skipping everything above and only responding to this section since it supersedes every other point; without civilization, justice doesn't exist as the state of nature is the ultimate arena of might makes right. Ergo, get rid of civilization and nothing else matters.

[Michael]

When I originally read your post, I planned on skipping everything above and only responding to this section since it supersedes every other point; without civilization, justice doesn't exist as the state of nature is the ultimate arena of might makes right. Ergo, get rid of civilization and nothing else matters.

Agreed. Civilization itself may be our biggest problem, but civilization itself is also our greatest virtue. Throwing it out would lead only to chaos and violence.

I have no delusions about 'noble savages'. Civilized savagry is so much more acceptable.

[dilettante]

I answered your questions personally. My statements represent my moral choices. I'm no Kantian insisting that my choices ought to be rules for others.

If you want me to answer the question from the perspective of law or public policy, I'd probably have a different viewpoint (I'm not sure - I haven't thought about that yet) ;)

I'm with Nietzsche on morality - one must express it or actually choose it for it to be real. Those who only follow the morality of others have only the morality of followers. True moral agents actually express morality.

I suppose I was just curious why that phrase "an individual moral choice...no right or wrong answer" was repeated for the first two scenarios but not for the last two (in fact, you used the phrase "Absolutely not" for the third scenario, which surprised me).
It gave the impression that while the first two were purely individual moral choices, the latter two were not, or at least not entirely, so.

[Michael]

I suppose I was just curious why that phrase "an individual moral choice...no right or wrong answer" was repeated for the first two scenarios but not for the last two (in fact, you used the phrase "Absolutely not" for the third scenario, which surprised me).
It gave the impression that while the first two were purely individual moral choices, the latter two were not, or at least not entirely, so.

The first two are examples of violence occuring between people - which violates liberty.

The latter two are examples of only self-violence - which is liberty.

Big difference between them.