Then let me rebut.
You forgot to answer my question, an oversight I'm sure, why don't you and then we'll take it from there. If you're just going to ignore any arguments I make then I think I'll abandon the debate in favour of a more productive activity, such as bashing my head into a wall.
Yes, it is from our point of view. Similarly, capitalism was a horrible concept from the communist point of view. Similarly, secularism is a horrible concept from a theocratic point of view.
It isn't other's principles that I am advocating upholding. I would rather see such forms of government as the one I described fall apart and crumble.
I agree, but it is even less our choice. I'm not arguing that tyrrany isn't a bad thing. It is a horrible thing. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
It's a matter of the lessor of two evils. I would, of course, break the glass and use the phone and emergency kit to save a life.
So you're honestly saying that you're a bad person for breaking and entering in order to save lives? That's ridicilous. Incidentially I'm afraid that your expectations of "facing the consequences" would be sadly disapointed, unless of course by consequences you mean getting a medal. In Denmark there is a legaly enshrined right to violate property rights to save lives. I'm not certain that an equivelant right exist in the US (ETA: Any US layers care to comment?), but I strongly expect it does. Even if there isn't there are few car owners who'd press charges under those circumstances, and probably not a single hury in the States who'd convict.
I've never gotten a speeding ticket, probably because I (practically) never deliberatly exceed the speed limit. If I had a truly excelent excuse, like driving a sick person to the hospital, then I would expect him to understand. In fact this possibility too is anticipated in Danish law.
Not what I said. I was very clear in saying that economic and political measures were absolutely acceptable and why.
Correct! Mostly because I never said I did think that, but that's moot.
Correct again, up until the point that such governments move such oppressions outside of their own boarders.
I disagree that apathy and isolationism is the inevitable end result. Further, I believe there is a point where military action is necessary. I don't think it is for the sole purpose of "spreading democracy".
One would hope that we might eventually grow out of that stage of our development as a society, but perhaps that is wishful thinking.
It is absolutely ridiculous, but that isn't what I said. I'm saying a good result does not turn a bad act into a good one. Whether or not someone is a "good person" or "bad person" is beyond the scope of a single or even a small group of acts.
Since I answered your question, let's return to mine, but I'll modify it to go with something a tad more traditional:
But what does it mean that it's a "bad act? It doesn't mean that you wouldn't do it we've already established that, but what then does it mean? As I see it taking the first aid kit and the cell phone, is not just permisable it is, taking into account the alternative the morally correct choice. Do you agree on that? if so how can an act be wrong if no morally superior alternative exists? If not then you're saying that letting people die is morally superior to taking and destroying property for perhaps a 100$
Depends, does the loss mean the owner of the store and his family will starve. If not then I'd say it is justified.
Always, could you perhaps remind me where I have said that any end justifies any means coss I really can't recall saying that. Taking somebody's cell phone to save many lives -justified. Commiting mass murder because it gives you a momentary pleasure - not so much. Incidentially whether you should face consequences is a matter of law, not of whether it's justified. In an ideal world the two would be the same, but the world isn't ideal. An act could be morally justified, and yet have to be illegal, because the justification might depend on fact that a court couldn't determine, that it would be to complex, that we were unwilling to give the courts the amount of discretionary power they'd need or something like that.
I don't see why it would, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying.
Okay, first, I think you're confusing moral relativity and the question of whether the ends justify the means. It isn't an issue of whether it is better to steal or let people die. The issue is whether or not a good act in and of itself justifies having committed a bad act in and of itself.
What? Seriously?!? It's morally okay for the poor to steal because the rich can afford it?
Sure thing:
That's a very definitive "yes" you have there. Not a conditional "usually", "mostly", or even "sometimes". If that is not what you meant to say, I apologize. If I could read your mind, I would've taken Randi's challenge money long before now.
But whether it is right for you to face consequences is a moral question.
Well, I was just joking. However, in light of your above statement that it is morally justifiable for the poor to steal from those who can afford it, help me figure out where the analogy breaks down:
I believe the desire for freedom and liberty are universal values all people share. Conversely, I believe the only people who don't share those values are those who would lose power because of them. For those people, I have no concern.
I do not believe tyrannies will ever respect our values, because our values are in direct opposition to their existence. Much more likely, tyrannies will look to undermine our values, which goes to further their existence.
What about sanctions?
I guess what I don't buy is that a tyranny's right of self-determination is morally equivalent to a democracy's. If that's all there was to the issue, however, I might say you are right anyway, it isn't our business. But that's not all. The world is not a level playing field, and the "bad guys" are breaking the rules to win at all cost. I guess we can afford to ignore this now, but in the future I think it will hurt us, and it could hurt badly. I understand your fear that by us also breaking the rules (self-determination being one), we could become what we are fighting against. But I am not sure there won't be a point where we don't have any other choice but to take that chance.
Yes, absolutely use sanctions. Use every influence we have outside on their impact outside of their borders.
Just to clarify, we are still talking about governments like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, right? Or are you think of something else?
I guess this plugs back into the "do the ends justify the means" question and whether or not we value being a just nation.
Sanctions influence countries. They influence the lives of the people being sanctioned, often adversely. They may even cause the death of people in the sanctioned country. Is that still acceptable?
To some degree, any tyranny.