Submitted by bluelotus214 t3_10nht8x in worldnews
Comments
DeMalgamnated t1_j68zv4u wrote
All this should've happened sooner but better late than never! red tape and politics always gets in the way. Russia must be defeated for the good of everyone on the planet.
it will send a message to all the other dodgy countries that what they are doing is wrong and has to stop.
tidbitsmisfit t1_j6b61rp wrote
sounds like they wanted to give Russia time to be sensible about things, but Russia and Pootie decided to go full meatshield
powerdork t1_j6b5gnf wrote
> Russia must be defeated for the good of everyone on the planet.
Including Russians!
[deleted] t1_j69gq7s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6ak546 wrote
[removed]
history_fan40 t1_j6994ql wrote
Technically, Putin would suffer if he loses, so not everyone on the planet would benefit.
Also, who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s not? Most consider it wrong, but that doesn’t make it the objective statement you phrased it as.
bugxbuster t1_j69fdnu wrote
So you support Russia then? Or do you just need to be contrarian and can’t help yourself?
[deleted] t1_j69ip99 wrote
[removed]
history_fan40 t1_j69inxi wrote
Given the atrocious strategy and execution Russia has used, I am not supporting them. I am not intentionally being a contrarian. However, I don’t think the rest of the world is doing the right thing by intervening. Ukraine does not have any binding military alliances (if they did, those countries would have officially joined in against Russia) and these other countries are violating neutrality.
Your comment did not at all address the point I was making that there’s nothing that we can say is objectively “wrong” about this.
ThessierAshpool t1_j69lvim wrote
A county invades unprovoked and under false pretense a weaker neighbour which it had previously given security guarantees to, and proceeds to commit actual genocide. Yep, nothing objectively wrong about this.
history_fan40 t1_j69phpv wrote
There’s no such thing as objectively wrong, so no, it’s not objectively wrong. However, most of us may agree in subjectively considering it wrong.
Head_of_Lettuce t1_j69qoer wrote
That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing
history_fan40 t1_j69smpz wrote
What?
Head_of_Lettuce t1_j69tgcr wrote
My point is that you're not really addressing the point of that person's comment.
history_fan40 t1_j69wolk wrote
I did, though. They’re claiming it’s objectively wrong.
NozE8 t1_j6ao56o wrote
What is your point? The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective. However in this context the use of the word is acceptable. Murder is wrong. This is a statement of fact and law not one based on feelings. Just because you can find a handful of crazy people that think they should be able to kill someone for any reason in their head doesn't invalidate the claim of objectivity.
You must be fun at parties.
history_fan40 t1_j6btj8m wrote
> Murder is wrong
Not objectively. You say it is a statement of fact and not feeling, yet it is a statement of feeling. Everyone who was born is going to die anyways, so by your reasoning I’m assuming you also consider reproduction wrong? I mean in that case I would agree but for different reasons, but that is irrelevant.
NozE8 t1_j6bzzzx wrote
The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective as I have said.
In the real world contemporary society has agreed that to function we have a certain set of rules that we agree in a way to be objectively true. Splitting this hair will get you no where.
history_fan40 t1_j6c0hfe wrote
We agree it to be subjectively considered true, not objectively.
[deleted] t1_j6ak8oh wrote
[removed]
dadude100 t1_j69t2ry wrote
Murder is not objectively wrong? You’re just spewing nonsense, fuck off.
Number6isNo1 t1_j6auyd8 wrote
Sounds like one of my friends in college after he took Philosophy 101. Thought he was fucking Aristotle after being assigned an excerpt from Nicomachean Ethics. Insufferable for a month or so.
history_fan40 t1_j69w09e wrote
Objective means factual. Good and bad are not fact-based.
Further, one could argue that action is actually doing the person a favor.
It’s not nonsense just because you disagree. It’s actually what this sub is generally obsessed with, nuance.
vkstu t1_j6a4knr wrote
>Good and bad are not fact-based
It's objectively bad to drink bleach, to maintain well being.
history_fan40 t1_j6a550y wrote
That’s conditional, not really objective.
What happens as a result of that isn’t objectively bad, and besides, that will happen to us all no matter what.
vkstu t1_j6a63za wrote
Of course it's conditional, life is conditional. You can objectively say genocide is bad based on the conditions provided. And if that condition is that life is 'sacred' or whether genocide itself is outlawed, then you cannot but conclude that what is happening in Ukraine is objectively bad.
history_fan40 t1_j6a7ded wrote
Right, but life is not “sacred”.
Something being illegal also doesn’t make it objectively bad. For example, atheism is criminalized in Saudi Arabia, but it isn’t objectively bad (again, nothing is).
However, I do agree with you in subjectively determining that genocide is not good (it is also not objectively good, as nothing is). It is also not objectively bad.
Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
vkstu t1_j6a85df wrote
I think you missed the point of it being conditional... It's a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely objective, it's also a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely subjective. Conditions are which will decide whether something is subjectively or objectively good or bad.
As for whether life is 'sacred', it's why I added quotation marks around it. I don't mean it in the literal sense, I mean it in the conventions we've universally decided on.
> Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.
Ah, it's flawed, yet I see no argument as to why. Interesting.
history_fan40 t1_j6bdcwi wrote
Ah, but I was talking in terms of ethics. Ethical good and bad are entirely subjective.
If the goal is to maintain stable health, drinking water does help, but it’s not objectively good. A goal of maintaining stable health is also not objectively good to have.
vkstu t1_j6bhem9 wrote
I suggest you start reading about ethical objectivism. You've clearly skipped this part in philosophy.
history_fan40 t1_j6c19om wrote
I’ve read about it and can clearly see it is nonsensical. “Morality” and “ethics” are concepts we invented.
vkstu t1_j6c7etp wrote
Hahaha, well then our discussion is done. You clearly haven't understood the meaning of it. Your view is too black and white. At this point our argument will devolve in your position is nonsensical, no yours, no yours.
As for whether we invented it or not. Did we invent maths or are they part of fundamental truths of the universe? Why can't that hold for (parts of) morality or ethics?
history_fan40 t1_j6d0gf0 wrote
Math is objective. One cannot simply say “2 + 2 is 85 because I said so”. 2 + 2 is in fact not 85.
Morality and ethics are not objective. There’s no such thing as “fundamental truths of the universe”. In some cases, an action is considered bad, while in others, it is considered good. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4.
Life did not always exist and will not always exist. One person having a certain idea of ethics does not make it objective. Further, any decision made by humans or other complex animals is entirely based on the electrical signals being transmitted among their neurons. You can’t judge these actions.
vkstu t1_j6d4ne1 wrote
Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.
Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.
history_fan40 t1_j6d5v5d wrote
How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.
How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?
vkstu t1_j6dclwf wrote
A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.
history_fan40 t1_j6dl2wv wrote
Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.
You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.
vkstu t1_j6dm1xb wrote
That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.
I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.
history_fan40 t1_j6dmmw5 wrote
Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
> negative to existence
Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
vkstu t1_j6dodnb wrote
> Life didn’t always exist
Define life.
> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.
Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.
> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.
I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.
> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.
Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.
vkstu t1_j6a3lyj wrote
I'd love to hear your explanation of how genocide can be (morality wise) good, to counter an 'it's objectively wrong' argument. For it to be unable to be called objectively wrong, one needs to be able to prove it can be good (subjectively or otherwise).
history_fan40 t1_j6a4f8p wrote
Things can be neither good nor bad (and objectively, they are always neither of those). But if you want me to name one thing I would consider a positive, if it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again. I don’t support it, because this is selective, which means treating groups unequally with no reason, which I don’t agree with. So no, I don’t consider it good.
However, nothing can be objectively wrong no matter what it is, because “wrong” is a subjective statement, just as “right” or “good” are.
vkstu t1_j6a4wrp wrote
You're wrong.
As I replied to another post of yours, you can very well make objectively good and bad statements.
It is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being. For example.
> If it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again.
Making a huge assumption here that they are or were suffering before being genocided. So that's adding a precondition that isn't necessarily so to the question asked.
history_fan40 t1_j6a6zvr wrote
> it is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being
Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.
“Maintaining well being” cannot be considered objectively good. Nothing can, just as nothing can be considered objectively bad.
> assumption that they are or were suffering
Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers. If you doubt that, suffering is literally defined as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”. One technically undergoes hardship while trying to get food, which one needs in order to live.
vkstu t1_j6a7k9s wrote
> Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.
No, because you in this case subjectively add that expanding territory is always a positive. It may not be for multitude of reasons. Not hydrating yourself properly is never a positive for your well being.
> Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers.
Ah, a nihilism hardliner are we? Most people would put the cons and pros against each other to decide whether they're suffering in life, rather than only look at the bad to decide they're suffering.
history_fan40 t1_j6a8hbg wrote
> you in this case subjectively add
You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.
> decide whether they’re suffering
I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.
vkstu t1_j6a91zc wrote
>You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.
That's not what subjective means. Expanding territory is in this case meant as always being a positive, which doesn't have to be so. Well being is clearly defined, your body dying is not maintaining well being. Hence always objectively good and bad by the condition provided. I think you've missed the part of philosophical teachings regarding good and bad that states regarding health issues and a few other things it can very well be made to be objective.
>I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.
You have not. You implied all people suffer by definition, but that is not the case. People suffer when they have more hardship to deal with than pleasure they feel. You're looking at it from a very nihilistic and negative view, that any bit of hardship means people suffer. If we follow your reasoning, I can also argue all people are joyous. For they have moments in their life that are joyful, tasting food for example.
progrethth t1_j6a4wpi wrote
Technically correct but pointless, like the rest of your comments.
history_fan40 t1_j6a5tsf wrote
Agreed.
nagrom7 t1_j6b6coa wrote
> There’s no such thing as objectively wrong
Believe it or not, this is objectively wrong. If someone says 2+2=85, they are objectively wrong. There are a lot of things in this word that are not just a matter of opinion, as much as certain groups of delusional people disagree.
history_fan40 t1_j6bd0yr wrote
I was saying one can’t judge something as ethically “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.
Obviously someone saying 2 + 2 = 85 is objectively wrong.
geophilo t1_j6a0310 wrote
Oh my god your false sense of insight has resulted in some truly inane statements.
history_fan40 t1_j6a0g42 wrote
There is no “sense of enlightenment”.
My statements aren’t “inane”, but please, enlighten me. Why do you think so?
In fact, the people trying to debate with me on this are inevitably making inane statements.
The first three words of your comment, if you mean it literally and not just something people say, draw into question your credibility on calling things “inane”.
Ancient_Arr t1_j6a3c3s wrote
Hows putins cock taste?
progrethth t1_j6a53nh wrote
I do not think they are pro-Putin, they just seem contrarian for the sake of it.
> I am not intentionally being a contrarian. However, ...
which is just like
> Not to be a racist, but ...
vkstu t1_j6a5zhy wrote
Exactly. It sounds like he's taking some of his philosophy teachings too stringent, and disregarding other philosophical teachings that do not say "bad and good are entirely subjective", but rather more nuanced.
Child-0f-atom t1_j6b2y8j wrote
BuUuUuUTt Asian PeEoplllle suuuhhhhhaaaaa
history_fan40 t1_j6a3jk4 wrote
I don’t support Putin. I’ve already said I’m not supporting Russia, but it’s also not objectively wrong (because nothing is objectively wrong) to invade another country.
[deleted] t1_j6avms5 wrote
[deleted]
12inch3installments t1_j6de52t wrote
In your own words though, you only don't support him due to lack of planning and bad execution, not due to the unprovoked and unjustified assault on a peaceful sovereign nation and its citizens all in the name of installing a puppet regime and stealing its resources. You also see nothing "objectively wrong" with his direct attacks on non combatant civilian populations.
You are, simply put, a Putin supporter and sympathizer.
history_fan40 t1_j6dj1e6 wrote
No. I subjectively agree in considering his attacks on civilians wrong, but it’s not objectively wrong, as nothing is. Some civilians were definitely going to get hurt as collateral damage, but clearly Russia is going out of its way to unnecessarily harm them (which is just stupid considering at this point even if they did win it wouldn’t be worth it), which I don’t support.
I am not a Putin supporter. Look what he has done. He has exposed Russia’s military as atrocious, causing our fate to not be a Third World War, but something much more drawn-out and painful, he has ruined his country’s economy, and ruined a lot of people’s lives. That being said, I don’t think launching offensives should be met with such opposition from countries that aren’t even fighting in the war.
Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6asc09 wrote
"violating neutrality"? what neutrality? no one has an obligation to Russia to remain neutral. there is no violation.
additionally, the first person to bring up the concept of objective vs. subjective wrongness was yourself. the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong. they simply said it was wrong. if you believe that there is no such thing as objective wrongness, then you should have no problem with their statement, as it must be their own opinion. if you believe their opinion that genocide is wrong is incorrect, argue with that, don't attempt to set up a strawman about moral objectivism
history_fan40 t1_j6bdkra wrote
> what neutrality
None of these countries are technically at war with Russia.
> the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong
Indeed, they did not directly state it, but it was heavily implied.
Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6bjhdm wrote
not being at war with Russia does not carry any obligation to not provide arms to Russia's opponent or to not sanction them. I have no idea what principles you think are being violated here.
it is simply your opinion that it was heavily implied. they did not state that they believe genocide is objectively wrong. without such a statement, it is senseless to try to start a debate about whether objective wrongness exists, as that isn't relevant to their point.
[deleted] t1_j6c1mpk wrote
[removed]
vkstu t1_j6bjw3m wrote
That sounds awfully subjective whether they implied or not.
muncherofhay t1_j6a5lz1 wrote
We all know when something is 'wrong' even when we pretend we don't. The invasion of Ukraine, the tactics Russia have used, the targeting of civilians, the separation of families and in general, the world Russia is fighting to create are all wrong. That is why the entire free world has lined up against them.
And the only real support they have is from regimes that have already created what Russia really wants - an oppressed population under the control of a dictator who is answerable to nobody.
This is a war for freedom. And everyone does know what right and wrong is.
history_fan40 t1_j6a80z7 wrote
There is no such thing as “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”. We may subjectively agree about what we consider “right” or what we consider “wrong”, but that doesn’t make those things objectively so.
Mozbey t1_j6a8utb wrote
Holy shit dude, people are dying because of Putins aggression. So your conclusion is just keep giving him what he wants? They tried that in 1939, which given your username I'd assume you'd know.
vkstu t1_j6ab04d wrote
He has missed his ethical objectivism class.
history_fan40 t1_j6bc58l wrote
Ah, but there is no such thing as “moral law”.
If you really buy into this concept, though, do you judge the actions of tigers?
vkstu t1_j6bhuyl wrote
If you are a nihilism hardliner, then yeah, you would say so. I beg to differ by a lot.
Why would I judge the actions of a tiger? You cannot judge that which hasn't the same faculties as humans do. But, let's for the sake of argument do so, yes I'd say that genocide among tigers by tigers is also objectively wrong to do, as it hurts their species' viability.
history_fan40 t1_j6c15vs wrote
> I beg to differ by a lot
With what logical basis?
> why would I judge the actions of a tiger
They are a species of animals, just like humans. Or do you need another ape species to judge? How about chimpanzees and bonobos, the two species most similar to humans?
> hurts their species’ viability
That doesn’t make it “objectively bad”.
vkstu t1_j6c6s6p wrote
On the basis of various examples within ethical objectivism, Plato's writings among others, and various things I've already said to you.
As for the tiger. Yes, they're also animals, as are we. And yet, as we're different species and different brains, we cannot lay down judgment. Goes for chimpanzees and any other animal you can think of. I thought that would've been more than obvious.
And it does make it objectively bad, for the tigers, which was the point.
history_fan40 t1_j6czjrp wrote
About ethical objectivism, we invented these concepts, and all of it is opinion-based, so no, it is not objective.
> objectively bad
You’re subjectively saying that a reduction in members of the species is bad. That’s not objective.
You do realize that all species, whether humans, chimpanzees, tigers, or any other animal, are all going to go extinct at some point no matter what, right?
vkstu t1_j6d5tja wrote
No, it's not all opinion based at all. Like math, they're build upon logic. Not all may be arriving at the same logical conclusion though, but they may've erred, like one may in math. When there's multiple logically sound conclusions, then your limiting parameters in the question aren't sufficient. Like one can't know in certain equations whether x is positive or not.
And yes, I do know they will at some point go extinct. Is that not bad for the species itself? There's nothing subjective about that. Secondly, we are talking about a species genociding itself, not an outside force making them go extinct. So you're slippery sloping the argument.
history_fan40 t1_j6d6bf7 wrote
Going extinct is not objectively bad. In general, the ceasing of life, whether from internal or external factors, is not objectively bad. It’s only considered bad if life is considered necessarily a positive, which is not objective. Tigers have to do the work to hunt to get their food, and if they overdo it, it would disrupt part of the food chain temporarily, causing chaos on a small scale.
vkstu t1_j6d8347 wrote
You fail to see the point yet again. It's not about whether it's objectively bad for the universe at large. It's objectively bad, or a negative if you will, for the species itself. It's all in the limiting parameters that one can arrive at a logical conclusion.
history_fan40 t1_j6d92h1 wrote
Again, it’s only bad if the species’ existence in large numbers is considered good. That’s not objective at all. It is objectively obstructive of said species existing in large numbers, good or bad is a subjective thing building on top of that.
vkstu t1_j6d9uaz wrote
You are adding on a parameter. If the species is getting non-viable due to overpopulation, a reduction in size is indeed not necessarily bad. It might be good. That's your parameter you work with to reach a logical conclusion. It doesn't change whether something cannot be objective or not, you just changed the prior equation and thus changed the logical conclusion. It's like having you change a 2+2=4 into a 2+2+1=5 and then argue the previous equation wasn't objective for there's a new result in the new equation.
history_fan40 t1_j6dban6 wrote
No, you’re misunderstanding. A species’ existence in general, or its stability in numbers, is not objectively good either.
vkstu t1_j6dbt6m wrote
It is for the species itself. You're changing parameters by making it be about the universe at large.
history_fan40 t1_j6djjdo wrote
You’re placing a subjective positive value on existence. Even for the species, if it didn’t exist, none of its members would have had to suffer (they by definition suffer). Lower numbers also means less of them are suffering (which by definition is the case), and I think you may hold a different view on this than me, but I subjectively view suffering as bad. It’s not objective that existence is good.
vkstu t1_j6dldcn wrote
We've been over this before. You're equating some hardship to suffering because by definition hardship is suffering. Yes, yet you fail to see that there are also joyful moments where for example they get to enjoy food, family, etcetera. Ergo, they may not in total, be suffering. If one argues that because they experience some hardship they therefore are suffering, I'll put forward that because they experience some joy, they are therefore joyous. It's nonsensical. It has nothing to do about subjectivity, you're using a false representation of what is, only looking at one side of the equation and therefore reaching an incomplete conclusion.
I'm not placing any subjective positive value on existance. Existance by its very nature is existing, ending such existance is a negative to said existance. That's objective.
history_fan40 t1_j6dmaqz wrote
I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.
Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.
vkstu t1_j6dmrhe wrote
> Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.
That makes no sense. Unless you view it from a universe perspective again, which isn't the point.
> I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.
Nor would there be joy if they hadn't existed. You're still arguing that existing is suffering, while existing is or can be joyous as well if not more so.
history_fan40 t1_j6dn8br wrote
> makes no sense
It does. Existence is not necessarily a positive.
> existing is suffering
It is. You’re saying it’s not always net suffering, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition. Whether the things one considers positives outweigh that suffering in that person’s opinion is subjective.
vkstu t1_j6dnqpn wrote
> It does. Existance is not necessarily a positive.
Is 1 a positive?
> I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition.
It isn't, you fail to realize one needs to look at a net equation, is there more suffering than joy. You only focus on the suffering part. I can very much argue and focus solely on the joy part and then say that life is joyful and suffering is irrelevant to this discussion. It's creating an argument that denies one part that is very much integral to existing (as is suffering).
history_fan40 t1_j6duyv4 wrote
> Is 1 a positive
Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.
> is there more suffering than joy
Sometimes.
I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.
vkstu t1_j6dw2tu wrote
> Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.
It cannot, that makes zero sense. You can't have -1 peoples on the planet for example. Or -1 planets. You can have 9-1=8 planets however. But not 1-2=-1 planet.
> I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.
Funny how you are here arguing suffering apparently is an objective truth and an universal constant, is it not? Do you seriously not see the paradox of that statement?
[deleted] t1_j6bbtsa wrote
[removed]
NotDarkBrandon t1_j6ask13 wrote
>There is no such thing as “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.
No, you're objectively wrong.
history_fan40 t1_j6bb6hn wrote
Because you disagree with me?
“Right” and “wrong” are inherently subjective judgements, no matter how common one particular stance on an action or decision may be.
[deleted] t1_j6ce9v5 wrote
[deleted]
history_fan40 t1_j6cz6b7 wrote
Objective ethics don’t exist.
If I’m a loser, what does that make you? Someone just going with the masses, not thinking a single bit about it?
Let me clarify one more time: I am neither a contrarian, nor someone supporting Russia, so I’m not trolling or doing anything like that, just someone stepping back and then taking a look from a better angle.
Child-0f-atom t1_j6b34k2 wrote
You’ve gotta try real hard to have so little comment karma for how much you comment
history_fan40 t1_j6b9tg4 wrote
I mean I think you can see how many downvotes I’ve gotten due to outrage over that one comment where I simply made an observation.
VeGr-FXVG t1_j6cbf21 wrote
No, it's not a simple observation, it's irreverance. Bringing up an academic discussion on objective morality in the midst of a war is disgusting and unnecessary. If someone is suffering a tragedy, you don't bring this topic up; leave these thoughts in the classroom. Regardless of your many flawed premises throughout your comments, your greatest wrong is this misdirection.
history_fan40 t1_j6d1wj4 wrote
It is an observation. The commenter I replied to originally said that everybody would benefit if Russia lost. I brought up one example of a person who wouldn’t. I know none of us would have much pity for Putin, but how about the Russian families who lost the person they depend on so they could fight for Russia, just to lose? How about the average Russian, who is facing struggles in a crippled economy and a potential split of Russia when they lose, meaning more uncertainty?
It is in fact true that there is no objective “right” or “wrong” in ethics. It’s not academic, it really is common sense. It’s also not “disgusting”, it’s just stepping back and staying aware of the facts. Was this the wrong place and the wrong time? Obviously, seeing as the hive-mind downvotes me without thinking about what I say.
> flawed premises
What flawed premises? Do you mind explaining how it’s flawed to note that we cannot pass our personal opinion of something as a fact when it is not a fact?
Is it not flawed to think everyone’s lives will benefit from a certain outcome?
> misdirection
I’m not misdirecting anybody.
If you think I’m supporting Russia, let me say one more time that I do not support Russia.
[deleted] t1_j6ddcfe wrote
[removed]
rm-rd t1_j6akcgg wrote
> Every dead Russian invader is a Ukrainian life saved.
No. Russia will just replace them. Or it bleeds white, which raises the risk of nukes.
To reduce lives lost (on both sides), either Ukraine or Russia needs to actually start winning with maneuver / tactical warfare, rather than WWI style positional warfare.
To win with maneuver warfare, Ukraine needs more equipment (tanks, planes, etc). This is how they won the Kherson counteroffensive (with a ton of ground taken and Russian heavy equipment destroyed). You don't need to kill the enemy, if you can overrun their position and force them to surrender. Russian had about 2-3000 lives lost which is a far more acceptable price than the hundreds dead every day in Bakhmut (where it's a WWI style battle with thousands dying to conquer a few metres of ground).
As for Russia, they've tried to win with maneuver warfare but it's hard to do this with incompetent command and Ukraine's extremely gutsy defence.
[deleted] t1_j696zcd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6ak2tp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6c8uby wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6aml8e wrote
[removed]
Antonio_is_better t1_j69purx wrote
Not with this kill/death ratio they aren't
changelingerer t1_j690coz wrote
Eh that's giving russia too much credit. At the rate they're going its probably more like 3:1 lol
progrethth t1_j6a4dtu wrote
Did people miss your joke? At least I thought it was pretty good.
To explain: "Every three dead Russian invaders is a Ukrainian life saved." But that of course excludes civilian deaths and that number is unknown since we have no idea how many died in Mariupol.
Jonty95 t1_j69ntyy wrote
Just the drop the nukes already so we can stop being shortsighted
strangefolk t1_j6ah2w2 wrote
Reddit loves war, but hates nukes. They don't see the connection.
[deleted] t1_j6bd60v wrote
[removed]
autotldr t1_j68ygt6 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
> KYIV, Ukraine - Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in "Fast-track" talks on the possibility of equipping the invaded country with long-range missiles and military aircraft, a top Ukrainian presidential aide said Saturday.
> The attacks continued Saturday, when Russian missiles struck the city of Kostyantynivka in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk province.
> Podolyak, the presidential adviser, said Ukraine needs supplies of Western long-range missiles "To drastically curtail the key tool of the Russian army" by destroying the warehouses where it stores cannon artillery used on the front line.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russian^#3 province^#4 missile^#5
Braelind t1_j69lvtk wrote
Awesome! Send Ukraine everything they want, you got my full support. Those planes and missles aren't doing us any good sitting around, might as well put them to work.
WickedSlice_ t1_j6ajidi wrote
Oh now that the West has your full support, what are they waiting on?
[deleted] t1_j6c28an wrote
[removed]
PrizedTurkey t1_j69cc1y wrote
Give them what they need to reach out and touch Russia.
[deleted] t1_j6af0x3 wrote
[deleted]
nagrom7 t1_j6b6xys wrote
> Give them the ability to destroy military bases near Moscow and things might change.
They seemingly already have a limited ability to do just that, considering the strikes on the Engles airbase requires a similar range to be able to strike Moscow.
Stohnghost t1_j6b3de6 wrote
Disrupting bombers and ships in their garrisons, shooting down inbound missiles, and seizing and holding territory are the keys. It's like a RTS and Ukraine is at 75% through each development cycle.
IndieHipster t1_j6chhrq wrote
That’s a horrible idea
If Moscow comes under attack, the situation escalates to even more insane proportions
MofongoForever t1_j69y0kw wrote
About freaking time.
The planes they were always going to get - but those require a lot of training.
The missiles they can get pretty darn quick. They are pretty much trained on the HIMARS launchers already and just need a little bit more training to use the long range missiles on those. Just send them already!
egric t1_j6e0d7r wrote
Well, we heard about ukrainian pilots being trained in america in the first month or two of the war so i guess they will be finishing their training just around the time allies will agree to provide plains.
Theoreocow t1_j6aylvw wrote
What the fuck is the thumbnail for this post. Lmao
Probably_Not_Evil t1_j6byt0g wrote
Okay, so it's not just me.
Law-of-Poe t1_j6de9f5 wrote
It’s a visual representation of me sitting in bed reading this post
Gr33nBubble t1_j6c78or wrote
What's he holding?? Lol
gu_doc t1_j6ac1fz wrote
North Korea wants to throw a fit about Ukraine being armed after they armed Russia?
Hades_adhbik t1_j69uels wrote
The more the opposing army can be defeated from a distance, the less causalities
>Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on the possibility of equipping the invaded country with long-range missiles and military aircraft, a top Ukrainian presidential aide said Saturday.
>Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said Ukraine’s supporters in the West “understand how the war is developing” and the need to supply planes capable of providing cover for the armored fighting vehicles that the United States and Germany pledged at the beginning of the month.
afops t1_j6advy1 wrote
And so long as Russia can attack Ukraine from the safety of Russia indefinitely, how can Ukraine be safe?
Ukraine needs the tools to hit Russia on every inch of Ukraine and some ability to attack the launch sites for long range attacks. The problem here is I doubt many western countries would like to donate cruise missiles with their flag on them that hit Russian bombers at an air base near Moscow. That fear I understand. The ATACMs fear not so much.
hikingmike t1_j6aid1y wrote
Air defense saturation would really limit the attacks from Russia without requiring hitting inside Russia. They’ve done great lately and that keeps increasing. But Ukraine hitting Russia’s launch sites that are responsible for their strikes (more?) would be great. When I envision how this could look if (when) Ukraine pushes them fully out, I expect Russia to keep shooting like this unless there is a drastic change… until they realize it is futile due to Ukraine’s defenses. That’s a hope anyway.
Apprehensive_Bus575 t1_j69yb3t wrote
The West must supply Ukraine with a fighter plane ASAP so training can start. Tanks aren't enough. They must be part of what is called combined arms operation. Fighters will provide air cover as tanks and infantry move forward.
Inevitable-Ad-6650 t1_j6afgw6 wrote
Rumor has it that they've already been training pilots in the US.
Apprehensive_Bus575 t1_j6bnpj5 wrote
That would be great. Russia should not be informed until a week before the fighter planes are deployed in Ukraine.
[deleted] t1_j6axzhs wrote
[deleted]
UncleGrga t1_j6cmj5i wrote
Guaranteed won’t happen.
We could have donated heavily upgraded leopard 1’s that are in the process of decommissioning too.
Also like 50,000 70mm rockets we’re currently dismantling
B-rad-israd t1_j6b5v87 wrote
I would not be surprised if the conditions of western countries providing more capable weaponry is asking the Ukrainians to purge their institutions of corruption or of security leaks to Russia.
[deleted] t1_j69gmcb wrote
[removed]
Defiant-Traffic5801 t1_j6a5l52 wrote
Response to what question? All I heard was a mumbo jumbo of accusations without links with silly accompanying music and Chinese subtitles.
[deleted] t1_j6a7duk wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6am367 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j69w5fr wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j68rsdh wrote
[deleted]
michal_hanu_la t1_j68tfft wrote
> NATO just as well declare war on Russia, as that is where the arming of Ukraine with these types of weaponry is headed.
Please do elaborate.
[deleted] t1_j68u6aq wrote
[deleted]
michal_hanu_la t1_j68ud57 wrote
The same way he responded to the previous advanced weapon systems being supplied. By saying that THIS TIME it is too much.
Then he will report destroying them before they get delivered...
droidtime t1_j68uqf8 wrote
His military is already, quite literally, decimated. Russia is collapsing from an infestation of horribly corrupt leadership. So really, who gives a fuck what putin might do. NATO will literally elimate the rest of the russian military if they escalate. Amd there won't be a damn thing outin or russia can do about it, besides maybe launching nukes if they are even still functional after years of no maintenance.
yung_pindakaas t1_j68vub8 wrote
The same as every time? He utters threats of nukes. Does nothing. The war continues.
RegularStain t1_j68w946 wrote
Russians will do more empty threats, report more allegedly destroyed western equipment and mobilize more men willing to die in the name of putin's yacht
LatterTarget7 t1_j68ywyk wrote
The same way he has since the war began? He won’t attack a nato country or anything like that
OneHumanPeOple t1_j68tmaa wrote
The longer it goes on, the more work and expense to restore and rebuild Ukraine. It’s sad that the decision is about money and not human lives but that doesn’t change this fact. At this point, the criticism will almost certainly be that they waited to long to act.
yung_pindakaas t1_j68w1yz wrote
We should give ukraine more weapons sooner than later so we can end this war sooner yes.
[deleted] t1_j6a42wu wrote
Yes
TaiwanBandit t1_j68ulgw wrote
Agree, and it will be $ from the West to rebuild.
RegularStain t1_j68vq12 wrote
I very very much hope that would be the next generation of russias to repay this back to the west, and not the Ukrainians
Hallowexia t1_j6apoyz wrote
Just waiting for the nuked to drop, if you guys think for a second Putin will take a loss you're out of your fucking mind. Dude will kill himself and the planet before he admits defeat.
wildweaver32 t1_j6atzah wrote
I could see him killing himself. I could see him wanting to deploy nukes.
I don't see it happening though. Russia is the only country I know that has multiple times given the command to send a nuke and someone in the launch procedure deciding against it.
If Putin gave that order I don't see the people agreeing to it. Instead it would likely be the catalyst for change. Because even though Putin made Russia go to war for no reason. And even though Russia is forcing to stay at war for no reason. And now Putin can see Russia is losing and Ukraine is just getting stronger. The tanks are not even there yet and now there is already talks of Jets.
Anyone can see where this is going. And when the Russians thought they might win more land, or win more resources they were okay with it. But the moment Putin tries to seal their fate and its not just minorities, and poor Russian's at risk but instead the entirety of Russia as a sovereign country I don't see them following through with that order.
Because as devastating as it would be and as tragic as it would be. Russia will end up against the word in that scenario and the world will continue on but united against Russia. And if they started dropping nukes I don't see the world allowing Russia to remain as a nuclear power, if they even allow Russia to remain as a sovereign country.
[deleted] t1_j6cvhn6 wrote
[removed]
blueblood0 t1_j6aed26 wrote
Would be hilarious if ukraine ends up taking the entire Russia lol
WickedSlice_ t1_j6aj532 wrote
It would be devastating for the whole world. Seriously I don’t understand this rationale.
Also, why the fuck would you want more war and death?
Push the Russians back to their borders, keep sanctions on and work with the new government(s) that form out of the Federation’s collapse.
Seriously, some people are deluded and think this is some kind of movie.
grzlygains4beefybois t1_j6b12nk wrote
Devastating for the whole world? It's a fantasy but Ukraine dismantling Russia would be a net good.
It'll be devastating for the whole world if Russia is left standing and tries this shit again in another decade.
WickedSlice_ t1_j6bauiu wrote
Fucking invading Russia is stupid and unnecessary. There’s supporting Ukraine and then there is just being a warmonger.
midwestlunatic t1_j6ctgjc wrote
Invading Ukraine was stupid and unnecessary and Putin is the warmonger.
The10KThings t1_j6cvqrt wrote
Which boarders? The Donbas and Crimea are now part of Russia. Taking those back is technically invading Russia and could potentially start a nuclear war.
webs2slow4me t1_j6dn6qa wrote
The area that he declared “Russia” wasn’t even under Russian control when he did that. It’s a joke.
The10KThings t1_j6dwcft wrote
Oh I know. But from Russia’s standpoint, those areas are now Russia. I’m just highlighting the fact that it’s not as simple as “pushing the Russians back to their borders” and not triggering a nuclear war. The war is escalating and the West is contributing to that. Right or wrong, justified or not, sending missiles and planes to Ukraine increases the likelihood of nuclear conflict. It’s a game of chicken that both sides are playing.
WickedSlice_ t1_j6eslk9 wrote
The only places those boarders are recognised is Russia and North Korea. Not even Iran recognises those boarders.
Not only that but Kherson was allegedly a part of Russia and that didn’t start a nuclear war.
The10KThings t1_j6ey1ek wrote
I know. That’s kinda my point.
netstudent t1_j6aseeh wrote
You probably forgot Russia has nuclear weapons.
NotDarkBrandon t1_j68xr12 wrote
Good. Give them everything they need. Every dead Russian invader is a Ukrainian life saved.