CharonY

I think Koonin proposed exactly called that. Pigliucci called for an extended synthesis, IIRC. I believe others have been talking about an inclusive evolutionary synthesis. The reason for a lack of formalism is that (I think) that molecular discoveries are still moving and anyone trying to ties things down in a nice comprehensive package likely will need to rewrite bits every few years. Also because of that, folks are working in very specialized areas (e.g. molecular clocking of highly specific genes) so it makes it a bit harder to bring everything together neatly. I think in many ways biology and the way biologists work do not make it easy to establish enduring models that are also very precise. So any paradigm that is not at least somewhat vague tends to be overturned at some point. I would say that much of modern evolution is driven by molecular research, but not only in the areas of what is classically seen as genetics (and is also kind of swallowed by genomic research) but also other molecular works that look into e.g. genome structure, associated functional changes, stability and associated mechanisms. I am highly biased, of course, but at this point it is hard to see how (post)genomic research has not shaped our current understanding of evolution. I suspect it depends on the the context, i.e. significant for what. If we talk about genetic overall genetic variation, then yes for sure.

Good post. I would like to add that currently, modern synthesis is at the stage folks in the last century looked at Darwinism. Folks like Koonin, Kutschera have called for a new synthesis, which to my knowledge is not formalized as such but includes all the elements that modern folks in the field are working with. Molecular studies have introduced the neutral theory, we got a better grip on molecular timing and so on. I.e. the field continues to move on, and is very telling that criticisms are raised by folks using knowledge that is outdated for hundred years and more.

I think the other conviction is relevant to the price-gouging scheme, which essentially boiled down to attempts in creating a monopoly. Essentially after jacking prices, he also prevented generics from entering the market. In other words (and as already said) one mechanism for inflating prices is to manipulate the market, which in turn requires governmental controls (i.e. checks on capitalist systems). And there are other situations where it may be possible, including markets where there is imperfect information (arguably diamonds could qualify, but certainly also health care) or where options are limited for whatever reasons (again, healthcare is a good example).

I think that depends a lot on the overall circumstance. In isolation, there is obviously nothing wrong with it. But as a whole it can lead to ethical dilemmas, as TheVat pointed out . Even if one considers prioritizing one's own as an universally ethical principle, it would not be feasible to translate that into universal law. For example, would it be ethical to kill someone else to obtain an organ needed to save the live of one's own child? I think there is a difference between personal and societal ethics. The latter is essentially based on a societal contract where we trade some personal priorities against the benefits of living in a society. I.e., ethics is balanced with societal responsibility and laws are put in place for this reason. The issue with prioritizing personal ethics, is of course that there is no resolution in conflicting events. I don't think that there are universal rules that we can apply, but we can think in terms of simple tests. The trolley dilemma is on of those, and the ethical test outlined in the article in OP is another. If the ethical test is: "does it benefit the safety of the one closests to oneself", it would seem to justify for example Israel's action and might result in eliminating all threats (including young folks that have not joined the war yet) ethical. I think that this does not necessarily follow from the principles of prioritizing one's own people. The benefit is often not obvious, and may require sacrifices. Let me take a step back, my initial thrust of this thread is not whether different views on morals or ethics are explainable or even justified, but more in line of what principles are there that we should follow. The issue I see is, for example that if in the course of justifying prioritizing our own, we cheapen other's lives, it can ultimately lead to net negative outcomes. Again taking the COVID-19 pandemic, the everyone for their own approach has led to fairly ineffective responses, and we ultimately lost the race to contain the disease. Likewise, justifying full-on destruction could over time to lead to prolonging the conflict, which could ultimately cost more lives (including the one's one cares about). To take another example: They do ask that, but they also think about societal duties in certain cases. For example, reporting certain types of infectious diseases, or putting patients into quarantine can harm the patient to some degree. But that is balanced by the need to protect others from the disease. As you mentioned, the bigger picture needs to be seem and I suspect that because of the powerful motivation of protecting those closer to oneself, it can cloud one's vision rather than guide it effectively.

This is in fact, a big philosophical question and I am not sufficiently well-read to make a clear argument here (perhaps Eise could chime in). I am reminded of Kant's categorical imperative as an objective and rational principle to follow regardless of individual desires. The issue here would be that if wanted to universalize the position of let's say prioritizing your own child, even at the cost of others, it would create inherent contradictions. I.e. it is impossible prioritize everyone's child over everyone else's. I will need to find some time to think about this aspect a bit longer.

That suggests that ethical actions are not feasible within a democratic system, if they are not intuitive. I wonder though, shouldn't governments have a duty to help folks make informed decisions? Even counterintuitive ones? Because otherwise it will perpetuate a system that chases myopic goals at the cost of long-term benefits. For sure, this is how the world seems to work right now, but I do see serious ethical perils with that approach.

It see your motivation, but I would take a step beyond that. Is this attitude the right way to negotiate and govern things? I am thinking about it with a view on the overall outcome. To take your COVID-19 example, the selfish responses of the respective governments might be understandable, but the lack of a strategic, likely caused more excess deaths, and certainly contributed to making it an endemic disease that continues to put stress on health care systems world wide. Similarly, while the motivation of Israel is understandable, I wonder (in addition to ethical concerns) how much it really contributes to overall safety vs the continuation of this long conflict. I.e. pushing a peaceful solution further out of reach.

This argument is in the same line as the article in OP, with the difference that instead of an argument of absolute morality (i.e. any harm to civilians) it has a bit more utilitarian (and potentially more realistic) viewpoint of harm in relation to benefits. This is obviously a tricky ethical discussion and often leads to a slippery slope where civilian lives eventually become expendable. The first part- i.e. equivalency of civilian lives is the element that tries to slow down the slope, so to speak. The obvious issue of course that the "benefit" can be interpreted in many ways and some may have no qualms sacrificing either their own civilians. I.e. if adhering only to the ethical argument of equivalency of civilian lives, Hamas has few qualms sacrificing their own, so while internally consistent, it is a deplorable stance. Even acknowledging the issues of asymmetric warfare, the lack of constraint, including specifically targeting civilians (which are crimes against humanity), as well as internal rivals makes it difficult for me to justify their actions as a legitimate armed struggle. Conversely, Israel's position is hypocritical from an ethical standpoint, as they clearly and systematically diminish the lives of Palestinians over their own citizens (there are also conflicts with the Arab-Israeli community, but that might be another discussion). The Gaza and West Bank policy has made it clear in the past and since the October attack there is but the thinnest veneer of acknowledgement of the endangerment of civilian lives through the military actions. I suspect that if the targeted bombing attacks were conducted instead of flattening Gaza, it may have been perceived somewhat more positively. But with the lack of moral clarity on full display, it taints every action. And ultimately that is where what Swansont said is important. As demonstrated on this forum, it is not the individual action per se or the view of the victims of those actions that determines whether a group is seen as moral or not (the whole terrorist vs freedom fighter argument). But going further, I think it is worthwhile to investigate the moral imperative that guides their decisions, as it would provide a glimpse as to how far these groups will go to reach their respective goals.

I skimmed the article when it came out and I remember that I was mildly annoyed by the fact that (IMO) authors mixed up assumptions with technical limitations of the time to sell how big the discovery ares. Many microbiologists assumed biological activity in deep soil (or deep seas for that matter), but some key abilities (such as dissimilatory iron reduction) were not understood yet and laboratory techniques to investigate the bacteria were missing. I may misremember, but it felt like that the author deliberately tried to conjure a veil of mystique over something that simply required hard work to fully understand and which was much less baffling once it was (as usual).

My interpretation was that it included Israel its partners (i.e. excluding Hamas as they do not sit at the same table), but I may be wrong.

My argument for classifying October attack is that it targeted specifically civilian venues and had civilian deaths as an explicit goals without military benefits, regardless of underlying motivations. Israel's response had a strategic value, though the underlying cost is what the article tries to evaluate. As in many military attacks, including from the USA, there is at least the assumption that killing civilians is not (overtly) the primary goal of the action.

In other threads the issue of proportionality of military responses to terrorist attacks were discussed. One argument was that responses to attacks have to be disproportionate to ensure deterrence. However, the issues with such a framing is that it leaves the door open for open-ended retaliation. I came across an article that contextualizes proportionality which suggests one should not focus proportionality of the actual attacks (as one might do in cases of conflict between two persons), but frames it in the context of the overall military goals that the response is supposed to accomplish relative to the cost (https://theconversation.com/why-all-civilian-lives-matter-equally-according-to-a-military-ethicist-218686) From this argument the authors make the following example regarding the Shifa hospital, where Hamas hid a control base. Obviously, no moral argument is perfect, but this argument of moral equality frames the issue as a neutral with consideration of civilian lives, which is a slightly more dispassionate argument than e.g. outrage at the brutality of the actions themselves. I.e., it becomes a cost-benefit argument, rather than one justification. I think it is an interesting argument, as it removes the emotional issues surrounding arguments of whether which civilians deserve more protection (and the other side of the coin: which ones should be less protected from deaths). The original article of the author discusses drone strikes from the US as another narrative (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-611-6_11) What are you thoughts on this argument, and would you agree/disagree?

So just that I understand your position accurately, you are against collateral damage, and presumably would be open to criticism for Israel high-collateral damage approach, provided the argument allows for targeted attacks? I am then wondering, what is your view of the Israel's action response resulting ca. 10k dead children? Would this be unacceptable? Or does the need for defending themselves justify these collaterals (especially if we throw out proportionality out of the window)? I am also wondering whether deterrents really work on those guys, if they are happy that their own are getting killed, I am not sure that doing just that actually has a net detriment to except for the terrorists (at least I have not yet seen any evidence for that). The issue is that you demand being understood literally and maybe it is a language issue but in many cases your arguments are not as clear to me. The quote helps, where you for example distinguish between disproportionate responses and collateral damage. But if you say that you are just providing counter-balance, the context of your statements are unclear (again, to me, it may be clearer for others) as I tend to understand the full argument of folks I am having a virtual discussion with. Fora can lead to misunderstandings and clarifications are appreciated (which Is why my posts are often verbose as I tend to overexplain things- comes with the job, I suspect). I don't think I have seen anyone absolving Hamas of anything, but are we then in agreement that blame on the situation is shared between certain Palestinians and parts of the Israeli government? Perhaps not equally but forces are moving things on both sides into the wrong direction?

I would agree that all things being equal, I am also more for targeted rather than indiscriminate attack, but as to your questions: It goes beyond this thread, but a couple of things are related to that notion in this thread. Here you are saying that you are for retaliation at any level. Why not explicitly stating that you endorse collateral damage, the notion of not using proportionality at least suggests that there is not hard cap on the level of destruction. This here is a condemnation of, ehm, condemning collateral damage. This at least suggest that you think the criticisms regarding collateral killing are not justified. Conversely, that would indicate that some collateral damage has to be justified, likely as a means to remove the threat. In our previous discussions you have made a point that deterrence is more important than restraining collaterals. This was part of the notion that Palestinians are basically choosing violence (and through various threads, it is implicitly a justification for collateral deaths. The important context added in this thread is that Israel helped creating a situation where Hamas could thrive, in order to squash a two-state solution. Now, we cannot turn back time and figure out whether strengthening the PLO would have resulted in peace eventually. But it remains a fact that Hamas was able to reach and cling to power with Israeli support. I am fairly confident that you would condemn any group knowingly providing funds to a terrorist organization and not dismiss it as mere stupidity. In our earlier discussions you have made the point that Gazans could have a thriving community if they only had gotten rid of Hamas. Yet, the the various articles suggest that Israel had a hand in providing Hamas the means to take over the government and keep them in power. This also does add another dimension of Israel's strategy of containment (including economic isolation, which we discussed in another thread). Just to avoid any confusion, this does in no way justify Hamas' actions, but it does show that Israel was a contributing architect in the role of Hamas. While one can state that Palestinians should have gotten rid of Hamas for their own good, we see that someone else certainly stacked the deck against that possibility.

It seems you are claiming that the only mistake was being stupid and that the support for Hamas was just incidental. Thus, you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that Netanyahu himself said that it was important to keep Hamas strong as a counterpoint to the PLO, in order to torpedo a two-state solution. You have criticized the Palestinians for supporting Hamas and implicitly justify collateral damage because of their choice. Conversely, a deliberate strategy to torpedo a peace process is considered to be merely "stupidity". Obviously, people have their biases (including myself), and this basically shows that apparently no one is above that. While the current architect of the conflict is Netanyahu, it is not his "stupidity" alone. A short article discussing aspects of the NYtimes article (shared above) here: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/ From the cited article (https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/02/24/Israel-gave-major-to-aid-to-Hamas/6023982990800/): In other words, while it is fair to say it is stupid to assume that they could control Hamas, one would need stronger words to describe a strategy that revolves around supporting extremists in the hopes that they would do more harm to others than to oneself (but still knowing that they are enemies). It reminds me of the support for the NSDAP from the right factions in the Weimar Republic in an effort to control workers. Stupid? Sure. But also complicit.

To some degree, yes, but I would need to read up whether there is a direct to link to the current organization. I.e. how much of the support for the mujahedeen from the US, e.g. via operation cyclone, has influenced the subsequent formation of the Taliban (and one might also want to know whether the Taliban is a continuous entity, or whether there is some difference between the 90s Taliban and the current organization). IIRC there have been allegations that Bin Laden might have received support as part of the support for mujahedeen but I think the US rejected that notion. Otoh, the support from Netanyahu for Hamas just until shortly before the terror attack is well documented. I.e. there is a direct link to Hamas' capabilities and Israel's policies. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html I remember vaguely another article describing that Hamas was functionally broke around 2012, and how eventually the money trickling in from Israel kept Hamas alive and safe from internal challenges.

While there are true believers in this conflict, it does seem that from the top there are incentives to keep the conflict alive for as long as possible. It is well documented that Israel has supported Hamas at least since the 80s to undermine more secular forces in Palestine (https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/). And obviously, the conflict is the only reasons for existence of Hamas. A win-win where everyone loses.

Just to add some other comparative values, the average of school shooting related deaths in the USA is about similar to the total annual firearm-related deaths (murders and injuries).

I did an advanced search using "Alzheimer" as search term and used +Author and added your username. Second hit was:

I would be careful to assume that everyone critical of Israeli actions have the same stance. I think most (though likely not all) are alright with targeting terrorist leaders. While there is an ethical argument regarding killing in general, there is an underlying assumption that eliminating those threats will overall lead to less deaths and misery as a whole. The issue (to me at least) is how many collateral deaths are acceptable. 9/11 led to a proliferation of conflict in which almost any number of civilian deaths were justified as retaliation. This specific attack seems to be more targeted (hence my question) and while innocents were injured, it seems to be me at least less bad than bombing centers were Hamas are holed up with civilians. Sure, one can argue that Hamas is to blame (and they are) for using civilians as protection. Conversely, I still there is a moral cost to make knowingly killing those civilians. These are not simple issues where you can just point to some original sin to justify all associated costs. Each action (again, on either side) has a moral cost. And I do think that it is dangerous to justify, without limits, actions of any one side, just because the other is worse. Conversely, if one think that is justified, one has also to accept that without limits, these action will include the indiscriminate destruction of lives. We know that Hamas is fine with that. But I don't think that Israel should stoop down to that level. The reason why there are more expectations to Israel are, similar to the US, they are supposed to be the good guys. I think interviews from the holocaust survivors provides much needed context, where they on the one hand see Israel as a refuge from persecution, yet at the same time see eerie similarities in the Palestinian plight. There are a lot of articles, following events like 9/11, as well as in Europe after surge of antisemitic and anti-Muslim sentiments. Of course they are not uniform, but I do think that their experience and insights are critical on multiple levels e.g., https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2024/01/30/1227849885/a-holocaust-survivor-identifies-with-the-pain-of-both-sides-in-the-israel-hamas-

So you are saying that Israel should offer them citizenship?

Your are only looking at one side of things. Folks were forced to leave and some managed to get a new life. Others, returned and/or there was some process of repatriation. This is what happened after the Yugoslav wars. Eventually folks (voluntarily or not) returned and there was a process for that. Just because some managed to emigrate does not meant that magically the issue resolved itself without a lengthy and painful process. There is a reason Bosnia is no longer a war zone, and I am fairly sure it is not because people all emigrated and are now happy. I think the issue with this argument is that trying to extrapolate from a small cohort and does not address the issue from a systemic standpoint. After all, the countries (or their successors) still exist. Bosnia is still there. So is South Korea, Syria and so on. Jewish people are living Germany again and survivors obtained restitutions. In areas where there is now mostly peace (which would excluding Syria considering unresolved conflicts), it is not because one group fully displaced the other and everyone was fine with that. It is because they figured out a way to co-exist. In Rwanda conflicts continued between Tutsi and Hutu until a reconciliation process was initiated (rather than displacing one group and calling it a day). https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/assets/pdf/Backgrounder Justice 2014.pdf I believe that without any form of reconciliation, folks on either side will continue in their justification of violence. In my mind, there are no simple solutions and I don't think that successful refugees (or emigrants) provide a model that could lead to lasting peace. Of course, Palestinians and Israelis have to contribute to a compromise, but that is hard to find if the current folks in power (on either side) are hellbent on killing any two-state solutions.

Agreed, should have specified that.

I think it is among Western countries a rather unique situation in the US. Guns elsewhere are something that are only carried for a specific purpose (e.g., hunting, sports). The USA it is the only place (I can think of) where folks think of it as a tool against other humans just in case.

I am not sure whether this argument really makes the point you are trying to make. I am not familiar with all of the examples, but for example in Germany and in the aftermath of Yugoslav war multiple things were done (albeit slowly), including return of property and/or reparation, prosecution of war crimes and it does include return of folks. Relatively recently the idea of reconciliation has become more prominent as an important part of lasting peace, resulting in structures such as the Yugoslav Commission for Truth and Reconciliation or the Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission. An important role of these efforts is to reconcile the different perspectives of the conflicts to avoid the propagation of conflicting narratives that result in future rifts and conflicts. So to answer your question, yes, to secure peace it is important not to ignore recent history, address the conflicting viewpoints and create a platform to address injustice, empowers communities to participate in the process and create honest and shared memories. I think some lessons can be learned from conflicts from former Yugoslavia (and similar conflicts, e.g. Rwanda). There are multiple aspects, but addressing power imbalance and sovereignty are important aspects, i.e. negotiations have to happen from a position as equals. Otherwise, there is a perception of procedural injustice which can endanger the process.