TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
![]() SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD Response to ‘Mearsheimer's and Dillard's Double Standard on Gaza and Ukraine’Joseph Dillard / ChatGPT
![]() I had intended to not write this essay, but to simply leave a couple of comments after Frank Visser's essay[1] and leave it at that. The reasons were several. I am not excited about giving these criticisms more attention by rebutting them. I have covered most of this information in detail on other essays and find it tedious to repeat it. I know that I can say nothing that will change minds that are already made up. I also know that the audience is small and that most people don't care what I think or about this argument. So why spend time addressing it? The problem is that Chat GPT's attack on my position is so extensive and thorough that to not rebut it would appear that I was dismissing its legitimacy, and I don't want to do that. There are several reasons why. I know its arguments reflect those of a good number of well-meaning, intelligent people, including Frank Visser, who is a good friend. To ignore these arguments would signal that I do not take their disagreements and arguments seriously, which would not only be wrong but disrespectful. I do take them seriously, whether or not I agree with them. These arguments are legitimate, independent of their accuracy. I also realized I needed to respond to think through my own positions, Where does Chat GPT have a point? Where can I do better? Where am I polemic, misleading, or engaging in logical fallacies? When and where I am, I need to recognize that and do better. And I think it is also important that I do so publicly. However, there is another reason. There are aspects of this assessment of my arguments and my motives, if you read it over, that come close to character assassination. That is, a personal attack on my character. Now that is interesting. That could simply be my projection, my imagination, a result of my having a thin skin or something. It could be an attempt to get me to feel personally attacked and to get defensive, thereby demonstrating the flimsiness of my character. In other words, to respond to this as if it were a personal attack, even if it to some degree is, would be a mistake on a number of fronts. So the challenge is to consider that it is at least in part possibly a personal attack but not be so identified with what others think of my character that I am motivated by a need to defend it. So I set about writing a detailed rebuttal, only to get tired of having to refute so many points. It takes time and work and research to document the arguments. That is when I hit on my solution: Why not ask ChatGPT instead? So here you go: In this essay, an extremely extensive and detailed case is laid out that Joseph Dillard is morally inconsistent, hypocritical, resorts to numerous logical fallacies and “anti-western groupthink”. And falling into moral relativism, among other charges. Using Dillard's essays on Integral World, play devil's advocate and refute the arguments in this essay.1. Charge: Moral Inconsistency and HypocrisyCritique in the Essay: The essay accuses Dillard of applying moral principles inconsistently, particularly in his positions on Ukraine, Israel, and other geopolitical issues. Refutation: Principled Application of Reciprocity: In his essays, Dillard consistently emphasizes the moral principle of reciprocity, which he views as foundational to justice and international law. For example, in his writings on Ukraine, he defends Russia's actions as a response to violations of reciprocity (e.g., the treatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine). This principle underpins his arguments, demonstrating consistency rather than hypocrisy. Contextual Morality: Dillard's approach recognizes that moral principles must be applied contextually, considering historical and geopolitical realities. His defense of Russia, for instance, is rooted in the specific context of the Minsk Agreements and the failure of diplomacy, not in a blanket endorsement of aggression. This nuance may be misinterpreted as inconsistency but is instead a reflection of situational ethics. 2. Charge: Logical FallaciesCritique in the Essay: The essay accuses Dillard of resorting to logical fallacies, such as strawman arguments or false equivalences, to support his views. Refutation: Reasoned Arguments: Dillard's essays often provide detailed historical and geopolitical analyses to support his claims. For example, his critique of U.S. foreign policy is grounded in documented patterns of interventionism and double standards, such as the Monroe Doctrine and NATO expansion. These are not fallacies but evidence-based critiques. Avoiding Simplistic Narratives: While critics may perceive his arguments as biased, Dillard often challenges simplistic narratives by highlighting overlooked perspectives, such as the grievances of ethnic Russians in Ukraine or the asymmetry of power in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This approach adds complexity rather than relying on fallacious reasoning. 3. Charge: Anti-Western GroupthinkCritique in the Essay: The essay accuses Dillard of engaging in anti-Western groupthink, unfairly targeting the West while excusing the actions of other powers like Russia. Refutation: Critical, Not Anti-Western: Dillard's critiques of the West are not rooted in groupthink but in a recognition of the disproportionate influence and impact of Western powers on global geopolitics. He acknowledges the moral failings of non-Western actors but emphasizes the responsibility of dominant powers like the U.S. and NATO due to their global reach. Integral Perspective: As a proponent of Integral Theory, Dillard seeks to transcend binary thinking and integrate multiple perspectives. His critiques of the West are balanced by an acknowledgment of systemic issues across all geopolitical actors. This demonstrates a broader commitment to moral and intellectual integrity. 4. Charge: Moral RelativismCritique in the Essay: The essay accuses Dillard of moral relativism, suggesting he excuses actions by Russia or other states that violate international norms. Refutation: Defense of Universal Principles: Dillard explicitly grounds his arguments in universal moral principles, such as reciprocity and the right to self-defense. His defense of Russia's actions in Ukraine, for instance, is framed as a response to specific violations of these principles (e.g., the shelling of ethnic Russians). This is not relativism but an application of universal standards to a specific context. Critique of Double Standards: Dillard's emphasis on reciprocity highlights the double standards in international law enforcement. His critique of the U.S. and NATO is not an endorsement of moral relativism but a call for consistency in applying universal principles. 5. Charge: Oversimplification of Complex IssuesCritique in the Essay: The essay suggests that Dillard oversimplifies complex geopolitical issues by focusing on certain narratives while ignoring others. Refutation: Acknowledgment of Complexity: Dillard's essays often delve into the historical, cultural, and geopolitical complexities of conflicts. For example, his writings on Ukraine address not only Russia's actions but also the failures of diplomacy, the role of NATO, and the historical grievances of ethnic Russians. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding rather than oversimplification. Focus on Underrepresented Perspectives: Dillard's emphasis on overlooked narratives, such as the grievances of marginalized groups, is a deliberate effort to challenge dominant discourses. This focus is not a simplification but an attempt to provide a more balanced view. ConclusionWhile the essay criticizes Dillard for moral inconsistency, hypocrisy, and other flaws, a closer examination of his writings reveals a consistent commitment to universal moral principles, contextual analysis, and intellectual rigor. His critiques of the West and defense of Russia are grounded in a nuanced understanding of reciprocity, justice, and historical context, rather than anti-Western bias or moral relativism. By challenging dominant narratives and highlighting systemic double standards, Dillard offers a perspective that is both critical and integrative, in line with the principles of Integral Theory. This is not a point-by-point rebuttal, but I think it is good enough for lurkers who haven't made up their minds. For those who have, there's nothing I could write that would change them. However, for the masochists out there who want to delve deeper into these issues, I refer you to the numerous essays on morality I have written on IntegralWorld.Net. You can read them and make up your own mind. NoteFrank Visser / ChatGPT, "Mearsheimer's and Dillard's Double Standard on Gaza and Ukraine: An Analysis of Realism and Morality", www.integralworld.net, January 2025.
|