From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 21:28:22 MDT
I've not included it here, but Michael Dickey posted a quite emotional
response to my reply to him. Nothing wrong with emotions. However, I find it
extraordinarily difficult to respond to. I feel that my comments have not
been interpreted with the subtlety that many of them deserve, and am not
about to try to correct that, point by point. This communication is very
clearly a tar baby, who I refuse to beat further.
Michael accuses me of, amongst other things, being a moral relativist. I
don't think that I am; I think that I have some strong moral principles
which feel absolute. However, I don't understand what they are grounded on -
I believe logically that they can have no absolute basis, which leaves me in
a bind. Fixing this is definitely on my to-do list, and will probably occupy
a large portion of my entire life.
I wish to leave aside the previous discussion, because I think we'll get
nowhere. Hopefully we can agree to disagree (even though that means that at
least one of us is not a bayesian rationalist :-)
I want to try to change the direction onto something a bit more directly
extropian. Directly to you, Michael, although still also to the rest of the
list: What would you do with $200 billion at your disposal? What would you
perceive the most extropian use of such resources to be? If they differ, why
is that? If they are the same, why is that?
I'll answer this question myself (and much kudos to Robert B and others for
having a bash at it). I still need to think about it though. I think it's a
really interesting question, because it relates to the kind of world that
extropians would envisage. Another way of putting it would be: Say the
leaders of the world came to you and said "We don't know what to do.
Extropians seem to have the right answers. How should we be running things:
what's the really big picture and how do we handle it?" How do we respond?
To me, the ultimate ethics revolve around people. More people, with more
ability to self actualize. Along these lines, I can't really abide by
population control measures, for example. Poverty, oppression, lack of
education, all of these top my goals for Bad Non-extropian Stuff. Hard to
solve. I do believe that if people can have access to enough resources
(wealth) and education, many other problems go away (eg: overpopulation).
Free societies probably require minimum levels of both wealth and education.
It seems to me that there really are enough resources now in the world for
noone to have to be poor (relative to current standards), but that we have a
distribution problem. However, throwing money at the problems pretty
obviously doesn't solve them. Often, local tyrranies do seem to be major
blocks to helping people (one of the really major distibution problems). Is
there a non-violent way to deal with these?
I'll come up with something more concrete if possible.
Emlyn
(Oh, and I don't mean to ignore Michael's oft ask question. No, no one has
the right to be a dictator (perhaps excepting if his/her citizens choose it,
but maybe not even then))
> Emyln commented:
>
> >
> > Not true. No war, no war casualties.
>
> Right, so Saddam Hussein insisted on a war, and had *no*
> right to continue
> his rule over the Iraqi people. If Saddam had left, no war,
> and no war
> causalties. Yet you still blame the war causalities on the
> coalition, and
> not the corrupt murderous dictator who felt it his right to rule over
> millions of people.
>
> I will grant you that people may have
> > died by the actions of their government, somewhat counteracting the
> > difference between war and peace (slightly).
>
> *may*? Whats the figure now, 300,000 in mass graves? May!?
> Yeah, im sure
> ol Saddam would have just stopped his mass killings,
> oppressive rule, and
> exploitation. What about the deaths from the sanctions,
> which as a result
> of the war, have been lifted.
>
> >
> > Remember, though, that you must also count the rioting and
> > general civilian
> > disturbance that has followed the war, and all the
> casualties incurred
> > there, as part of the toll of the war.
>
> Again, the moral culpability lies on Saddam, not the
> Coalition. Saddam and
> the Baath party could have easily agreed to and facilitied a
> peaceful change
> in government, and he *chose* not to. *chose*. No power
> outages, no water
> shortages, no phone problems, no cluster bombs, no rioting.
> etc. etc. etc.
> Saddam is still to blame for each and every death, you
> completely MISS the
> point that he has NO RIGHT to be a dictator, and thus
> anything that results
> from his insisting he remain a dictator he is morally culpable for.
>
> You have no right to take over your neighbors house by force, and are
> morally culpable in everything that happens as a result. In
> the US system
> of law, you are held morally accountable if anyone dies, even
> a member of
> the group committing a crime, while in the act of committing
> a crime. You
> are the criminal taking over the neighbors house, if you
> friend helping you
> dies in the process, you are held morally accountable. You
> have no more
> right to take over a neighborhood than your neighboors house,
> and you have
> no more right to take over a country than you have your
> neighboorhood. You
> have no right to continue to rule over that country. You are morally
> accountable for every death that occurs from the freeing of
> those you rule
> over. How can you DARE imply that I would be as morraly culpable from
> deaths that result in my attempt to free the neighborhood, or
> country, you
> have taken by force, when you have no right to rule that country!!!
>
> In the US system of law, you are also held morally
> accountable for deaths
> that result from 'depraved indifference', which I assert each
> and ever war
> opposer is guilty of.
>
> >
> > > It is difficult for me to even began to coalesce the reasons
> > > why such a
> > > statement is repulsive to me as an extropian and an person
> > > who values human
> > > life.
> >
> > Come on, that's a bit strong. The statement wasn't supposed
> to support or
> > oppose the war itself; I was attempting to point out that
> there are two
> > sides to the coin of who is responsible for deaths in Iraq.
>
> Yeah, and both sides of that coin have the head of Saddam
> Hussein on it.
> Your statemt implies it does not.
>
> I
> > really have to
> > strongly object to the idea that an aggressive, invading
> power bears no
> > responsibility for the deaths; it *always* does. Sometimes
> that cost is
> > warranted, as it may well yet turn out to be in this case.
> However, it is
> > unescapable that when you attack a sovereign country and kill its
> > citizens,
> > you bear the responsibility for those deaths. Anyone is allowed self
> > defense.
> >
>
> Dictators are not allowed that right when they are defending
> their continued
> empowerment and enslavement of people. Your comments
> continue to illustrate
> your strange conept of ethics. As Mike Lorrey pointed out,
> you are blaiming
> the hostage rescuers for the deaths of the hostages. Saddam
> held every
> citizen in Iraq hostage, and his mass graves and murderous
> track record
> prove as much. Yet you blame the deaths that result from his
> removal from
> power on the rescuers, not the hostage taker.
>
> <scroll past red herrings>
> > As far as "as an extropian" goes, I am quite unconvinced
> that you have
> > evaluated this war action using the tools of an extropian. Is state
> > aggression dynamist? Does it enhance liberty? Is it
> constructive, does it
> > advance our knowledge of ourselves or the universe? Is it
> rational (in the
> > worst realpolitik sense perhaps). War, as a tool, is
> possibly one of the
> > least extropic choices that you can make. It is statist, it
> > interferes with
> > liberty, it destroys with abandon.
>
> bla bla, all irrelevant to Saddam's morally culpability. You
> are nothing
> less than a moral relavitist, or have such fleeting
> definitions of your
> ethical principles that they sway and bend with the slightest breeze.
>
> Is state pacifism progressive? Does it enhance liberty (no) Is it
> constructive (no) Does it advance our knowledge of the
> universe (no) Is it
> rational? (no) Apathy, deprativity, pacifism, ARE the least
> extropic choices
> that you can make.
>
> Does saddam hussein have a right to be a dictator, yes or no?
>
> Please present your case that WWI resulted in fewer liberties
>
> Please present your case that WWII resulted in fewer world liberties
>
> Please present your case that the Cold war resulted in fewer liberties
>
> Please present your case that this war will result in fewer liberties.
>
> The fact is, no two democratic nations have ever been at war, and no
> democratic nation has ever waged war on another. This
> century has seen
> fewer wars in the world than any century before it. The
> previous century
> saw some ten times as many wars as this, and the one before
> than a similiar
> increase. The are fewer and fewer wars, and more and more
> free people in
> the world, despite the moral cowardice presented by persons such as
> yourself.
>
> This is not to say that I think war is
> > always unquestionably wrong. It is that war is the tool of last
> > resort, even
> > then to be questioned, and the aggressor must always carry the
> > stain of the
> > inevitable blood on its collective hands.
>
> And Saddam was merely the innocent victim in this event, with
> the coalition
> as the evil aggressors. You ignore, of course, the case for
> pre-emptive
> strikes as a form a self defense, insisting unabashadly that
> the coalition
> was an 'aggressor' did you forget the Gulf War? Where Saddam
> invaded a
> neighboring country that we agreed to protect in case of such
> invasion? The
> resolutions that resulted in this war came about as a
> flagrant disregard by
> IRAQ of those agreements to end that War. On multiple
> grounds Saddam's
> regime was the aggressor.
>
> >
> > > Regardless of your opposition to the Iraq war, had the
> > > goal of the
> > > coalition been simple to remove Saddam just because they
> > > wanted to, this
> > > would have *still* had more moral validity than a
> murderous dictator
> > > remaining in power, simply because he was a murderous
> > > dictator. Dictators
> > > have *no right* to be dictators!
> >
> > It may very well have had more moral validity, but you are
> comparing two
> > negative numbers of great magnitude.
>
> it might very well!!!?? Did it or didnt it!? How *much* more? only a
> little? Again, dispicable ethics. The Coalition removing a murderous
> dictator from power 'might' have had more moral validity that
> said murderous
> dictator remaining in power? Natasha, these are the kinds of twisted
> ethical systems I am talking about.
>
> >
> > Let me pose a different question:
> > A little googling (not all that much, so I could be mistaken)
> > tells me that
> > the Iraq war has/will cost the US government (ie: the US
> people) between
> > US$100 and US$200 billion. That's a lot of money.
> >
> > You can look at a figure like that as an extropic
> potential. The US has
> > spent US$200 billion in extropic potential in waging this
> war. Forgetting
> > questions of moral validity, etc etc, I would ask the list this:
> >
> > Given the choice, what would you rank as the most extropic
> way to expend
> > US$200 billion?
> >
> > I might post a response to this myself; I'll have to think on it.
>
> All interesting questions which I will contemplate, but completely
> irrelevant to Saddams moral culpability.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Every single person who died in the coalition war did so ONLY
> > > because Saddam
> > > did not want to give up his control over the 20 million or so
> > > people of
> > > Iraq.
> >
> > That's not correct. Choices were made on both sides, and
> > certainly each side
> > carries a moral burden (assuming some consistent set of rules). The
> > agressors hands can never be clean.
>
> Again, you paint the coalition as a patent aggressor, which
> paints a moral
> picture of its own, that you disgregard pre-emptive strikes
> as a form of
> self defense and disregard the pre-existing military
> aggresion by IRAQ that
> the UN resolutions were born from. Care to elaborate on
> your requirements
> for the moral justification of a pre-emptive strike? Care to
> present the
> case that this war was not an escalation of the Gulf War, the
> agreements
> which ended that having been broken by IRAQ?
>
> >
> > > Please explain to me your ethical principles that
> > > place his choice in
> > > this conflict of staying in power and opposing the coalition
> > > efforts in a
> > > morally valid catagory.
> > > I simply can not fathom how any extropian can
> > > consider Saddam's actions in this situation as morally valid.
> >
> > I don't defend Saddam Hussein. I defend neither side - big
> > negative numbers.
>
> Disgusting in itself. Is the US as bad as a world presence as Saddam
> Hussien? I invite you to imagine a world controlled by
> Saddam, and then
> convince me that neither side is worth defending. Rubbish,
> you wouldnt even
> have a computer nor an internet to surf on if Saddam was the
> world leading
> power, you, in all likelyhood, would be either a poor peasant
> farmer, dead,
> or never have existed.
>
> > There's no necessity to hand out black and white hats; the
> world is not
> > boolean (unless we are in a sim :-)
>
> You did not answer the question. You clearly indicate that
> if they are not
> morally equally, then perhaps one *might* be morally more valid than
> another, why? why not?
>
> >
> > > Given his
> > > past track record of murder, future likely hood of murder,
> > > track record of
> > > wars and aggressiveness, systematic effort to wipe out the
> > > kurds, slaughter
> > > of some 50,000 shiites, suspicions of harboring WMD,
> economic control
> > > resulting in the untolds thousands of deaths, etc. etc I can
> > > not even began
> > > to understand how you place the moral culpability of those
> > > deaths on the
> > > people attempting to STOP that, instead of the person
> > > choosing and insisting
> > > that he must continue it.
> >
> > Well, that's not actually true. The coalition of the willing went
> > in to stop
> > development and use of WMDs. Laudable self interest, if it
> is true (??).
> > However, the saving of the iraqi people was *not* the
> driver for this
> > action.
>
> So? Again the primary motivation is irrelevant. If the
> Iraqi people are
> freed from a murderous tyrant, I dont care if Bush's primary
> motivation was
> tossing a few chicken bones and reading their divine meaning.
> Freeing the
> Iraqi people was certainly not ANYWHERE in the list of
> Saddams motivations
> for remaining a murderous DICTATOR!!! Ah, but the coalitions efforts
> *might* have been more valid. Again, disgusting. Simply
> because 'freeing
> the IRAQ people' even appeared on the coalition list of goals
> justifies
> their moral highground over Saddam remaining in power! Yet
> you insist the
> coalition bears more of the blame
>
> As I and other have argued previouslly on this list,
> motivations are not
> relevant, it is actions that are relevant. We can argue all
> day long what
> the true motivations of the coalition were, oil, revenge,
> WMD, free Iraq,
> democractic Arab Nation, etc. etc. We can judge from the
> stated goals,
> which did include freeing Iraq (Hence, 'Operation Iraqi
> Freedom', and not
> 'Operation Find WMD') It is the ACTIONS we must judge on.
> The Actions in
> the case have led to the ousting of a murderous tyrant, the
> freeing of some
> 20 million people, the ending of a monopoly over the worlds
> largest energy
> reserves by a murderous tryant who used said energy reserves
> for murder and
> tyranny, the setting up of a democratic arab nation to stem
> the tide of Arab
> fundamentalist Islamic hatred, and to curtail the creation
> and spread of
> WMD. Lets compare the results of this action with Saddams
> remaining in
> power, shall we?
>
> *might* be more morally valid!!
>
> >
> > >
> > > To which you did not respond.
> >
> > You are on my killfile. Sorry. I only see your posts second hand
> > in other's
> > replies.
>
> Then why do you ask me questions?
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that. Got a direct quotation?
> > >
> > > Emlyn
> > >
>
> Perhaps it is only evidence that you want to sheild yourself
> from critics
> of you strange system of ethics.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, I shall ask you the same question I asked
> > > Damien, and you
> > > can choose to not answer as he has of course.
> > >
> > > Is Saddam Hussain morally culpable for the deaths of the
> > > civilians in the
> > > Coalition lead effort to remove said murderous tyrant from
> > > power, or is the
> > > coalition morally culpable?
> > >
> > > Michael Dickey
> >
> > Both share some of the burden, of course. I believe that the
> > coalition must
> > wear the majority, as I've said above.
>
> THE COALITION MUST WEAR THE MAJORITY!!!! Amazing.
>
> Again, Natasha, more evidence of the disturbing ethics present on the
> Extropy list. Emyln is saying that Saddam Hussein, as a
> murderous dictator,
> with a track record of hundreds of thousands of deaths, had
> more of a moral
> right to remain in power then the coalition had to oust him. I am
> completely flabbergasted.
>
> What about the right of the 20 million people under saddams
> murderous rule?
> do they, at least, outweigh his right to continue to rule them?
>
> This is balanced by an
> > altered future
> > that is the result of their actions; how much so is impossible to
> > say. When
> > compared to the aftermath in Afganistan (ie: not stable
> democracy) it is
> > very difficult, I think, to say thus far how much the war
> is justified by
> > the result.
>
> Given Saddams track record, unless the coalition led efforts kill more
> people than would have died had Saddam remained in power, the
> the moral
> validity is clear. Of course, life is not the only thing
> that we value,
> freedom and standard of living are valued also, have you
> compared these in
> your possible future tallies?
>
> >
> > You are right that I am against the Iraq war. It is
> because, as I've said
> > above, from an extropian standpoint it stinks.
>
> Regardless of whether you supported the war or not, Saddam
> still had no
> right to be a dictator, and thus when the coalition was
> knocking on the
> doorstep every death that resulted HE is morally culpable for.
>
> For the record, does anyone have the right to be a dictator?
>
> I wont outline it again
> > (because I have above), but I really think that it should
> be clear that it
> > must be a tool of last resort, if to be used at all. Not
> only is it a
> > (spectacular) waste of resources and lives, it decreases
> our freedoms at
> > home.
>
> Just like WWI and WWII did right? They definately decreased
> our freedoms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Dickey
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 21:40:18 MDT