From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:59:43 MST
>...
>And please correct me if I'm wrong Charles, but if you accept that Hussein
>"is (or was) evil" then you must then accept the conservative estimates
that
>he is responsible for the deaths of at least 200,000 of his own people. If
>
"I don't have any basis to accept or reject any particular set of numbers.
But there's a big difference between his doing it and our doing it. If he
does it, then he is the villian. If we do it, then we are. "
Many would argue that it is unethical to NOT intervene in such attrocities.
If he is murdering his own people, intentionally and directly, he is a
villian. However, if we attempt to stop him, as a murderous ruler, and kill
civilians in the process, we are 'the villian'? I am curious if you equate
these two circumstances in terms of 'villany' equally, or is one action
worse or less worse than another?
A strict utilitarian would probably say you should definately behave in a
manner that will cause the least number of deaths, and thus the Iraq war
would be justified. A Kantianist abides typically by catagorical
imperitatives, that is, behaving in a manner that you feel all others should
be required to behave in a similiar situation. If we consider Saddam as a
person instead of a regime, then killing him would both be kantianist and
utilitarian, to prevent the further murders he in all reasonable manner is
exepected to perpetuate. If I were being beaten and hacked by Saddam, I
would expect you to intervene if you had the capability to, a Kantianist
would probably say you had the moral requirement to intervene.
In other words, if you are sitting there cleaning your guns, and you are
watching your neighbor get beaten and raped, is it moral for you to sit idly
by and do nothing? I think most systems of ethics would in fact call you
immoral for not interveneing.
The situation is obviously complicated when innocents are involved. But
again, if someone starts shooting at me and holds a child in front of him in
hopes of getting me to not shoot back, should I be held morally culpable if
that child is killed in my self defensive actions? Its rediculous to think
I should be, but that is essentially what you are saying. The morally
culpable party is the one who initated the act of force *and* used innocents
as sheilds.
Saddam, as protocol, does this. Military installations are routinely placed
inside of civilian areas, If a country performs such an attrocious act,
then initates violence, is the defending party held morrally culpable when
thier retaliation kills civilians? Thats absurd, and I cant believe you
truly hold that mentality, it just seems to fly in the face of reason. The
morally culpable party is the shitbag that put radar installations next to
hospitals.
Another dividing factor is that many do not percieve this as an act of 'self
defense' and that 'pre-emptive strikes' are not self defense. Some list
members, such as Samantha, go so far as to insist that absolutely no
'pre-emptive' strike is moral.
It again seems absurd to insist as much, to think that absolutely *any*
conceivable scenario could ever make 'pre-emptive' strikes morally valid.
Yet people who may have never heard of Kant or Rawls might insist as much.
Id like to hear someone 'prove' that a pre-emptive strike is never morally
valid. I would, in fact, argue that in many cases a pre-emptive strike is a
moral requirement, especially in a Kantianist catagorical imperative sense.
For instance, should someone pull a gun and aim it at me, and act in a
threatening manner, must I wait for him to actually pull the trigger before
I shoot at him?
For all intents and purposes, Saddam is a crazy man waving a gun around,
shouting angrily at the US, has a clear track record of murder and tyranny,
and has been trying to acquire means to increase his murder counts by orders
of magnitude. He is a despotic ruler, and as such is not answerable to his
people. What part of this behavior makes a 'pre-emptive' strike morally
invalid to you?
The US is taking all possible measures to avoid civilian causalties,
Saddam's forces are intentionally putting *their own* civilians in harms
way, Saddam has already killed 200,000 - 1,000,000 of his own people (exiles
claim numbers as high as 1,000,000) His Anfal campaign was a deliberate
attempt to exterminate the Kurds (genocide) and resulted in nearly 200
chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds, his systemetica rape, tortue,
and execution of political opponents is documented, his has invaded
neighboring nations, attacked neighboring nations, and stands in all
likelyhood to continue committing these acts.
One should be morally REQUIRED to stop such a madman from continuing such
horrendous acts.
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 26 2003 - 21:51:13 MST