From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:00:35 MDT
Kevin Freels writes:
> Would taking Hitler out at an early age actually have
> been better? Even with all the lives saved, it could
> very well have caused an even larger problem.
> German society was ready for a Hitler when he
> came to power. Someone else would have probably
> filled his shoes and that person may not have made the
> mistake of going into Russia.
>
> I have to question the validity of preemptive strikes.
> To do such a thing suggests that the person conducting
> the strike has prior knowledge that the event will take
> place. Even if a person had made the decision to attack
> another country, they could always change their mind
> right up to the last moment before the first shot is fired.
> Their reasoning may or may not be reasonable, but it
> could occur just the same.
> People (be they peasants or presidents) make decisions
> in the context of decisions that are made by other people.
> In a very real sense each of us is only free, including
> ethically free, within bounds. Consider the pact between
> Hitler and Stalin over Poland. Is it likely Hitler would
> have moved on Poland if he'd thought he'd have to deal
> with the Soviets at the same time as the French and the
> English? One of the decisive factors in Hitlers
> deliberations was Stalin, or more specifically Hitler's
> perception of Stalin.
>
> The only way to "know" for sure that the attack was
> going to actually occur would be through some kind
> of psychic ability. Even then, there would be some kind
> of possibility of incorrect interpretation.
That is like saying the only way is magic or a miracle or
something that otherwise exists outside the laws of physics
as we understand it. That is quite a big only.
> When carrying out a preemptive strike, we are only
> weighing possibilities, not realities.
True, but if we don't carry out a preemptive strike (I am
not talking about NK now but about moral decisions
generally about *acting* as opposed to not acting or
re-acting) then we are also only weighting possibilities
not realities. We do not have certain knowledge of the
actions of others only probabilistic knowledge, only our
judgements. If it is immoral to act on a presumption that
is based on ones best judgements made in good faith
- then *everything* is immoral and the very concept of
morality itself becomes absurd as we ultimately have no
other recourse than to act on our own judgement.
Sure we can take advice but the sovereignty to decide,
the imperative to make moral decisions cannot ultimately
be shed. Even the advice we choose to take is liable to
be biased by our choices. To deny the moral decision is
simply to decide to let the consequences play out as they
may.
So, in the final analysis I think the individual has no practical
choice but to follow the maxim to thine own self be true (or
the corollary is that to thine own self though shalt have been
false) and then it shall follow as surely etc etc ...(I presume
the rest of the quote is known).
These days the notion of a "self" takes a battering around the
edges but not that I can see in any manner that negates the
essential inevitability that one must make owns own decisons
or be responsible also for what one has failed to do that was
within ones power.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:09:14 MDT