From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 12:30:15 GMT
Hi Mark,
Rapid response on a few bits.
> MSH said:
> My claim is that the USG-UKG values the lives of innocents less than
> the lives of it's combatants, at least when the innocents are
> strangers unfortunate enough to be living in a foreign country the
> USG-UKG wants to invade.
>
> Sam now says:
> We need to distinguish three issues here, which have got blurred - 1.
> the killing of civilians as a result of pursuing a legitimate
> military target; 2. the killing of civilians as a result of pursuing
> illegitimate military targets (to terrorise the population); and 3.
> the lower valuation of civilians as compared to the valuation of
> 'home' soldiers.
>
> I think that 1. is inevitable (to be regretted and minimised wherever
> possible, but unavoidable); 2. is evil; and 3. is profoundly
> problematic. So when I said 'I'm not persuaded of that point', what I
> am not persuaded of is that US/UK actions in Iraq fall under 2.
> rather than 1. Which I'm sure we'll pursue further.
>
> msh says:
> Ok. But please recognize that 3 comes into play in actions that are
> 1 or 2. That is, it doesn't matter whether or not the military goal
> is "legitimate." If the goal is achieved through actions that are
> taken only if the innocents killed are foreign strangers, rather than
> the attacker's family or loved ones, then the action is morally
> indefensible.
This I'm finding very interesting. Is an alternative way of putting your point to say this: as a
result of 3, targets that are claimed to be in 1 are in fact under 2? So the issue is the criteria
of what counts as a legitimate military target. My suspicion is that if we accept your criteria then
all military action is ruled out, as I can't think of a realistic scenario in which I would actively
harm my own family. But that doesn't make your position wrong.
> sam on preference for own family/biological conditioning etc:
> I think there is a very big issue here, which would benefit from some
> patient exploration, as I think it 'goes all the way down' and
> probaly accounts for a huge part of our different approaches. What do
> you think?
>
> msh says:
> See immediately above. I agree that this appears to be an important
> difference in our moral temperments. I'm just surprised that it
> does. But, yes, let's explore this difference in any way you like.
I think this is one of the most important, yet also most unacknowledged differences between
"conservative" and "progressive" approaches. If we get to a position of clarity on the killing of
innocents point, I'd very much like to explore this more.
> msh says:
> I think the confusion is due to the fact that I am talking about the
> noun "imperialism" and you are defending the adjective "imperialist." <snip>
Yes, that makes sense.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 12:56:22 GMT