From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Dec 21 2004 - 02:17:10 GMT
Hi Keith, (Sam, DMB, et al)
Keith, thanks for contributing to this thread. Here's your post:
* * * * * BEGIN KEITH * * * * * *
Mark, Sam,
Thank you for many months of entertainment and thought provocation.
I have a small thought experiment as a contribution:
Imagine a person who lives in a street with two unpleasant
neighbours. He suspects that both neighbours are beating their wives.
One of the neighbours is a bit of a weed in comparison to our
hypothetical hero. the other is more like his size, and has a couple
of brothers who look equally unpleasant. Is our 'hero' immoral when
he tackles the weedy neighbour, but quietly ignores the behaviour of
the other one?
I can't get into the debate, as I'm a dedicated lurker, and I can't
have this email address show up on the forum, but I just didn't want
MSH to get away with:
"The Norton 8-P has two obvious flaws, neither of which you have
directly addressed. The first is that the argument is based on the
combined ideas that the Iraqi people were suffering under Hussein,
and that International Law was failing to protect them. I believe we
had agreed that people suffering under a brutal dictator can't be the
motivation for the US-UK invasion, given the evidence of history."
Don't get me wrong, I favour MSH's side of the argument.
I just want him to win in a fair fight, not with sand in the eyes.
Kind regards,
Keith
* * * * * END KEITH * * * * * *
* * * * * BEGIN MSH * * * * *
keith:
Imagine a person who lives in a street with two unpleasant
neighbours. He suspects that both neighbours are beating their wives.
One of the neighbours is a bit of a weed in comparison to our
hypothetical hero. the other is more like his size, and has a couple
of brothers who look equally unpleasant. Is our 'hero' immoral when
he tackles the weedy neighbour, but quietly ignores the behaviour of
the other one?
msh says:
Not at all. In this case the hero is doing what he can to alleviate
some misery; his motive is honest, and he is acting morally. Of
course, I'm assuming he's right about the beatings, and that by
"tackles" you mean confronts, intervenes, or otherwise acts legally
in preventing the beatings. Also, I think one could argue that
quietly ignoring the other neighbor's spousal abuse is immoral. But
let's just say, in that case, he's at least reported his suspicions
to the proper authorities.
But I think your analogy doesn't fit the facts pertaining to the case
of the US invasion of Iraq, so I don't see how it might be used to
counter my attack on the N8-P. Here's what I said:
"The Norton 8-P has two obvious flaws, neither of which you have
directly addressed. The first is that the argument is based on the
combined ideas that the Iraqi people were suffering under Hussein,
and that International Law was failing to protect them. I believe we
had agreed that people suffering under a brutal dictator can't be the
motivation for the US-UK invasion, given the evidence of history."
My point here is that the USG has many times supported (and continues
to support) the activities of brutal dictators, as long as the brutal
dictators serve the furtherance of American foreign policy. So,
clearly, the USG didn't invade Iraq because Hussein was a brutal
dictator; and to say that Hussein's brutality was the reason for the
attack, that the USG just couldn't bare the fact that all those
innocent Iraqis were suffering under Hussein's rule, is both
dishonest and immoral.
So, in terms of your thought experiment, what we have is a person
who knows that both neighbors are beating their wives, but one of
the neighbors keeps an eye on his house while he is away and sends
over a case of Scotch every once in a while, so THAT neighbor's wife-
beating is ignored. The other neighbor has a coveted big backyard
and nice swingset, so our hero loudly protests all wife-beaters, even
reports his swingset-owning wife-beating neighbor to the police (for
wife-beating not swingset-owning). After 10 minutes (analogy time)
the police have done nothing, so our hero kills almost everyone in
the neighborhood but captures his swingset neighbor and locks him in
his (the neighbor's) basement. Your hero then plants himself in his
neighbor's easy chair, sends his kids to play on the newly conquered
swingset, allows the neighbor's wife and children to bring him
lemonade and cookies on demand, for minimum wage, and drills for oil
in the backyard.
Now we can ask, is our hero immoral?
Again, thanks. I hope you can find a way to contribute more often,
as I'd like to know your reaction to my ideas here, and elsewhere.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
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 : Tue Dec 21 2004 - 02:16:56 GMT