[Drjones]

-Read "Innocents in War?" p. 6:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/impact_war_issue.pdf


Lots of other great articles in there.


Also:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/ci...asualties.shtml

[Justin]

I find it highly ironic that an organization founded by probably the most vehemently individualistic, pro-free market philosopher of the 20th century has become the exact opposite of everything she stood for.

It's warmongering, Stalinistic crap like that which caused me to take a big pause and really consider whether or not I support this war.

I'd be willing to bet a freshly-minted $10 bill that we could end all of our problems by nuking into oblivion any nation that opposed us.

But you know what?

That's effing immoral.

So is waging a war of attrition with absolutely no regard to those caught in the crossfire.:fire: :barf:

[Justin]

And the truly innocent who live in countries that initiate force against other nations will acknowledge the moral right of a free nation to bomb their countries and destroy their governments-even if this jeopardizes their own lives.
Sounds to me like this nitwit shouldn't even be allowed to associate his name with Ayn Rand's. After all, here he is, asking that individuals be sacrificed on the aptly-named alter of altruism. One wonders if Onkar Ghate has even read any of Rand's writings.


[Slim Shady]
Would the real Objectivist please stand up?
[/Slim Shady]

[Chris Rhines]

The ARIan Nations strikes again! :D This article is actually funny, if you have a sick sense of humor!

1 - The portrayl of the US invasion of Iraq as some kind of collective self-defense is so obviously false that I don't know how an otherwise intelligent man can see it so.

2 - The goverment has no legitimate function to act as an agent of defense. The government's sole function (according to the early theories and writings of Ayn Rand herself) is to act as an arbitrator and enforcer of contract. Onkar is going against Rand's own philosophy, which is common for the ARI.

3 - The moral aspect of deliberately targeting civillian noncombatants in order to 'break the will' of the enemy needs to be explored further. I'll start by saying that it is...interesting... that an organization supposedly devoted to individual liberty takes such an obviously collective view of war. A soldier who kills a civillian is a murderer, plain and simple. He cannot justify his actions based on a theory of collective defense ("I'm killing this nine-year-old because it may eventually make my country safer,") because 1.) it won't, and 2.) even if you could prove that it would, you are still killing someone who does not present a direct and immediate threat to you. Ayn Rand, again, was one of the first philosophers to present the argument that it is immoral for the government to do anything that it is immoral for a single individual to do. The ARI has flipped the concept of ethical self-defense on its head, allowing ANYTHING to be justified in its name, no matter how horrible.

4 - Onkar makes a backhanded reference to the NAP down towards the bottom of the first column (sorry, can't cut and paste from Acrobat.) He states that the responsibility for civillian casualties lies with the party that has initated force. This is untrue on several logical grounds:

- First, The United States Government is the party that has initated force against the government/people/land of Iraq. Uncomfortable thought, but hey! That's what governments do.

- Second, the responsibility for the results of any action rest on the head of the perpetrator of the action. If I bake a cake, then I am responsible for the existence of that cake. If I shoot an innocent bystsnder during an instance of lawful self-defense, then NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS, I am still responsible for the death of the bystander. I cannot blame the bad guy whom I was shooting at.

There are lots more logical and ethical fallicies in Onkar's little essay, but anyone with such an interest should be able to pick them out.

I will say this. It's pretty clear that under the guiding hand of Pekihoff, the ARI has moved away from the advocacy of individual liberty and towards the promotion of a kind of hyper-utilitarian, nationalist Stirnerism*. Sad.

- Chris

* - Stirnerism - based on the philosophy of Max Stirner, it's a theory of human deportment that starts with self-interest as the highest goal (agreed), then devalues itself by saying that any action taken in the pursuit of self-interest is justified (gah!) Basically, self-interest without self-ownership. You can imagine how well that would work.

[MPFreeman]

- First, The United States Government is the party that has initated force against the government/people/land of Iraq. Uncomfortable thought, but hey! That's what governments do.

Hmm, not exactly.

Iraq first initiated the use of force by invading and conquering its neighbor, Kuwait. The US rallied a coalition via the UN and kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with certain conditions. Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement in numerous and various manners. The US then used force. So, to say that the USA government has initiated force, or as many think, to say that the Invasion of Iraq is "Preemptive" is totally false.

- Second, the responsibility for the results of any action rest on the head of the perpetrator of the action. If I bake a cake, then I am responsible for the existence of that cake. If I shoot an innocent bystsnder during an instance of lawful self-defense, then NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS, I am still responsible for the death of the bystander. I cannot blame the bad guy whom I was shooting at.

The question then is who's action initiated the result of Iraq being invaded. I contend that the actions of Sadam invading Kuwait has initiated the resulting use of deadly force and loss of life upon Iraqi folk. It's not as though Iraq was not given very clear warning and had no idea as to what the consequences of its actions would lead to.

[DaveB]

I asked this question on another forum:

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the USA to go to war against another country?

db

[Chris Rhines]

MPFreeman - At best, the circumstances you describe could be construed as legitimate under the "Good Samaritan Rule". Neither the Iraqi government's invasion of Kuwait, nor it's ignoring the cease-fire resolution are in any way, shape, or form an attack against the United States.

DaveB - When the USA is attacked physically, or when it is obligated by treaty to assist another country that is being attacked physically. I consider any treaty that hjas been signed, but not approved by a congressional vote as invalid for the purpose of discussion.

- Chris

[Destructo6]

Neither the Iraqi government's invasion of Kuwait, nor it's ignoring the cease-fire resolution are in any way, shape, or form an attack against the United States.
It's a direct attack against US interests. It's quite a bit more severe than even the Barbary Pirates whom the US fought in her first 25 years.

[cuchulainn]

The portrayl of the US invasion of Iraq as some kind of collective self-defense is so obviously false that I don't know how an otherwise intelligent man can see it so. Ad hominem attack.

The goverment has no legitimate function to act as an agent of defense. The government's sole function (according to the early theories and writings of Ayn Rand herself) is to act as an arbitrator and enforcer of contract. Onkar is going against Rand's own philosophy, which is common for the ARI. False, Here's what Ayn Rand had to say to the West Point class of 1974 concerning the protests against that other "war of American Imperialism," http://gos.sbc.edu/r/rand.html

"Something called "the military-industrial complex"--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed for all of this country's troubles. Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.

Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws, but for your virtues. You are denounced, not for any weaknesses, but for your strength and your competence. You are penalized for being the protectors of the United States. On a lower level of the same issue, a similar kind of campaign is conducted against the police force. Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it--intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved--as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America. Why hatred? Because America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe."

The moral aspect of deliberately targeting civillian noncombatants in order to 'break the will' of the enemy needs to be explored further. Perhaps, but not here. Onkar Ghate's column does not suggest targeting civilians as a course of action. Rather, he suggests that we should not wring our hands over civilian casualties as much as we do. Perhaps both idea's are wrong, but his argument is not what you portray it as.

Strawman argument.

Onkar makes a backhanded reference to the NAP down towards the bottom of the first column (sorry, can't cut and paste from Acrobat.) He states that the responsibility for civillian casualties lies with the party that has initated force. This is untrue on several logical grounds: I read both his columns and found no reference whatsoever like that. Nothing remotely close. I can cut and paste from Acrobat. Please tell us the page and paragraph and I will cut and paste it for you.

[buzz_knox]

If I shoot an innocent bystsnder during an instance of lawful self-defense, then NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS, I am still responsible for the death of the bystander. I cannot blame the bad guy whom I was shooting at.

Actually, assuming you were justified in shooting, the bad guy would be charged with felony murder in the majority of jurisdictions. You would not be charged because you had no intent to harm the bystander and were responding to a legitimate threat. This, of course, assumes that you missed the bad guy or had an over penetration, and weren't trying to shoot through the innocent person.

In civil law, you would also have a very strong defense and could very possibly succeed against a lawsuit.

However, this is irrelevant because such concepts are not applicable to the interaction of nation states. Actions in defense of one's national interest are understood by international law to include the possibility of harm to "bystanders" such as noncombatant members of nation states. The passage of treaties calling on nations to minimize "collateral damage" is a recognition of this principle and a tacit admission that it happens, and is accepted as an unfortunate consquence of such action.

[Chris Rhines]

Ad hominem attack. If you say so. I was trying to point out that, just as I would hesitate to trust the opinions of someone who claimed that the sky is red, I'm hesitant to give much credulence to the opinions of someone who claims that invading Iraq constitutes self-defense, or even defense of the nation.

I will further submit that Onkar richly deserves every ad-hom attack that he gets.

Here's what Ayn Rand had to say to the West Point class of 1974 concerning the protests against that other "war of American Imperialism," Vietnam. Perhaps I am attributing to Rand what I should be attributing to Randites. Either way, she did indeed come up with the concept of government as an agent of contract law.

Rand's later career was where she really began to flip out in a philoposhic sense, eliminating those troublesome questions of ethics by moving more towards Stirnerian egoism.

Onkar Ghate's column does not suggest targeting civilians as a course of action. In point of fact, Onkar suggests exactly what I said.

"In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties may even require a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will." Paragraph 7, Sentence 1

I read both his columns and found no reference whatsoever like that. Nothing remotely close. By his "reference to the NAP" I was refering to: "The moral principle is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initates force, not with those who defend themselves." Paragraph 9, Sentence 2. The NAP is the philosophical construct that prohibits the initation of force.

- Chris

[Chris Rhines]

buzz_knoz -

Actually, assuming you were justified in shooting, the bad guy would be charged with felony murder in the majority of jurisdictions. I was speaking in terms of ethical responsibility, not law. Be careful not to confuse the two. Intention, for example, is irrelevant to ethical responsibility.

However, this is irrelevant because such concepts are not applicable to the interaction of nation states. This is nothing more than a made-up rationalization that governments use to justify their actions. It has no ethical basis.

- Chris

[MPFreeman]

Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the USA to go to war against another country?


The nation's "Vital" interests must be at real risk.

Vital interests are things that are vital/necessary to a nation's survival and security and even vitality.

USA Vital interests may include.

*Keeping hostile threats away from nation's borders.
*Keeping hostile threats off of the seas. This is commercially,finacially and militarily critical.
*Prevention of N/B/C terrorist attack.
*Defense of nation's territory, and even strategic allie's territory.
*Keeping a hostile hegemony from dominating Europe or Asia.
*Prevent global collapse of finacial system, energy system, or of environmental system.
*Assure the survival of the nation and it's allies.
*Maintain the means required to achieve its goals.

[buzz_knox]

Don't try to imprint your version of ethics on the scenario. We've been down that road before and our concept of ethics is extremely different.

The injury of an innocent bystander while defending oneself is unfortunate, but unless you act irresponsibly, it's not unethical.

As for the interaction of nations, the fact that various groups make up a nation means that individual views of ethics cannot come into play. To the extent that a nation expresses an ethical view, it is simply an amalgamation of the view of the majority, with a little of the minority thrown in for flavor. I daresay that the majority of this nation agrees that the death of an innocent is also unfortunate and to be avoided if possible, but not unethical. The difference between ethical and unethical in this circumstance is the desire and effort to avoid harm to innocents, which we have amply demonstrated.

[Chris Rhines]

You're confusing ethics and morals.

Morals are subjective.
Ethics are absolute.

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

In point of fact, Onkar suggests exactly what I said.

"In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties may even require a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will." Paragraph 7, Sentence 1

Fair enough. But his examples are Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you think our targeting civilians there were immoral acts?

More to the point. Onkar Ghate certainly is not suggesting this as a course of action in Afghanistan, rather he is suggesting that it can get to the point where civilians need to be targeted. He is making a point, not suggesting a course of action.

If you think this can never be the case, then I must assume you think Hiroshima (his example) was an immoral act. Correct?

By his "reference to the NAP" I was refering to: "The moral principle is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initates force, not with those who defend themselves." Paragraph 9, Sentence 2. The NAP is the philosophical construct that prohibits the initation of force.

Fair enough, but his arguments made seven months ago concern our action in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Do you also oppose our actions in Afghanistan? Do you believe we are aggressors there.

Certainly a moral nation will take responsibility for those it kills and injures no matter who the aggressor (as the USA does), but it is not the responsible party.

I think perhaps you are confusing blame for casualites with willingness to help the casualties. To wit: if a bomber runs towards the White House and gets shot, it would be unethical for the USA to refuse to treat him. However, the USA would have no blame for his injuries.

In any event, non-aggression certainly is an LP principle. But I'm not sure that it was a Randian principle.

[buzz_knox]

You're confusing ethics and morals.
Morals are subjective.
Ethics are absolute.

Now that's just plain hilarious, given the fact that the definition of "ethics" is either the study of morals or a determination of the moral quality or propriety of an action. Ethics is essentially morality applied. One cannot be absolute while the other is subjective.

[Chris Rhines]

Fair enough. But his examples are Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you think our targeting civilians there were immoral acts? Yes.

Onkar Ghate certainly is not suggesting this as a course of action in Afghanistan, rather he is suggesting that it can get to the point where civilians need to be targeted. He is making a point, not suggesting a course of action. IMO, that's a distinction without a difference. He is suggesting that it is ethically acceptable to kill noncombatants, even kill them on a wholesale basis.

If you think this can never be the case, then I must assume you think Hiroshima (his example) was an immoral act. Correct? I'm sure some would disagree with me, but according to my moral standards it was indeed.

Do you also oppose our actions in Afghanistan? Do you believe we are aggressors there? What you mean 'we,' paleface?

The United States Government and some of its agents are the aggressors, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't buy into Onkar's 'collective responsibility' BS. I'm no more responsible for the crimes of the US government than your average Iraqi goatherd is for the crimes of Saddam's government.

And yes, I oppose the occupation of Afghanistan. More on a pragmatic than an ethical basis, though.

Certainly a moral nation will take responsibility for those it kills and injures no matter who the aggressor (as the USA does), but it is not the responsible party. Again, you cause it, you're responsible for it. Anything less is an intelectuall cop-out.

I think perhaps you are confusing blame for casualites with willingness to help the casualties. To wit: if a bomber runs towards the White House and gets shot, it would be unethical for the USA to refuse to treat him. However, the USA would have no blame for his injuries. Neg. I assure you, I'm not a bit confused. Let me explain:

Bomber runs towards the White House, and is shot by a guard. The guard is responsible for the bomber's death. However, since the bomber was threatening the life of the guard, the guard should be subject to no particular sanctions. He was defending himself.

On the other hand, if, in the process of shooting the bomber, the guard hits a kid on the jungle gym at the day care center down the street, he is also responsible for the kid's death. And since the kid was not threatening him, he cannot claim self-defense. He should have to pay restitution for his action, either to the kid of the kid's heirs.

In any event, non-aggression certainly is an LP principle. But I'm not sure that it was a Randian principle. It was a Randian principle to the extent that you can't have a Capitalist civilization without it. Rand did not, to the best of my knowledge, codify the NAP in so many words.

- Chris

[buzz_knox]

On the other hand, if, in the process of shooting the bomber, the guard hits a kid on the jungle gym at the day care center down the street, he is also responsible for the kid's death. And since the kid was not threatening him, he cannot claim self-defense. He should have to pay restitution for his action, either to the kid of the kid's heirs.

Once again, wrong. When I pointed this out, you stated you were arguing ethics, not law. Now, you continue to argue something you know is untrue.

Further, this is even a worse case. A guard in defense of the White House faced with a bomber? Legally, he probably couldn't be convicted if he had to shoot THROUGH the kid to hit the bomber. Shocking? Yes. But under those circumstances, probably legal. And if it's the only way of doing it, ethical as well. It's not ethical or moral to allow a bomber to take out a building, let alone the seat of gov't, to save one life.

[Chris Rhines]

buzz_knox -

You'll have to forgive me. I'm trying to type with one hand and pack with the other. Your last post, in which you misstate the differences between morality and ethics, I hadn't replied to yet.

I'll get back to this topic tonight, hopefully with some more time to spend on it. 'Till then, think about where morality comes from. Ditto ethics. What epistomological sources do morality and ethics draw on?

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

However, since the bomber was threatening the life of the guard, the guard should be subject to no particular sanctions. He was defending himself. Why? He caused it. He is responsible for it. Anything less is an intellectual cop out.

[Drjones]

The United States Government and some of its agents are the aggressors, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Chris, you've made some good points in this thread, but with this statement above your credibility just went out the window.

Bomber runs towards the White House, and is shot by a guard. The guard is responsible for the bomber's death. However, since the bomber was threatening the life of the guard, the guard should be subject to no particular sanctions. He was defending himself.


Here again your logic is fuzzy.

Your use of the word "responsible" is IRresponsible.

The bomber brought his fate upon himself.

Do you REALLY expect action other than immediate death if you run towards the White House with a bomb? :scrutiny:

What reaction do you expect if you attempt to disarm a cop?

I'd wager you could expect anything from a severe smackdown to a few bullets, and rightfully so.

You are also wrong in saying "he was defending himself."

The guard isn't issued a gun for his own personal protection.

I'll let you figure out who/what he is protecting.

[cuchulainn]

Q: Under what circumstances is it acceptable for the USA to go to war against another country?

A: When the USA is attacked physically, or when it is obligated by treaty to assist another country that is being attacked physically. So if Germany had murdered only the few million Jews within its own borders and had not been militarily aggressive, you would have considered it wrong to attack Germany to save a few million people from the gas chambers?

[Ian]

Drjones - You're missing the difference between responsibility and liability. The guard is obviously responsible, because he pulled the trigger while pointing his weapon at the guy, initiating a sequence of automated physical events which resulted in the death. This doesn't mean that he was wrong to do so.

So if Germany had murdered only the few million Jews within its own borders and had not been militarily aggressive, you would have considered it wrong to attack Germany to save a few million people from the gas chambers?Would you consider it 'wrong' for, say, the Forest Service to send a bunch of rangers into Iraq today to fight the Iraqi Army? Well, not strictly speaking - but it would be inappropriate. The Forest Service doesn't exist to fight Iraqis. That's analogous to my feelings on saving European Jews. Our Army does not exist for the purposes of freeing foreign nations or their populations. It exists to defend our own country against invaders.

I certainly believe that anyone who went into Europe to stomp on the Nazis was doing the right thing. I just don't think that using a tax-funded Army is the appropriate way to do it. American involvement in foreign wars should be restricted to private, voluntary actions. Like the AVG/Flying Tigers and the Americans who enlisted in the British or Canadian armed forces during the World Wars.

(I'd also like to point out that mass killing of civilians generally fails to demoralize a population, and often encourages them to continue resisting. A prime example is Britain during the nightly German bombing raids of 1940. Japan surrendered not because the population lost their will to fight, but because their Emperor refused to watch more die in an obviously hopeless fight.)

[Chris Rhines]

Okay, Dr. Jones and Son of the Hound, perhaps I've been kind of unclear. I'll try to explain.

Situation - A guard at some government building interupts a suicide-bomber, draws his gun and shoots the bomber before he can set off the charge. However, he's not as careful about his backstop as he should be, and one of his bullets ends up killing a little kid down the street

We have two seperate actions here. One, the killing of the bomber, and two, the killing of the kid. The guard is ethically responsible for both actions, since he caused them.

However, the killing of the bomber is justifiable. The bomber was threatening the guard's life.

The killing of the kid is not justifiable. The kid was not threatening the guard's life. Therefore, the guard should pay some form of penalty.

Simple as that.

Dr. Jones -

I'm sorry that you don't like the facts of the matter. That does not, however, change them.

Cuchulainn -

So if Germany had murdered only the few million Jews within its own borders and had not been militarily aggressive, you would have considered it wrong to attack Germany to save a few million people from the gas chambers? If by 'attack' you mean 'declare war on and invade,' then yes. I would consider that to be wrong. However, I would not presume to stop anyone who wanted to go grab a rifle, or a plane, or whatever, and help the German Jews out.

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

Chris: The guard is ethically responsible for both actions, since he caused them.

However, the killing of the bomber is justifiable. The bomber was threatening the guard's life.
Thus your ethic is not absolute. You allow for exceptions to onus of responsibility. The guard gets an out.

Chris: The killing of the kid is not justifiable. The kid was not threatening the guard's life. Therefore, the guard should pay some form of penalty. "Justifiable" requires intent. It is irrational to apply "justification" to something where there was no intent. If you crash your car, someone cannot ask whether your accident was justified, for example.

Thus, there are two situations here:

1) Intentionally killing, where the "justification" measure applies.
2) Accidentally killing, where the "liability" measure applies. (Ethical liability, not legal liability)

Why do you have an exception to your supposedly absolute ethic for the first situation, but not the second?

Chris: However, he's not as careful about his backstop as he should be, and one of his bullets ends up killing a little kid down the street Spare me. If a man runs at you with a knife, you would allow yourself to be killed if there was not sufficient backstop, correct?

Ian: Our Army does not exist for the purposes of freeing foreign nations or their populations. It exists to defend our own country against invaders. Says who?

[Chris Rhines]

Thus your ethic is not absolute. You allow for exceptions to onus of responsibility. The guard gets an out. I'm sure that you have a point in there; I must be missing it. Didn't I just say that the guard was responsible for his actions?

"Justifiable" requires intent. It is irrational to apply "justification" to something where there was no intent. I care not about intent; only about results. The guard violated the kid's right to life. It's as simple as that.

Why do you have an exception to your supposedly absolute ethic for the first situation, but not the second? Because the exception that you're thinking of is only an artifact of your own mind. It does not really exist.

Spare me. If a man runs at you with a knife, you would allow yourself to be killed if there was not sufficient backstop, correct? You act like the only choices are 1.) shoot into a crowded playground or 2.) stand there like a dunce and get knifed. I wouldn't choose either.

On the other hand, if I did accidentaly shoot a noncombatant, I wouldn't try to evade responsibility for doing so.

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

I'm sure that you have a point in there; I must be missing it. Didn't I just say that the guard was responsible for his actions? Yes, you said he was responsible, but you granted him an exception to the onus of that responsibility.

However, in another circumstance, you imply the onus is absolute.

To wit:

I care not about intent; only about results. The guard violated the kid's right to life. It's as simple as that. He also violated the attackers right to life, yet you do not place an onus on the guard for clearly violating the bomber's right to life.

Why do you not apply this ethic absolutely?

Because the exception that you're thinking of is only an artifact of your own mind. It does not really exist. Yes it does exist. You think there is a "self defense" exception to the onus of responsibility in taking a life.

You act like the only choices are 1.) shoot into a crowded playground or 2.) stand there like a dunce and get knifed. I wouldn't choose either. No, the point is that sometimes the act of self defense is instantaneous, and the rational act of checking backstops is not always a reasonable expectation of the victim. Should the victim take such into consideration if he can? Yes.

Should we burden the victim with the time to make a full analysis of the situation and the possible accidents that would result from his self defense? No. Why? Because requiring such time effectively removes the right to self defense.

On the other hand, if I did accidentaly shoot a noncombatant, I wouldn't try to evade responsibility for doing so. Unless, you killed in self defense. Then you'd "evade" your responsibility for taking another human life -- only you don't see it as evading. You see it as and exception to the onus of responsibility (as do I, incidentally).

I also see an exception for certain types of accidents, such as a stray bullet during a justifiable self defense.

[Chris Rhines]

Ah, I see now.

He also violated the attackers right to life, yet you do not place an onus on the guard for clearly violating the bomber's right to life.
Why do you not apply this ethic absolutely?

I do apply it absoluely. The bomber did not have a right to life when he was shot down. He had given up his right to live through the act of attacking another. I'm sure I mentioned the non-aggression principle somewhere back there.

The kid on the jungle gym did retain his right to live. And it was violated by an action of the guard.

the point is that sometimes the act of self defense is instantaneous, and the rational act of checking backstops is not always a reasonable expectation of the victim. I would submit that it is quite reasonable to expect one, when he pulls a gun, to hit his damned target.

But that's beside the point. Fact is, the guard commited a tremendous violation of the human rights of another. And he incured a not-inconsiderable moral debt when he did.

- Chris

[cuchulainn]

Ah, I see now. No you don't ;)

The bomber did not have a right to life when he was shot down. He had given up his right to live through the act of attacking another. Yes, I understand that this is your exception for freeing the guard from the onus of taking another's life. My point is that it is not the only exception under the primacy of self defense.

I would submit that it is quite reasonable to expect one, when he pulls a gun, to hit his damned target. In a vacuum, yes. In real life -- reaction time does not allow analysis -- it doesn't work that way.

But that's beside the point. Fact is, the guard commited a tremendous violation of the human rights of another. And he incured a not-inconsiderable moral debt when he did. I'm not disputing that the moral thing for the guard to do would be to offer the kid's family something (though blutgeld might be more of an insult). A moral guard certainly would feel guilt.

However, I don't see it right for us to impose an onus on him for something out of his control. The moral onus falls on the one who initiated the action requiring the guard to choose between death or initating deadly events not 100% in his control.

If we require him to assure complete control, we effectively take away his right to self defense.

[Drjones]

You guys...I....uh...appreciate...your contribution to this thread, but does anyone else have any comments/opinions on the actual article itself?

[Pendragon]

I care not about intent; only about results. The guard violated the kid's right to life. It's as simple as that.

In our society, we judge, convict and acquit people not according to "results", but according to their intent.

The fact is - the guard would bear no criminal consequences because he had no criminal intent.

If the bomber survived, he would rightly be charged with felony murder because he set in motion events which caused the boy to be shot. Without the bombers attack, there is no reason to believe that the guard would have fired at the boy.

The guard had essentially "perfect" intent and "imperfect" action which brought a bad result. There is no reason to punish the guard because he does not constitute a threat to society - any more than someone who has an auto accident.

If there is restitution to be paid, it should be paid by the agency that employed the guard. The guard was performing his lawful duties in the correct fashion and as a result of an unforseen situation, collateral damage ensued and his agency should indemnify him because he was acting as their agent.

As to the Jews being killed in Nazi Germany, I do think it is right for America to attack countries that are commiting genocide provided:

1. we have a reasonable change of stopping it.
2. it can be reasonably forseen that once we remove the murdering regime, the genocide it is unlikley to resume(ie: Hitler/Saddam vs the tribe on tribe genocide in Africa).

I dont buy the isolationist crap - I do not think people should be drafted, I think our military should be voluntary, and I think that we should elect people who weigh very carefully the loss of our military personel before taking action. Such interventions should not be taken lightly, but I think that while we do lose "blood and treasure" (as they like to say), to stand by with our considerable wealth and might and watch people being killed wholesale is dispicable, inhuman and is essentially implicit permission for other nations to do such deeds.

Of course if you are an objectivist, there is no moral compulsion to make some people die for other people - but I do not believe that is happening. You choose to join the armed services - you should know that in addition to defending the country, we do on occasion, intervene in the affairs of murderous regimes. There is the possibility that you could join up and die trying to free people in a foreign land.

If you do not like this - like Malone and Chris, then stay out of the military and vote for isolationist leaders.

Also, you should convince other people that your position is valid.

What I see happening is hard core LP types arguing that no matter what is going on in another country, it is none of our business if they are not directly attacking us.

I think this is total crap and I think most Americans think this is total crap. Your arguments may may fit within the logic of your philosophy, but my philosophy is that if I can help people not be killed, I should and if I get killed doing is, then so be it, but at least I am not living out my life feeling like a cowardly slug while I rationalize my inaction as "not my business" or "too dangerous" or "too expensive".

I do not want to live in a country that does not care about oppressesion and murder. We cannot save everyone, we cannot stop all tyrants, but we can save some and we can stop some.

This is my biggest problem with these philosophies. I am with you guys on over 90% of it, but there is a point at which human decency compells you to act and to care- whether it is laws that say you cannot force people to perform sexual acts to keep their job in the name of property rights or intervening to stop tyrants, I don't care.

I am deeply suspicious of humans who by reason and logic, rationalize away their humanity. I do not think it is reasonable tot define a simple law or policy or treaty or philosophy that tells you exactly when you can and cannot intervene. Sometimes it is just the right thing to do - somethimes good people will disagree that is is the right thing to do - but - and I say this in all sincerity, I could not be friends with a person who thought that because of "liberty", he felt he never had to help people or risk anything for another person. Of course you don't "have to" - but how can you not? I guess you can just "not".

When I taught a unit on ethics in technology, I learned that ethics was philosophy. There are times when morals and ethics do not agree. Sometimes being "ethical" is considered immoral and sometimes being "moral" can be seen as unethical. I guess that is how I see those who are anti intervention - you have the moral right to be that way, but I also think "how can you be that way?"

[buzz_knox]

I'm sorry that you don't like the facts of the matter. That does not, however, change them.

You're passing off your opinion as facts. Is that ethical?

You look only at results, not intent? Now, that's just funny. Ethics as the study of morality is ultimately the study of intent, not just results.

Also, is it ethical to lie to oneself and believe that you'll always know what's behind your target; that you'll always be positive you won't hit an arm, overpenetrate, and the round will hit a bystander; that you won't miss?

But anyway, returning to the subject of the thread, I agree with expressing regret for the death of civilians as part of war, and even acknowledging error and regret if the death is the results of a mistake. So far, that's what we've been doing: acknowledge that it's regrettable but part of war.

[Ian]

I think this is total crap and I think most Americans think this is total crap. Your arguments may may fit within the logic of your philosophy, but my philosophy is that if I can help people not be killed, I should and if I get killed doing is, then so be it, but at least I am not living out my life feeling like a cowardly slug while I rationalize my inaction as "not my business" or "too dangerous" or "too expensive".

You're making the assumption that if we don't force everyone to fund an army, then nobody will do anything about situations like the genocides in Europe, Rwanda, Cambodia, and the rest. I think the truth is otherwise. Not only would Americans be quick to aid oppressed peoples, but they would do so far more effectively than the government has done in the past.

For example, I recently attended the annual Purdue Holocaust Conference. One of our notable speakers was a Ruth Gruber. She worked under Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes during World War II, and was assigned to bring Jewish refugees into the US. Well, the government only saw fit to allow in 1000 persons. And after she brought them here, the government decided to confine them in a camp in Oswego NY for 18 months (http://oswegohaven.org/home.html). Even this was done many months after the US learned of the Nazi actions.

Compare this paltry excuse for direct aid (from a national government, no less) to the actions of the small community of Le Chambon in southern France. Led primarily by a single man, Father Andre Trocme, they provided shelter and false papers to more than five thousand Jews over the course of the war.(http://www.auschwitz.dk/Trocme.htm)

Consider the actions of governments - including the US government - during the Rwandan genocide. They took every possible opportunity to stall. When they finally deployed troops, they deployed so few that they could only maintain bases - the killings went on unhindered. When those troops pleaded for APCs to give them the mobility needed to save the Tutsi, the US held them back, obstensively because they weren't painted with the correct UN markings.

In Cambodia, the government did nothing at all.

In Armenia, the government didn't do anything either. The US ambassador made the situation quite clear, and the government did nothing.

Frankly, governments (aside from being the only institutions capable of perpetrating genocide) have an absolutely abysmal record of stopping genocide (one excellent book on the subject is Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465061508/qid=1050008209/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-0715406-0395127?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)). We should get government out of that business, and let individuals have a chance to do it right.

[Pendragon]

You're making the assumption that if we don't force everyone to fund an army, then nobody will do anything about situations like the genocides in Europe, Rwanda, Cambodia, and the rest.

You assume that I am making that assumption.

That some administrations have not competently dealt with these issues does not mean that we could not have intervened effectively some of these events.

I understand that some have philosophical justiications for a non-interventionist stance, but I do not see incompetence as part of that justification.

Bill Clinton was an egomaniac who did not have a coherent philosophy on intervention, freedom and human rights - he knew he could not make a case for intervention that would get people on board and he knew that because of this, any US casualties would be a huge political liability.

I think GW has shown us the other side of that coin.

[Drjones]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry that you don't like the facts of the matter. That does not, however, change them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're passing off your opinion as facts. Is that ethical?


Thanks. Exactly what I was going to say.