Nick Arnett
Sun, 27 Jan 2002 16:16:43 -0800
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda [snip] > Why > then do you think it is necessary or useful to argue that people who - at > extraordinary risk to themselves - did do so were actually acting in a > morally neutral fashion? What does that achieve? Is that what was posited? I thought that the point was that it is impossible to make comparisons between the winners and losers in a conflict because we will never be sure how the losers would have behaved. In your defense, though, I think it's pretty darn clear how the Nazis, for example, would have behaved. On the other hand, the British system of government is close enough to the U.S. form that it's hard to argue that democracy would have been held back (for long, anyway) if the colonies had lost. Anyway, IMO, the point isn't about being morally neutral, it is about what is possible to know. We don't know the Nazis would have continued to be immoral fascists, but we're fairly sure. We don't know if the British would have continued to mistreat their colonies, and we really can't be sure either way, since they did change their treatment of others eventually. Come to think of it, when the loser adopts the winner's moral and legal codes, perhaps that is a rather good indication that the winner was in the right. Hmm. Perhaps I've talked myself out of my own argument. Your turn. But wait, there's more. > Again, that really strikes me as a rationalization. By saying that you > excuse yourself from making moral judgments. Some of the people involved > are more to blame than others, and justice requires that those who are to > blame are not rewarded for their actions. Do you think it is possible to make such judgments without seeking to place blame? That is, to do what is right without deciding if the other guy is wrong? To respond forcefully to isolate ourselves from those who would do harm to us, not because their ideas are wrong, but because it is a basic human right to protect ourselves? Perhaps that sounds crazy in response to something like 9/11. But call me crazy for suggesting that our country can behave exactly as it has toward bin Laden, etc., because it is right, without worrying about whether he is wrong. Here's what it looks like to me: It is right to defend ourselves against terrorism. It is right to put fences and guards between ourselves and our attackers. It is right to treat prisoners fairly. It is right to feed the hungry. Those things are true no matter what side of a conflict one finds oneself on. Of course, focusing on these, rather than what is wrong about the enemy, also demands ruthless self-examination, which is harder, not in the least because it becomes painful to turn to violence when there is no other answer. But how can things become better peacefully unless the winners are willing to criticize themselves? That's the foundation of democracy, isn't it? It is what is wrong about facism, isn't it? The way I see it, we disagree and debate in order to have the best shot at figuring out what is right, not to figure out which political party is right. (And the mass media's greatest disservice these days is its cynical treatment of politics as the latter.) So, it's my belief that is right for the United States, with regard to the Middle East, is to do whatever we can to bring peace. And I'm afraid that has far more to do with economics than anything we are talking about here, the tragedies of the conflict notwithstanding. Real peace, not the mere absence of war. Speaking of self-examination, I really must apologize for my sarcasm the other evening. I had promised myself not to go there, and did it anyway. Ouch. I know that what I need to do -- and what I need from you -- is ask more questions. The sentences above with question marks are not rhetorical. Nick