> -----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
