Advance warning - I'm going to agree with almost everything Nick says below. Anyone with a weak heart and poor reactions to surprise, don't blame me :-)
Nick: 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. Me: I think you're skipping over one other factor as well, which is the influence that the American victory in the Revolution (and, equally, in the Civil War) had on the development of the British system - which was substantial. British liberals, for example, took great aid and comfort from the example of the United States, and British conservatives were strongly opposed to the US (with the notable exception of Burke, once again, but he was special) precisely because they recognized that its very existence was a threat to their aristocratic social structure. After the Union victory in the Civil War, for example, (iirc) Gladstone himself said that the war was about not just the fate of the US, but that of democracy in general, and said that the Union victory would lead to reform in Britain. Which it did. > 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: Me: I snipped some interesting points, but I wanted to respond to this argument in particular. I think no, it is not possible, in two ways. The first is because our actions are oppositional and responsive - the conflict between the US and Bin Laden is zero sum - either we are destroyed or he is. Therefore blaming him for what had happened is inextricable from saying that we are right in what we are doing, because what we are doing is designed do defeat him, and because it is in response to his actions. If his actions were not immoral - not worthy of blame, in other words - then our _responses_ to his actions would be unjustified. Furthermore, international relations, to further belabor a point that I believe I make in every other post, is not a contest for those of clean hands. We are not usually faced with a choice between good and bad. We're faced with a choice between bad and less bad. Usually, what is the least bad of the available alternatives. The sad fact of international politics is that acting inethically conveys great tactical, and often great strategic, advantages to those who are willing to act that way. Barbarity has a utility. That doesn't mean that I advocate barbarity. But it does mean that making moral judgments in international relations against an absolute standard is essentially, in my opinion, an exercise in wishful thinking. To get back to your points though, I don't think we can, because our ideas and their ideas - indeed, we and they - cannot coexist. Peaceful coexistence with someone like Osama Bin Laden (or Saddam Hussein, for that matter) is impossible. Given that a neutral observer (which I do not pretend to be) must choose which of the two sides deserves his support. The only way to do that - in a closed balance like this one - is to choose which one's actions are blameful, and which ones are praiseworthy. Casting blame in this view is like punishment - it is an inextricable part of justice, and it is justice that (in the very long run) we seek. Nick: 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. Me: And I apologize for my response, which was not justified. Gautam
