On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because > it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment > to other people - people who have an interest in > acting in an immoral fashion.
Oh, baloney. Your generalization deserves no more intelligent refutation than that. > You can be in favor of > intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ > you can say that intervention on moral principles is > contingent on international consensus. And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or choices doesn't feed hungry people. Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? We end up distracting ourselves from the real issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological arguments, trying to settle whether or not a "conservative" or "liberal" strategy is right. The problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to brainstorm new approaches, since the old choices are both failing? What could private businesses do? What NGOs could we support that would alleviate some of the trouble? How about a faith-based initiative! What other ways are there to intervene? I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by ideological arguments. But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
