At 12:05 PM 5/11/2005 +1000, you wrote: > > >Gautam Mukunda wrote: >> >> --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral >> > imperative' >> > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a >> > softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles >> > pointed at your capital. >> >> 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. All of the arguments >> you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We >> have many, many examples of different ways in which >> the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking >> have showed that moral concerns have little or no >> claim on their stated beliefs. > >Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested >agendas? >Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and >that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion.
I don't know that Gautam has ever denied this. Indeed, he has explicitly made arguments referring to this - such as when he previously suggested that the War in Iraq was an instance in which America's self-interest and the selfless morally right thing coincided. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
