Thank you for reminding me how much I hate the phrase, "the ends justify the means." As you cite it sardonically here, the phrase is often used as if *all* ends justify *all* means. But that amounts to a peculiar notion of "justify." It should be morally obvious that in any particular case, it must be argued that *these particular ends* justify *these particular means*. And that is the case that has not been made with respect to the civilian deaths in Marja.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Naiman wrote: >> "Civilian casualties are inevitable," said U.S. officials before >> launching their weekend military assault on Marja in southern >> Afghanistan, and in this case, they were telling the truth. Yesterday, >> the New York Times reports, a U.S. rocket strike "hit a compound >> crowded with Afghan civilians... killing at least 10 people, including >> 5 children." >> >> What justification has been provided by the government of the United >> States for its decision to kill these five children? > > The ends justify the means. To make an omelet, you have to break eggs. > -- > Jim Devine / "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through > ignorance that we can solve them." -- Isaac Asimov > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
