But we shouldn’t have contempt for those who raise such concerns in earnest, nor caricature how they are raised as just being cries of ‘WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??” or “PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!”
It depends on whether these arguments have a follow-up that hold that people who disagree do not, and please note this word as it is very important to the people who use these particular follow-up arguments, "care".
Once "caring" is brought up, we're in wacky world, dude.
No, when people put together an argument that consists of somewhat reasonable claims that somewhat logically lead to a somewhat reasonable conclusion...
THEN I feel obliged to answer said arguments.
And maybe that is because I am SOO AWESOME, as you point out... but there is also the problem of if we are not obliged to even answer argumenst that consist of somewhat reasonable claims that somewhat logically lead to a somewhat reasonable conclusion, when would we be obliged to answer them?
Sure. But my feelings about the arguments says nothing about whether they ought or ought not be engaged on their own merits in any given argument for or against intervention.
Indeed, I've even gone so far as to make the analogy rather than merely assert its existence.
I think that I've done enough groundwork to request groundwork on the part of those who assert "that's different".
Oh, no! E.D. never did. I do not mean to imply that he did.
Does that make the argument something that does not have to be addressed? Heck, I think I've made it clear that I don't think we ought to intervene ("if it's so important to the international community, let them do it" is much closer to my position).
The amount of good that we could do, however, was an argument used... and arguing against that position was, effectively, arguing that we shouldn't do the good that we could be doing.
Does that argument so very obviously not apply when dictators kill civilians?
My support for Israel over the Palestinians has to do with stuff like:
Which country has medicinal marijuana?
Which country has civil unions for same-sex couples?
Which country allows me to write an editorial screaming about corruption in the ruling party? Heh, no. I'm just kidding about that one.
Which country allows me to buy an issue of Playboy?
It seems to me that Israel is a lot more "rock and roll".
Under the auspices of "we, as a society, have a responsibility to act morally toward those who need us to take care of them in the absence of their being able to take care of themselves!", one can justify bombing people. One can justify wealth transfers from the middle class to corporations.
All you have to do is embrace the moral argument to the exclusion of the pragmatic one.
If someone points out that intervention worked very well in, say, Japan as justification for intervention in Iraq... Is it relevant for the opposition to point out the gulf that exists between Japan and Iraq?
If someone points out that Denmark provides universal health care as an argument for how it's possible for a society to care for those who cannot care for themselves... Is it relevant for the opposition to point out the gulf that exists between the system that Denmark has and Congress's Affordable Care Act?
I ask because I remember in the run-up to the passage of that bill written by insurance companies having dead bodies shaken in my face... I remember folks being asked whether they would save the lives of these dead children if it meant the passage of a bill completely unlike the one being discussed in Congress.
And now, I suppose, I want to ask you similar questions to see what your answers are.
E.D., don't we, as a society, have a responsibility to help people who cannot help themselves? When a dictator is slaughtering his own citizens, shouldn't we try to stop him from doing so? He's used air power on groups of peacefully protesting human beings. Air power! If you were one of those crowds peacefully assembling and exercising your human right to free speech and petition your government for redress of grievances, wouldn't you want someone like the US to prevent Gadaffi from killing your children, your family, your friends, from killing you?
It's because the fundamental problem with moral arguments is that someone just a little bit more eloquent than you (not *YOU* you, but, the person making the argument) can come up with another moral argument on the opposite side and now, guess what? You're the immoral person making the immoral argument.
By making a moral argument in the first place, it's pretty much conceded that this is *NOT* a matter of taste but a matter of morality. Surely a moral person would want to stand on the side of Right, Justice, and Goodness... wouldn't you?
So then when person just a little more eloquent shows up and points out that, nope, the Right, Just, and Good position is the one that says that we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect those who cannot, for whatever reason, protect themselves... you're suddenly the jerkwad who is arguing against that.
And, as you've pointed out, we'll see arguments used just days before in favor of *THIS* policy being abandoned only to be picked up by the opposition to be used in favor of *THAT* policy. Today we take the side of the weak against the strong in the name of the higher moral duty of intervention, tomorrow we take the side of the strong against the weak in the name of the even higher moral duty of non-intervention... and, soon thereafter, we question the bona fides of those who would question whether we're playing fast and loose with moral arguments.
If P has not worked the last X times it has been attempted, it seems to me that the argument that we have a moral responsibility to P is really saying "we have a moral responsibility to fail to P!"
Given our track record, we're downright incontinent.
Well, this is why I put so much emphasis on negative rights and hedge oh-so-much about positive rights.
Which, of course, brings us back to weighing the differences between "provision of affordable health care" and "stopping a murderer from killing men, women, children"... my inclination is to say that *IF* we have a positive duty to do anything, we have a positive duty toward the latter.
But how does the world work?
Did our attempt work in Iraq? If not, why do we think it will work here? Making appeals to the right thing to do without taking into account past performance is negligence at best.
The problem with Deontology *IN PRACTICE* is that it presents functionally identically with not actually having to do anything but merely saying that somebody should.
And once one has communicated that something ought to be done, one can then shrug as if one has done one's part.
Indeed, it is not works that saves us but *FAITH*.
Meanwhile, Martha's the one in the kitchen cooking and everybody's mooning over how devout Mary is.
When we make room for a moral framework, the cost of not doing anything is weighed against the wonderful outcome of going in there like White SuperJesus and yelling "Peace Be Still" and having everybody actually listen and hold hands on their way to a drum circle.
And then people ask, pointedly, "Don't you think that people *SHOULD* hold hands and go to a drum circle? Instead of killing and raping each other?"
The drums are over there, E.C.
Hop to it. I'm sure you'll be greeted as a White SuperJesus.
Yeah, I know. You didn't mean "you". You meant me.
On “No country for old dictators”
Yeah... but after Assad sees what we do to Khadaffi, he'll figure out something.
We'll sicken of the bullshit before they sicken of being in charge of killing freedom fighters.
"
Reports that we’ve saved 100,000 lives there strike me as no better than propaganda.
We should have said "created or saved".
On “The bad logic of intervention in Libya”
But we shouldn’t have contempt for those who raise such concerns in earnest, nor caricature how they are raised as just being cries of ‘WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??” or “PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!”
It depends on whether these arguments have a follow-up that hold that people who disagree do not, and please note this word as it is very important to the people who use these particular follow-up arguments, "care".
Once "caring" is brought up, we're in wacky world, dude.
"
Beef Wellington!
Sadly, "William, Prince of Orange" is not enough to get us to say that The Battle of Waterloo provides us with ideas for an excellent date night.
Hey, I'm not saying that the stuff that was true in 1200 is true today. Some of it obviously isn't.
But there is stuff that was true then that remains true. *THAT* is the meaty stuff, if'n you ask me.
"
We're still naming food after mass murderers, for example.
There is stuff that was true in 4400BC that is true today.
There is stuff that is "true" today that was not "true" then. There is stuff that was "true" then that is not "true" today.
It seems to me that if there is an underlying moral fabric, it's universal enough to experience without iPhones.
"
I've been chewing on a response to this all day...
Here's an essay that does a better job than I could probably do.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/libya-limited-government-and-imperfect-duties/
"
Is morality similar to science, then?
As time goes on and we get better and better at it, our morality better reflects the truth of the universe?
Why, the 20th Century must have been the most moral Century yet!
"
No, when people put together an argument that consists of somewhat reasonable claims that somewhat logically lead to a somewhat reasonable conclusion...
THEN I feel obliged to answer said arguments.
And maybe that is because I am SOO AWESOME, as you point out... but there is also the problem of if we are not obliged to even answer argumenst that consist of somewhat reasonable claims that somewhat logically lead to a somewhat reasonable conclusion, when would we be obliged to answer them?
"
Coitenly!
And if it's appropriate there, it's appropriate here.
And if I felt obliged to answer such questions there, I don't see why others wouldn't be obliged to answer such questions here.
Is it because they don't like the questions?
"
Sure. But my feelings about the arguments says nothing about whether they ought or ought not be engaged on their own merits in any given argument for or against intervention.
Indeed, I've even gone so far as to make the analogy rather than merely assert its existence.
I think that I've done enough groundwork to request groundwork on the part of those who assert "that's different".
"
Oh, no! E.D. never did. I do not mean to imply that he did.
Does that make the argument something that does not have to be addressed? Heck, I think I've made it clear that I don't think we ought to intervene ("if it's so important to the international community, let them do it" is much closer to my position).
The amount of good that we could do, however, was an argument used... and arguing against that position was, effectively, arguing that we shouldn't do the good that we could be doing.
Does that argument so very obviously not apply when dictators kill civilians?
"
Awesome.
"
We haven't been allowed to decapitate since the 1970's.
I think that this is one of the "seriously, we don't do that" things rather than one of the "wink wink nudge nudge we don't do that" things.
On “On Libya and the Moral Case Against Intervention”
My support for Israel over the Palestinians has to do with stuff like:
Which country has medicinal marijuana?
Which country has civil unions for same-sex couples?
Which country allows me to write an editorial screaming about corruption in the ruling party? Heh, no. I'm just kidding about that one.
Which country allows me to buy an issue of Playboy?
It seems to me that Israel is a lot more "rock and roll".
On “The bad logic of intervention in Libya”
Under the auspices of "we, as a society, have a responsibility to act morally toward those who need us to take care of them in the absence of their being able to take care of themselves!", one can justify bombing people. One can justify wealth transfers from the middle class to corporations.
All you have to do is embrace the moral argument to the exclusion of the pragmatic one.
If someone points out that intervention worked very well in, say, Japan as justification for intervention in Iraq... Is it relevant for the opposition to point out the gulf that exists between Japan and Iraq?
If someone points out that Denmark provides universal health care as an argument for how it's possible for a society to care for those who cannot care for themselves... Is it relevant for the opposition to point out the gulf that exists between the system that Denmark has and Congress's Affordable Care Act?
I ask because I remember in the run-up to the passage of that bill written by insurance companies having dead bodies shaken in my face... I remember folks being asked whether they would save the lives of these dead children if it meant the passage of a bill completely unlike the one being discussed in Congress.
And now, I suppose, I want to ask you similar questions to see what your answers are.
E.D., don't we, as a society, have a responsibility to help people who cannot help themselves? When a dictator is slaughtering his own citizens, shouldn't we try to stop him from doing so? He's used air power on groups of peacefully protesting human beings. Air power! If you were one of those crowds peacefully assembling and exercising your human right to free speech and petition your government for redress of grievances, wouldn't you want someone like the US to prevent Gadaffi from killing your children, your family, your friends, from killing you?
On “On Libya and the Moral Case Against Intervention”
Yeah, until they are commandments.
And we wake up to find 3% of the population in prison, on probation, or on parole.
"
It's because the fundamental problem with moral arguments is that someone just a little bit more eloquent than you (not *YOU* you, but, the person making the argument) can come up with another moral argument on the opposite side and now, guess what? You're the immoral person making the immoral argument.
By making a moral argument in the first place, it's pretty much conceded that this is *NOT* a matter of taste but a matter of morality. Surely a moral person would want to stand on the side of Right, Justice, and Goodness... wouldn't you?
So then when person just a little more eloquent shows up and points out that, nope, the Right, Just, and Good position is the one that says that we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect those who cannot, for whatever reason, protect themselves... you're suddenly the jerkwad who is arguing against that.
And, as you've pointed out, we'll see arguments used just days before in favor of *THIS* policy being abandoned only to be picked up by the opposition to be used in favor of *THAT* policy. Today we take the side of the weak against the strong in the name of the higher moral duty of intervention, tomorrow we take the side of the strong against the weak in the name of the even higher moral duty of non-intervention... and, soon thereafter, we question the bona fides of those who would question whether we're playing fast and loose with moral arguments.
"No, I asked how dare you first."
On “Leo Strauss, Meet John Stuart Mill”
What we need are the atheistic version of missionaries to go into all the world and bring Truth to people unfortunate enough to never have heard it.
Those poor Southerners! Those poor Buddhists! Those poor Muslims!
We need to go into their countries and convert them away from their backwards cultures and bring them to enlightenment.
What could possibly go wrong?
On “On Libya and the Moral Case Against Intervention”
"The Precogs are never wrong. But, occasionally, they do disagree."
"
My opinion of puns is very, very low.
I thought that the point of having only moral considerations would be that we're able to ignore stuff that we know, at this time.
We can just make sweeping statements about the importance of saving Mohammed's life.
"
If P has not worked the last X times it has been attempted, it seems to me that the argument that we have a moral responsibility to P is really saying "we have a moral responsibility to fail to P!"
Given our track record, we're downright incontinent.
"
Well, this is why I put so much emphasis on negative rights and hedge oh-so-much about positive rights.
Which, of course, brings us back to weighing the differences between "provision of affordable health care" and "stopping a murderer from killing men, women, children"... my inclination is to say that *IF* we have a positive duty to do anything, we have a positive duty toward the latter.
But how does the world work?
Did our attempt work in Iraq? If not, why do we think it will work here? Making appeals to the right thing to do without taking into account past performance is negligence at best.
"
The hurdle of the world working the way it works in spite of positive visualization?
That ain't a hurdle, it's a limit.
"
The problem with Deontology *IN PRACTICE* is that it presents functionally identically with not actually having to do anything but merely saying that somebody should.
And once one has communicated that something ought to be done, one can then shrug as if one has done one's part.
Indeed, it is not works that saves us but *FAITH*.
Meanwhile, Martha's the one in the kitchen cooking and everybody's mooning over how devout Mary is.
Feh.
"
When we make room for a moral framework, the cost of not doing anything is weighed against the wonderful outcome of going in there like White SuperJesus and yelling "Peace Be Still" and having everybody actually listen and hold hands on their way to a drum circle.
And then people ask, pointedly, "Don't you think that people *SHOULD* hold hands and go to a drum circle? Instead of killing and raping each other?"
The drums are over there, E.C.
Hop to it. I'm sure you'll be greeted as a White SuperJesus.
Yeah, I know. You didn't mean "you". You meant me.