Posted on 11/02/2001 11:59:31 AM PST by Starmaker
This question will be construed by many to be unpatriotic, un-American, and simply uncalled for. Many will scoff at the idea that such a question should even be addressed, but I believe it is one that we should ponder. Why? Because we are currently attacking another nation for carrying out acts of mass destruction that pale in comparison to what we ourselves have done.
Before I'm tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, let me just say that I support the idea of a legitimate, just, and, yes, even moral war. I believe such a war can and should be declared when the security of the citizens of the United States is directly at risk. After all, the primary job of the federal government, contrary to the modern teachings of liberal and neo-conservative collectivists, is to provide for the common defense of the nation. If the security, liberty, and lives of its citizens are threatened, the government has a sworn duty to eliminate that threat.
Unfortunately, most of the conflicts we have seen in the last century were the result of the federal government ignoring its obligation to the immediate defense of our own nation in order to pursue more global concerns. Can anyone make the case that the conflicts we saw in places like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia had anything to do with protecting the freedom of American citizens?
Now, the same people who were so quick to send soldiers off to kill and die for democracy overseas while ignoring the government's assaults on our liberty here at home are calling for unity in battling yet another foreign enemy. Perhaps our current predicament calls for some serious self-examination.
In our nationalistic frenzy we have been so intent on rooting out evil overseas that we have failed to notice the sins of our own nation. Again, I ask, what separates the U.S. from the terrorist nations of the world?
Many would say that we have a much greater respect for life and would never consider unleashing the kinds of atrocities we saw on September 11. Attacking innocent civilians with such cold-blooded calculation is beyond our comprehension. This kind of thinking lends credence to the old adage "ignorance is bliss."
During the last "just" war, World War II, the U.S. made it standard military procedure to specifically target civilians. German cities like Hamburg and Dresden were subjected to some of the most intense bombing raids in history. Even Japanese non-combatants in Tokyo could not escape the relentless firebombing. This policy of attacking civilian targets culminated in President Truman's order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result of these kinds of attacks throughout the war was a civilian death toll that climbed into the hundreds of thousands. Our government deliberately utilized this kind of warfare in order to strike terror in the hearts of foreign civilians. Sound familiar?
Needless to say, we do not have to look outside our borders for examples of the very evil we claim to loathe. Case in point, abortion. Since the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973, we have witnessed the government-sanctioned murder of over 40 million innocent children. This is an accomplishment that even the worst terrorist nations cannot claim. Why have we failed to unite against this particular evil?
It is understandable that Americans continue to feel outraged by the attacks of September 11. The media guaranteed that all of us had a front row seat to the grim scenes of death and destruction. We could not escape the gruesome images of commercial airliners slamming into skyscrapers, people hurling themselves out of windows to avoid being burned alive, or a million tons of steel and concrete raining down upon victims and rescuers.
Think of the collective outrage that would ensue if we were granted the same kind access to the carnage inside an abortion clinic. Imagine if we were to catch a glimpse of the bloody, twisted heaps of mangled limbs, see babies survive an abortion long enough to be tossed out alive with the rest of the medical waste, or hear the screams of mothers realizing, too late, the devastating consequences of their actions.
Are all these innocent lives worth it? Should we applaud the deliberate killing of over 200,000 Japanese civilians by our atomic bombs because it ended World War II a few weeks ahead of schedule? Are we to just accept the murder of 1.5 million children every year because of our distorted view of individual liberty and personal choice? Do we continue to tolerate the actions of a government that believes it has more important things to do than protect the rights of the innocent?
Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity— evidently, these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live. Such a thing is to be expected when a society adopts an "end justifies the means" philosophy. In doing so, we have only succeeded in demonstrating that we are just as capable as any terrorist nation of committing acts of senseless violence with little or no regard for the sanctity of human life.
So, just what exactly is it that separates the United States from the terrorist nations of the world? Maybe the answer is more elusive than we care to admit.
In moral philosphy there is the generally accepted principal that goes something like:
Proposition: It is a fallacy to assume that a desireable end provides moral justification of the means employed to achieve that end.
From this generally invoked principle. this author, without being very clear what he is about inverts this and derives some proposition of the form:
Some (unstated) end is desirable [to the U.S. we are left to presume]. Therefore the means (whatever means and he also leaves us in doubt here) employed is morally reprehensible. [From this he leaps to his conclusion that we are morally the equivalent of the Taliban. - which is another problem, but lets skip that for the moment.]
Now this is a logical fallacy. You can't get from this generally accepted principle to his conclusion. Furthermore, I attempted to provide a further counter-illustration, namely that many philosphers have used the greater good of society as justification for a moral code. By way of illustration, the desired end - that we live our lives without fear justifies passing a general law against murder. The author would conclude based on his perverse logic, that therefore laws against murder are wrong.
It is the habit of religions to invoke divine revellation as the source of legiticmacy for their code. I cannot refute this as a source of validity. However, I would argue that the spread of Christianity or the acceptability of English common law among the hill-tribes of India was the fact that people believed that they would be better off under these moral schemes than under what they had as a substitute. In other words, the end of a better society does lead to the acceptance of some moral code.
What this author needed to show, and does not, is that some desired end is used, by the U.S., and the means to achieve it runs counter to some standing moral principle. But instead he pulls the wool over our eyes.
As for the bonus question, you would have to demonstrate that the US is intentionally targeting civilians in order to make the murder charge stick. As for your analogy, you would have to demonstrate that the US is intentionally targeting civilians in order to make the Taliban give up OBL. Good luck.
What comes across is even further reduction in your credibility....oh, perhaps not in a debate on how to debate or technical aspects of logic or even composition of logic, but in your responses--which makes one wonder if you're here to discuss issues or get in a pissing match over technique--but then, the thread is about "What Separates The U.S. From The Terrorist Nations of the World", not debating techniques.
As an example of the lessening of your credibility, you wrote: ..."Yet again, the author asks the question Should we applaud the deliberate killing of over 200,000 Japanese civilians by our atomic bombs because it ended World War II a few weeks ahead of schedule?"...
Funny--but that is the only instance in which the author asked that particular question so how could it be 'yet again'....hmmmm? Mere slip of the tongue, er keyboard? Or perhaps blowing smoke? Or merely an attempt to divert attention away from the article?
You continued with...." He doesn' answer it - as you admit, but nevertheless, the conclusion - the murky charge follows in the next paragraph. Foreign civilians, unborn children, national integrity— evidently, these are the sacrifices with which we are willing to live"....So, what is it you allege the author is 'charging us with'? Being a society that utilizes the 'ends justifies the means' mentality?
BTW, I believe his 'conclusion' is found in the final paragraph where he restates his original question and says that , "Maybe the answer is more elusive than we care to admit"....and this was arrived at after numerous paragraphs outlining possible answers.
And then you wrote, ...."The first fallacy of this question - and all of the questions in this paragraph is that they are irrelevant to demonstrating his thesis that we, in our actions in Afghanistan, are the moral equivalents of the Taliban"....
Hello, Andy....can you point out to me the paragraph where the author evens mentions the nation of Afghanistan? Or even where he/she is discussing our actions there equaling the Taliban? I see mention of many countries, none of which were Afghanistan.
You went on with, ..." The second is that it is question begging - he assumes a point - several points in posing the question, which you and ten-gallon TEX fall for hook, line and sinkspur without a moments reflection, like the part about we applaud or the part about a few weeks ahead of schedule"....I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about as to my taking the hook, et al....I saw these questions are points to ponder before coming to any conclusion--in other words, do they play a part in my coming to my conclusion as to what makes my Country different than the terrorist nations.
And then on to: ..." Third is he leaps from asking the question to concluding his thesis with no argument in between. The path is rather tortured and I for one lack the mental horsepower to get from one to the other. Apperently, so do you."....
Ya know what, Andy....it 'is' his/her perogative to prepare their article anyway he/she desires. should they desire to put a lot of facts or pertinent information up front in their article writings, so be it...its obvious you desire to discuss style over substance. Doesn't Rush ascribe that tactic to the Left? And you essentially admit to the style over substance argument because you continue onward with....."tough shit - this is almost as good an argument as I am a joke, but you continue , if you don't like them--why don't you offer what you feel are better ones....
It is not my responsibility to craft, on the author's behalf....arguments to defend his thesis...particularly when I happen to feel that his thesis is wrong"......
Well Howdy Doody time!! You expect readers to just bow down when Andy Jackson types a response and take it as gospel? Yeah, right....what a pompous person....so much like one of the local bimbos here who can ask questions and demand answers, but when asked a question back quickly informs you she don't have to answer you!!
And you end with, ...." I keep hoping that you or Tex will supply the defects in my ability to reason through the point, but so far you have failed to do so'''....Andy, I ain't your teacher!! If you can't see that you are trying to debate style over substance, there isn't much I or anyone else could say that would make you feel better. Thanks, anyhow....think I'll just continue to concentrate on the content of the articles and leave the duties of composition, punctuation, and spelling to those who get a kick of out being hall monitors.
But you have a good evening, now, hear.....
Paragraph number one, sentence beginning with "Because . . . ."
They want to move here because we are rich.
I don't know what is more fundamental to substance than the logical constructs used to advance an argument. I really don't, unless it is getting your facts straight, and this author did not do that either. Like Dan Day said above, you don't know how much you don't know.
The "yet again" that you go on endlessly about is my exasperation because, yet again, I had to repeat an argument, which I suggest you go back and read, because I am not going to repeat it, yet again. I believe his 'conclusion' is found in the final paragraph where he restates his original question and says that , "Maybe the answer is more elusive than we care to admit"
If you read me closely you would understand that this was my conclusion about his intellectual swindle. And it is an intellectual swindle because the answer is not too elusive. He just didn't make an honest effort to dispense with even the more obvious answers.
....and this was arrived at after numerous paragraphs outlining possible answers. They weren't answers at all. It was irrelevant sentimental slop that deluded you, but no t me. And he didn't arrive at all, not by any straightforward logical method. He went way off track and then declared that the answer was elusive. Lions are very elusive if you hunt in Alaska.
I didn't discuss style at all, like his immediate launch into his risible appeal to our emotions - his concern that we were going to tar and feather his sorry tail and run it out of town on a rail for this slop.
Trouble is there ain't no content. It is all just hot air, from start to finish.
"Oh, cool -- so I take it you've already hit the Abuse button on Rowdee and Tex-oma? "
Nah, I have never hit the Abuse button. When people resort to name-calling, they have nothing to say and have lost the argument.
Unlike those who post pesonal attacks you are defending, I also respect Jim Robinson's posting requirements. See above.
Then there were roughly 17 that attempted to respond to the originating question in the title of the article (there might be a stretch in considering some of them a responsive response). There was 109 that were either non-responsive or debate back and forth about 'composition' or 'style'.
Of the 17 that I considered as 'responsive', there might be between 3 and 5 that would hold a candle to what the author wrote....that is not meant to downplay or denigrate what the others wrote...only that there wasn't a lot of 'there' there.
So the comment about 'answers' that the author or that I don't like is as believable as Mr. A. Jackson's discussion of the issue.
Really? Is that why we have an incredible number of countries siding with us in our war against terrorists...more everyday (the most recent being even Turkey, Kenya, Nigeria etc. etc.).....while the terrorists opposing us are completely isolated without so much a one nation siding with them?
Is this how our definition of terrorism is not working on "the rest of the world"?
If you are going to make false arguments, at least try to make them sound a little convincing next time.
I said; ---- Hmmmm - an arguable 'moral code' can be jusified by claiming that it's use will be for the good of society.
- Yep, as you commented, OBL justifies his terrorist attacks as being for the good of islamic society. -#121
I will attempt to clarify the point.
In moral philosphy there is the generally accepted principal that goes something like:
Proposition: It is a fallacy to assume that a desireable end provides moral justification of the means employed to achieve that end.
--- Hold right there. - You just conceded my point on your fallacy I quoted above. -- Thanks
From this generally invoked principle. this author, without being very clear what he is about inverts this and derives some proposition of the form: Some (unstated) end is desirable [to the U.S. we are left to presume]. Therefore the means (whatever means and he also leaves us in doubt here) employed is morally reprehensible. [From this he leaps to his conclusion that we are morally the equivalent of the Taliban. - which is another problem, but lets skip that for the moment.] Now this is a logical fallacy. You can't get from this generally accepted principle to his conclusion. Furthermore, I attempted to provide a further counter-illustration, namely that many philosphers have used the greater good of society as justification for a moral code. By way of illustration, the desired end - that we live our lives without fear justifies passing a general law against murder.
--- You would compare criminal law against murder, - with a 'moral code', - just to stretch your point? -- This IS a joke, no?
The author would conclude based on his perverse logic, that therefore laws against murder are wrong.
--- Straw man. Be ashamed with your tactics.
It is the habit of religions to invoke divine revellation as the source of legiticmacy for their code. I cannot refute this as a source of validity. However, I would argue that the spread of Christianity or the acceptability of English common law among the hill-tribes of India was the fact that people believed that they would be better off under these moral schemes than under what they had as a substitute. In other words, the end of a better society does lead to the acceptance of some moral code. What this author needed to show, and does not, is that some desired end is used, by the U.S., and the means to achieve it runs counter to some standing moral principle. But instead he pulls the wool over our eyes.
YOU are the one 'pulling wool' here. Hypocrite.
I am very disturbed that you consider it a stretch to get from your moral code to a law against murder. Me, I have no such problem. In fact, most respectable moral systems of the past 2000 years or so contain a prohibition against murder.
You compounded using this fallacy, with using straw man tactics to advance your political opinions. - Exactly what you accuse the articles author of doing.
- Now you want to change the subject to argue moral/criminal code. I can understand why. - For shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.