Replies

You continue to ignore the nub of my argument: the deaths are not equivalent. In one case, death is extraneous; in the other, it is essential.

If we could win this war in Iraq bloodlessly, I am sure we would. If they could realize their vision of an Islamic world bloodlessly, they would. But that is not an option open to them or to us - people will resist, and resist forcefully.

Allow me once again to suggest that it there is a difference between acting rationally and acting morally. I had rather assumed that people here would understand the difference, but apparently this argument is too subtle for some. The Islamists can act perfectly rationally in pursuit of of an immoral goal - that is, in fact, exactly what they are doing.

I really didn't want to go to this extent, but everyone's having so much fun labeling me a relativist that I can't resist any longer. To label them as "irrational" comes perilously close to excusing them for what they do - after all, if they are "irrational" or "deluded" or otherwise somehow disconnected from reality, how can we hold them responsible for their insane acts? We don't hold the criminally insane responsible for their acts by punishing them, after all - we put them in hospitals where their condition can hopefully be treated. But the Islamists aren't "irrational", any more than Hitler was "irrational" - they know exactly what they want, and they have a rational agenda designed to advance that immoral goal. For those scoring at home, that makes them evil. And I decline to excuse evil by chalking it up to "irrationality".

Radical Islam's "vision," the prime mover of this mess, is precisely the spilling of blood.

I really didn't want to go to this extent, but everyone's having so much fun labeling me a relativist that I can't resist any longer. To label them as "irrational" comes perilously close to excusing them for what they do - after all, if they are "irrational" or "deluded" or otherwise somehow disconnected from reality, how can we hold them responsible for their insane acts? We don't hold the criminally insane responsible for their acts by punishing them, after all - we put them in hospitals where their condition can hopefully be treated. But the Islamists aren't "irrational", any more than Hitler was "irrational" - they know exactly what they want, and they have a rational agenda designed to advance that immoral goal. For those scoring at home, that makes them evil. And I decline to excuse evil by chalking it up to "irrationality".

I would suggest that the problem is not others' capacity to discern nuance; it is your capacity to define the problem.

Your problem appears to be a semantic one. By "rational," I mean logically consistent with the rules of the system in which we operate. I am not referring to soundness of mind.

As I stated in a previous reply, it is possible to construct a closed system in which the irrational is rational. That is what you are doing. That is why others here have labeled you a relativist.

If I were forced to assign a label to you, it would be "accidental deconstructionist."

"Allow me once again to suggest that it there is a difference between acting rationally and acting morally...."

I think everyone on this thread understands this point. The problem is that you seem to be making a elementary mistake in your reasoning when you attempt to apply this point to main issue being discussed on this thread.

To remind everyone the original post was an article by Lee Harris that articulated a new paradigm for international relations in the post-Cold War era. Mr. Harris articulated in this article the concept of neo-sovereignty. This concept of neo-sovereignty questioned the validity of the inviolability of national sovereignty, absent external State agression, enshrined in internation relations since the Treaty of Westphalia. Mr Harris offered the idea that a different criterion in addition to external State agression be used to assess the legitmacy of claims to national sovereignty. The other concept that Mr. Harris proposed was the extent to which a government protected the Natural rights of its citizens.

To illustrate this idea let me use an analogy from Bankruptcy law. Under the Bankruptcy code it is possible to force a company into involuntary bankruptcy if a Federal judge determines that a company is being looted by its management to the detriment of its shareholders. If the judge rules that this is the case then the incumbent management team is removed and an interim team is appointed to manage the enterprise on behalf of the shareholders. Later on the shareholders are allowed to decide whether to keep the interim management team or choose someone new. Under this analogy, obviously, the company is the State, the shareholders are the citizens of the State, and the Judge is come type of multi-national body.

To fully understand Mr. Harris' line of thought it is necessary to be familiar with basic concepts of Natural Law. Natural Law posits the existence of God-given rights that inhere to all human beings. Natural Law theories also distinguish between acts "malum in se" (self-evidently evil acts) and acts "malum in re" (acts that are defined as being evil by law or custom). Malum in se acts such as child molestation are deemed to be evil because they volate the Natural Rights of another humamn being. Malum in re acts such as driving above the speed limit vary greatly even between Western nations.

Natural Rights are not revokable by any Government. The inhere to all human beings. The Founding Fathers indicted the British Crown because of its "train of usurpations" against these Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers invoked no other authority other than the "God of Nature". It doesn't matter that you take a plane from New York to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; your Natural Rights are not suddenly revoked when you cross the International Date Line. The concept of Natural Rights is anthema to States such as the Soviet Union where all rights are derived from the authority of the state or most Islamic states where rights are derived only from the Koran.

Now lets apply these ideas to the Middle Eastern cauldron. Based on Natural Rights criteria most of the Middle Eastern Islamic states violate various Natural Rights consistently. That being the case it follows that these sames states have clouds over the legitmacy of their claims of sovereignty. I would have no compunction about putting Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria under "receivership".

To deny the validity of Natural Law in judging State actions is to deny the validity of our own nation's founding. The mere fact that another culture asserts its "national sovereignty" is not sufficient to justify a State action. This is a mere gratuitous assertion by a State. Any State action must be measured against the standard of Natural Law in order for it attain legitimacy.

There is no middle ground for this doctrine; either it is true at all places and times or it is not true at all. A Government can choose to violate the Natural Rights of its citizens but when it does so it loses the "Mandate of Heaven".