Hi Lawrence:
I see you are a hard man to pin down, so let me rephrase my
questions. Would you have willingly served in the American armed
forces in World War II? Would you consider that war moral? Do you
agree with Pirsig that the U.S. Civil War was moral?
Are these the sort of battles you would choose to "actively oppose" by
trying to kill people who are trying to kill you?
Platt
> > Shall I presume that you would not risk your life in a fight
> > against those
> > who would enslave you?
>
> Risking one's life is different from 'giving' one's life, which I believe is
> the original language that launched this thread. The fact is that I risk my
> life every day and for things far less important than avoiding slavery. I
> climb mountains, I ride a motorcycle. So risking one's life is not so much
> the issue: rather, it is what we do with our lives. 'Giving" my life for
> anything will never be high on my list of choices. Rather, I prefer to live
> and win.
>
>
> > It appears you would be willing to let others
> > fight and die in a war against a totalitarian oppressor while you sat on
> > the sidelines. Am I correct in my interpretation?
>
> No. For several reasons: first, I doubt I could stop people fighting and
> dying against oppression, even should I wish to do so, so in no way am I
> 'letting' anybody do so. People choose to do such things. Second, in fact
> we all _do_ sit around while others _do_ die fighting oppression. I quick
> look at today's newspaper headlines will give you several instances where
> people are fighting against oppressive governments and dying. Do we condone
> the oppression? No, but we do watch it happen and do little if anything to
> stop it. Do you not do so, too?
>
> I choose my battles, and sometimes they involve active opposition to
> oppression, and sometimes more subtle problems. In all cases I pay
> considerable attention to my strategies, and throwing my life away
> heroically if futilely is never a favored strategy.
>
> > Pirsig says according
> > to an evolutionary morality that a society has a right to murder
> > people to
> > prevent its own destruction. What do you think? Is any war moral?
>
> I suppose individuals also have the right to declare war on a society that
> is oppressive. I'm not sure that a system, such as a society, automatically
> has a 'right' to kill any of its components. Of course, any system might
> fight for its life, but that hardly means that the system is of such
> intrinsic value that it automatically deserves to win.
>
> Is any war moral? I'm not sure what standard you are referring to with
> regard to this morality. I do believe that war can become necessary, and I
> doubt that war is the most immoral thing I can think of, so I think I would
> lean in favor of saying that I can conceive of scenarios in which I would
> judge a specific war moral, or at least moral-enough to support it, but I
> need to know more about the standards that lie behind your use of the term
> before I could much more of an opinion. For example, international law
> specifies a number of conditions under which war is permissible, but does
> this mean that wars initiated and conducted under these rules are
> automatically moral? We would probably agree that they may not be, legal
> standing not withstanding. So how do you define 'moral'?
>
> Lawrence
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST