Hi Lawrence:
> Hi Platt, yes, had I been of fighting age I probably would have been swept
> up in the glory of it all.
You probably would have been swept up by the draft if you didn't
volunteer. The "glory" of war went out with the invention of the tank and
machine gun.
> But then, that is what societies do to their
> young men, when they have failed them in other ways. Was it a moral war? In
> that it sought to stop fascism, and there was no alternative but to see
> innocent people swept up in its destructive path, there was moral
> justification to the battle.
Good. You agree World War II was a moral war. How do you feel about
the Korean war? Was our participation moral?
>But can one not imagine how an intelligent
> foreign policy might have stopped Hitler and his ilk in their tracks?
Diplomatic efforts were made to stop Hitler. Remember Munich?
Diplomacy was underway at the moment the Japs attacked Pearl
Harbor. No, I cannot imagine how an intelligent foreign policy could
have stopped Hitler or Tojo.
> A
> foreign policy not burdened with the compromises that industrial interests
> and weak policy analysis creates? You see, Platt, you view 'giving' one's
> life as a symbol of commitment; I view it as a strategic choice. Would you
> sacrifice your life when a superior alternative existed? I hope not. There
> are better ways of achieving glory than an unnecessary martyrdom. And if
> you seek martyrdom, I can suggest many causes that exist today that would
> justify it, as readily as your WWII example. Care to volunteer?
No, I would not sacrifice my life if a superior alternative existed. I do not
believe in unnecessary martyrdom. Perhaps my use of "giving" was a
poor choice of a word. You have interpreted it as meaning "throwing
away." My mistake.
> As for the civil war...I cannot speak for Pirsig, nor know the reasons he
> would argue for its morality. I'd be interested in your take on his views.
Pirsig makes his views on the Civil War clear in Chap. 13 of LILA. He
believes it was moral in accordance with the MOQ. I agree.
> In the meantime, I will simply say that I see nothing moral in the civil
> war. I see a bunch of broken down politicians, ego-driven, followed by a
> bunch of broken-down generals inflicting enormous damage on a generation of
> kids. And the odd thing is that the Europeans decided that there were
> military lessons to be learned from the carnage, studied it voraciously
> complete with battle-field tours post bellum, and managed to replicate the
> insanity in places like Verdun a half century later. No, for me, morality
> has to do with doing the right thing, and learning from mistakes. The
> butchers of the US civil war and WWI fail on both counts. Ego should never
> be allowed to masquerade as national or societal necessity, and kids must be
> the first to call the old blighters on it.
I take it the issue of slavery doesn't enter into your calculations of the
morality of the Civil War.
> Now, your last question begins to go in a more viable direction: who and
> under what circumstances would one kill if they were trying to kill you (or,
> if we can enlarge the question, deprive one of a highly held value)? No
> longer are you promoting 'giving away' one's life, but of taking that of a
> threatener. Good. What is your thinking on this?
No one should inititate the use of physical force. If threatened, one
should meet force with enough force to eliminate the threat. The right of
self-defense is absolute. Do you agree?
Platt
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