To: Horse, Jonathan, Platt and all
From: Rog
Sorry I am so late, but I wanted to jump in on your dialogue (argument).
Below are selected quotes and my 2 cents.
JON:
I repeat my earlier assertion: RETRIBUTION IS SOCIAL.
ROG:
I hate boxing anything into a single level. But on this one, I really agree
with Jonathan. I think RETRIBUTION is a part of one of the essential value
patterns of the social level. I believe that the social contract can be
(over)simplified into an agreement to cooperate and play nice with others as
long as they play nice in return, combined with the threat that nasty
behavior will be responded to in kind. The net dynamic -- where it works --
is a situation where everyone benefits from playing nicely, and anyone being
naughty suffers.
HORSE:
So called 'surgical' strikes' are anything but surgical unless you
consider removal of a leg to cure ingowing toenail the mark of a good
surgeon.
ROG:
I think we all agree that extraneous damage needs to be minimized, or better
yet, avoided. However, the threat must be addressed and the naughtiness must
be punished. Otherwise, naughtiness will flourish.
JON:
Horse, I agree with you that the USA is far from perfect. In this respect,
they tend to act like most other nations
(including yours and mine).
HORSE:
You're absolutely right about one thing though Jonathan. The US of A
doesn't give two hoots - until it comes under attack itself.
ROG:
You guys are pointing to a weakness in democracies. They are by nature
somewhat decentralized and subject to varying leadership and direction. They
tend to be... fickle. They rally around current issues and neglect less
pressing or immediate problems. One day they are concentrating on liberating
Iraq, the next on just letting the situation resolve itself.
Democracies are capable of longer strategic direction, especially when facing
obvious crises. The cold war for example was a consistent strategy that left
many a jaded country in its wake. But democracy won (at a cost).
I suspect the recent terrorist acts have the potential to similarly galvanize
our strategic focus. If so, good can come from tragedy. Greater immorality
can possibly be averted. On the other hand, there will be costs on this one
too.
HORSE:
But it's still terrorism don't you agree. The view from
each side is virtually identical - each side sees the other as the spawn of
Satan but
because 'our' side is democratically elected we must be in the right
according to
Platt's reasoning.
JON:
I don't see things as so symmetrical. I do not equate deliberate attacks on
civilian targets designed to maximise casualties with attacks on military
targets and infrastructure. However, it's not only a question of right vs.
wrong, but a question of us vs. them. Democratic elections are a red
herring.
ROG:
As I just posted a few minutes ago, the MOQ offers only limited guidance on
relative morality. You were both a part of the October '98 discussion on the
MOQ's quality in moral guidance or lack thereof. (Though I do seem to
remember Horse being gone part of the month.) Certainly one could argue that
the most intellectual/dynamic is more moral, but that assumes both sides
agree to the quality of the measure. Fundamentalists of course would use a
different gauge.
The problem that BOTH cultures must solve is how to adapt in such a way so as
to coexist and even THRIVE together. Resorting to violence and attempting to
destroy the other pattern is immoral. However, I would say that failure to
respond (retaliate) to violence is just as immoral (though violence is
certainly not the only way to respond). BTW, I find Horse's moral relativism
on this issue disturbing. Do you really fail to see the difference between
attacking innocents and responding to the attack? You have really changed
over the last few years Horse.
HORSE:
Negotiation and dialogue are the only things that will solve this problem
as in N. Ireland - unless you accept genocide as an answer.
ROG:
I agree with you that both the problem and the ultimate solution to these
terrorist situations is socio-intellectual. But the violence MUST BE
REPRESSED.
HORSE:
Jonathan I will say it again. I am not a pacifist nor am I advocating
pacifism except where it is appropriate. I respect those that are pacifists,
such
as Gandhi, because they must have enormous courage to do what they do when
facing
violence and possible death.
My argument is that, in the long run, a militaristic approach to the
problem of terrorism will fail. It always has and it always will precisely
BECAUSE
you are not fighting a state but a set of ideals and beliefs. These are
Social/Intellectual values. A Social/Biological response in the form of
militarism will not
work and under the MoQ is immoral. The acceptance of the analogy with germs is
extremely damaging as it evokes the wrong response.
JONATHAN:
Horse, I see this playing with labels as a complete perversion of the levels
idea. It wasn't social/intellectual values that collapsed two giant
skyscrapers and killed 6000 people. Terrorism must be confronted on ALL
levels, and that must include the use of appropriate military force. You
know something Horse, when you and your own family are facing your own
terrorist threat close to home, remind me to ask you again . . .
ROG:
Again I must strongly agree with Jonathan. Horse is right that militarism
isn't an effective method to change social/intellectual patterns (at least
not in a moral way). But it can be an extremely effective way to deal with
violence. A society which allows some agents to use violence against others
is not a society. An effective social pattern requires social and
intellectual solutions, and limits violence to a last resort method of
dealing with those that refuse to interact non-violently.
In Gandhi's case, it was the leadership that was immoral. His solution was
non-violent and focused on establishing the awareness that effective
governance requires the approval of the governed. Gandhi is the perfect
example of how to deal with others in a moral way. The government could not
respond to him with violence, or they would be immoral. Gandhi won.
Terrorism is the opposite of Gandhi. It starts with violence. The
appropriate response for society is to repress or eliminate that violence.
To suggest that societies sit there passively and talk to throat-slashing
wackos steering planes into buildings is absurd. Any government that
responded this way would itself be immoral. It would virtually gaurantee
unlicensed exploitation and evil. Horse, do you really not see the
difference between people who start fights, and those that physically
suppress fights?
Horse, you obviously dislike much about Western society. OK, I share some of
your frustrations. But the solution isn't as simple as being a cynic. You
actually have to offer up solutions and improvements that work. The reality
of the situation is that Western Democracies -- despite their flaws -- are
still better than the alternatives -- vastly better. I suggest you start
helping us to correct the flaws rather than... (searching for a metaphor)...
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
BTAICBW,
Rog
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 - 16:01:34 BST