Hi Lawry,
I'm reading a good book at the moment by Stephen Toulmin called 'Return to
Reason'. In the chapter I have just finished he is critiquing the whole idea
of a metaprogram guiding choices. In contrast, he thinks it is often much
easier to agree on a specific action in a specific context, than to agree on
the overall theory which would provide a suitable justification; in
particular, he criticises Alasdair MacIntyre's idea of a 'tradition' which
is necessary to fully understand our ethical choices, and which would guide
which choices we make.
I think what the MoQ does is provide a different language for tackling our
ethical choices, and it is a language which, if accepted, does preclude some
outcomes, and makes other outcomes more likely. But I don't believe that any
theory is so overwhelmingly true and comprehensive that it can provide
guidance in every context. In MoQ terms, no MoQ can displace the role that
DQ has to play - our own direct perception of what is the most valuable
action in this situation. Of course, I think our perception of DQ is
something that can be developed through education and training, which is
where MoQ comes in.
Sam
"If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the seriousness
of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 3:22 AM
Subject: RE: MD Baghdad and Morality
> Yes, this is my sense of the MOQ, too, Sam. But I wonder if MOQers might
> not someday do better. After all, logically, a good metaprogram should
> delineate or at least guide choices all the way 'down' to day-to-day
> specifics, IMO. What good is a metaprogram that is irrelevant to the
lower
> levels of thought and activity?
>
> In ponderment,
> Lawry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:00 AM
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
> >
> >
> > Hi Lawrence,
> >
> > My own view is that the MoQ can't provide much in any specific conflict,
> > simply because the MoQ operates at a 'higher' ie more abstract level, so
> > that people can agree to accept the MoQ as a governing paradigm, and yet
> > disagree on what the way forward might be in any particular conflict.
> > However, IMO I don't think it's possible to accept the MoQ and be a
> > unilateralist in international relations. So some of the
> > positions are ruled
> > out, even if irreconcilable differences remain.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the
seriousness
> > of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: MD Baghdad and Morality
> >
> >
> > > Very nice analysis, Sam.
> > >
> > > I do think that your conclusions can be -- and have been -- reached by
> > > thoughtful people without the benefit of MOQ...so without
> > taking anything
> > > away from your insightful analysis, I am still wondering what MOQ
> > > contributes to the consideration of actual conflicts. You may remember
> > that
> > > a couple of months ago I asked this same question with regard to the
> > > Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- what does the MOQ suggest with reagrd
to
> > an
> > > Isr-Pal solution, and felt from the few but thoughtful responses that
> > > essentially the answer was, not much. I would love to be wrong on
this,
> > as
> > > those who are engaged in tackling these real problems do need
> > all the help
> > > they can get.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Lawry
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > > > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:23 AM
> > > > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > > > Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rog,
> > > >
> > > > You asked an interesting question; one which I have been mulling
over
> > for
> > > > quite a while:
> > > >
> > > > > What would you all suggest the MOQ endorses in the case of
> > Iraq? What
> > > > should
> > > > > the rest of the world do with the perceived threat of
> > Saddam Hussein?
> > > > What
> > > > > course is the best course?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A few things on this.
> > > >
> > > > The decision to attack Iraq has in effect now been taken,
> > > > informally if not
> > > > formally. That is because if Bush now backs away from a committed
> > conflict
> > > > then Saddam will be perceived to have 'won', and his position will
> > become
> > > > significantly stronger as a result - his credibility with Arab
> > governments
> > > > (and especially the Arab 'street') will be greatly enhanced - and
his
> > > > capacity to build up his economy and gain nukes (WMD) will be
> > enhanced.
> > In
> > > > that case, a few years down the line, we will have a
> > > > nuclear-armed Saddam to
> > > > deal with, and the last situation will be much worse than the first.
> > > > Although I don't rate Bush's intellect very highly (his or
> > his advisers)
> > I
> > > > think that much will be clear to them, as will the fact that Bush
will
> > be
> > > > exposed to ridicule in any re-election campaign, if he doesn't
follow
> > > > through on his bellicose rhetoric. (That he has resorted to such
> > rhetoric,
> > > > and closed off his options, is one reason why I don't rate the White
> > House
> > > > Intelligence Quotient particularly highly. Bush's various speeches
to
> > Wall
> > > > Street also displayed a less than historical grasp of the
situation -
> > > > perhaps he thinks the name Hoover only applies to vacuum
> > > > cleaners. But that
> > > > is off the point)
> > > >
> > > > The justification/rationale for the attack runs roughly as follows:
> > > > 1. Saddam is demonstrably aggressive and has used WMD.
> > > > 2. Saddam is renewing his WMD capacity.
> > > > 3. If Saddam gains WMD he will supply them to terrorists to attack
the
> > > > US/West and/or use them to establish hegemony over the oil
> > > > resources of the
> > > > Middle East.
> > > > 4. 3 is an unacceptable outcome, therefore we must act now to
prevent
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Logically, I think 3 follows from 1 and 2; much of the
> > > > interesting debate it
> > > > seems to me is about what 4 involves. I don't think 1 or 3
> > are really at
> > > > issue. Although Saddam isn't the only monster out there, he seems
the
> > most
> > > > volatile and nasty. However, 2 is a little open to question.
> > Embedded in
> > 2
> > > > (and most of the pro-war arguments) is the assumption or
> > > > assertion that the
> > > > international regime on non-proliferation is ineffective. I think
> > > > that this
> > > > point needs to be made more openly and strongly than it is at
present.
> > To
> > > > say the least, there is room for scepticism about both sides of the
> > > > argument - it is too easy a soundbite for someone like Rumsfeld to
> > mouth,
> > > > but that doesn't make it false. I haven't had a chance to read the
UN
> > > > inspectors reports, which would seem the first thing to do in
> > > > order to gain
> > > > my own conclusion. In any case, the authorities may have
> > evidence which
> > is
> > > > intrinsically unavailable for public consumption, so it comes
> > down to a
> > > > question of trust. I'll come back to that.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that the most important aspects relate to issues of
> > > > international law. And this is also where the MoQ has
> > something to say.
> > > > Broadly, with regard to a society of individuals, a social order has
> > more
> > > > quality if it is subject to the rule of law. The development of a
rule
> > of
> > > > law was a highly dynamic break through with regard to human
> > society - it
> > > > prevented the concentration of force in the hand of the most
> > > > brutal/strongest, and allowed more people to get on with their
lives,
> > with
> > > > all the DQ possibilities inherent from that. The rule of law
> > > > underpins both
> > > > democracy and capitalism (so I'm assuming you'll be happy
> > with that Rog
> > > > -) ) It seems to me that an international order which
> > respects a rule
> > of
> > > > law is of higher quality than one which does not - so the EU is of
> > higher
> > > > quality than the UN, which is of higher quality to the international
> > order
> > > > c1900.
> > > >
> > > > If the US unilaterally attacks Iraq then it will undermine the rule
of
> > law
> > > > at the international level. Of course, the rule of law
internationally
> > is
> > > > something of a misnomer - it's a fragile thing, lacking, in
> > particular,
> > an
> > > > effective enforcement body - and clearly there are times when
> > 'you have
> > to
> > > > take the law into your own hands'. But an action against Iraq which
is
> > > > undertaken without regard to international law would be very
different
> > to
> > > > one undertaken with a heavy heart because international law had
> > > > failed, and
> > > > which was consequently followed up by action to support
international
> > law.
> > > > (I think this is the difference between Bush and Blair. Bush
> > > > 'couldn't give
> > > > a shit' about international law/opinion, whereas Blair seems to have
a
> > > > strongly internationalist impulse).
> > > >
> > > > One other thing: one of the principles of 'just war' theory (which
is
> > what
> > > > international law derives from) is that the outcome of a war
> > > > should not be a
> > > > worsening of the overall situation. I think this is a point that
> > > > needs to be
> > > > more thoroughly aired and debated. In particular, there seems to be
no
> > > > attention paid to the law (or risk) of unintended outcomes.
> > > > Whilst I have no
> > > > doubt that if the US was serious about it, it could conquer Iraq and
> > > > dismantle Saddam's system, I worry about the long term
> > > > consequences for that
> > > > country and also for the other major countries in the region,
> > especially
> > > > Saudi Arabia, which could easily have a 1979-type revolution - and
> > again,
> > > > the last outcome will be worse than the first. However, this is a
> > question
> > > > of the balance of risks, and is for those in authority to judge -
it's
> > not
> > > > something I think we can second guess. However, I'm sure we will be
> > given
> > > > sufficient insight into the quality of judgement and decision making
> > that
> > > > characterises our dearly beloved leaders. It's possible that the US
> > could
> > > > make the right decision for the wrong reasons (as also the
> > converse, of
> > > > course).
> > > >
> > > > Sam
> > > >
> > > > "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the
> > seriousness
> > > > of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST