From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 18:00:29 BST
Hey Erin,
ERIN:
> A group of conservative christians sent a letter to Bush
> with criteria for a just war. they were obviously
> in support for the war.
> It made me think what exactly
> is criteria for a moral war from a MOQ perspective.
> Here are some points from that letter:
> which do you agree with or disagree with...
>
> 1)In just war theory only defensive war is defensible
RICK
This is basically an "ends justifies the means" argument. From an MOQ
standpoint, the rule is flawed because it doesn't discriminate between
parties on the basis of the Quality of what is being defended. From a
pragmatic standpoint, this rule simply isn't very useful. It doesn't
account for the reality that often both sides in a war feel as though they
are defending something. And let's not forget that sometimes the best
defense is a good offense.... Or more to the point, sometimes it's hard to
separate what 'defense' from 'offense.' Here is the US (as you know) our
'war department' is actually known as "the Department of DEFENSE" run by the
"secretary of DEFENSE". When we talk about what portion of the budget is
going towards buying weapons, we call it "DEFENSE spending." etc.
Maybe the narrow lens of "defense" and "offense" is better suited to
football games than war and politics. Think of the American Revolution. Who
was playing defense in that war? Or what about the Civil War? The North
was 'defending' the Union of all States. The South was 'defending' their new
nation. Bin Laden often claims to be 'defending' against the encroachment
of the West. Bush is defending the US against terrorists, and contemplating
"pre-emptive self-defense" against Iraq. If Bush attacks, Saddam will be
defending against him....... How useful can this first rule possibly be???
>
> 2)Second, just war must have just intent.
RICK
Another "ends justifies the means" argument. It fails from an MOQ
perspective for the same reason as the first rule... it doesn't discriminate
Qualitatively between intentions. And once again, it's not really a very
useful rule. The road to hell is paved with "just" intentions. Even Osama
thinks his intentions are just. So this one really isn't saying much.
> 3)Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort.
RICK
Sure, war is only just if you have no other options. But the real trick is
deciding when there really are no other options. After all, we all know
what happens to he who hesitates....
>
> 4)Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority.
RICK
"Legitimate authority" is in the eyes of the authorized. To the suicide
bombers, Osama Bin Laden is a legitimate authority. To the Nazis, Hitler
was a legitimate authority. To the US Marines, GW Bush is a legitimate
authority. To GW Bush, the UN is...????
>
> 5)Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force
must
> have a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, "total war" is
> unacceptable and the war's goals must be achievable.
RICK
First, let's look at "limited goals"? What purpose does the qualifier
"limited" serve here? What exactly would constitute an "unlimited goal"?
Aren't all "goals" limited by definition? All this is really saying is that
a just war must have goals which is not really a difficult requirement to
fulfill when you think about it. Al Qeda might say that their goal is
"limited" to the destruction of the US and its way of life.
Second, that one must have "reasonable expectation of success" to
morally justify a fight is the philosophy of an oppressor. "Don't try to
fight me, b/c you probably can't beat me...?" On the contrary, the most
moral fights are often the ones that are carried on in the face of bleak and
overwhelming odds.
>
> 6)Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity.( will not target
> civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties)
> 0
RICK
On one hand, I'm tempted to say that this is also an oppressor's
philosophy. It's the side with a strong army telling the side without a
strong army that it's only moral if you attack our strong army. On the
other hand, if there is any such thing a 'just war' then surely this rule
would be one its characteristics.
>
> 7)Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be
> addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be
> proportionate to the stated objectives and goals? Does the good gained by
> resort to armed conflict justify the cost of lives lost and bodies maimed?
RICK
It your basic risk/rewards analysis on a grand scale, utilitarianism at its
most inexact. Everyone will come up with a different answer depending on
what they see as the "good gained" and the value they place on individual
human lives.
lazy on sunday,
rick
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:57 GMT