Ben, Clark, Roger and all:
I think Ben has made some good points. We can say the Allies were acting
on the intellectual level and were therefore morally superior to the
extent that they were fighting to save democracy and protect human
rights. But generally speaking, military policy and tatics aren't
decided by human rights crusaders. In fact, the U.S. only entered the
war after the isolationists and fascist sympathizers were defeated at
Pearl Harbor. And the bombing of Hiroshima clearly demonstrates a lack
of concern for human rights. There's not much point in mentioning our
strongest ally, Joe Stalin.
Clark, I won't even try to turn the tables and use the "you had to be
there" argument in defence of my view of events. I won't ask you to
imagine what it would have been like "to be there" in Hiroshima when the
bomb went off. I won't ask you to picture your entire hometown bursting
into flames. To say "you had to be THERE" is just too cruel.
And Roger makes a good point. Most "things" are multi-layered. But if we
can't sort these things out, then the moral codes and consequently the
entire MOQ is rendered useless. If we can't see what values are at stake
in any given situation, then we can make no moral judgements about those
situations. That's an impossible and paralyzing state of affairs.
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST