From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jan 07 2005 - 16:19:46 GMT
Hi Keith, (and Sam, whom I hope is feeling better),
Just some quick comments. As you say, I think you and I are on more
or less the same page, but it never hurts to air some differences, no
matter how small. We might generate so great input from others...
msh said:
We need some clarification here. When I say that states are not
moral agents I don't mean that none of their activity has morally
positive effects. I mean that their decisions to act are ALWAYS
rooted in maintaining or expanding state power. That is, to the
them, the morality of their actions is irrelevant.
Now, with that understanding, I'm willing to contest your idea that
history considered in toto contradicts the notion that states are not
moral agents. Can you provide an historical example where a state
performed a benevolent action, when doing so meant WILLINGLY
relinquishing state power?
keith says:
well, I'm no historian, and this is my point about how playing the
game requires more commitment that watching in the stands, however..
Locally to me. Scottish, Welsh and eventually Northern Irish
devolution. In my neighbourhood. The forming of the European Union
Globally. The United Nations.
These are examples where state power is transferred where the motive
appears to be for the greater good of others rather than the direct
benefit of the participating state. Though I accept that one can
read these events differently.
msh says:
Yes, they can be read differently, but this is not to say there was
not some good intent. However, it's hard to imagine that things in
NI would have improved, to the extent that they have, without the
"agitation" of the political and military wings of the IRA. And, for
me, the formation of the EU is more about consolidating economic
power than relinquishing it; it's sort of Europe's contribution,
along with North America and East Asia, to so-called economic
"globalization." The idea behind the UN is a great one, I agree, and
is certainly worth working toward; but the current reality is that
the most powerful countries do what they want regardless of UN
opinion. All we can do about this, for now, is to recognize such
activity, and speak out against it long and loud.
keith:
I would also site examples such as the NATO intervention in Bosnia.
and probably America's involvement in WWII Where states may have not
relinquished power, and may in some part have acted in self interest,
but did indeed commit there own people with benevolent motives.
msh says:
I generally agree with respect to WWII, which was a unique event in
world history; the motivation and method justification of NATO in
Bosnia is not nearly so clear.
keith:
My point was to try and say that things aren't as bleak as you paint
them. I guess it's natural for states to act to preserve their own
status quo, and tempting at times to try and extend their power, but
in the main diplomacy and international law is respected. I guess
it's the (many) exceptions to this that you see as proving your
point.
msh says:
Yes, on balance, I think my position is pretty strong. But I don't
mean to paint such a bleak picture; in many ways things are
improving, but because of intense progressive resistance and activism
within states, not because of the benign intent of states
themselves. My picture may seem bleak because I focus on what's
wrong, not what's right. It seems odd to me to congratulate
ourselves for doing the right thing.
msh said:
But, you see, the polarization and demise of the debate occurs when
one party takes a contrary position but does not defend the position
with fact and argument. If I say "I believe Z because of W, X, and
Y, and here's why evidence in support of W, X, Y." and you say "No, Z
is false because not-W, not-X, not-Y" this is contradiction without
argument. This is my friend Platt's method of discussion, at least
when it comes to politics. (Although I've noticed others getting
annoyed by it in discussions of philosophy and science as well.) This
kills debate, and truly does turn it into a meaningless word game.
So, to answer your question, the conversation need not be polarized
and moribund, and can be as productive as we want it to be. In the
section above you contradicted my position that States Are Not Moral
Agents without supporting evidence and argument. Now I've asked you
to provide some, so we'll see what happens.
keith says:
Well I've tried. My point about the nature of discussion forums was
that the very format encourages us to take contrary positions.
msh says:
I understand. And there's nothing wrong with taking contrary
positions. In fact, this is the point of discussion, I think. But
there's a difference between taking a contrary position and simply
being contrary. And, as you say, defending a contrary position takes
time, and not all of us have that much to spare.
But I appreciate whatever input you have time to offer.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 Jan 07 2005 - 17:39:24 GMT