From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 17:04:34 BST
Dear Wim,
Thanks for your most thoughtful response to my questions. IMO it represents
what a good conversation should be on this site.
ph
> 'I take it then that you, as a Christian, do NOT take the reports of Jesus'
> resurrection as the literal truth?'
wim
> That's right.
Your response is typical of many who, if asked by a poll taker, would call
themselves Christians but who, like you, do NOT take bible stories literally.
I count myself among these. So I suggest we take poll results with a grain of
salt (as you do), and be suspicious of those who, without qualification,
label all who identify themselves as religious as being "irrational."
> You asked:
> 'Why do you think it irrational to save Kuwait from invaders?
> Why do you think it irrational to enforce U.N. resolutions?
> Why do you think it irrational (especially as a Quaker) to free millions of
> fellow human beings from totalitarian horrors? Why do you think it irrational
> to attempt to establish a democracy in the heart of Middle Eastern countries
> to combat terrorism? (Libya has already given up its WMDs as a result.) Why do
> you think it irrational for 35 countries to send troops to Iraq to support the
> U.S. effort there? Or do you think none of these things are irrational, but
> only the notion that hard line religious nuts play a central role in U.S.
> foreign policy decisions?'
>
> That proved a hard nut to crack. Mainly because of the implicit assumptions
> and suggestions.
>
> In all these instances you seem to assume and suggest that military action is
> THE means to realize the stated end. In order to analyze your questions I'd
> like to make the following points: - Military action can be motivated more or
> less rationally. Irrationality/rationality is not a matter of yes/no. -
> Rationality is not a criterion to judge an action in itself, but to judge a
> relation between an action and one or more ends. It is (like 'truth') a
> criterion for 4th level morality. - Ends used to motivate actions can be
> selfish or unselfish. Unselfishness requires recognition by the intended
> beneficiaries that it serves their interests. - The expectation to realize the
> ends with this action can be more or less realistic. - There will usually be
> alternative ways to realize these ends. Their chances of success can be better
> or worse than that of military action. - Actions also have side effects,
> partly unintended and unknown in advance, partly intended and concealed. So do
> the alternatives. - Lack of information, certainty and ... politically
> motivated disagreement about intended and unintended effects complicate
> matters even more.
I think I understand. Use military force only as a last resort when all else
fails. I agree. What about preemptive military force?
> Generally speaking it is irrational to motivate action with unrealistic ends
> and not to take side effects and alternative ways to realize them into
> account. Irrationality clouds evaluation and adjustment of the morality of
> actions. It is immoral to enforce ends that are not shared by those influenced
> (with one small exception). Self-defense is moral to the extent that this
> individual or collective 'self' is worth defending.
Shall we use MOQ moral guidelines to determine whether an individual or
"collective self" (which I don't believe exists) is worth defending? If not,
what criteria would you use?
> 'Self-defense doesn't
> justify all means to realize this end. The relation between means and end
> should be realistic and one should take into account side effects and
> alternatives and ... a proper balance between that 'self' on the one hand and
> competing and more/less encompassing 'selves' on the other hand. The exception
> I referred to is enforcement of more or less generally excepted ends by a
> society on some of its members that have chosen to belong to that society and
> that have had a fair chance to democratically influence those ends. The amount
> of force that can morally be used by that society depends on the extent to
> which those defective members threaten that society.
In regards to Iraq, it was the opinion of the world intelligence community
prior to the war that Saddam possessed WMDs. It was realistic on the part of
the U.S to believe, given past relations and actions of Saddam, that he might
use them as he had in the past.
> Enforcing U.N. resolutions (including that against the Iraqi invasion of
> Kuwait) seems relatively rational to me, provided that it is done by a force
> that represents and is under the command of the U.N. and that ALL U.N.
> resolutions are enforced.
I assume when you refer to "ALL U.N. resolutions" that you have resolutions
pertaining to Israel in mind.
> A better alternative than military counter-invasion
> (after earlier chances to dissuade or weaken Saddam Hussein had been missed)
> might still have been a boycott against Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil and/or requiring
> Western oil companies to withdraw their technical support until Iraq would
> withdraw from Kuwait.
The reasonable fear at the time was that Saddam after taking Kuwait would
continue on to take Saudi Arabia, effectively shutting off oil to Western
civilization and bringing about an economic collapse with consequent
suffering to millions.
> Freeing people from totalitarianism, establishing
> democracy, combating terrorism, ... I'm very skeptical whether it is realistic
> to expect that such ends can be realized better with military means than with
> non-military lures.
We differ on the possible effectiveness of "non-military lures" in regards to
radical Islam. Leaders of radical Islam have made clear their intentions. For
example, from Muslim theorist Syed Abul Ala Mandudi: "Islam requires the
earth--not just a portion, but the whole planet--not because sovereignty over
the earth should be wrested from one Nation or several Nations and vested in
one particular Nation, but because the entire mankind should benefit from
Islam which is the programme of well-being for all humanity."
> A totalitarian regime can be ended with military means,
> but a democratic one cannot be built that way. And the perceived injustice of
> being forced without any form of consent is an even better breeding ground for
> terrorism than poverty.
I think the history of both German and Japan following WWII belie your
assertions.
> By the way: weren't you skeptical about the value of
> democracy because of the risk of its degeneration into mob-rule? Do your
> really think it wise to export the American type of democracy (which in your
> opinion is vulnerable to mob-rule) to countries with a definitely higher
> percentage of followers of irrational religion than the USA??
Again, let's be careful about the blanket phrase "irrational religion." I do
not consider the Quaker religion irrational in any sense of the word. As for
mob-rule, the Founding Fathers set up protections against that by forming a
government with checks and balances, and most importantly, by guaranteeing
certain rights to the individual, the anti-mob minority of one.
> Supporting the
> U.S.A. to rebuild Iraq by sending police forces seems relatively rational to
> me again, provided that the U.S.A. doesn't put them to shame by using
> comparable methods to combat terrorism as Saddam Hussein used to combat his
> opponents (even if less extensively). What is your opinion on how
> systematically these immoral methods of interrogation were/are used by the
> USA?
IMO there are no immoral methods of interrogation of criminals dedicated to
mass murder.
> Is it true that representatives of dictatorial regimes (especially
> Latin-American ones) learnt such methods in the past in the School of the
> Americas? Is it true that this school was closed when that was made public
> somewhere in the 1990's ... only to be reopened under another name?
Never heard of that. Is that from the same paper that published the
statistics about American religious belief? Sometimes I wonder if there are
really any credible sources of information left.
> It is not fully clear to me (possibly because of a grammatical defect) what
> you meant with the second part of the last question, where you apply
> 'rationality' to an idea (notion) rather than to (the motivation of) military
> action. Rationality CAN also be used as a criterion for judging an alleged
> relation between an idea and experience or between an idea and the ideas one
> shares with other people. But then it means something like 'so evidently
> untrue, that no-one possessing all his wits would entertain it'.
Yes, that what I mean by "rational." Very good.
> The
> rationality of (the motivation for) military action is not very comparable to
> the rationality of an idea, i.e. the truth of this 59% statistic and the
> alleged irrational influences in American politics. Until recently I would
> have thought the idea 'that hard line religious nuts play a central role in
> U.S. foreign policy decisions' irrational. It does not fit my experience with
> the Americans I know to think that a large enough percentage of Americans
> could be described as such and I deem American politics democratic enough to
> make sure that only a sizable proportion of like-minded people can have a
> noticeable influence on policy decisions. Even if the statistic of 59%
> believers in the literal truth of Revelations that shocked me overestimated
> the problem 2 or 3 times over, irrational religion could still have a
> considerable (dangerous) influence in American politics. Especially in times
> when Republicans are in power, if I may assume that they will be represented
> stronger in the Republican constituency than in the Democratic one. Is that
> right? Summarizing: the idea that irrational religion is a political danger
> (in the USA, but because of American's superpower status also globally) sounds
> less irrational to me now than it did before.
Again, I caution against this talk about "irrational religion." I could well
say that the pacifism of Quakers is irrational because while it may work
within a Christian nation, it obviously hasn't worked against totalitarian
nations who rule by terror and care nothing for human life.
Be that as it may, the reasons (rational motivations if you will) for
invading Iraq have been clearly stated by the U.S. and its allies. If you
believe there is a hidden agenda having to do with literal beliefs in Bible
stories, I would consider that irrational. It's more or less typical of those
against U.S. policy to attribute some sinister motivation behind it without
citing evidence to back up their conspiracy theories. Until we can read
people's minds, guessing at motives is futile and yes, irrational.
> You continued:
> 'The Netherlands and the rest of the civilized world has much more to worry
> from Muslim fundamentalists than Christian ones, especially when the Muslim
> fundamentalists get their hands on atom bombs.'
>
> Why? Only a minority of Muslim fundamentalists is prepared to use terrorist
> means and only a minority of these direct these terrorist means against the
> USA and Europe (rather than against targets in their own region).
Do you believe you Amersterdam is safe from an atomic weapon in the hands of
a Muslim terrorist?
> What
> percentage of Christian fundamentalists is prepared to use any means available
> to realize their ends? To what extent do their ends or their means damage
> global public interests and/or Western self-interest (e.g. by destabilizing
> the Near-East)?
I consider Western civilization or the "self-interest" thereof to be very
much worth defending. The alternative is a return to the Middle Ages. I think
it's in the global public interest, if there is such a thing, to defend
against threats to democracy and the guarantees of individual rights of
intellect that Pirsig identifies in Lila.
> An issue very much related to what we discussed until now in
> this sub-thread is to what extent Christian fundamentalists in the USA
> influence military policy. Is there a relation between the alleged fact that
> the Pentagon (and/of the think-tanks influencing it) seriously consider
> first-use of weapons of mass destruction if considered necessary and the
> influence of Christian fundamentalists and apocalyptic/millenarian thinking in
> American politics?
I consider the influence of Christian fundamentalists on U.S. national war
policy to be practically zero. But, even it is 100%, I consider the result as
we see it unfold in Iraq, and as we've seen it before in World War II, Korea,
Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia and victory in the Cold War, to create a better
life for millions. Even in our discredited effort in Vietnam, had we
persevered and not succumbed to the likes of Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky, the
Vietnamese would be far better off today, like people in other Asian nations
in the region who chose Capitalism over Communism.
Thanks for a interesting and challenging discussion, Wim. I look forward to
your reply.
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Wed May 26 2004 - 23:32:23 BST