From: David Robjant (David.Robjant@irismurdoch.plus.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 20:10:30 BST
Hello MSH, all
> msh says:
> I'm afraid you too misunderstand the point of Chomsky's message. He's
> merely illuminating the flaw in a very common argument. He's saying
> that no immoral behavior can be justified by claiming that it's not
> as bad as someone else's behavior. Period.
If that "no immoral behavior can be justified by claiming that it's not as
bad as someone else's behavior" is all that Chomsky is saying, I agree with
him completely. As does George Bush for that matter. But what was it we
were arguing about again? Remind me.
When you alledge that it's "a very common argument" that the prison abuse is
to be justified by comparison with greater abuses, exactly who made that
"very common argument"? I had the distinct impression that *no-one* was
justifying the prison abuse - not Bush, not me, not Platt. Did I get that
wrong?
What Platt might perhaps have been justifying was US involvement in Iraq.
But, er, to state the obvious, it isn't the case that US involvement in Iraq
equals, is nothing more or less than, those prison abuses, now is it? So it
doesn't follow from the fact that Platt was justifying US involvement that
he was justifying those abuses, does it?
I see what you say about pyschopathic behaviour on all sides tending to be
the natural consequence of all prolonged conflict. There is truth in that,
although one might say that this was one thing that training is desgined to
prevent. But the cheif point about this is that if we take your argument to
be both cogent and sound here, this would have to be another argument
against fighting Hitler - and we know what we think about those, I hope.
Anyway, is that really true what you claim, that this obvious and generally
agreed point about comparing two wrongs not making for any right is
Chomsky's "point"? If I "misunderstood" Chomsky, it was to 'misunderstand'
him as treating the abuses as evidence that America ought never to have been
in Iraq - that's his "point", isn't it? It's in that context that Chomsky
might appear to be making comparative points, because it's principally by
associating US policy with the actions of previously identified
empirialists/murderers/adventurers/tortureres etc that the 'US should not be
in Iraq' conclusion drops out. Here it would appear to be Chomsky who gets
the whole 'is this abuse as bad as this other abuse?' ball rolling. As far
as pro-war apologists like Platt (and Bush) are concerned this comparative
question is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the abuses were
justified. They were not. And no-one has attempted to justify them.
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 Jun 02 2004 - 20:29:09 BST