The case for war, from an AR vegan
resolvent
and one that no one has thought to generalize to animals, in spite of
the fact that these newsgroups are meant to discuss issues involving
animals.
First, ALL decisions, regardless of whether you put them into the
artificially created categories of "moral/ethical" or "political" or
"legal" or "military", whether they involve humans or animals, are a
numbers game involving minimizing pain and maximizing quality of life.
So, first of all it is misleading to say "one cannot compare Bush to
Saddam Hussein" or "Hitler to Ghandi".
Yes, I CAN compare (or contrast, if you prefer) Hitler to Ghandi, even
if the answer is quite obvious.
Secondly, I cannot stand the anti-terrorist rhetoric of Bush or ANY
politician. Terrorism always suggests an illegal activity and one
which is dramatic, involving bombs and weapons. By this definition,
it doesn't matter WHAT one is fighting for --- all ILLEGAL force and
violence is terrorism. But then this implies that fighting any foreign
war as well as any domestic revolution is terrorism . And, since the
politicians declare terrorism always to be bad, no matter the net
number of lives one frees or saves, it follows that any foreign war
and any revolution is bad. By transitivity of equality, that would
mean that all allies fighting the Nazis in WWII and Jews revolting
against Nazis, as well as slave abolishnists and the Union Army in the
American South in the 1800s, and George Washington and his armies
during the American Revolution, and Karl Marx fighting for workers to
control the means of production, are all bad.
Unfortunately, I disagree with this, because it contradicts the fact
that, in all these instances, the number of innocent or guilty that
these "terrorists" killed and the pain they caused is INSIGNIFICANT
compared to the amount of pain and killing or tyranny that Nazis and
slave owners and factory owners caused.
I feel the same situation is true with the war against Iraq right now:
that the number we kill or cause to be homeless is in total much
smaller than the number who will be freed from the terror of either
death or imprisonment by Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, Bush would
have had a lot more support for the war if he could have laid off this
brainless rhetoric.
Danny
> Oh dear... another needlessly divisive deadlock,
> and one that no one has thought to generalize to animals, in spite of
> the fact that these newsgroups are meant to discuss issues involving
> animals.
You must feel like the first man on the moon..
Where you bin?
>
> First, ALL decisions, regardless of whether you put them into the
> artificially created categories of "moral/ethical" or "political" or
> "legal" or "military",
I would accept that 'morality' is socially constructed and entirely
subjective..
So.. what do you base your veganism/pro-war stance on.. . ?
> whether they involve humans or animals, are a
> numbers game involving minimizing pain and maximizing quality of life.
I would agree that humans are animals - but game theory and
utilitarianism do not = a 'just war'. Game theory is more closely
related to force majeur and though utilitarianism bears direct
comparison with St Augustines 'just war' it would be anachronistic to
conflate the two theses.
> So, first of all it is misleading to say "one cannot compare Bush to
> Saddam Hussein" or "Hitler to Ghandi".
> Yes, I CAN compare (or contrast, if you prefer) Hitler to Ghandi, even
> if the answer is quite obvious.
Yes.. but heuristically innefective.
>
> Secondly, I cannot stand the anti-terrorist rhetoric of Bush or ANY
> politician. Terrorism always suggests an illegal activity and one
> which is dramatic, involving bombs and weapons. By this definition,
> it doesn't matter WHAT one is fighting for --- all ILLEGAL force and
> violence is terrorism.
Sound premise.
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately..
.
> But then this implies that fighting any foreign
> war as well as any domestic revolution is terrorism . And, since the
> politicians declare terrorism always to be bad, no matter the net
> number of lives one frees or saves, it follows that any foreign war
> and any revolution is bad. By transitivity of equality, that would
> mean that all allies fighting the Nazis in WWII and Jews revolting
> against Nazis, as well as slave abolishnists and the Union Army in the
> American South in the 1800s, and George Washington and his armies
> during the American Revolution, and Karl Marx fighting for workers to
> control the means of production, are all bad.
So far as they presented war as a 'solution'..
>
> Unfortunately, I disagree with this, because it contradicts the fact
> that, in all these instances, the number of innocent or guilty that
> these "terrorists" killed and the pain they caused is INSIGNIFICANT
> compared to the amount of pain and killing or tyranny that Nazis and
> slave owners and factory owners caused.
Mangled logic. You disagree with 'this' (all violence is wrong, or
near enough) and because (terrorist outrages are 'insignificant' in
comparison with the suffering and death caused by three arbitary
examples of 'your' villains..
Then you introduce an entirely unrelated proposition that US action
will save the iraqi people from terror, death and imprisonment but
only 'by saddam hussein'.
See below.
>
> I feel the same situation is true with the war against Iraq right now:
> that the number we kill or cause to be homeless is in total much
> smaller than the number who will be freed from the terror of either
> death or imprisonment by Saddam Hussein.
Many more Iraqi's have lost their lives as a result of western
national policy and UN resolutions than have been killed by Saddam..
but if you include the number of Iranians and Kuwaitis (that have been
attributed to Saddam) then the numbers are pretty close.
> Unfortunately, Bush would
> have had a lot more support for the war if he could have laid off this
> brainless rhetoric.
You too.