Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ward Churchill's View Of The U.s.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It was just by chance I got to learn about the controversy surrounding Proff. Ward Churchill (They didn't report on it here in Germany).

I've listened to a lot of comments and Interviews both on the O'Reilly Factor and various news networks, as well as to a comment by Churchill himself.

His point seems to be that the U.S. is acting on principles and rules that would justify the 9/11 attacs by Al Kaider. I'd like to find out whether there's any objectivist verification for his argument.

Because the initiation of force is evil, not the reaction to it. Is there any moral argument supporting preemptive war, such as the war on terrorism. Can the U.S. attack souvereign countries, because there are people in that country that probably plan to attack America, but haven't initiated force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any moral argument supporting preemptive war, such as the war on terrorism. Can the U.S. attack souvereign countries, because there are people in that country that probably plan to attack America, but haven't initiated force?
No to the latter, since that drops some important contextual factors. First, given your description, that isn't strong enough evidence of an actual threat to warrant harming innocents. Second, since you're speaking of "sovereign countries" (that's redundant, albeit commonly used), as opposed to just "somewhere", you have to distinguish between evil people in evil countries, vs. evil people in good countries. 100 Islamicist terrorists in Germany are quite distinguishable from 100 Islamicist terrorists in Iran. We presume that terrorists will be stopped by the governments of England, Germany, France (I know that's a somewhat heretical POV, but I do think they actually would act to stop known terrorists) and probably Turkey; that presumption can't be extended to Syria or Iran, inter alii. Now to the first question: yes, if there is a significant threat, and if the controlling government will not take action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No to the latter, since that drops some important contextual factors. First, given your description, that isn't strong enough evidence of an actual threat to warrant harming innocents. Second, since you're speaking of "sovereign countries" (that's redundant, albeit commonly used), as opposed to just "somewhere", you have to distinguish between evil people in evil countries, vs. evil people in good countries. 100 Islamicist terrorists in Germany are quite distinguishable from 100 Islamicist terrorists in Iran. We presume that terrorists will be stopped by the governments of England, Germany, France (I know that's a somewhat heretical POV, but I do think they actually would act to stop known terrorists) and probably Turkey; that presumption can't be extended to Syria or Iran, inter alii. Now to the first question: yes, if there is a significant threat, and if the controlling government will not take action.

All right, the thread of evil people in evil countries must be viewed differently, but even so, how is the legality of preemptive action supported just by the existence of a threat. In objectivism, only the initiation of force is evil, not the thread of it. And since preemptive action is initiation of force, why isn't it evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In objectivism, only the initiation of force is evil, not the thread of it.
Ys, the threat of force is the initiation of force. When the assailant has finally killed you, that is the completion of force. Since man cannot infallibly see into the future, to survive we must act on the basis of knowledge. So the very thing that makes the actual application of force immoral also makes it immoral to threaten to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ys, the threat of force is the initiation of force. When the assailant has finally killed you, that is the completion of force. Since man cannot infallibly see into the future, to survive we must act on the basis of knowledge. So the very thing that makes the actual application of force immoral also makes it immoral to threaten to do so.

That sounds logical to me.

So that means, within a country, if someone meets you on the streets and threatens to kill you the next day, you do have a right to kill him first, or don't you?

Because if you don't, that is to say, if it requires a judgement by a governmental representative, then the same rule must be applied internationally, the U.S. government being like the representative of a society in the world. The U.S. would have obey a world government, the U.N., or am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And whom would the U.N. have to obey?

They would have to obey the laws based on reason objectively and make the final official judgement on whether any right has been broken or not. Again, they would have to obey reasonable laws based on objectivist principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that means, within a country, if someone meets you on the streets and threatens to kill you the next day, you do have a right to kill him first, or don't you?
No, because the threat is not imminent, and there is a government body that will protect your rights (I'm assuming the context of a civilized nation). In any nation, you have the right to immediate self-defense against the threat of harm now. In a civilized nation you have assigned your right to use force to the government, though you may exercise that right if the government is not able to perform its function (for example if the government is not aware that you are being attacked and does not have its policement there to protect you). Outside of civilized nations, in particular if you are in a nation where the goverment does not protect the right of its citizens (Sudan, North Korea etc) then you retain the right to self defense, regardless of imminence.
Because if you don't, that is to say, if it requires a judgement by a governmental representative, then the same rule must be applied internationally, the U.S. government being like the representative of a society in the world. The U.S. would have obey a world government, the U.N., or am I wrong?
If there were a civilized world government over the US, then that would be correct. However, there isn't (the UN isn't a government, it's a debating society). I think a better analogy would be Germany and the EU of the future: Germany will be subject to new statutes imposed by the EU parliament, since the EU will be by any definition a "government". An interesting question is whether Germany or other EU nations have or will legally renounce(d) their right to defend themselves militarily against attack by another nation. General legal principles would say that within the EU, Germany must renounce its right to self-defense against attack from within the EU and must leave the matter in the hand of the EU courts: but this would not be so from outside the EU. Though it remains to be see what the final form of the EU constitution is: this might be addressed (do you know what the current talk is about the right of nations to self-defense?).

There might also be a mutual agreement between specific nations, for example you could imagine a treaty between the US and Canada where each promises that they will under no circumstances attack the other, without 60 days notice. The US doesn't engage in such risky behavior with countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc. so we have no obligation to submit to attacks by terrorists from within their borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would have to obey the laws based on reason objectively and make the final official judgement on whether any right has been broken or not. Again, they would have to obey reasonable laws based on objectivist principles.

I agree that the U.N. would have to obey the laws of reason, but the problem is that they don't. Nearly all countries of the world are represented in the U.N., including China, Cuba, North Korea, the terrorist regimes of the Middle East, and all kinds of African dictatorships. There is no reason to expect that a vote by these nations will result in an objective decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...