Israel's Disproportionate use of Force

[blackdiamond]

Hi Sophia,

That quote from Ayn Rand is very interesting, and quite curious, too. What i derive from it (psychologically)is perhaps the very opposite of what you did, Sophia, and it quite probably strengthens (rather than weakens) your intuition on this issue.

Ayn Rand: I would not dispose of the lives of other people.

Hm. Why?

Whatever her reasons or premises, i would be surprised if such a person (Miss Rand, that is) would have absolutely no problem (morally and psychologically speaking) with someone who feels a total sense of indifference when given the option of either "dispensing" of such lives (of other people) or achieving the *same* goals without having to do so (at no extra cost, etc). Would she really consider such an option morally neutral - one that could merely be decided with the toss of a coin?

Just a thought.

[KendallJ]

Q: You say the United States alone should control nuclear weapons, not China or Russia as well. Should the United States ever use them?

Ayn Rand: I would not dispose of the lives of other people. It’s improper to put me in the position of commander-in-chief. As the question in principle: Is it proper for an individual to defend himself? Yes. Are Russia and China monstrous aggressors, whose first aggression is against their own people? Yes. If so, we should certainly maintain superiority over them. At present we should not attack them, because we don’t have to. But at the first sign of an attack by them, we should fight them by every means we have, because it is criminal to kill Americans while not using the better weapons we possess. [FHF 72]

Ayn Rand Answers – The Best of Her Q & A. pq.86

FHF 72 – Lecture, “A Nation’s Unity” (Boston, Ford Hall Forum, 1972)

I think this is very clear as well. "At present our policy shoudl be X, BUT at first sign of attack.... every means..."

Do you think this is a qualified "every"? Again, this is the debate of tactic, as tactics. (i.e. what would she do in situation X, what would she do in situation Y, at present we should do Z and A... etc.) We know from her other writings that there are situations where she would "dispose of the lives of other" so this statement must have a context that you must consider. What is it? From the rest of the para, I read it as "I would not dispose of the lives of other people [at this time]" or "I [i am not a military scientist or commander, therefore I am not qualified to say if its the best tactic to]... dispose of the lives of other people [at this time]". From her other statements, these semm like the best context.

Edited July 29, 2006 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Given that mass extermination (and only mass extermination) has 100% effectiveness, how could nuking Lebanon possibly be heavy-handed or mass extermination a poor policy?

You have yet to really prove this. You are only considering hte idea of effectiveness in the body count sense. Nuclear explosions are not mass exterminations. Osama Bin Laden in a deep bunker would be pretty safe. They are also limited in destruction area. Hizbollah covers probably the whole of Lebanon. Additionally, the political fall out in the Arab world from such a tactic would probably create more terrorists and they'd come streaming in from all the Arab nations you didn't bomb (ie. heavy handedness has a backlash potential that you have to figure in). You really need to set this up in a discussion of the tactic, and not simply assert that is is "100% effective". It would expose the bizarre nature of the hypothetical.

Simple question: if our military Wise Men decide, using their "objective" military science, that indiscriminate child torturing will psychologically demoralize the enemy and best end the threat, there is nothing, whatsoever, wrong with this policy????

Yes or no? or evasion?

Again, you are using the bizarre "hypothetical" to try to rest your point. I explained in another thread why this is really a poor tactic. Integrate it with reality. The reason I asked for examples is just this. The extreme majority of instances of this situation are agressor examples.

But, just for argument sake, YES. I was clear about this. There are no war crimes committed by defenders, as policy decisions. In the "bizzarre" situation that our military officers advocated, targeted baby killing, they'd be moral. By itself it proves nothing about your point.

Edited July 29, 2006 by KendallJ

[Marc K.]

Sophia:

You have missed the intent of my last post. It was not to insult.

Of the dissenters left in this thread you are the only one who warrants a reply in my opinion. In my estimation the others have no intent to learn Objectivism, they wish only to argue against it. You will notice that most of their arguments have nothing to do with Objectivism. Your’s does. And the issue you raise is difficult to integrate with your other knowledge, I had a hard time too. Believe me, I would not spend my time and effort otherwise.

So instead of thinking of them as insults, think of them as conclusions reached logically from the premises given.

In response to that I have quoted Rand saying that there is no ‘special context’ or emergency situation under which individual rights can be ignored.

Why don’t you address THAT argument instead of insulting me and putting things into my mouth which I did not say?

I have addressed that argument in nearly every one of my posts to you in two threads now, to reiterate:

The nature of rights is the correct place to start. I agree: there is no special context or emergency situation under which rights can be ignored, they are inalienable. Most importantly rights must not be ignored when considering a dictatorship. So we have the same rights as the citizens of North Korea, and yet they are not free, why is that? This is where the principle of responsibility comes in. They are responsible to set themselves free.

To see how I arrived at that conclusion you must start with the principle from which the concept of rights is derived, it is the concept upon which a rational code of ethics may be developed: that one must act a certain way in order to live. Without action there is no life. In order to live each of us is responsible to act in a way that supports our lives. Rights protect that action in a social context. Ethics tells you how to act, rights protect that action but they don’t replace it, it is still your responsibility to act.

Rights are not rights to things, only to actions -- proper actions, as described by a rational code of ethics. Rights are moral sanctions to positive action. So your right to life gives you the moral sanction to be left alone. Will you live if you are left alone? No. In addition to being left alone, you must take action, you are the one who is responsible to take action to live.

By the same logic, your right to liberty gives you the moral sanction to not have force used upon you, to be free. But this moral sanction hasn’t freed the people of North Korea. The moral sanction isn’t worth much apart from the action required to achieve freedom. If a people are not free it is their responsibility to free themselves.

To speak of Rights as apart from action is to steal the concept. Rights are derived from ethical action.

So if you are to recognize the rights of the North Korean people (as it is proper to do) then you must also recognize the responsibilities that go along with those rights. The North Koreans have the right to organize their government the way they see fit. If it isn’t to their liking then they have the responsibility to change it. You can’t say the North Koreans have rights and then deny that they have a responsibility to act in support of those rights because then you divorce ethics (how one acts) from rights.

So using rights as the starting point, government represents the people -- by definition. You cannot say the North Koreans have the right to organize their government and then relieve them of the responsibility to organize a non-aggressive government.

“Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships.” -- Ayn Rand.

To end I will provide a link (http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2137&st=0) to another thread called “In Our Name”? Some questions on the Political Philosophy forum. It discusses the same issues raised here.

***********************

I am not in any disagreements with the principles of Objectivism. There are opinions of Ayn Rand that some Objectivists do not share.

Objectivism is a fully rational, fully integrated philosophy. The way a proper government acts during war or peace is a very important question, one that can only be answered by a proper philosophy. It is covered by Objectivist principle, it is not a matter of opinion.

This issue is for another thread but be careful here:

My argument has been that life is the supreme value. One cannot compare one supreme value with another and claim one is 'more valuable' than the another. Both the soldiers' lives and the innocent civilians' lives are valuable....even if the soldiers' lives are rationally free nation's highest priority.

The first two sentences contradict Objectivist principle.

[Ifat Glassman]

Marc K. , thank you for the link to that thread. It helps a lot because this is one of the things in the basis of this argument.

I read Ayn Rand's words about "The Morality of War and Civilian Casualties", and I have several problems with it.

First of all, it is too short, and doesn't cover up everything that needs to be covered up, as I will explain shortly.

Secondly is about responsibility from passivity. A person is responsible from passivity only if they had a way of objection that did not mean the annihilation of their supreme values.

In each case the answer to what a rational person should do depend on the proper hierarchy of values that a Rational person ought to have, and on the options of action that are open to that individual.

For example: No one should ethically "compel" a man to watch his family get hurt if the government is threatening him to either "fight for the army or have your family killed". To not neglect the long term context of this (a government and a war are not started overnight) I will say that this hypothetical person was very active in a movement that planned to overthrow the government. Now, the consequence of this is an innocent man who is fighting in a bad army, for a cause he despises, to preserve a higher value for him.

While I would not hesitate to kill him if he was fighting against my country, I would not say that he is morally responsible. I am aware that I took a very extreme example, that is not very likely, but this example should be considered nonetheless, when we discuss moral responsibility, for better understanding of it. It seems to me that some people here have the attitude of "They are all guilty, simply because they live there". That is not true, and children are the most simple example of this.

In the case of a dictatorship, Ayn Rand considers the actions of the citizens as follows:

"If some people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany—they deserve whatever their government deserves."

However - she doesn't say what does it mean to "put up with". Obviously, overthrowing a dictatorship would mean a risk to that person's values.

Since Objectivism is not expecting a rational man to act against his proper hierarchy of values, the question that needs to be asked is what are the values that are at stake (or can be gained) with each action that a person is taking, and what is the proper choice between those values. Or in other words what should be considered as "passivity" or "putting up with it" and what should be considered a self sacrifice?

Can anyone give a concrete example of what a citizen of North Korea, who has a family and no other specialities other than being a writer do? At what point will his actions be considered as "putting up with it", and at what point can we say that he is doing enough and he is not morally responsible? And what are the values involved (for a rational man in this position)?

As for the article being too short, and too general: There are many different cases of violation of rights by a government, and the article is very general, and does not consider the fact that there is a variety of situations:

Given the fact that a man's country is attacking another country, what should a rational man do? Given that a man's country is allowing slavery, what should a rational man do? Given the fact that a man's country is giving away money for spreading a certain religion, what should a rational man do? The answers to all these questions is not unanimous, and should be considered individually, and according to the context. In any case different values (for that man) are involved, different rights are violated, in different degrees, and the context for such hypothetical rational person can be different too (He might be married with children or single, his workplace and the people he know and his abilities to object can vary etc).

Even if we are talking about the violation of right to life of citizens of another country, we cannot logically generalize the answer to all of the different situations possible by concluding "All citizens of a country that allow aggression are guilty guilty guilty and let's kill them all" (and please correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting that this is the meaning of targeting civilian populations as a military tactic).

For example, the citizens of Lebanon: The money they pay to the government is not going to fund weapons of the Hesbollah. Hesbollah is like a foreign force among them, that differs greatly in ideology and lifestyle from a big part of the population. Should we target those people, who are capitalists, freedom lovers, Because they allowed their government to allow Hesbollah to function in their territory? Or should we try to use them to defeat Hesbollah, which they would be happy to do? This example clearly demonstrates that a blind "They are all guilty let's kill them all" attitude is dangerous and inefficient. Instead of killing the population, a better way would be to use them as a fighting force against their government. How come no one here has thought of this option?

The other question that I have, if we acknowledge the fact that innocents in war do exist (children), is why should we not make an effort to avoid hurting them? If we put a limit to what a person can do in self defense in a society, why shouldn't we put this limit in case of individuals of different countries? (by that I am repeating an old question of mine which I haven't got an answer for yet).

[blackdiamond]

I think this is very clear as well. "At present our policy shoudl be X, BUT at first sign of attack.... every means..."

Do you think this is a qualified "every"? Again, this is the debate of tactic, as tactics. (i.e. what would she do in situation X, what would she do in situation Y, at present we should do Z and A... etc.) We know from her other writings that there are situations where she would "dispose of the lives of other" so this statement must have a context that you must consider. What is it? From the rest of the para, I read it as "I would not dispose of the lives of other people [at this time]" or "I [i am not a military scientist or commander, therefore I am not qualified to say if its the best tactic to]... dispose of the lives of other people [at this time]". From her other statements, these semm like the best context.

I don't mean to drag you into a huge debate over this, Kendall (especially after your corruptingly kind words about me a few posts ago! ), but i have to totally disagree with that interpretation of what Ayn Rand meant here.

The context does make it clear she was not talking about her inability to dispose of the lives of other people "at this stage". Come on, Kendall. Notice first the use of the words "lives of OTHER people". This is not someone who is just talking about "at this stage" - i do not believe she could have used those particular words if that's what she meant to say. Would you ever use such words to say that? [besides, if she meant "at this stage" wouldn't she have just added those words to make herself clear?]

More importantly, the very next sentence says, essentially, "that's why you shouldn't make the mistake of putting me as Commander in Chief". If it was just an opinion she had about "this stage", why would she go as far as saying it would be improper for her to be commander in chief?

What i believe her statement meant exactly is, "i don't believe i can easily order the killing of other people even when it is necessary, which is why you should not put me in a position where you will have to depend on me to do it when it has to be done. " Admittedly, this does not say she is opposed to this action in principle - just that *she* would not do it herself.

However, the question i asked was something apart from the quote itself. I was merely wondering about the probability of a person like that having no problem with another person who feels absolutely nothing about "disposing of other people's lives" (go back to my last post for my exact wording and situational context).

[by the way, if you want some stronger evidence that she meant exactly what she said here (about 'disposing of other people's lives' and commander-in-chief, etc), i could provide it].

[hunterrose]

In the situation that our military officers advocated, targeted baby killing, they'd be moral. By itself it proves nothing about your point.

It shows you are consistent, all I wanted to know.

You really need to set this up in a discussion of the tactic, and not simply assert that is is "100% effective". It would expose the bizarre nature of the hypothetical.

I'm setting up a discussion of whether a policy of mass extermination is objectively the best application of your principles, not so much one on particular, hypothetical means of implementing that policy.

The fundamental objectivity of mass extermination is that

1. killing an enemy objectively ends that enemy's capacity to threaten
   
2. not killing an enemy does not objectively end that enemy's capacity to threaten
   

Don't you agree with this much at least? If not, why?

The dissenters left in this thread ... have no intent to learn Objectivism, they wish only to argue against it. You will notice that most of their arguments have nothing to do with Objectivism.

Heed your own advice.

In the future if you want to be taken seriously refrain from personal attacks, insults and attributing motives not specifically stated. Instead you will have more luck being considered rational if you attack the explicitly stated arguments and principles of another by quoting them and showing where they have gone wrong, enumerating principles that contradict the ones you don’t like.

Thank you for the link. That one and the Morality of War thread were interesting.

They do illustrate problems with vague conceptions of "free state" and "self defense" however. It has already been said or implied that responding to appropriation of a citizen's property in a foreign country (Guatemala,) another nation's "nonthreatening" collectivist policies (Vietnam,) and secession (American Civil War, Philippine-American War) all count as "self defense." And that a "free nation" is warranted in any (effective) means of attack against the aggressor and its citizens in "self defense."

But America does/did aggress against "free nations" in exactly the same manner.

Do your principles thus lead to the conclusion that it is/would have been warranted for such "free nations" to kill/torture American civilians, and that "innocent" American civilians should neither resent nor oppose such acts?

[KendallJ]

I'm setting up a discussion of whether a policy of mass extermination is objectively the best application of your principles, not so much one on particular, hypothetical means of implementing that policy.

The fundamental objectivity of mass extermination is that

1. killing an enemy objectively ends that enemy's capacity to threaten
   
2. not killing an enemy does not objectively end that enemy's capacity to threaten
   

Don't you agree with this much at least? If not, why?

If you emphasis is that which I have highlighted 1 is true. 2 is not. If you are treating this as a chess game, then 1) removing pieces objectively ends their threat and 2) not removing them does not objectively end their threat. However, the real world is not so limited as a chess game and,

1) New pieces can decide to enter the playing field.

2) Existing pieces can surrender without being removed.

I think both factors are part of what tempers heavy handedness.

I don't mean to drag you into a huge debate over this, Kendall (especially after your corruptingly kind words about me a few posts ago! ), but i have to totally disagree with that interpretation of what Ayn Rand meant here.

The context does make it clear she was not talking about her inability to dispose of the lives of other people "at this stage". Come on, Kendall. Notice first the use of the words "lives of OTHER people". This is not someone who is just talking about "at this stage" - i do not believe she could have used those particular words if that's what she meant to say. Would you ever use such words to say that? [besides, if she meant "at this stage" wouldn't she have just added those words to make herself clear?]

More importantly, the very next sentence says, essentially, "that's why you shouldn't make the mistake of putting me as Commander in Chief". If it was just an opinion she had about "this stage", why would she go as far as saying it would be improper for her to be commander in chief?

What i believe her statement meant exactly is, "i don't believe i can easily order the killing of other people even when it is necessary, which is why you should not put me in a position where you will have to depend on me to do it when it has to be done. " Admittedly, this does not say she is opposed to this action in principle - just that *she* would not do it herself.

However, the question i asked was something apart from the quote itself. I was merely wondering about the probability of a person like that having no problem with another person who feels absolutely nothing about "disposing of other people's lives" (go back to my last post for my exact wording and situational context).

[by the way, if you want some stronger evidence that she meant exactly what she said here (about 'disposing of other people's lives' and commander-in-chief, etc), i could provide it].

Diamond, I could go with either. Without mindreading, I think we are both hypothesizing conjecture. I'd love to see the evidence. IF she is not opposed to the action in principle, then I would think she would welcome someone who could carry it out, if she could not. What she woudl say about how their psychology is something altogether different.

[Marc K.]

hunterrose:

"Instead you will have more luck being considered rational if you attack the explicitly stated arguments and principles of another by quoting them and showing where they have gone wrong, enumerating principles that contradict the ones you don’t like." [emphasis added]

[Marc K.]

Now, the consequence of this is an innocent man who is fighting in a bad army, for a cause he despises, to preserve a higher value for him.

While I would not hesitate to kill him if he was fighting against my country, I would not say that he is morally responsible.

OK. Responsible or not, you defended yourself.

It seems to me that some people here have the attitude of "They are all guilty, simply because they live there".

I don’t think anyone has said this, if they have please quote them. But, as you have demonstrated in the first quote above, guilt or innocence doesn’t matter when you are defending yourself.

Given the fact that a man's country is attacking another country, what should a rational man do? Given that a man's country is allowing slavery, what should a rational man do? Given the fact that a man's country is giving away money for spreading a certain religion, what should a rational man do? The answers to all these questions is not unanimous,

Yes they are: he should always exercise his rights.

"All citizens of a country that allow aggression are guilty guilty guilty and let's kill them all" (and please correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting that this is the meaning of targeting civilian populations as a military tactic).

You are wrong. And again, if someone has said this then please quote it.

Or should we try to use them to defeat Hesbollah, which they would be happy to do?

Yes. Definitely. I am all for it. In fact the less help they need from me the better.

The other question that I have, if we acknowledge the fact that innocents in war do exist (children), is why should we not make an effort to avoid hurting them?

If you can make me up a bomb that can distinguish the guilty from the innocent and then kill only the guilty I will be happy to deploy it.

If we put a limit to what a person can do in self defense in a society, why shouldn't we put this limit in case of individuals of different countries? (by that I am repeating an old question of mine which I haven't got an answer for yet).

Because they are from another country and that is not the function of the US government.

[blackdiamond]

Diamond, I could go with either. Without mindreading, I think we are both hypothesizing conjecture. I'd love to see the evidence. IF she is not opposed to the action in principle, then I would think she would welcome someone who could carry it out, if she could not. What she woudl say about how their psychology is something altogether different.

Thanks, Kendall. Miss Ayn Rand was indeed not opposed to "the action in principle", but remember that my question was concerning such action when there is an option that would have equal results without disposing of (innocent) lives. That's the one i am wondering if she would not be opposed to "in principle".

Reading MarcK's last post, i am now getting the feeling that this debate may be now getting lost on identities: who is saying what? (I think it's a law of online entropy: Every long debate reaches such a state of confusion in identities). If Mark's position has nothing to do with whether the citizens of the enemy country are guilty or not, then i do not believe there are many people here who would be opposed to him. But there are others here who are essentially arguing that the people of the enemy (aggressor) country are somehow guilty and deserve to be killed for that.

I don't know if this is your position, Kendall. I know it's Myron's position.

I will now summarise. My position is that you can rightfully attack the enemy and possibly kill even it's most innocent citizens in an act of self-defence ('tactically' or otherwise), but that if you know that you CAN avoid this particular 'tactic' and achieve the same result (of thwarting the threat with no altruistic considerations), then you are immoral if you still choose to "dispose of the lives of other people". I do not accept that we can not make any moral judgment on an individual just because his actions achieve the intended military goals of a "free" nation.

In short, killing of non-dangerous (non-threatening, defenceless) people should only be done when the option of avoiding it creates a dangerous position for yourself or requires you to make sacrifices that are too costly to you.

My premise for this is simply that a rational (or good) person values human life by default, and only destroys it when his own life (or the life of someone he values) is threatened by a failure to do so - with or without a war situation. I am not surprised that Ayn Rand could not even picture herself "disposing of other people's lives" - even when it was right to do so. I believe she would have no problems with someone (like myself) who can do it when it is totally necessary, but i think she would have a problem (both morally and psychologically) with someone who would be indifferent to the use of this "tactic" as just one of morally equal options in a war (please keep my context for that statement this time, Kendall).

Whether this should translate into the issue of war crimes is another issue. In short, like the question of homosexuality, i think someone can be (morally) judged as immoral (or psychologically diagnosed as 'abnormal') without necessarily being legally judged as a criminal.

Thank you.

Edited July 31, 2006 by blackdiamond

[KendallJ]

But there are others here who are essentially arguing that the people of the enemy (aggressor) country are somehow guilty and deserve to be killed for that.

I don't know if this is your position, Kendall. I know it's Myron's position.

I will now summarise. My position is that you can rightfully attack the enemy and possibly kill even it's most innocent citizens in an act of self-defence ('tactically' or otherwise), but that if you know that you CAN avoid this particular 'tactic' and achieve the same result (of thwarting the threat with no altruistic considerations), then you are immoral if you still choose to "dispose of the lives of other people". I do not accept that we can not make any moral judgment on an individual just because his actions achieve the intended military goals of a "free" nation.

In short, killing of non-dangerous (non-threatening, defenceless) people should only be done when the option of avoiding it creates a dangerous position for yourself or requires you to make sacrifices that are too costly to you.

My premise for this is simply that a rational (or good) person values human life by default, and only destroys it when his own life (or the life of someone he values) is threatened by a failure to do so - with or without a war situation. I am not surprised that Ayn Rand could not even picture herself "disposing of other people's lives" - even when it was right to do so. I believe she would have no problems with someone (like myself) who can do it when it is totally necessary, but i think she would have a problem (both morally and psychologically) with someone who would be indifferent to the use of this "tactic" as just one of morally equal options in a war (please keep my context for that statement this time, Kendall).

Blackdiamond, we are close but not in agreement. See my post above in response to Sophia, for why I htink there is reason to argue some guilt on the part of enemy populations. I too hold that human life is of value and the ending of such should be considered heavily. However, that is waht is usually done in defending senarios, and still the charges of war crimes comes up. Look at the national sentiment leaning away from Israel. They are using hte concept of "innocence" and "proportionality" heavily now without regard for hte fact that Isreal is giving notice, Hisbollah is the party who uses civilian targets as shelter.

They are using your concept of, "My premise for this is simply that a rational (or good) person values human life by default, and only destroys it when his own life (or the life of someone he values) is threatened by a failure to do so - with or without a war situation." against you. I think war situations are different, and I think they are clearly so.

Edited July 31, 2006 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

Diamond,

Just to clarify, my argument is that such "value of life" considerations will factor into the discussions (in several ways) of use of tactics, as tactics, but they are not and should not be the province of an ethical discussions. Any action toward ethically sanctioned objectives is ethically justified as a defender, but that does not mean that the most heavy handed actions meet sanctioned objectives the best.

Actions that are arbitrary (i.e. do not serve to progress toward sanctioned objectives) are unethical.

[dan_edge]

Sounds like you have issues here: killing civilians in the enemy state to stop the threat is OK, but torture is not, according to your post. That is a contradiction.

Olex,

I may be wrong, as you say, I haven't completely thought it through yet. Looking back through the essay, I found these quotes on torture:

"If humiliation or torture is an effective method of extracting information that would save American lives, we should humiliate or torture prisoners as necessary."

"If and to the extent torture is an effective technique to save American lives, and it is used on those who are initiating force against us, then it is morally obligatory."

"Whether and under what conditions torture is practical is a specialized military question."

(Italics mine in all quotes).

Based on this, I have misrepresented Brook/Epstein's position in the article. They did not positively endorse the use of torture, they said that it should be used if it is an effective tool of war. I'm still not convinced that torture is ever an effective tool of war, for concerns I listed earlier. Olex, do you think my concerns are unfounded?

I am working from the perspective that torture and rape are more severe than killing. So, while I agree that targeting the civilian population with weapons is acceptable in war, that does not mean that I would endorse the torture or rape of civilians. Same goes for military personnel. I think that the burden of proof lies with he who endorses these more severe actions. Oleg, can you spell out more precisely the contradiction you see in this line of thought?

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Edited July 31, 2006 by dan_edge

[dan_edge]

Watching the Israel-Lebanon incident unfold has transformed me into more of a warhawk than I ever thought possible. It's clear that the deaths in Qana are the responsibility of Hezbollah. Israel rightly proclaimed last week that any village from which rockets are fired will be "flattened" and utterly annihilated. They haven't made good on this proclamation, but they should. It is the only way to get the militants to stop attacking them.

The Lebanese Prime Minister recently had the gall to say that he will "accept nothing short of an immediate and unconditional cease fire," and he explicitly sanctioned a Hezbollah response to the Qana airstrike. How is it possible for an aggressor nation, that is being soundly defeated in a war, to seriously demand the de facto *surrender* of the country that is kicking its ass? The crazy thing is, the more severe Lebanon's defeat, the more likely it is that Israel will comply with these "unconditional" terms.

Brook/Epstein/Journo have got it right. The only thing that makes Israel's defeat possible is the philosophy of altruism on which Just War Theory stands. I know that many of you who express concern for the "rights" of non-combatants believe that your opinions are founded on political theory, but when you see that the practical results of your beliefs are antithetical to our survival, it's time to check your premises.

--Dan Edge

[KendallJ]

I am working from the perspective that torture and rape are more severe than killing.

I wrestled with this for a while, but frankly I cannot see how ANY action that leaves the target alive, is worse than one that leaves the target dead.

Certainly a quick death is more merciful than a slow "torturous" death, but life must be more valuable than death... Which means if you advocate the killing of someone as ethically ok, then you must advocate that something less than death would be as well, if your only argument is that one is located at different points on teh continuum of "badness" than the other.

Watching the Israel-Lebanon incident unfold has transformed me into more of a warhawk than I ever thought possible.

Me too. It's amazing when you actually see the concrete results of anything less than the Objectivist position in action.

Anyone who argues that the Objectivist position must have other ethical limitations will be sorry to see Hezbollah using their own arguments for such limitations against Israel, right before their eyes.

"Proportionality", "discrimination", "war crimes".... All screamed by Hezbollah and Lebanon.

[Myron Azov]

Why should we wait and see if a certain magnitude of force (and no more) is enough to end aggression?

Only mass extermination minimizes our casualties and is guaranteed to eliminate all of the complicit threats. What else is there to consider?

The taxpayer. There's no such thing as a free nuke. Each one costs about six million bucks. We can't go tossing them around like confetti.

That's a blank statement because "free country" is never, ever, ever defined.

Please distinguish "never, ever, ever" from simply "never."

A 100% free country is one in which the government protects the individual rights of its citizens and does nothing more than that. The United States is a 70 to 80% free country. For the past century, the enemies of the United States have been only five to ten percent free. Therefore, we had a right to annihilate them. Quasi-free trumps slave state any day of the week.

This is pragmatism.

Nope. It's Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who rejected pragmatism and defended the right of the United States to fight a war of self-defense which would include taking the lives of "innocents" in order to vanquish a dangerous dictatorship. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Would you base the principle of honesty or support for capitalism on "historical knowledge?"

Nope.

Unlike honesty and capitalism, violating Demonstration of Overwhelming Force and Psychological Demoralization is sometimes beneficial. This is what is meant by "Objectivist ethics sense," and it invalidates your conception of war crimes. Because you admittedly cannot determine whether a particular tactic in a given context will work, you cannot prosecute someone for war crimes on the basis that something didn't work.[/

What conception of "war crimes" are you blathering about? I never made any claims about "war crimes."

[Ifat Glassman]

OK. Responsible or not, you defended yourself.

Of course: if two people are forced to fight each other to the death under gun threats, they would both me justified in killing the other person, and the blame would be with the person holding the gun.

The points I was trying to make with that example are three:

1) People need to be judged individually in order to figure out who is morally responsible for the actions of the government and who isn't. A moral evaluation of a "population" will never be accurate, and therefor should be avoided.

2) When someone is holding a gun against you, no moral assessment is needed: shot to defend, ask questions later. That is why fighting an army is always justified, but targeting civilians is not.

3) Whether or not a person is morally responsible has to be determined by his proper hierarchy of values. We should not expect a man to sacrifice his family, for example, to prevent an immediate harm to citizens of another country, and we should also not expect him to sit and do nothing. It took me a while but I understand the responsibility from passivity now.

I would like to talk more about #3, because the issue of proper hierarchy of values in situations like living under dictatorship, war etc, and the proper action that need to be taken is not entirely clear to me. No one here yet talked about what makes a man morally responsible for his government, I think I am the first one who touched on the way to approach it, and allowed judging a real-life man's choices. You (Marc K) did talk about responsibility from passivity, but did not include the wider context under which a man's actions should be judged (to determine whether he is guilty or not). I think we should make a distinction between moral responsibility, and moral guilt. A person is morally responsible of making sure that his labor would not support evil acts. THIS is, in my view, the "responsibility from passivity". If a man stops paying taxes and go live in the woods, he is not longer responsible for overthrowing his government, because he doesn't contribute a thing to it's existence. The fact that a person has a certain moral responsibility doesn't make him morally guilty. He will only become guilty if he wouldn't make the right choices. Moreover, just because a person is paying taxes to his evil government, does not automatically mean he is guilty: We have to examine the rest of his actions to determine that. If the person is a member of a secrete organization that wants to overthrow the gov, and we would kill him to "stop him from paying taxes" then we would not be acting in our best interests.

This also relates to your answer "Yes they are: he should always exercise his rights." as an answer to my statement that what a man should do in all the situations I described (his country attacking another one, his country allowing slavery, overtaxing etc) is not unanimous.

What I am interested in is an analysis of a concrete situation, from two aspects: what are the values involved for that man, and what should be the action to achieve them.

That is why the answer to "what should a man do in different situations" is not unanimous. Of course I agree that he should always exercise his rights", but that was not what I was asking.

Since nobody answered my question about the north Korean, Maybe someone would like to answer my question about a Christian Lebanese citizen: In the last, say, 5 years: what should have been the actions of that man, who has a wife and 2 kids, lives in Beirut, has a successful factory (long term actions, no need to go in to his daily routine...), and what are the values that should have guided his actions, and what is the proper hierarchy of those values?

Another major question that crossed my mind is: what is the difference between a dictatorship that limits your freedom in all aspects of life, and a dictatorship that gives relative freedom to it's own population, but who violates the right of only a certain group of people (Nazi Germany and the Jews), in terms of the values of that man that are denied? (in one case his own life is at stake and on the other case the right to life of other men is denied). Should his actions be any different in these cases?

[ifat]It seems to me that some people here have the attitude of "They are all guilty, simply because they live there".

[Marc K]I don’t think anyone has said this, if they have please quote them. But, as you have demonstrated in the first quote above, guilt or innocence doesn't’t matter when you are defending yourself.

It is implied in the following quote as I will explain after it:

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.

and also:

Observe what it took for the United States and the Allies to defeat Germany and Japan and thus win World War II. Before the Germans and Japanese surrendered, the Allies had firebombed every major Japanese city and bombed most German cities—killing hundreds of thousands. Explaining the rationale for the German bombings, Churchill wrote, “. . . the severe, the ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort . . . but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.” And as we well know, what ended the war—and the Nazi and Japanese Imperialist threat to this day—was America’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

bold emphasis is mine.

Since the article offers no way of distinguishing between complicit population and non-complicit population, yet offers to target civilians as a military tactic, I conclude that the article suggests that "They are all guilty, simply because they live there". It is also clear from the fact that the article supports the mass killing of Germans and Japanese, without first examining their individual "complicity". Their "complicity" is justified based on the country they live in.

[ifat]"All citizens of a country that allow aggression are guilty guilty guilty and let's kill them all"

[Marc K]You are wrong. And again, if someone has said this then please quote it.

I'm referring to Myron's suggestion to target civilians as a military tactic, I am referring to KendallJ's opinion that there is no difference between achieving a military goal while killing civilians or while avoiding it (assuming they both bare the same risks).

But, you are right, I was not faithful to the ideas brought up here, and I was misrepresenting them. They did not suggest to "kill them all" systematically, just part of them, and KendallJ did not suggest killing civilians as a preferred strategy, but simply said that Victory is above all and anything goes in achieving it.

I apologize for misrepresenting their views (seriously, not sarcastically).

If you can make me up a bomb that can distinguish the guilty from the innocent and then kill only the guilty I will be happy to deploy it.

Well then do you agree with Blackdiamond's views?

My position is that you can rightfully attack the enemy and possibly kill even it's most innocent citizens in an act of self-defence ('tactically' or otherwise), but that if you know that you CAN avoid this particular 'tactic' and achieve the same result (of thwarting the threat with no altruistic considerations), then you are immoral if you still choose to "dispose of the lives of other people". I do not accept that we can not make any moral judgment on an individual just because his actions achieve the intended military goals of a "free" nation.

In short, killing of non-dangerous (non-threatening, defenceless) people should only be done when the option of avoiding it creates a dangerous position for yourself or requires you to make sacrifices that are too costly to you.

My premise for this is simply that a rational (or good) person values human life by default, and only destroys it when his own life (or the life of someone he values) is threatened by a failure to do so - with or without a war situation.

Because they are from another country and that is not the function of the US government.

Our discussion now is not about what is, but about what ought to be. Are you suggesting that a government is only obligated to defend the rights of it's citizens, but not of foreigner's? I think this would be a death strike to tourism.

Edited July 31, 2006 by ifatart

[KendallJ]

Blackdiamond, we are close but not in agreement. See my post above in response to Sophia, for why I htink there is reason to argue some guilt on the part of enemy populations.

Post #108 to be specific. I didn't realize how far back in the conversation it was.

[Marc K.]

Ifat:

You seem to be having trouble with the issues of guilt, innocence, and responsibility. I have expounded upon the issue of responsibility throughout this thread, most clearly in post #129. The issues of guilt and innocence are explicated most clearly in posts #21 and #23 of the “In Our Name”?... thread which I have linked to previously. So I will not duplicate my effort here. Please reread these threads and if there is something I have said with which you disagree then quote it and tell me why. To reiterate:

- Each of us is responsible for the kind of government we allow to exist.

- The guilt or innocence of the population of an aggressive nation should not matter to the defending nation.

What I am interested in is an analysis of a concrete situation, from two aspects: what are the values involved for that man, and what should be the action to achieve them.

Values are achievable only to the extent that rights are respected and exercised.

and what are the values that should have guided his actions, and what is the proper hierarchy of those values?

A man should value himself and those he loves, if he does he should live a happy life by, among other things, seeking out freedom and pursuing happiness.

what is the difference between a dictatorship that limits your freedom in all aspects of life, and a dictatorship that gives relative freedom to it's own population, but who violates the right of only a certain group of people (Nazi Germany and the Jews),

Do you really think Nazi Germany was a relatively free place? The Nazi’s eventually got around to violating everyone’s rights. Particularly by being aggressive they exposed all of their citizens to the retaliatory force of the allies.

They did not suggest to "kill them all" systematically, just part of them, and KendallJ did not suggest killing civilians as a preferred strategy, but simply said that Victory is above all and anything goes in achieving it.

I think what they said specifically was to kill as many as it took to stop the aggression. Do you think anything less is justified? Considering how the war with Japan went don’t you think the mass killing of civilians was justified?

If you can make me up a bomb that can distinguish the guilty from the innocent and then kill only the guilty I will be happy to deploy it.

This was my attempt at sarcasm. It is an impossibility. Bombs will always kill the innocent along with the guilty.

Our discussion now is not about what is, but about what ought to be. Are you suggesting that a government is only obligated to defend the rights of it's citizens, but not of foreigner's? I think this would be a death strike to tourism.

A proper government should recognize and respect the rights of all rational beings. It is only obligated to defend anyone it is sovereign over.

[hunterrose]

The real world is not so limited as a chess game and 1) New pieces can decide to enter the playing field. 2) Existing pieces can surrender without being removed.

Everything else being equal, mass extermination of aggressor A ensures that A will no longer be a threat. The surrender of A accepts the chance that we may not be able to ascertain whether "victory" is merely a masked ceasefire to create more deadly threats.

Nation B may become (more of) a threat as a result of mass extermination of A. If it is known that B will threaten as a result of defensive mass extermination, then choosing to not exterminate A and B is sacrificially light-handed.

It may be determined that attaining surrenders and ceasefires as a segue to mass extermination - the best implementation of unproportionate and indiscriminate war - is effective. If a surrendering/passive threat happens to turn into a non-aggressor, that's one less people to make extinct, but as long as they are a threat, I don't see the objective reason to not endorse a policy of mass extermination of all threats as the ultimate war objective.

Attack the explicitly stated arguments and principles of another by quoting them and showing where they have gone wrong, enumerating principles that contradict...

It is time for some understanding and reintegration. This is a difficult issue so let me give you a few pointers.

Please don’t get bogged down in what constitutes a threat. I am talking about an existential threat, an actual threat.

Yes, why should we be bogged down with definitions? This anti-Objectivist attitude is exactly why your arguments can't be attacked and principles not be shown to be contradictory.

The only moral way to oppose the policies of your government in a free society is to use your freedom of expression to argue against such policies. What else could you do? Would you use force against some government agent...?

Anyone who does not flee or actively oppose an aggressor government gives their implied sanction to its actions.

The aggressor has NO sanction to use force. The defender has every "right" to use whatever means necessary to end the threat from the aggressor.

Very eloquent, but completely vacuous. It's impossible to analyse what you mean, and annoying to have you continually spout this, without definitions. Which right-violating countries are "free", and why are these right-violating countries exempt from being forced?

[The Wrath]

The more I hear from Ehud Olmert, the more I like him.

"There is no cease-fire, and there will be no cease-fire. Citizens of Lebanon, we regret the pain caused to so many of you, the fact that you had to flee your homes and places of residence and the unintentional harm to innocents, but we do not apologize for it. We will not give up -- not even for a moment -- our right to protect the state of Israel and defend our lives."

Unfortunately, he's still talking about pulling out of the West Bank.

[Brown_Bear]

Hardly anyone in the world is telling Israel to do nothing in response to the Hezbollah attacks, but many critics of Israel claim she is using a "disproportionate amount of force."

There are about 7 million Israelis, and 300 Million Arabs. Hezbollah killed 8, and kidnapped 2. If Israel were to react proportionally they would have to kill 344 Arabs, and kidnap 86.

And to anyone who says "Its only Palestinians" or "Its only Lebanese" it's the Arab world itself that claims they are one people. It was Arab protesters that chanted "Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine are one!"

If all the worlds countries want Israel to use proportionate force, then Israel better pick up the pace.

Well put tobyk100, but I would go further than you since the 300 million Arabs are supported by an additional 900 million of their Muslim coreligionists (let's not forget that this is war is really sponsored by the Iranians -- not the Arabs), and the 1.2 billion Muslims overall are supported by the remaining 90% of humanity imo in their fight against the Jews.

Brown Bear

"Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics,

and the Catholics hate the Protestants,

and the Hindus hate the Moslems

and everybody hates the Jews."

[Maarten]

I wrestled with this for a while, but frankly I cannot see how ANY action that leaves the target alive, is worse than one that leaves the target dead.

Certainly a quick death is more merciful than a slow "torturous" death, but life must be more valuable than death... Which means if you advocate the killing of someone as ethically ok, then you must advocate that something less than death would be as well, if your only argument is that one is located at different points on teh continuum of "badness" than the other.

Wouldn't an action that made a flourishing life impossible for the victim be just as bad as death? If one were to destroy the capacity to value in someone by some means, that might be worse than simply killing them. At least the dead person is not aware of what they lost.

I do not think that there are many things capable of this, but there are certainly some. Situations similar as to what John Galt talks about in AS come to mind.

[Brown_Bear]

Well, this is precisely the wrong strategy. Israel should not be sparing civilians but making every effort to destroy both the terrorists and the terrorist-support population. Hezbollah does not exist in a vacuum. Hezbollah is able to train, quarter and provision its troops because the people of Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere regard these devils as heroes and extend every consideration and courtesy to them. It is therefore futile to exterminate a nest of two of Jew-haters if the society that breeds them like flies remains in place and open for business.

As Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, has said, “Civilians of enemy nations are part of the [enemy] war machine." American owe their lives to U.S. leaders who were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians. http://www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/pa....tuftsdaily.com

If Israel did the same, it would no longer have any enemies. And the world would hearken to Israel’s trumpet of freedom, justice and partial capitalism.

Forget civilians Myron! I know a nurse in Haifa, and she tells me that wounded Hizbollah terrorists receive the same medical treatment as wounded Israeli soldiers. Here you have the philosophy of leftist humanitarianism at work that many Israelis embrace. The end result will be that many of these experienced Hizbollah terrorists will recover to kill Jews and other non-Muslims again.

Israel will never be able to prevail against its enemies when a significant part of its population maintains the philosophy of leftist humanitarianism. My point is that let us not forget the internal enemies. Israel is under attack today because its enemies smell blood due to internal division and self-defeating ideologies. Bullies do not engage with what they perceive as a hard target.