--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that > seems to have best > > expressed his intentions, says it best - "With > malice towards none, > > with > > charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God > gives us to see the > > right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are > in..." > > > > With firmness in the right. > > "... as God gives us to see the right." > > This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of > the problem. > > Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so > far, that our > certainties are only so certain.
Yes, but it doesn't seem to me that that problem is particularly represented on my side of this particular debate. However uncertain you are, _you still have to make a choice_. Choosing to do nothing is a choice every bit as much as choosing to do something is. Saying I'm not sure what to do and throwing up your hands is not a justification, it's an excuse. > While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others > making the claim that > Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or > anyone else argue > that > inaction was the solution. He's arguing that something functionally equivalent to inaction was the solution - a six point plan whose only point relevant to the removal of Saddam (a necessary condition for the other points) was moral condmenation. Saddam Hussein had people tortured to death as entertainment. Moral condemnation was not going to achieve much. > > I see a pattern here: > > Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice > and/or pretense. > > Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction. > > Isn't the world more complex than this? > > Dave I too see a pattern here. Use vague and inspecific action, be called on it, and then respond by distorting what other people are claiming. Seems to me we _just had_ this discussion, Dave. Cautious language is different from vague language. Cautious action is different from inaction, for that matter, because cautious action has a chance of achieving soemthing. A world court indictment? Doesn't. "Cautious" language _that consistently refuses to acknowledge the consequences of the position that "cautious" language is advocating isn't cautious at all, it's morally dishonest, camouflaging a refusal to face consequences behind a guise of caution and haze. The world is more complex than this. One of the consequences of its complexity is that all choices have consequences. A primary requirement - perhaps _the_ primary requirement - of moral decisionmaking is an acknowledgement of the fact that the actions _you_ advocate have negative consequences, along with the actions that your opponents advocate. Note that Dan and I, for example, despite different positions on the war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war has costs. What's striking is the asymmetry here because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
