Finally, I would argue that the only justification for killing and
war is weakness. If we were strong enough to stop evil actions
without such extreme measures, then we would be morally compelled to
do so.
I cannot agree with the premise that underlies this -- that evil is out
there and we in here, if powerful enough, can eliminate it.
That really isn't the premise. The premise is this: we as a community need
to address evil actions. I don't see community action with regard to evil
within the heart because the community I cannot see into people's hearts.
Second, I might accept a technical theological correction that the actions
are better described wrong or harmful, with evil better being reserved
for internal risks to our souls. Using this nomenclature Hitler's ordering
of the Holocaust was horribly wrong and very harmful, but we do not know if
he was morally responsible for his actions or insane enough so that he
didn't sin. If it was the former, then he did evil; if it was the latter;
then he did not.
But, accepting this, I'd also point out that this was a rather technical
distinction, and that a lot of slack should be given to those people who
are not this technical. So, it would be reasonable for someone who holds
such a technical opinion to either internally translate statements like
the Holocaust was evil (best option in my opinion) or be very careful to
explain that they are making a technical distinction.
So, if you allow me a bit of slop, then I'd say that I agree that we don't
need to be concerned about the sin of others. What we do need to be
concerned about is the present and likely future actions of others as part
of our decision making process. The morality we need to consider is not
the morality of AQ or Hussein; the morality we need to consider is indeed
our own. But, in choosing rightful actions we need to use our God given
abilities to obtain our best understanding of the consequences of various
actions.
So, if convicting Hussein in the Hague were to have a 90% probability of
ending his regime without violence within a year, then it would be hard to
argue for going to war before trying this option. But, if our best
analysis is that the odds of this are really under 1%, then one has to
weight this outcome by .01 and weigh the outcome that he continues to rule
as ruthlessly as he has at .99. If one accepts just wars, then one
figures this into the question: are his actions ruthless enough so that a
war to overthrow him would be of net benefit to the people of Iraq? If one
is a pacifist, one needs to acknowledge that the price of non-violence is
to stand by while people are tortured and killed. Looking hard for a third
option is reasonable, but basing action on the wish that the search will be
fruitful is not.
Finally, while analysis can be self-deceptive, I don't think that
concluding that one's countries goals are more in tune with what is good
and helpful to the whole world than one's enemy's can simply be written off
as self deception. Even though we had our share of mis-deeds during WWII
(like firebombed civilians), the world is better off with the US beating
the Germans than with the Germans triumphing. Even though we were not
always moral during the Cold War, there was still a stark difference
between our actions and those of the Soviet Union. The fact that other's
worse behavior isn't an excuse for one's own poor behavior doesn't mean
that there is no differences between the two. Anti-war critics would
perform a much better job of serving as counter-point to an argument to war
by acknowledging that their internal adversaries are not monsters who trade
blood for oil, but are often people who are doing what they think is right.
The human cost of leaving a dictator in place needs to be acknowledged.
It's much harder to chant these ideas, of course, but if we are to have the
community building dialog that you want, I think this is a very needed
step.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
