[972] in peace2
Re: NO WAR!!!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Collins)
Thu Sep 13 18:15:02 2001
Message-Id: <200109132214.SAA26691@jimi-hendrix.mit.edu>
To: peace-list@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:20:35 EDT."
<200109131820.OAA05314@buzzword-bingo.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:14:59 -0400
From: Daniel Collins <daniel_@MIT.EDU>
I will need to correct some wayward logic, and include some clarification.
> In his last email Daniel Collins writes:
>
> "Very true, but not all 'blood baths' are economically- or politically-driven.
> Some may be in the interests of peace."
>
> Have we become so inundated with pro-war propaganda and media newspeak
> that this statement does not bother us, or worse, seems like a logical
> step in pursuing an argument.
>
> I invite Daniel to seek out a person who has seen a murder and
> ask him or her how it felt afterwards. I guarantee him that "peaceful"
> will not be one of the adjectives used by the respondent.
Delia also addressed the first issue, but I start with the second - the
"peaceful" comment. It seems my initial sentence has been misunderstood. I was
not referring the state of being, then and there, of an observer. I was
referring to future events - those of peace (no war, etc). I wanted to suggest
that following death, there may be no death (peace), and that this subsequent
peace may be sufficient justification for the former death. I used the term
'blood baths' provokingly, drawing from the original e-mail, for not all
purposeful killings are large in scale and indiscriminate. Is it admissible to
kill 1 to save 100? or 1000 to save 1,000,000? This is not a rhetorical
question. A utilitarian would say 'yes'. A follower of Rawls would say 'no'.
Or would people rather not answer? ...the much easier choice.
> ... According to Daniel's statement, then, it
> is completely admissible for anyone negatively affected by this
> situation to attack the United States, since "Peace is a 2-way street;
> if the other group [the United States, in this case] doesn't want it,
> it doesn't exist.
My statement (however accurate it may be) was :
"Peace is a 2-way street; if the other group doesn't want it, it doesn't
exist."
I was not assessing the ethics of this matter, hence not ascribing
'admissibility' to any choice. How can it be read otherwise?
One should never make generalizations.
Daniel
