I think you're confusing the popular adage "Let justice be done though the world end" (fiat justitia pereat mundus) with Kant's opinion (p.156 of the Cambridge ed. of his Political Writings) that:
"Even if civil society were to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members (for example, if a people who inhabited an island decided to separate and to disperse to other parts of the world), the last murderer in prison would first have to be executed in order that each should receive his deserts and that the people should not bear the guilt of a capital crime through failing to insist on its punishment; for if they do not do so, they can be regarded as accomlices in the public violation of justice".
Brooke is absolutely correct. The popular adage makes exactly the point that I was making. I think the Cardinal Newman said something that also would illustrate my point but I cant remember what it was! Anyway my point remains that any deontologically based ethic such as the view that one ought to carry out the will of God or God's commands would not require proportion as contributing to some intrinsic good defined in utilitarian terms. It is rational in so far as it can be judged as achieving God's will. God after all destroyed all but two of everything because humans didn't behave. Why do Christians find it so surprising that anyone should regard God's will as involving the killing of innocent people or alternatively regarding entire masses as collectively guilty (sinners)?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Hanly <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Hi-jack fall-out
> The manner in which Nathan has cut this implies that he is responding to
> some remarks I have made. None of my remarks remain. Nathan is replying to
> remarks made by Yoshie I believe. However I agree with Yoshie. I dont see
> how Nathan's remarks even relate to the issues raised. He refuses to
> recognise the symbolic importance of the act to those without jets and
> weapons of mass destruction but subject to the power of a superpower and
its
> allies. His idea of rationality would be some utilitarian calculation of
> means to ends. If this is the work of islamic fundamentalist it makes no
> sense to think of the action in these terms. Think of Kant's view that it
is
> better that the whole world perish than than one murderer not be punished
> with death--or something like that. Now Kant was not exactly an enemy of
> reason or rationality but this would seem to be out of proportion.
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nathan Newman <nathan at newman.org>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Hi-jack fall-out
>
>
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Ken Hanly" <khanly at mb.sympatico.ca>
> > >I do believe that the American people have collective responsibility
for
> > the
> > >harms perpetuated in their name, but that is a very different thing
from
> > >recognizing the barbarism involved in the mass slaughter that occurred
> > >today. I am not a pacifist or even against all "terrorism" in the
sense
> > >that proportional targetted response against civilians may be justified
> on
> > >occasion where no other outlets for resistance are possible. But this
> kind
> > >of disproportionate mass murder warrants little response that will lead
> to
> > >any questioning of the US's role.
> >
> > -Disproportionate mass murder is exactly what the U.S. government
> > -specializes in, both through its own actions (e.g., economic
> > -sanctions of Iraq) and its proxies (consult, for instance, William
> > -Blum on this topic). Over many decades, the
> > U.S. government has funded, trained, and/or equipped *untold numbers*
> > of soldiers, mercenaries, and/or paramilitary death squads in the
> > USA, Asia, Africa, Latin America, & the Middle East.
> >
> > Again the equivalence between every act of the US government and the
> > culpability of innocent civilians. And proportion is not just a
question
> of
> > comparing body counts (my point on eye for an eye) but of effectiveness.
> > Murder in war is only justified to the extent it will end greater murder
> and
> > promote justice. The futility of this act in that regard removes any
> > proportion from the act.
> >
> > How does it work? We count every person killed in the world by the US,
> > subtract our casualties in that time, and terrorists have a free "kill
> every
> > Yankee they want" card until the global quota to even things up is
> reached?
> >
> > I guess this is why so many people on this list found the mass murder of
> > Kosovars acceptable. They were put in the "Yankee" column, so the Serbs
> > were just using up the quota.
> >
> > On the other hand, I find the mass murder of East Timorese,
Palestinians,
> > Iraqis, Kosovars, and residents of the financial district all equally
> > appalling. None justify the other and only proportionate response by
> anyone
> > to end death and misery is ever justified.
> >
> > Anything else is a war crime.
> >
> > -- Nathan Newman
> >
> >
>