<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Justin wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>>Posibly. depends on what the aid is used for. I believe in the moral significace of the >distinction between actsa and omissions.</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Or, I presume, obligatory and supererogatory.  Contra the two Peters (Singer and Unger), I think such a distinction is significant, though, of course, only instrumentally so.</FONT><BR></FONT><BR>>As I said. But in fact the pressure on Iraq has everything to dow ith money and >power.</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think it has more to do with eliminating a threat both to the US and Iraq's neighbors.</FONT><BR><BR>>I should have known, you're that sort sort utilitarian. Take "moral responsibility" just >to mean "subject to moral evaluation," whatever you think that amounts to.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Not very much.  I do, however, think it's important that agents feel as though they are morally responsible.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>I doubt it too. Most likely he was just taking early flight to make as sure as possible >that he had flights that left on time. But we don't know.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, I think we have pretty good (albeit indirect) reason for believing it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>>Well, we do that because we believe in moral responsibility ;); but the abalogy is >defective. ATtempted murder involves an attempt to have a  certain effect, a killing. >Taking the early flight on Sept 11 was not a failed attempt to kill more people.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was responding to what I took to be a general claim on your part, i.e. that we should gauge the severity of a threat based upon actual consequences in the past as opposed to "what might have happened but didn't."  In probably a majority of cases that's an excellent rule of thumb, but in a non-trivial minority it's clearly ludicrous.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>jks</DIV></BODY></HTML>