Luke Weiger <lweiger@umich.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> Justin wrote: >Deliberate indifference, which is what I claimed made >no moral difference. Apparently you meant to say that "I really don't think..." Yes > In fact, more than D.I. In law, knowledge that your action is substantially likely to > result in taking human life is equivalent to intent. Failing to provide foreign aid in excess of the puny amounts currently allotted results in far more deaths than economic sanctions. Does that constitute "deliberate indifference"? Posibly. depends on what the aid is used for. I believe in the moral significace of the distinction between actsa and omissions. > Well, you can defend Halfbrighta nd the US foreignb > policy crew before God's great judgment seat. "Lord, > it's true they knew theyw ere killing millions. I haven't read any credible account attributing "millions" of deaths to US sanctions. What, are hundreds of thousands not dramatic enough? I wasn't talking just about those sanctions, but about the genearl architecture of US foreign policy. >But they didn't strictly intend to do it. If they could > have kept their money and power without the deaths, Keeping "money and power" had nothing to do with sanctions so far as I can see. As I said. But in fact the pressure on Iraq has everything to dow ith money and power. > they'd rather have done it that way. But they > couldn't. Surely that's worth something. They were > better in their hears than Osama bin Laden and > Slodoban Milosovic, don't you agree Lord, even if what > they did was worse? You're the one who believes in moral responsibility. 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. > Why assume that? Maybe they did not seek to maximize > casualties,a s they might have by striking a few hours > later. On the assumprtion that people have reasons for > what they do, maybe they sought to kill the minimum > number of people consistent with their goals. Bin Laden rejoiced in the unexpectedly large amount of destruction. I doubt limiting civilian casualties was among Al Qaeda's considerations. 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. > But it's a more rational assumption than > gauging the threat by what might have happened but > didn't. We gauge the level of a threat by "what might have happened but didn't" all the time. Otherwise, we wouldn't lock people up for attempted murder. 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. jks</BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Mail Plus</a> - Powerful. Affordable. <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com">Sign up now</a>