[lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn on Ted Honderich

[andie nachgeborenen]

I am not defending, just reporting. I note that you
think it's OK for the govt to blow up Afghan children
to supposedly reduce the the threat of terrorism. It
is a common case of double standards. Govts with
armies, especially our govt, can burn people alive,
blow them to smithereens, machine gun wedding parties,
and the like. That is just collateral damage. But
members of weak groups that have not established
states which can afford cruise missiles and attack
helicopters, if they kill children and old people to
further their aims, are totally reprehensible and have
to be smashed with cruise missles and attack
helicopters. So you have no basis for
sanctimoniousness. You just care about different
groups than Honderich. He cares about the weak and
powerless, you about the citizens of wealthy nations
and their clients. 

Double standards aside, Hondo's argument that
Palestinean terrorism might an effectivw way to
promote equality might be wrong, but on your own terms
-- in principle -- you have no basis that is not
empirical to object to it. If it promotes the general
welfare to blow yourself and a bus full of commuters
to bits, you must regard it as an obligatory act --
one that commends it, in fact, to yourself. 

jks

--- Luke Benjamin Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> > He tends to work from mid-range moral
> > intuitiosn (i.e., things we want to say about
> > particular case)(rather than first principles such
> as
> > Maximize Happiness);
> 
> > But he probably thinks that it is OK for
> Palestinians
> > to make the Israeli occupation intolerable by
> blowing
> > up children on buses. jks
> 
> Odd.  I doubt many other intuitionists would arrive
> at that conclusion.
> 
> -- Luke
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com