RE: Re: Re: Fw: The Fall of 'Challenge'?

["David Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael --

You are being extremely defensive.  I will not and cannot argue about how
many people Stalin killed, because I don't know and agree with you that such
a discussion is likely to produce more heat than light.  What I am
interested in is why Prof. Rosser distinguishes the deaths of people that
Stalin indisputably "desired" to kill, and the deaths of people that Stalin
indisputably knew would die as a result from the enaction of his directives.
It is an entirely different question and, I would presume, apolitical.  If
you, or Prof. Rosser, think there are political implications of the
distinction, that is very interesting and I would like to hear it.

When Harry Truman ordered the Atomic bomb to be dropped on Japan, I don't
think he "desired" that Japanese people die, but he knew as certain as the
sun rises in the morning that people would die.  In the historical court of
moral inquiry, we can characterize Truman's conduct as anything from heroic
to mass murder, but a determination that Truman did not commit mass murder
cannot turn simply on whether or not Truman "desired" that anybody die as
opposed to merely knowing that people would die -- his guilt or innocence is
determined by the legitimacy of the justification for the act.  Similarly,
whether or not Stalin is guilty of the mass murder of Ukrainians cannot
simply turn on whether he "desired" that people die, but whether: (1) he
knew or should have known the consequences of his actions, and (2) there was
no overriding justification for his actions.

David Shemano



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:30 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:15958] Re: Re: Fw: The Fall of 'Challenge'?


David, have been over this many times here.  "Death accounting" is a very
subjective game.  Suppose that I were to count all the people "killed" by
the
US.  Poverty kills.  Pollution kills.  Unsafe working conditions kill.
Besides
the domestic quota of such deaths, you could include all the deaths created
abroad by the US promoting war and terror in Angola, East Timor, Vietnam
.....
Greenspan raising interest rates causes deaths.

We could go on and on defending and criticising all of these sources of
death.
Those of us in the US are in a fair position to debate such matters since we
have some knowledge about them.

In the case of Soviet "death accounting," we are not experts.  We can only
rely
on contentious secondary sources.  So the debates here on this subject have
been
more heat than light.  For that reason, I don't think that it serves any
useful
purpose.

David Shemano wrote:

> Prof. Rosser responded:
>
> <<<David,
>       Guess you did not read what I wrote very
> carefully (this is why Michael Perelman did not
> want this thread to start).
>        I was clearly exonerating (more or less) the
> Communist leaders of "intending" the deaths of
> those who died in the famines.  I did note that
> some have accused Stalin of desiring the deaths
> of some of those (Ukrainian kulaks) who died in
> the collectivization famine of the early 1930s.  I did
> not pass judgment on whether or not he actually did.
> This seems to be a matter of dispute, and those who
> have most vigorously made that claim have been
> right-wing Ukrainian nationalists.
>      Bottom line is that the leaders clearly desired the
> deaths of those who were executed.  Therefore they
> are guilty of those deaths.  Their guilt in the matter of
> those who died in the famines is much less in my mind,
> although arguably not totally nonexistent.
> Barkley Rosser>>>
>
> I read very carefully what you wrote.  I am simply trying to understand
your
> ethical reasoning.  You are taking the position that it is more morally
> reprehensible to cause a death if you "desire" to cause the death as
opposed
> to being indifferent to the fact that you know death will result from your
> actions.  In fact, you now go so far at to characterize the level of guilt
> as "arguably not totally nonexistent," which I suppose can be redefined as
> "mostly nonexistent" or "hardly existent."
>
> I, in turn, responded that the common law does not distinguish the two for
> purposes of legal culpability.  Now, notwithstanding that I am a lawyer, I
> understand that legal definitions do not define morality.  However, there
is
> wisdom in the common law definition, for precisely the reason under
> discussion.  Neither you nor I can no for certain what was going on in
> Stalin's head -- all we can do is look at his actions, the consequences of
> his actions, and then make a judgment.
>
> So I ask again, why do you believe the deaths should be treated
differently?
>
> David Shemano

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx