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

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

G'day Rob,

>
> There are, alas, conceivable circumstances under which killing has
to be done.
>  The thing is to weigh the options and their likely outcomes.  There
lies the
> difference between a killer and a murderer.
========
That's what Hitler and Stalin and Napolean and Cromwell and.....said.

>
> Now, this might strike some as crass utilitarianism, but I just
can't persuade
> myself of a better attitude to this particular question.  A
deontological
> ethics - such as unyielding pacifism - just doesn't have the answer
for a Nazi
> invasion or a Stalinist purge, for mine.
==========
Agreed a deontological approach to refusing to defend is too
problematic. It's whether a deontological approach to refraining from
inaugurating aggression is sufficiently universalizable and compelling
enough to what little conscience we're capable of. To this day, no. We
all know that. That's what makes organized and individual killing so
tragic. But the golden rule is still the best non-agression pact we've
devised. It's the practice we suck at. The struggle to create
institutions that can go after a Kissinger or a Pol Pot or a Pinochet
or a Truman is a worthy project, imo.

Ian