Comments on: Making an example out of them

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:27 +0000

As a data point regarding whether “it’s ok to wage war to send a deterrent signal” is a commonly held view I can offer the following anecdote: a few weeks after Sept. 11, 2001 we drove from New York City to Great Neck to celebrate Rosh Hashana with my brother-in-law’s family. One of the guests argued quite vociferously that the US should have retaliated against Afghanistan in the days immediately following the attack. She made it quite explicit that she wanted to see the country and people of Afghanistan laid waste.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:13:03 +0000

// It’s not a question whether it’s appalling. It’s what is appalling that is in question here. Is it appalling to want to defend your own? Is it appalling that civilians should die in a war? Is it appalling to compel others to do your will? None of these are as straightforward to answer as they seem. They’re all contingent. I wonder whether you could find scenarios in which you’d be able to answer “No, it isn’t” to all three. // I’m not sure to understand what you are saying. I think that except for the first the answer must be “yes”. As to the opinion on war crimes, the defendant is never to be trusted. And less allowed to define what is a crime. DSW

By: wtb

wtb — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:55:29 +0000

Chris, you wrote: “It isn’t at all a matter of a narcissistic concern with one’s one moral purity: rather one of approaching questions of war and peace and the conduct of war with the moral seriousness they demand, rather than helping oneself lazily to mantras of “self defence” and “anything goes”.” But what about those cases in which killing innocents is a matter of self defence? My point is that much dicussion of morality in wartime avoids the seriousness you call for. Yes, it’s all too easy to take moral short cuts under the guise of “self defense”. But it’s also easy to avoid action under the guise of sticking to the moral high road. Both are equally serious evasions of responsibility. I’m willing to accept that Rawls was deeply serious in his opposition to the Hiroshima bomb. But what if John Rawls and Harry Truman had switched places in 1945? How easy would it have been for Rawls to oppose using the Hiroshima bomb if it were not merely a matter of being willing to accept grave personal danger, but of calling upon others to accept personal danger from an enemy whom they did not choose to fight? Rawls’ position may be an admirable example of personal integrity, but it doesn’t provide much help to those who are charged with responsibility for those, such as children, who are incapable of appreciating or accepting the consequences of such a position. In any case, when discussing the morality of self defense, why only Rawls? Why not the example of one, like Truman, who struggles with the morally distasteful necessity of killing innocents in order to protect other innocents? I can’t help but think we prefer Rawls because we can more easily imagine ourselves as Rawls. After all, in war time most of us are more likely to be the drones than the queens. More importantly, it simply makes us feel better to imagine ourselves as Rawls than as Truman. “clearly we are reading different articles: “smash[ing] something – to let everyone know …” is not about self-defence, but about sending a message.” We’re not reading different articles but we’re certainly reading the same article differently. The smashing and message sending IS the self defense. Male gorillas do the same thing. In order to avoid a more serious confrontation, they beat their breast to signal that they will defend themselves if rival gorillas come any closer. They order these matters better in Gorilla land. Sometimes we don’t have the luxury of beating our breast. It’s debatable if America’s Iraq strategy is a strategically effective self defence. It’s also debatable if it’s morally acceptable. But I accept that it is in fact a self defence. That’s where we differ in our reading of Friedman’s article, I think.

By: Dr Zen

Dr Zen — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:02:28 +0000

In response to: “So I think my suggestion there was that Friedman ought not to be harshly treated for his view, since he is simply parrotting a commonplace.” djw said: “If you are correct and this is a commonly held view (I don’t really think it is, thank God), then it becomes all the more important to point out just how appalling it is.” There were no mass demonstrations against Hiroshima. I really do think it’s a common view that demonstrative murder of civilians in other countries is more or less okay. “We need to strike back,” was the cry, I recall. That boiled down to “We want to see someone die”. It’s not a question whether it’s appalling. It’s what is appalling that is in question here. Is it appalling to want to defend your own? Is it appalling that civilians should die in a war? Is it appalling to compel others to do your will? None of these are as straightforward to answer as they seem. They’re all contingent. I wonder whether you could find scenarios in which you’d be able to answer “No, it isn’t” to all three. For Friedman, the scenario begins and ends with his own nation’s being the one doing the defending, killing and coercing. I do think it’s a common view that one’s own nation need not meet the standards one believes others ought to. I might not agree with it myself, but my agreement or otherwise doesn’t change others’ feeling about it. “People who casually tolerate war crimes and massive deaths because they are really angry and a little bit racist don’t deserve complacency.” We are not talking about “war crimes”. We are talking about what Friedman considers legitimate acts of war – an opinion of them he shares with most people. There’s no suggestion of anger in what he says. I’m not sure that it’s necessarily racist to be the kind of patriot Friedman appears here. Ignorant, sure. Racist? It’s an easy word to bandy around. “I don’t know the names of all the fallacies, but suggesting that widely held views should be treated with kid gloves because they’re widely held must be one of them.” Yes, and so too, I should think, is making out a guy is some kind of screeching nutter when all he does is repeat the widely held view with butter on.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:54:06 +0000

wtb: clearly we are reading different articles: “smash[ing] something – to let everyone know …” is not about self-defence, but about sending a message. I must say I don’t much appreciate the final thought: “Trying to find a moral posture which allows you to remain both inactive and an inviolable, pristine moral being doesn’t help our boys in blue.” The fact is that John Rawls, whose paper on Hiroshima I mentioned above, was a footsoldier in the Pacific War. The Hiroshima bomb almost certainly increased his own chances of surviving the war, yet he thought it unjustified. It isn’t at all a matter of a narcissistic concern with one’s one moral purity: rather one of approaching questions of war and peace and the conduct of war with the moral seriousness they demand, rather than helping oneself lazily to mantras of “self defence” and “anything goes”.

By: wtb

wtb — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:54:16 +0000

“Apparently it’s common knowledge that Friedman is an idiot. Why is he such a pundit then? I don’t get it…” What we would talk about if we didn’t have common knowledge? I thought it was common knowledge that Friedman is a pundit because, whatever your opinion of his intellectual abilities, he has influence as a policy maker. Although he can’t claim status as a shadow statesman, he, more than other pundits, sees his punditry influence policy. People with real power and reponsibilty respect his judgment. When he’s talking about policy that he’s helped to shape, he knows what he’s talking about. It’s easy to underestimate Friedman’s intelligence if you hold him to the standard of elegance in prose style. He’s not trying to impress the literati; he’s trying to communicate to the general reader (and voter). As a public librarian, I know the general reader and let me assure you, Friedman knows what he’s doing. I guess that makes him stupid in the same way Bush is stupid. What I don’t understand is how anyone could fault the intelligence of what Friedman has said about the Middle East since September 11, and this in particular. I’ve been reading him regularly since then and have found him moderate, cautious, humane and nonpartisan in his views. Above, he’s been right. He’s called them better than anyone else. As for the alleged “criminality” of Friedman’s view of the Iraqi war: if I read that paragraph correctly Friedman said that the US invaded Iraq in order to defend itself. Although Friedman’s on record as supporting the US invasion, nothing in this paragraph can be used to warrant the assertion that he’s endorsing an abstract maxim that it’s permissible for “a state kill people (including innocent people) for demonstrative purposes.” Indeed, there’s a noticeable lack of abstract or general thought in anything that Friedman writes. That’s not a condemnation. Friedman doesn’t claim moral or intellectual authority. But, in my opinion, he can tell you how people and societies respond to events. Far from “cutting himself off from real experience” as the first post in this thread claims, he’s immersed in experience. In fact, as I mentioned before, he has some small part in shaping people’s experiences in the Middle East. However, even if in this paragraph Friedman were endorsing either the Iraqi war or an abstract principle of statecraft, it’s hard to see why “it is a peculiar way to demonstrate the impermissibility of the very acts he deplores.” The acts he deplores are violence against innnocent human beings. If you are going to prevent this, violence is sometimes the only option. When that’s the case, isn’t refraining from violence showing greater “disregard for the humanity and individuality of those who have died” than taking action and perhaps killing innocent people? Can you philosophers and political scientists out there please get to work on some real problems? They call us moral agents because we act and, we hope, are moral. So give us some options that work. Trying to find a moral posture which allows you to remain both inactive and an inviolable, pristine moral being doesn’t help our boys in blue.

By: Luke Weiger

Luke Weiger — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:09:53 +0000

“Luke Weiger: If terrorists take some hostages and are torturing some and killing others and we burst in, knowing that we are likely to kill some but save others, then I think we show appropriate regard for the humanity even of those we kill. If we try to impress the hostage-takers of our willingness to act by killing an innocent civilian in front of them (thereby sending a message) we clearly treat that person as a means only and show no regard to their human dignity.” Maybe. It might be hard to argue that you’re treating the civilian(s) you’re sure to kill in the first hypothetical as tools (or “mere” means)—at the moment, I certainly can’t see how such an argument would go. However, I think it might be interesting to take a rational contractor approach. Suppose that you’re faced with the following dilemma behind the Rawlsian veil: you know that you’ll be one of the hostages. The police have two options. They can directly assault the hostage takers, in which case they’ll end up killing some of the hostages as well. Let’s suppose you know your odds of dying would be 1/20 if the police use this strategy. Or the police can somehow nab a single hostage (without harming anyone else), proceed to kill him, and successfully send a message to the hostage keepers that will induce them to release the hostages. Let’s suppose you know your odds of dying would be 1/100 if the police use this strategy. What strategy would you want the police to use?

By: DJW

DJW — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:31:53 +0000

dr zen: So I think my suggestion there was that Friedman ought not to be harshly treated for his view, since he is simply parrotting a commonplace. If you are correct and this is a commonly held view (I don’t really think it is, thank God), then it becomes all the more important to point out just how appalling it is. People who casually tolerate war crimes and massive deaths because they are really angry and a little bit racist don’t deserve complacency. I don’t know the names of all the fallacies, but suggesting that widely held views should be treated with kid gloves because they’re widely held must be one of them.

By: Dr Zen

Dr Zen — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:17:02 +0000

Yes, I think my point was not that I thought Friedman was right to suggest it, but that he was by no means alone. It’s often true that states ignore the individuality of those who have died by their actions, but the state is usually broadly supported in doing it. So I think my suggestion there was that Friedman ought not to be harshly treated for his view, since he is simply parrotting a commonplace. What was more interesting was your last sentence. You surely wouldn’t expect him to be Kantian about it? He’d reply to you that he is much more permissive with his own people than with others. He might even claim that more should be permitted for those fighting for a “free and open society” or whatever he calls it exactly.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:37:15 +0000

Dr Zen. Since I do in fact think that the bombing of Hiroshima was unjustified and that some of the bombing of German cities was too (Dresden in 1945 for example), your examples don’t worry me (though they might worry others). I’d like to be able to point you to an online version of John Rawls’s essay “Fifty Years after Hiroshima” but there isn’t one. It can be found in his Collected Papers .

By: Dr Zen

Dr Zen — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:32:07 +0000

Simon Kinahan says: “So Friedman is saying that the answer to terrorism is, in fact, terrorism ? Marvelous. What would be wrong with saying that though? The answer to war perpetrated by the Nazis was war. Chris said: “…Friedman is advocating that a state kill people (including innocent people) for demonstrative purposes. ” As states often do. Most of the population of Hiroshima was “innocent” by any measure. If it were true that the “terrorists” were agents of the states in question, encouraged, supported and funded by the states in question, Friedman would be saying nothing different from those who advocated bombing German cities in WWII. States do answer war with war – it’s definitive of them that they do. Chris says: “It is a peculiar way to demonstrate the impermissibility of the very acts he deplores.” This ignores that he deplores them because they are perpetrated against us, not because they are wrong in some abstract sense.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:12:16 +0000

“Most competent users of English will, I think, take that message from the paragraph. Only someone determined to put a positive construction on Friedman’s outpourings would read it differently.” Of course you can turn this around and make the exact opposite declaration: that only someone determined to put a negative construction etc. I don’t know what your over-all position on Iraq is; but perhaps you should ask yourself, do you have personal biases on Iraq which might tend towards an unbiased reading ? A little self-reflexivity could go a long way. Anyway, I guess we’re condemned to conduct a poll to determine what “competent users” would say. I’m not about to conduct one, so I’ll leave it here.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:30:44 +0000

Don Meaker: I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. But since Friedman’s “real reason” is a breach of the laws of war, I take it that you are condemning acting in that way. Andrew Boucher: Friedman refers to two kinds of reason but doesn’t explain the distinction between them clearly and doesn’t condemn the “real” reason as being misguided. The plain reading of the paragraph in question suggests endorsement. Most competent users of English will, I think, take that message from the paragraph. Only someone determined to put a positive construction on Friedman’s outpourings would read it differently. Luke Weiger: If terrorists take some hostages and are torturing some and killing others and we burst in, knowing that we are likely to kill some but save others, then I think we show appropriate regard for the humanity even of those we kill. If we try to impress the hostage-takers of our willingness to act by killing an innocent civilian in front of them (thereby sending a message) we clearly treat that person as a means only and show no regard to their human dignity.

By: Don Meaker

Don Meaker — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:51:31 +0000

War is killing people and breaking things until your opponent gives up. That you are shocked and saddened does not change the nature of war. Because War is terrible, there are rules put in place to protect noncombatants. These rules are routinely disregarded by the Palestinian Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, by the bin-Ladin terrorists, by Abu Nidal who found haven in Baghdad, and by the Fedayeen of Saddam Hussein. That makes War more terrible, but it is those who break the Hague and Geneva Convention who bear that responsibility. Such people are not impressed by kindness and humanity.

By: Asymmetric Hack

Asymmetric Hack — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:09:11 +0000

It should not go unmentioned that Friedman is a blabbering hack who changes his “real” reasons for supporting the war like most people change underwear.