From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Philosophy of self-defense (WAS Re: To the Pacifists...)
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:29:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr15.033618.31539@m.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>
>According to an absolute scale.  "Do what is right, though the world may
>perish"--Kant.  This is what I call idealism.
>
>On the other hand "The end justifies the means" also has its attractions.
>Of course, the proper consequentialist statement would "the greatest
>possible good for the greatest possible number".  
>
>The first school of thought still has the problem of decided what is "right",
>the second has to make judgement calls concerning consequences.  WRT war,
>an idealist might well abstain from war on moral grounds.  To do so, they
>must make a (justified) assumption that war is inherently evil.

My philosophy education is very poor and I will make no pretense about knowing
something I know little about.  One argument I do remember for trying to 
determine between right or wrong (and I wish I could remember who said it.
Maybe someone more knowledgable than I will remember) is the idea that if
we accept that all people are equal, than each person has the same right
to do the same things.  Now, let's assume that one person has the right
to lie.  This would mean that all people have this same right and may
execute it at any time.  If all people were to speak nothing but lies, no one
would know the truth.  The consequences here are obvious and dreadful.

In a likewise situation, if all people have the right to kill another person
and executed this judgement at will, there would eventually be one person
left in the whole world.  Obviously, this has negative consequences.

My opinion: 
	I've already stated that my moral absolutism stems from my religious
beliefs.  I have never subscribed to the above theory as it is obviously
flawed.  The flaws are not hard to see.  If applied, it works very well for
immoral acts, but it has the same effect for moral ones.  For example,
selling used cars is not immoral (some might disagree :-)) but it would
obviously not be beneficial if everyone executed their right to become
used car salesmen.  The litmus test obviously fails.  I only mention this
idea here because maybe someone more knowledgable than myself can expound
on it.

>Personally, I believe that there *are* absolute truths which require
>obedience *regardless* of circumstances.  However, I do not believe that
>pacifism is one of them.

Here is one of the major reasons I subscribe to pacifism.  Let's just look
at the idea of self-defense.  There have been many instances in the past
when a threat has been merely perceived and was not actual.  The threat to
the peace is simply not worth "defending oneself" and later realizing that
there was really nothing to defend against.  Many non-pacifist types would
claim that we, therefore, have a need to better determine which threats are
real and which are false.  This is impossible.

Take the Cuban Missile crisis as an example.  I know many people feel that
there was a *severe* threat at the time.  Let me propose, however, that if
an enemy can kill you within a period of five minutes instead of ten minutes,
the difference is so minute that it is irrelevant.  At the time, the Soviets
had produced ICBM's, although they were weak, slow and largely ineffective.
Their space program was on a role, however, and Kennedy had to have known
that it would only be a few years until they didn't need missiles on Cuban
soil.  All they would have to do is park them in Siberia.  I don't think
this was beyond Kennedy's reasoning.  However, given the state of mind of
the administration and the American people at the time, the reasons for
Kennedy's action were not only not questioned, but applauded.  Personally,
I don't think what we got was worth risking the security of the entire world
Missiles in Cuba or in Siberia are really no different.  Dead is dead.
Perceived threats can be just as dangerous as real ones when motives of
self-defense begin to rear their ugly heads.

>-- 
>Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Gigabit Study Group 
>
>  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
>   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball

-Jon Anderson

  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><