[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:12:06 -0700
Maybe I understand what Phil means -- sort of. If we hark back to an
earlier exchange, Phil quoted me to ask, ""Would wars that kept us on a path
that led to world peace be supportable? If not, why not?" And then, among
other things, he said, ". . . I have a theological objections to the idea
that we can attain something called 'world peace' through wars. . ." [see
Phil's note, sent 9/04 at 10:59 a.m.]
I should have followed up at the time, but I was focused only on one part of
what he was saying. Neither Fukuyama nor Barnett, of course, expects to
achieve world peace through wars. My statement wasn't intended to imply
that. I still had the mythological pacifist in mind here. I wasn't
referring to the sort of war Fukuyama objects to, a war to export Liberal
Democracy. I was referring to a just war against a megalomaniac or
megalomaniacal group that sought to advance something inimical to Liberal
Democracy.
It is difficult to keep this issue purely hypothetical because we have
someone who sounds very much like a megalomaniac in Ahmadinejad engaged in
increasing his prestige and the prestige of Iran (megalothymos). I didn't
intend for my hypothetical question devolve into whether or not we should
fight against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad's hands, but
unfortunately for the anonymity of my hypothesis, that is exactly the sort
of thing I have in mind for a responsible Liberal Democracy to undertake.
The Liberal Democracies of the world seem virtually unanimous in believing
that Iran should not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. They also
seem virtually unanimous in believing that Iran is busily working on
acquiring these weapons. If Iran cannot be induced to give up its
nuclear-weapons ambitions by other means, then the military option should,
in my opinion, be used. But look at what has transpired thus far. All the
Liberal Democracies (including the US) are exercising extreme levels of
forbearance. That is what I envision always occurring in the future. The
provocation must be exceedingly great before Liberal Democracies decide as a
last resort that a military solution is all that remains.
Phil does use different language in the current note, but it wouldn't be
evil in my opinion to use the military to prevent a megalomaniac from
acquiring nuclear weapons. Just wars are not evil. Just wars are necessary
to oppose evil.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eric Yost
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:45 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Phil wrote: There may be occasions where violence is needed
to stop a greater evil, but no good comes from violence.
Could you explain this principle a little more thoroughly? I
assume you are basing it on a belief that one cannot
overcome evil with evil.
Yet haven't good things resulted from violence? Didn't the
Civil War bring about an end to slavery? Haven't workers
gained rights and benefits as as result of violent strikes?
With the end of the last European Civil War (i.e., World War
II) weren't the basic structures of pan-European cooperation
built?
Isn't it more likely that violence routinely brings forth
bad things but also allows good things to emerge? If not,
why not?
Other related posts:
