[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:44:58 -0230

Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

snip

> It may be necessary to use violence to
> overcome a greater evil, but the question 'What should be done?' remains
> unaddressed.
> 

Interesting. I guess Phil believes that that question remains unaddressed
because of a missing premise: "We want to overcome the greater evil." But
there's something odd about that premise. Isn't it simply an analytic truth
that we would want to choose the lesser evil when presented with these 2
options? On what possible grounds would we choose the greater evil over the
lesser evil?And if that's the case, isn't the question Phil believes to be
unaddressed actually addressed in its appearance as the conclusison "We should
do X" where X is the pursuit of the lesser evil? 

If a means to an end is necessary, and one seeks the end, isn't it analytic that
one must pursue the means? 

Walter C. Okshevsky
Memorial U






222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
> Eric continues:
> 
> "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?"
> 
> It is certainly better that slavery came to an end and workers gained
> rights, but the fighting of the Civil War did not produce the conditions
> necessary for slavery to be considered immoral nor did the violent
> strikes provide the conditions necessary for people to think that
> workers had rights.
> 
> 
> Eric concludes:
> 
> "Isn't it more likely that violence routinely brings forth bad things
> but also allows good things to emerge? If not, why not?"
> 
> Violence may allow good things to emerge but it does not cause them.
> Two reasons present themselves.  The first is the most obvious, namely,
> that violence necessarily restricts freedom.  As I said above, in some
> case this might be required, but violence necessarily involves a
> constraint on freedom.  Second, violence is not an activity that
> involves reasoning regarding what is worth doing.  Good government does
> not follow from a strategy for killing a certain number of people or
> certain people.  Going to war and forming good government are two very
> different activities, though at times they may coincide.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Phil Enns
> Toronto, ON
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: