[lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:58:53 -0800
I didn't intend to create a mystery.
The issue I am concerned about is that in our recent wars many people have
argued against them, or seemed to argue against them because collateral
damage may occur (or has occurred), damage to moms/dads/children. I am
pulling that concern out and applying Kant's categorical imperative to see
if we can make a principle out of it. We can't. It cannot be applied as a
principle in accordance with Kant's formula in any form that makes sense.
We ought to determine whether to fight a war based upon arguments having to
do with national defense, defense of allies, and ethics. If a war meets
these criteria to the satisfaction of congress and the White House then we
should go ahead with it. It is our policy to keep collateral damage as low
as possible, but it ought never to be our policy to avoid a war because
there will be collateral damage.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Erin Holder
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 3:26 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
"We ought not to bomb Iran's nuclear sites because we might at the same time
harm moms, dads, and little kids". I'm not really clear on how you tie this
in with Kant. If you're suggesting that this "maxim" be subjected to a test
of universalizability, and claiming that, because it can't be universalized,
it can't hold as a categorical imperative, this doesn't make any sense to me
because this maxim is clearly hypothetical to begin with.
Erin
TO
Quoting Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >From an earlier reply to Walter:
>
> I just did. Did you miss it?
>
> Kant's Categorical Imperative urged us to act upon maxims which can be
> accepted as universal laws of nature. If someone argues that we ought not
> to bomb Iran's nuclear sites because we might at the same time harm
> moms/dads/little kids, then if this is treated as a categorical Imperative
> we should be able to apply it to all such bombings.
>
> I don't think Marlena intended the moms/dads/little kids to be a show
> stopper, but then why throw it out there? Our purpose is to war upon
> enemies when we deem it absolutely necessary. We seek to engage in just
> wars. We seek to minimize collateral damage.
>
> Lawrence
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of JUDITH EVANS
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 2:33 PM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
>
> I missed the promise to apply Kant!
>
> Judy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 7:17 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Surgical Strike Option
>
>
> > When may we expect you to apply it?
> > Cheers, Walter
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
--
Erin
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
