[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal

  • From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:42:18 -0500

Andreas Ramos wrote:

"When the insurrgents target US military humvees, they intend to target
military personnel.  Is that intention then acceptable? Is that what you
are saying?"

Nope.  Not what I was saying.  I was talking about those times when the
terrorists intentionally kill civilians.

Andreas again:

"'...U.S. soldiers intend to not kill civilians.' This one is a bit

Not at all.  The terrorists are the ones doing the shooting and setting
off the bombs.  The civilians are the ones the terrorists are killing.
The U.S. soldiers are the ones trying to protect the civilians.

Andreas continues:

"So, yes, intentions are interesting here, but useless."

Nope.  Intentions are crucial for making moral judgments.  If, as
Andreas does, one ignores intentions then one can say all sorts of
things but none of it is of moral interest.  It's just politics and

Andreas again:

"Which is worse? Phil says it's an issue of quality. Who is better here:
Someone who targets 20 people, or someone who kills 40 people without
thinking about it? Is Phil really arguing this?"

Nope, again.  Not doing so good there slugger.  As even Andreas noted,
my argument included the claim that U.S. soldiers intend to not kill

After ranting a bit more, Andreas concludes:

"The edifice of the war is built on a lie."

I agree.  And what do you imagine to be the relevance of this for my
argument?  I assume that you think it is relevant and that you are not
doing an Amago.


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

Other related posts: