The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On comparing the sanctions on Iraq and the terrorist attack on the US



Dear list:

On comparing the sanctions on Iraq and the terrorist attack
on the US:

1. The deliberate killing of innocents is morally worse 
than killing innocents as an unintended consequence of the 
pursuit of the guilty. In this sense, the terrorist attack 
on the US is morally worse than the sanctions on Iraq.

2. More deaths of innocents is morally worse than fewer 
deaths of innocents. In this sense, the sanctions on Iraq 
are morally worse than the terrorist attack on the US.

3. In either case, deaths of innocents which one fully 
anticipates are morally worse than deaths of innocents 
which are unanticipated. In this sense, the terrorist 
attack on the US is morally worse than the sanctions on 
Iraq only to a very limited degree, as after a very short 
time (a matter of less than six months at most), the 
catastrophic consequences were well known to 
decision-makers and have continued to be known to them. 

How one weighs these three factors is a subjective one 
which produces one's overall evaluation.

As far as condemning something while attempting to 
understand it is concerned, consistency is vital here. 
Whether something is right or wrong, one should attempt to 
understand it. The problem here is when the ambiguous word 
'understand' is used to mean not merely comprehend but also
to imply moral mitigation selectively. I condemn both the 
sanctions and the terrorist attack. I also seek to 
comprehend both, as part of my desire to end the sanctions 
and prevent further terrorist attacks.

As far as Just War theory is concerned with regard to a 
US military response, the burden of proof regarding all its 
elements (in particular a reasonable prospect that there 
will be success and that the foreseeable good will not be 
outweighed by the harm) is on the US government.

In a sense there are merely statements of the obvious, but 
only from a particular moral position.


Eric
----------------------
Dr. Eric Herring
Department of Politics
University of Bristol
10 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TU
England, UK
Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582
Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics
eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings.


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]