tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115302363128089582..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Israel vs. HezbollahAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153406994941551642006-07-20T08:49:00.000-06:002006-07-20T08:49:00.000-06:00Dr JGiven your rules of interpretation, it is clea...<B>Dr J</B><BR/><BR/>Given your rules of interpretation, it is clearly the case that if I were to write, "It is not the case that 1 + 1 = 3" you would write and say, "Your claim that 1 + 1 = 3 is absurd."<BR/><BR/><B>Chris</B><BR/><BR/>There is no way that my article can be taken as a defense of Israel. Indeed, my article was written as a condemnation of Israel. My claim that Israel is the lesser evil is no more a <B>defense</B> of Isreal, than my claim that the person who robbed the Radio Shack down the street is not as bad as Hitler is a defense of the person who robbed the Radio Shack down the street.<BR/><BR/>A lesser evil is still evil and is not being <I>defended</I> by such a claim, it is being <I>criticized</I>.<BR/><BR/>Saying that my post is a "defense" of Israel is almost as misleading as saying that I am claiming that Hezbollah would be better than the Middle East than Israel.<BR/><BR/>My post was written in defense of the principle, "Defend the innocent from those who would do them harm." We may morally distinguish between those who intentionally do harm to innocent people (Hezbollah), and those who knowingly do harm to innocent people (Israel). Of these, the former is morally worse than the latter. This is the same distinction that is often recognized between first degree and second degree murder.<BR/><BR/>AS for convincing the Lebonese <B>people</B>, you seem to be interpreting my claim as equating the Lebonese people with Hezbollah. In fact, you should interpret my argument as identifying the common Lebonese citizen as members of <I>the innocents</I> -- those people who are to be distinguished from <I>the guilty</I> and protected from harm, rather than harmed.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, my argument was that Israel is morally required to treat Lebonese <I>innocents</I> the same as Israeli <I>innocents</I>. Accordingly, I stated that Bush has a moral obligation to treat the innocents in Baghdad as he would treat the innocents in Boston. This is quite in conflict with your accusation of racism.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that your comments are directed more against some amorphous "them" who are actually defending Israel than against my point here. If you are finding a defense of Israel in my posting, I suspect that you are reading the beliefs of that amorphous "them" who defend Israel into my writings, rather than reading what I have written.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153330715254693232006-07-19T11:38:00.000-06:002006-07-19T11:38:00.000-06:00Well, you left out the crucially important phrase ...Well, you left out the crucially important phrase "Nobody here has yet convinced me that...". When you present the rest of the statement as if it WAS his opinion when he clearly stated that it WASN'T his opinion, that is false. Duh.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Nobody here has yet convinced ME that the IDF and current ruling party of Israel has any claim to moral superiority over Hezbollah. If they had one before the invasion, they threw it away by conducting that invasion in a manner that foreseeably resulted in a large number of innocent casualties.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, both Israel and Hezbollah are composed of humans. Therefore there is no _a priori_ reason to believe that an attempt to influence one group toward a more moral and rational policy is necessarily more or less likely to succeed than an attempt to influence the other group. On top of that, you don't even really need to convince Hezbollah - convincing the majority of the Lebanese population would be enough to produce quite beneficial effects for the region. (Although a hypothetical Lebanese willingness to cease fire, disarm and negotiate in good faith would be largely useless absent Israeli willingness to reciprocate, and vice versa.) This is analogous to the way you only have to convince enough Israelis for a pro-peace party to win the next election. (Assuming there is one; I don't know.)<BR/><BR/>You simply can't justify a double standard without the assumption that the Israeli _people_ are somehow fundamentally morally or psychologically different from the Lebanese _people_, or that one group has natural rights that the other does not. Which is racism.<BR/><BR/>If it seems like I'm focusing my attention on condemning Israel's actions, that is only because they are being defended. There is already widespread consensus that Hezbollah's actions are terrorism, irresponsible use of violence against the innocent, and morally wrong. There is no need to belabor that point. It is only because some people are attempting to justify Israel's use of violence against the innocent that it is necessary to continue pointing out why it is *also* wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153184220285326952006-07-17T18:57:00.000-06:002006-07-17T18:57:00.000-06:00Dr JWell, thanks for offering such clear proof tha...<B>Dr J</B><BR/><BR/>Well, thanks for offering such clear proof that you do not read what I have written.<BR/><BR/>Your statement:<BR/><BR/><I>Your comment that Hezbollah would be better for the Middle East than Israel is ludicrous and unrealistic.</I><BR/><BR/>What I actually wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>[I]f one has to make a choice between Hezbollah and Israel that a morally conscientious person would have to side with Israel.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Nobody here has yet convinced me . . . that the situation in the Middle East would be better off with the Israeli government replaced by a Hezbollah government....</I><BR/><BR/>You do realize, I hope, that you are bearing false witness against me when you make false statements about what I have written.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153174696043285412006-07-17T16:18:00.000-06:002006-07-17T16:18:00.000-06:00I think that if Hezbollah had access to the same w...I think that if Hezbollah had access to the same weapons as Israel, civilian casualties would be *lower*. Israeli military casualties would of course be much higher. Most of their rockets hit civilian "targets" because their rockets are too inaccurate to aim at and hit military targets - even for a highly militarized country like Israel, the vast majority of its land area is civilian. They fire randomly beacuse it's the only weapon they have, and they hit mostly civilians because that's mostly what there is. The majority of the differences between the two sides' ways of fighting the conflict are clearly attributable to the differences in their circumstances - what capabilities they have and how the enemy can be found and attacked. Ignoring these facts and considering them to be part of the nature of the combatants is an instance of the fundamental attribution error.<BR/><BR/>It's possible that Hezbollah would deliberately hit some religious targets, but given the nature of the conflict I'm not sure it's fair to classify those as "civilian". Religion, on both sides, is anything but an innocent bystander. I *don't* think that they would deliberately target marketplaces or apartment buildings if they could target, say, barracks or airbases instead. Barracks and airbases are obviously more valuable targets, *if* you are able to hit them.<BR/><BR/>I see terrorism as fundamentally an act of desperation. Nobody chooses terrorism over open war, if they have the means to wage open war and believe that they have a chance of winning. Terrorism is the act of people who want to strike out at someone they fear or hate (often both), but know that they do not have the means to fight them openly. I don't say this to excuse terrorism, but to understand it; if we, as non-terrorists, want to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world, it helps to correctly understand its nature and causes. Condemnation has limited use against a pattern of behavior that is powered by such strong and primitive emotions, and retaliatory violence (as we are seeing now in Iraq) only reinforces the fear, hate and desperation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In fact, I think this conflict epitomizes some of the philosophical problems I've had with your moral system since I started reading and commenting on this blog. The two sides have strong desires which are incompatible (they each desire to own and control a certain area of land, and to proclaim the superiority of their respective religions). Both sides have shown their desires to be highly inflexible in the face of both condemnation and actual violence. They are either irrational, or proceeding from different sets of axioms that cannot be reconciled (e.g. god gave this land to *our* people), or both. Now what?<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for the United States, I'm not sure a disinterested third party *should* prefer the present U.S. regime to al-Qaeda. (Of course, any moral agent is under an obligation not to hold citizens who aren't involved in the present regime responsible for its actions, just like we have a responsibility not to hold innocent Iraqi villagers responsible for al-Qaeda's actions - or like Israel has an obligation not to hold all Lebanese responsible for Hezbollah's actions.) I'm not a disinterested third party, though, so I lack perspective on the issue. But I can't see any clear moral reason why "our" murders and torture and bombings of whole cities are better than "theirs". The United States was founded on certain principles and those principles, *if they were still being followed*, would have given the United States a position of moral superiority; but they aren't still being followed and it's hard to justify the claim that the fact that *some* people in the United States advocate a return to those standards is somehow relevant to the morality of our country's present actual acts.<BR/><BR/>In both the Israel-Hezbollah and Bush Administration-al-Qaeda conflicts, I think we should, as davidj says above, condemn both sides for their respective failures to behave like civilized peoples (if and when they behave in a manner deserving of such condemnation, which all four mentioned parties have). In the case of the Bush Administration, we should also condemn it for violating the United States's own laws and Constitution, and we should further condemn those parties who should be responsible for exposing and/or punishing such violations and are not doing so (the media and the House of Representatives).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153162657792705672006-07-17T12:57:00.000-06:002006-07-17T12:57:00.000-06:00"...if one has to make a choice between Hezbollah ..."...if one has to make a choice between Hezbollah and Israel..."<BR/><BR/>Isn't that disingenuous? We don't have to make that choice. We can condemn both sides for their respective failures to behave like civilized peoples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153146422810415652006-07-17T08:27:00.000-06:002006-07-17T08:27:00.000-06:00I choose to correct your mistakes.Not everything y...I choose to correct your mistakes.<BR/><BR/>Not everything you wrote was a mistake. Please recall my original statement where I offered no moral concessions to Hezbollah at all. My opening statement specifically said that if one has to make a choice between Hezbollah and Israel that a morally conscientious person would have to side with Israel. Nobody here has yet convinced me otherwise -- that the situation in the Middle East would be better off with the Israeli government replaced by a Hezbollah government ruling the same area.<BR/><BR/>If you actually did read my article you will find that I said some of the same things that you said -- using very similar words. Your accusations that I am ignoring aspects of the discussion that I explicitly mentioned display a distressing lack of regard for the truth.<BR/><BR/>My specific proposal concerned the claim that the moral principle, "Protect the innocent (and, by this, I have in mind mostly children who have no capacity to choose sides) from those who would do them harm," is a better moral guide than the principle that Israel is operating under. True? False? Do you have any input on the actual subject of my post?<BR/><BR/>(Your time is your own. If you wish to waste it in prayer instead of doing something constructive, that is your right. However, my preference is that you take whatever time you would waste praying for me and doing something useful with that time instead.)Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153139634331715112006-07-17T06:33:00.000-06:002006-07-17T06:33:00.000-06:00I find it strange to note that, in these comments,...I find it strange to note that, in these comments, I notice a lot of exaggerated claims about who is the root of all evil, and not much conversation on the actual point of the article. My point being that, "protect the innocent from do them harm" is a better principle than that which the U.S. and Israel appear to be using.<BR/><BR/><B>vjack:</B> In the context of the posting I find your comments confusing. Please identify an example where I called an action "right" when done by a US ally that I would not call "right" universally.<BR/><BR/>The comment that I made had to do with "if one had to make a choice" between the two. To this, I can simply ask . . . if you had to move into one of two countries; Israel, or a country governed by Hezbollah, which would be better?<BR/><BR/>I begin with the assumption that proposing a doctrine of "protect the innocent from those who would do them harm" would fall on deaf ears if I suggested it to people who fire area-of-effect weapons on whole cities as a matter of policy and who cheer suicide bombers who kill dozens in restaurants, shopping malls, and bus stops.<BR/><BR/>If Hezbollah had the same weapons avaialable that Israel has, the civilian casualties would be orders of magnitude higher.<BR/><BR/><B>Chris:</B> Saying that Israel's injustices mean that "there is little or no reason to prefer them to Hezbollah" is, to me, like saying that America's injustices mean that "there is little or no reason to prefer them over Al-Queida."<BR/><BR/>America has done wrong. It continues to do wrong. I have identified many of those wrongs in these postings. Yet, a statement that one cannot clearly pick the American government as the preferred winner in a battle against Al-Queida seems to be drawing an unwarranted conclusion from this evidence.<BR/><BR/>With respect to Hezbollah, I think that "reform" is as possible as it is with Al-Queida. Theirs is a culture of violence. A better strategy, I would argue, would call for better treatment of civilian "innocents" so that they have less of a reason to support and side with Hezbollah.<BR/><BR/>Hezbollah might respond to such a strategy by becoming less violent to earn the respect of the people. If they do -- if Hezbollah were to renounce violence as a political tool and would also adopt the principle "protect the innocent (including the Israeli innocent) from those who would do them harm," then that would be good.<BR/><BR/><B>Dr J</B> Many of your statements are inaccurate. I do think if one is to condemn somebody, then one should at least gather the facts, and not level charges that are not true.<BR/><BR/>(a) Hezbollah has not taken over Lebanon. It roams freely through south Lebanon, but it holds only a fraction of the seats in the Lebanese government -- a government that is substantially anti-Syria.<BR/><BR/>(b) Media estimates in a conflict such as this tend to be low because the media tend to only speak about confirmed killed or wounded. Casualty figures tend to go up over time, not down.<BR/><BR/>(c) This did not "start" with Hezbollah crossing into Lebanon. Hezbollah allegedly did this in order to get soldiers that it could use to bargain for the release of thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Israel is responding not only to this kidnapping but to years of rocket fire out of south Lebanon. All of this is a part of a long history that did not "start" even within recorded history.<BR/><BR/>Besides, the question is not who "started" this. The question is, "how can we end this?"<BR/><BR/>On this matter, I hold that adopting the principle, "Protect the innocent from those who do them harm" would help.<BR/><BR/>(d) I suspect you did not read the article. I have an argument that specifically talks about the difference between targeting civilians and harming civilians that you ignored.<BR/><BR/>(e) Instead of praying, might I recommend trying to come up with something to do that can actually do some good?<BR/><BR/><B>Patt</B> Your "no morals" claim is hate-mongering hyperbole. If we are going to address real-world problems, let us begin with a respect for real-world facts.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153119235008478932006-07-17T00:53:00.000-06:002006-07-17T00:53:00.000-06:00Hi,Take a look at this site - http://www.btselem.o...Hi,<BR/><BR/>Take a look at this site - <BR/><BR/>http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp<BR/><BR/>The Holocaust doesn't in any way justify Israel's present atrocities. <BR/><BR/>You can't go around saying 'Never again'as regards your own people and have no compunction about destroying/harassing/humiliating others. <BR/><BR/>As for the Hezbollah and Hamas - I have no more sympathy for them than I have for bigger terrorists like the United States government - but I wonder how open and receptive the American people would be towards the Israelis if the Bible had specified the USA, instead of the Middle-East, as the Jewish homeland.<BR/><BR/>Given that the US closed its borders to the Jewish people during the height of the Holocaust, I think I can guess.Maysunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685107734764471565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153084469048243282006-07-16T15:14:00.000-06:002006-07-16T15:14:00.000-06:00I have to agree with vjack. While there are many ...I have to agree with vjack. While there are many innocent people in Israel, Israel as a political entity is far from innocent. I see little or no reason to prefer them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Both sides attack civilian proxies when it is too inconvenient to attack their real enemies (Israel because it can't find its enemies, and Hezbollah/Hamas because they are not well-equipped enough to fight openly).<BR/><BR/>Israel, as it presently exists, is a racist state. It proclaims - by its very name as well as by its policies and actions - the supremacy of one religious, cultural and ethnic group over all other inhabitants of that region of the world. Israel is not a free society that treats all people fairly. It is in need of, at least, serious political reform before it can be considered a regime worth preserving.<BR/><BR/>I understand that you're attempting to urge that type of reform in this post; but I don't see why you are urging it on only one side. What, other than racism, would justify the conclusion that Palestinian or Lebanese Muslims are incapable of moral reform and honestly working toward peace, so that it's not even worth trying to talk to them? The actual command echelons of Hamas and Hezbollah may be too committed to their war to change (although I wouldn't take even that for granted), but the Palestinian and Lebanese people are certainly not. They may see Hamas and Hezbollah as the only forces willing to stand up to Israeli injustice, but if they can be convinced that terrorist violence is not a good way to work for justice, it's possible that a more peaceful resistance to Israeli oppression could emerge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153062423979997222006-07-16T09:07:00.000-06:002006-07-16T09:07:00.000-06:00I forgot to add this link. I think you might find ...I forgot to add this link. I think you might find it interesting: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO_Israeli_and_Arab_TV_News_0715.html#commentsvjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153060935472419602006-07-16T08:42:00.000-06:002006-07-16T08:42:00.000-06:00"I wish to let it be known that, in this current c..."I wish to let it be known that, in this current conflict, if one had to make a choice between Israel and its enemies, a person of good moral conscience would have to side with Israel." Why? I don't think it is ever this simple. Israel has committed its share of atrocities too. It has also target civilians. What makes these actions right when done by a U.S. ally?vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1153031733182640642006-07-16T00:35:00.000-06:002006-07-16T00:35:00.000-06:00I'm currently reading Among the Dead Cities by Bri...I'm currently reading <I><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802714714/sr=8-1/qid=1153031144/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5842273-2820858?ie=UTF8" REL="nofollow">Among the Dead Cities</A></I> by British philosopher A.C. Grayling. In it he examines Allied area-bombing of civilian targets during WWII to see if it can be morally justified.<BR/><BR/>I wish our leaders would read it.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.com