A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for May 2009

Ralph Peters and Killing Journalists II

by 7 Comments

A recent essay by Ralph Peters’ in the The Journal of International Security Affairs argues in favor of attacking journalists within combat zones. In my previous post, I took a critical look at his view. I now turn to assessing the moral principle he uses to justify his view.

Peters claims “The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.” Let us break this down.

His first point is that only winning matters and “nothing else matters.” While he might be engaged in hyperbole for dramatic purposes, I’ll take his words at face value. So, his principle is that it is acceptable to do anything that contributes to winning.

This principle would, of course, seem to apply to the enemy as well. So, if blowing up school children, crashing planes into buildings or detonating a dirty bomb in New York city would help Al Qaedi win, then they should do it.

Peters does not, of course, want to accept that view. After all, he thinks that the terrorists are evil and that we are good. But, if we to do anything at all to win, without limits, then how do we differ from terrorists?

His second point is his justification. His view is that when we win, this furthers the interest of humanity. In contrast, when we lose, this will help feed the monsters.

But, one might say, isn’t a monster someone who accepts no moral limits on  his actions? As such, would not following Peters’ principle lead to the creation of monsters? Suppose that we accepted this principle and acted accordingly. This would involve getting rid of all moral and legal restrictions within war. We would, of course, have to change how we train our soldiers-they would need to be trained to recognize no limits of any kind, should the situation so warrant. Soldiers with  consciences would, of course, be a military liability-they would be unable to do whatever it took to win. To act on Peters principle, we would need a military devoid of such people-or at least we would need enough people without moral qualms or limits to do what he thinks must be done. In short, we would need monsters for our wars. It is not clear how accepting and acting on a principle that there are no moral limits to our actions would lead to a better world.

It might be countered that in most wars we would not need to go to the monster stage in order to win. We can win within the limits of the (presumably false and mistaken) limits set by law and morality. As such, we will not have to worry about nourishing our own monsters.

In reply, if we accept the principle that there are no limits and all that matters is winning, then this will increase the chances that we will resort to evil methods even when they are not necessary. To use an analogy, imagine a game with one set of rules that limits the players. Then imagine that the players are told that these rules are not really rules-players can do whatever to win and it is just fine. Sure, it would be nice if they stuck to the rules, but winning is what counts. I suspect that players would be rather quick to abandon the rules.

Another concern is this: folks who believe that they can do whatever they must because their cause is righteous have generally caused far more harm than good. A person might begin with a righteous cause. But, by accepting that they can do anything for their cause leads them away from morality. It would be odd indeed if they could remain righteous in their cause while being wicked in their deeds.

As such, if we wish to be righteous and achieve good ends, then we cannot accept that we can act without limits. That is the thinking of a monster.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Ralph Peters & Killing Journalists I

by 67 Comments

A recent essay by Ralph Peters’ in the The Journal of International Security Affairs argues in favor of attacking journalists within combat zones. Naturally, he does not advocate killing any journalists-just those in the “partisan media.”

In making his case, he begins with the straw man of the liberal American media: “we can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven guilty).”

This claim seems to be factually incorrect, unless Peters has access to TV channels, magazines and newspapers that I do not. While there are individuals who have this sort of view, the majority of media practitioners have not exhibited this tendency. However, this is an empirical question. We just need to conduct a suitable random survey across the entire media establishment. This would involve assessing what they have said or written. It should also include surveys of their attitudes. While I do not have the funding for this, given the endless claims of liberal media bias made by folks on the right, they should commission a fair and unbiased survey of this sort to settle the matter. As it stands, this perception seems to be unfounded on an adequate survey. If there is such an unbiased, scientifically rigorous survey conducted by a neutral third party, I would like very much to see it.

Peters goes on to make another common assertion from the far right, that the media folks subscribe to an odd religious view: “rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.” Once again, perhaps my cable service does not get those channels, but I have not seen evidence that most media folks are neo-pagans. No doubt there are some-just like there are Satanists in the military. Again, this is an empirical matter and can be settled empirically. Peters sees the media this way, I don’t see the evidence for that. But, this can be settled easily enough using the method above. As always, I am open to objective and adequate proof.

Peters is right that the media shapes conflict. Information and how it is presented shapes how we see the world. This, as he argues, does make the media a potentially powerful force in any conflict. Naturally, he thinks that the majority of the folks in the media take sides and that this side is not that of America. Because of this, he goes on to say “although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”

None of this is new, of course. Even in the United States, the media has been censored in times of war and there have been news blackouts. Other countries military forces have killed journalists-as have terrorists. However, having an actual policy of American forces killing unarmed journalists would be something new (I hope). It also seems a bit odd to call for this, given how the media behaved during the first and second Gulf Wars. They accepted censorship and were generally very positive-especially those embedded with the troops.

Of course, Peters does not advocate harming all journalists and he does acknowledge the freedom of the press. However, he says that “freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.”

Peters view has a certain plausibility. What sort of information is presented by the media and how it is presented does shape how people see the world. If a journalist acts in such a way that American soldiers are harmed and the enemy is aided, then the journalist can be seen as giving support to the enemy. A clear cut example would be revealing troop locations, attack plans, and so on. Of course, I have never seen CNN or even MSNBC doing that sort of thing. It is hard to imagine a professional American journalist doing that, though not impossible. In any case, doing that sort of thing is already covered by existing policies and procedures.

Perhaps Peters has something broader in mind in regards to abusing the troops and strengthening the enemy. Now, if his view is that malicious lies and deceit that are intended to attack our troops and aid our enemies should be dealt with, then I agree with him. Of course, this is already be covered by existing laws and professional practices. If CNN broadcast a made up story about US soldiers strangling kittens and another one that the Taliban existed solely to protect kittens from the evil troops, then that would be libel and slander.

However, I am not sure if he has something much broader in mind here. That is, I am not sure of the standards he is using as to what would count (in his mind) as abuse that kills soldiers and strengthens the enemy.

In my next post I’ll take a look at his moral justification for his view.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Resurrection in the Flesh

by 1 Comment

Raymond Kurzweil, an American academicand author.
Image via Wikipedia

When I first heard of Ray Kuzweil’s, I thought he was a science fiction writer. It turned out that he isn’t-while he writes about science fiction style stuff, he professes to be predicting the future rather than writing fiction.

So, what sort of future does he see? Kuzweil envisions a future in which humans will be immortal and the dead will return to live. While these are common claims in religion, Kuzweil’s view is that technology will make this possible. While some describe his view as a religion, I’d prefer to use a made up word, “techion” to refer to this sort of phenomena. As I see it, a religion involves claims about supernatural entities. Kuzweil’s view is purely non-supernatural, but does have most of the stock elements of religion (the promise of a utopian future, immortality, and the raising of the dead). So, it is sort of a technological religion-hence “techion.” Yes, I like making up words. Try it yourself-it is free, fun and the chicks will totally dig you (your actual results might differ).

While the religion-like aspects of his views are interesting, I’ll just look at his view of resurrection.

While we can “jump start” some people back from the dead, Kuzweil envisions something radical. His view is that we might be able to take the DNA of dead people and rebuild them using nanobots. This, he claims, could create a new body that would be “indistinguishable from the original person.” Of course, having a body that is indistinguishable form the original is hardly the same as having the original person back. It would, rather, be a case of having a twin. To recreate the person, his plan is that information about the original (such as things the person wrote and recollections of people who knew them) would be used to recreate the mind of the original.

Nanobot reconstruction from DNA seems possible. After all, each of our bodies assembled itself using DNA, so we have a natural model for that process. The challenge is, of course, to duplicate it with technology. We also know that the brain accepts external information that shapes the person, so such a “download” would (in theory) be possible. Of course, there is a big difference between the normal experiences that shape us and downloading information in an attempt to recreate a person.

True resurrection (in addition to being a D&D spell) has two key aspects. First, the original body has to be recreated. If you get a different sort of body, then you have been reincarnated (perhaps as a bi-sexual squirrel). Second, the original person has to be restored.

Recreating the original body seems possible. With DNA, raw material and those hypothetical nanobots, it would just be a (re) construction project. It would also help to have images of the original body, plus as much other relevant data as possible. So, the first aspect is taken care of.

Getting the original person back in the recreated body is the real challenge. Kurzweil does seem to clearly recognize that the method he envisions will not restore the original person. He seems to be right about this. After all, the method he describes relies on “public” information. That is, it depends on what information the person provided before death and what other people remember of him. This obviously leaves out everything that was not recorded or known by others. As such, it will be a partial reconstruction-a new person who is force fed the scraps of another person’s life. This, obviously enough, raises some serious moral issues.

On the face of it, Kurzweil’s resurrection seems to be moral appalling. That this is so can be illustrated by the following analogy. Imagine that Sally and Ivan have a son, Ted. Ted dies at 18. Sally and Ivan go through all the adoption agencies until they find a baby, Joe, that looks like Ted did. They rename Joe as Ted and then reconstruct Ted’s life as closely as possible-punishing the former Joe whenever he deviates from Ted’s life and rewarding him for doing what Ted did. Sally and Ivan would be robbing Joe of choice and using him as a means to an end-fulfilling their need to have Ted back. But, they have no right to do this to Joe-he is a person, not a thing to be used to recreate Ted.

The same certainly seems to hold in the situation Kurzweil envisions. To create a human being and force him to be a copy of a dead person is a horrible misuse of a person and a wicked act. As such, this is one aspect of his envisioned future that we should most certainly resist.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Does North Korea Want the US to Invade?

by 4 Comments

Map of North Korea
Image via Wikipedia

As I watched the news about North Korea making various threats, I wondered about the motivation of their leaders. While some regard their great leader as a goofball, it would be unwise to let that contempt lead us to mistakes in judgment. While they might be acting in a crazy way, their might be a method to their madness.

The stock answer is that North Korea wants attention and intends to use its bad behavior to gain concessions and aid. That is a reasonable possibility. After all, there is a established pattern of bribing countries to behave better.

One possibility that struck me was that North Korea actually wants us to invade. While this seems like madness, a little consideration shows that this could be a possibility.

One reason to think this is that the great leader might wish to go out in a blaze of glory. A battle with the world could do this. Of course, this assumes a level of madness that seems unlikely. So, let us reject this.

A second reason to think this is that North Korea might gain from a limited engagement with the United States and South Korea. They could very well make some incursions into South Korean territory, do some damage and then claim a victory of sorts. They might even decide to take and hold land. After all, they know that the United States is bogged down in two wars already and that we have very few troops in the area. They also probably believe that we will not use nuclear weapons. While this is less crazy than the first option, this also seems unlikely.

A third reason is the fact that being invaded by the US can be a financial gold mine. When we liberate or defeat a country, we do the opposite of the classic conquerors. Rather than subjugate the people and strip the country of wealth, we pour in billions to rebuild the nation, help its people, and strengthen its economy. Weirdly enough, being invaded and defeated by the United States would be a huge boost for North Korea. Well, for the folks we didn’t kill. While this seems crazy, it is something to think about.

Of course, the most plausible explanation of North Korea’s behavior is that they are engaged in political posturing to gain attention, to deal with domestic issues, and to try to get some concessions from other nations in return for backing away from their belligerent behavior.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sotomayor & Reverse Racism

by 27 Comments

Rush Limbaugh has accused Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor of being a reverse racist. He bases his claim primarily on a quote from speech she gave in 2001 at Berkeley. She said that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

While I generally consider Rush to be a reliable indicator of the false, he does raise a legitimate concern here. After all, imagine if a white male nominated by Bush had said “a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often that not reach a better conclusion than a Latina women who hasn’t lived that life.” That would have certainly created something of a frenzy on the left-just as Sotomayor’s remark is stirring up the more right wing folks.

Of course, I do take issue with Rush’s use of the term “reverse racism.” The reversal of racism would be, of course, its opposite. What people like Rush seem to mean by the term is racism by non-whites against whites. However, that is not reverse racism, but simply racism. Interestingly, the term “reverse racism” seems to be most often used by folks on the right, almost as if racism is something that is supposed to go from white to non-white rather than from non-white to white. So, I’ll just use the terms “racism” and “racist” without the term “reverse.”

While the quote needs to taken in its proper context, it is still well worth examining on its own. I have no dispute or worry about two aspects of her claim. First, she puts an emphasis on being wise. Second, she makes a point of the richness of life experience. It is reasonable to accept that a wise person with rich experience would tend to make better conclusions that someone lacking those traits.

However, she brings in both gender and race. Now, I’d grant that a wise Latina women with rich experience would tend to reach better conclusions than an unwise, inexperienced white man. But this is not because of the race or gender differences. Rather, it is because of (as noted above) the differences in wisdom and experience.

It is in the reference to gender and race that the racism and sexism seem to come into play. After all, she can be seen as indicating that a Latina woman would reach better conclusions than a white man because she is a a Latina and a woman. She does, of course, say “a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” But does she mean a white male who lacks experience or a white male who has not lived the live of a Latina woman? if she means the former, then this would not seem to be a racist remark but a simple truism: more experienced people tend to reach better conclusions. If she means the latter,then that might be taken as racist.

Perhaps Sotomayor’s remark is intended to reply to the racist view that a white man would reach better conclusions than even a wise and experienced Latina woman simply because he is a white man. If so, then her remark need not be racist.

In any case, she will need to defuse this remark. Given that the Democrats control Congress, she should have no problems.

Continuing the discussion, I did see a piece on CNN in which Roland Martin went after Rush’s remarks. While I agree with his general view of Rush, Martin’s main attacks were just fallacies, specifically ad hominems. He attacked Rush for his own racist remarks and also took a shot at Rush’s past drug abuse. While these claims are true, they are not relevant to the truth of Rush’s claim. Of course, being logical is not really an effective approach for a political pundit/commentator either on the left or the right.

Finally, Rush also accused Obama of being a racist. While that seems untrue, it is reasonable to consider Rush’s claim that Sotomayor is the nominee because she is a Latina woman. To select someone because of race and gender would certainly seem to be a racist and sexist action. Of course, racism and sexism are normally taken to occur when it is a white male being selected based on race and gender. But, it is using race and gender as deciding factors that make it racism-not the specific race or gender.

I think Rush is right in his claim that she is the nominee in part because she is a Latina woman. Of course, Obama’s actual motivation need not be what might be considered standard racism  and sexism. Standard racism and sexism is seeing a race or gender as superior or inferior based on how one thinks or feels about that race and gender.

Obama has also been accused of  picking her so as to pander to voters and also to pay them back. To be specific, Hispanics helped him get elected and some have argued that this means he owes them something. Nominating Sotomayor could thus be a classic case of political pay back and a move calculated to keep and bolster Hispanic and female support for the administration. If Obama picked her for this reason, he need not be racist and sexist at all-he just needs to be a politician. The folks who think that as Hispanics and women they are owed something, well they would seem to be thinking in race and gender terms.

A final thought on the nomination, race and gender. Some folks on the left like to say how they want to get rid of racism and sexism. However, to do so they place a great deal of emphasis on race and gender. For example, some folks push hard to get a person elected or nominated because she is a woman or a minority. But, of course, the more that someone focuses on race and gender, the less likely it is that race and gender will not matter. This might be seen as something of a paradox: to make racism and sexism go away, people have to behave in ways that seem racist and sexist. For example, to make race and sex not matter on the Supreme court, people of diverse races and both sexes have to serve on the bench until it seems perfectly normal for that to happen. Of course, to make this happen, nominees have to be picked, in part, because they are a certain race or gender. This would, of course, seem to be racism and sexism justified by trying to get rid of racism and sexism.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/limbaugh-slams-sotomayor-reverse-racist/
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Abortion & Torture

by 8 Comments

I’ve been involved in an ongoing debate on torture and abortion over at TPM blog and thought I’d post here to point people there. I do a blog there about once a week.

One comment on my blog led me to an article by Ralph Peters in the New York Post. In an amazing coincidence, this article fit right into the path of the debate at TPM. The discussion I started was based on the view that an argument commonly given for torture is also, at the core, the same sort of argument that is given for abortion. The original is in the post, but here is a variant based on Peters’ discussion of executing terrorists.

Case for torture (and killing): it is acceptable to torture (and kill) terrorists because they lack a moral status that would justly protect them from torture (and execution) and applying torture (and killing) will result in saving the lives of thousands. People might mistake terrorists for people, but they are actually “sub-human creatures.”

Case for abortion: it is acceptable to kill a fetus because it lacks moral status that would justly protect them from death and allowing abortion will result in better lives for women. People might mistake a fetus for a person or a pre-person, but it actually is not.

Common principle: it is morally acceptable to harm another being provided that 1) the being lacks a “protective” moral status and 2) the benefits of doing so would outweigh the harms.

My point here is not to argue for (or against) torture, killing, or abortion. Rather, my intent is the same as in my original post: to present what seems to be a common, underlying principle used by defenders of torture and defenders of abortion.

The obvious reply that some folks will give is that terrorists are obviously people. But, they are only obviously people to some people. To folks like Ralph Peters and folks I have argued with, terrorists are not people in a moral sense. The usual argument is that their misdeeds have (in a way Locke argued for) made them the moral equivalent of man-killing animals and thus subject to death. As such, they may be tortured and killed justly. This is not to say that Locke would endorse torture or agree with Peters, of course.

The obvious reply that some other folks will give is that the fetus is obviously a person or pre-person and hence it is wrong to harm it. But, they are only obviously people (or pre-people) to some people. To some folks who are pro-choice, the fetus will be seen as lacking the qualities needed to make it a person. As such, a woman may justly have an abortion.

Obviously, people differ quite a bit in what is obvious to them.

Both types of folks do seem to accept the same basic principle that harming non-people is acceptable based on the consequences. In the case of terrorists, some folks argue that the terrorists have robbed themselves of their moral status as people by their actions. In the case of the fetus, some folks argue that it lacks the developed qualities to be a person. But the key to each moral argument is that the target is lacking in the needed moral status and hence it not morally protected. Thus, harming it is acceptable.

This seems philosophically interesting but also psychologically and politically interesting. After all, the “left” is stereotyped as pro-choice and anti-torture. The “right” is stereotyped as pro-torture and pro-life. However, they seem to often be operating on similar principles and use similar arguments. Their difference (which can be seen as critical) seems to lie more in the details. That is, they both agree we can hurt/kill others (or, more accurately, other things) but disagree over who (or what) we can hurt/kill.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: