humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 14, 10:06 am, Mark Sieving wrote:
> I'm American, and I have no problem criticizing the Bush Doctrine.
> Neither has Gordon shown any reluctance to criticize. You're arguing
> with people who agree with you.

I occasionally read your posts and am aware both you and Gordon
agree with me on this particular issue. Although I constantly slam
ARI, christian fundamentalist groups, Aipac, and the current
Republican administration for their violent behavior...... it's guys
like you that make me think there are still plenty of decent people in
America. I'm not "arguing" with you. I'm just debating some of the
finer language so you know how some people in the outside world look
at it things (which may be of interest considering I have lived in
both Europe and Canada... traditionally two of America's strongest
allies ).

Something you should know about me. I have loved philosophy my
entire life (even from a small boy). It is so rich a subject I've
never really sat down to assemble my thoughts into a stab at a formal
philosophy. I tend to view it as an open ended book where one keeps
reading and revising instead of a permanent destination.

In politics most people seen ti focus on issues of either decreasing
taxation or increasing services. To me these are minor issues that can
be resolved slowly over time (centuries if needed), when compared to
the more important issue of extinction of the human race. In a world
armed with nuclear weapons my primary political focus is reducing the
credibility of any politician that demonstrate acts of wanton violence
(and this is especially important for countries that already have
nukes).

> Actually, Japan and Germany did not try to portray their aggression as
> preemptive attacks, even to their own citizens. Japan portrayed the
> attack on Pearl Harbor as a preventive attack, to eliminate the
> potential of US interference with Japanese plans in Asia. Germany
> called their attack on Poland a response to Polish aggression.

The Germans spoke German. The Japanese spoke Japanese. It is highly
improbable they distinguished between a "preventative" and
"preemptive" attack in English. (which again from a moral standpoint I
look at both as the equivalent of "I shot first") I accept you
personally may distinguish between preemptive and preventative
definitions but as far as I know prior to the Bush Doctrine there was
very little legal weight behind such minor language distinctions.

> What's relevant in judging the morality of war is not what the
> participants say they are doing, but what they are actually doing.

Agreed.