Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (5817)	2/14/2001 2:27:34 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) of 82486

First of all, all interventions don't involve imposing anything. There are degrees of interventions. Do we jawbone or shun or start a nuclear war? Big difference. But any intervention implies that we think they're doing something wrong. Whether it's jawboning, or shunning, or whatever, there is no reason to intervene unless we want them to change something they are doing. And when it's intervention for moral reasons (which is what we're discussing) that implies we want them to change their morality. Which implies we think ours is better than theirs. So yes, we DO want to impose our standards on them, whether it be the standard of giving up international terrorism (Libya) or giving up weapons of mass destruction (Iraq) or giving up human rights abuses (China and others) or giving up institutionalized racism (South Africa under white rule) or whatever -- in every case our intervention was based on our thinking we were right and they were wrong and we wanted to impose our way on them. Whether by their agreement or force is irrelevant. If we really believe they had the absolute right to chose their moral code and if they chose it it was morally right, we would have no basis to intervene at all.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next