Little Eichmans

How many people actually believe that civilians are legitimate targets? Other than the Al-Queda, Ward Churchill, and some people posting on another thread, I don't know of people that can legitimize civilian attacks.
If you work for a government's military you are not civilian. If you bring your children to school and then go on to your job and pay taxes, do you become a different person?
The USA dropped an Atomic Bomb on one of Japan's largest industrial cities, from what I've read. But the collateral damage was enormous. Following that, our president gave the Emperor 3 days to surrender. Is it possible that the damage of Hiroshima can be assessed in three days?
Although some say that "the bomb" pre-empted more American "military" casualties, they were still "military" casualties. If Hiroshima was such an important target it could have been destroyed by conventional weaponry.
So point number one is that Truman was showing the Japanese Emperor America's latest technology and proof that America can obliterate entire cities. A virtual "show of strength".
But point number two is that, between both bombs, over 150,000 civilian casualties resulted. Children, women, schools, hospitals...were these our enemies,or was it the Emperor and his military?
Could any one citizen tell the Emperor to "stop" what he was doing? Has any one liberal in America today been successful in telling President Bush to "stop what he is doing?"
Al-queda said that any American taxpayer is a legitimate target since our tax money goes to, among other places, America's military. In reality, Bin Laden used the WTC and the Pentagon as targets that represent America's monetary and military power. While I am sure that Bin Laden is not concerned with collateral damage, we have an American professor that defends the resulting collateral damage and legitimizes the Pentagon as a target while ignoring the hundreds of men, women, and children onboard the airplanes.
Churchill met the brother of a "little Eichman" on the Bill Maher show and by the end of their conversation, Churchill said, "well putting your brother aside, don't you think there were some in the WTC that were not as innocent?" This professor melted when he faced a human being. Maybe he learned that not everything is so black and white as it is on his paper. And not to give Bill Maher a pass, it was Maher who said that the American soldier is a coward while those people who flew airplanes into the WTC were brave.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, terrorist bombings all cause collateral damage and some many instances, like terrorism, the actual victims weren't collateral but instead, they were the targets.
Ward Churchill and OBL, for example, do agree that civilians are responsible for the wars that our governments fight and therefore are "fair game" for attacks.
No government, or other aggressor including terrorists, should ever claim that civilians casualties are acceptable.

Post 1

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 2:43pm

I watched Bill Maher's show last week. The WTC victim's brother was much too accommodating to Churchill, saying 'I respect your opinion.' Churchill came off as a shy, intimidated old chief, humbly justifying the attack as some retribution toward the United States, and demanding reparations for the atrocities committed against his people over a century ago. That is pure hatred and racism. Maher happily brings on controversial guests, not just to boost ratings, but to promote global 'understanding'. It seems to me that what you phil are struggling with is the same idea Maher espouses: moral relativism.

Put yourself in Bin Laden's sandals. You are very brave to mount an attack on 'the great satan', who has been poisoning your culture and defying Allah for far too long... you are a hero to your cause. You think you are right to do so. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think, or Bill Maher thinks, or Allah thinks. Morality is already built into natural law of reality; laws which no man or superstition can change... and reality is very clear that you are wrong to mount an attack.

Nuking Nagasaki, fire-bombing Dresden were all terrible repercussions resulting in thousands of deaths, but repercussions of whom? The United States decided Hiroshima was the answer to getting Japan to surrender, but the Emperor signed the death warrants of every one of his citizenry when Japan invaded mainland asia. The 150,000 casualties were a result of their corrupt government.

Equating the 1945 U.S. and Bin Laden is false because the morality of life demands a good and an evil. The U.S. retaliated for rights of life and liberty. Bin laden attacked for power to punish and subvert. I can't see anyone here believing in killing perfectly innocent civilians, as in principle that would be tantamount to murder. When the Empire of Japan committed the moral crime of invasion and subversion however, the citizens of Japan were no longer innocent. In contrast to 2001, where the U.S. violated no one else's rights, the 3,000 dead in New York were indeed innocent civilian casualties. The principle of initiation of force shows why the U.S. are defenders, and Bin Laden is a murderer.

In "The Objectivist Ethics," Ayn Rand wrote:
"No man--or group or society or government--has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force."

I am sure many of the more experienced members here can explain all of it much better than I can, but I hope I could help you.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:59pm

Stephen,

I cannot agree with this statement:

"When the Empire of Japan committed the moral crime of invasion and subversion however, the citizens of Japan were no longer innocent."

Many people go about their lives and don't pay any attention to politics whatsoever. Their lives revolve around feeding their families, caring for their homes, going to the market, participating in amusements with their circle of friends. They have the attitude "why think about things you cannot do anything about." They support the government through taxes because they have to. The saying "two things you can't do anything about: death and taxes", refers to this attitude. Not everyone has the personality, education, or inclination to presume to decide world events. If information has been filtered to you by your government that your country is being victimized by another countries government and you are suffering because of it, you are going to try to do everything you can to return normalcy to your life. It may be that you work very hard to provide resources for your government to overcome the opposing government. These people are innocent and every effort should be made to avoid killing them.

Please qualify your statement. Some citizens of Japan were no longer innocent, some citizens remained so.

I agree, of course, that the 3000 dead in New York were innocent.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 3/09, 9:06pm)

Post 3

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:00am

I know what you mean Mike, saying that does not sit well with me. I would be very happy to change my position if I can recognize reasonable facts to support it.

However my standard of innocence is not dependent on how much an individual contributed to its country's war effort (forced or voluntary). The moment their government initiates force, the individual civilian is in danger of harm from a righteously retaliating nation. It is of course senseless to target civilians for no beneficial reason, but your option to make every effort to avoid killing civilians is unreasonable as well.

Avoiding civilians ties the retaliating army's hands, and gives the local army the benefit of hostages, or human shields of a sort. If the attacking country builds missile silos underneath elementary schools, is the retaliating country morally justified in bombing that school?

Now that I think through it further, you are right. Some civilians have done nothing wrong, (or are forced to contribute.) It is collectivist thinking to attribute guilt to them based on the actions of their government. I'll revise my original thinking and state that the Japanese civilians were indeed innocent. However the United States, as a retaliatory force, was morally justified to target them, and their deaths are on the hands of their invading government.

Thank you for your help.

Post 4

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:27am

Stephen Knoll wrote: "However the United States, as a retaliatory force, was morally justified to target them, and their deaths are on the hands of their invading government."

Do you have a weapon to recommend to the native Americans?

Post 5

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:49am

Mike Erickson wrote: "I cannot agree with this statement: ... Many people go about their lives and ..."

I believe that Objectivism is a religion. I believe that people generally tend to believe whatever makes them feel comfortable and if they care more than that, then they find justifications for those feelings. Really clever people find really abstract excuses for their beliefs.

The discussions here on the guilt of civilians in war go nowhere. No one is ever convinced.

One reason why -- and there are many -- is that admitting that you are wrong is anathema according to Objectivism. There exist only right and wrong. If right compromises, then wrong wins. Therefore, no one ever surrenders a fact, to say nothing of a premise.

Another reason for these interminable debates is that Objectivism is not logically consistent. Different people can correctly argue different postions starting from the same premises and using the same theorems.

People who want to kill civiilians would want to kill civilians regardless of what book they discovered. People who find war abhorrent would find war abhorrent if Ayn Rand had never been born. People beat children because they have an emotional need to do so and they find philosophical justifications for it.

Lindsay Perigo founded SOLO as a way for those with a positive sense of life to meet and chat from a shared foundation of Objectivism. No litmus test can cull the sheep from the goats. Just identifying the sheep and goats may be impossible.

Post 6

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:41am

Michael M.,

"Another reason for these interminable debates is that Objectivism is not logically consistent. Different people can correctly argue different postions starting from the same premises and using the same theorems."

This doesn't seem possible. I thought Ayn Rand taught that contradictions cannot exist in reality. Can you give me a hint about where the logical inconsistencies might be?

Post 7

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 4:13am

Stephen,
I have a problem with this statement from you: "However the United States, as a retaliatory force, was morally justified to target them, and their deaths are on the hands of their invading government."
This is too simplistic for me. To say that civilian deaths are on the hands of the invading government is, in my opinion, a total lack of morality.
Does this only apply only to governments? If not, then we can say that any retaliatory action carries with it the right to hold innocent people accountable for the actions of (ie) a family member.
Your statement is wide open to endless debate. What are the limits of retaliation? I am reminded of the fiasco in Waco, Texas. David Koresh held fast in his home, when the ATF approached to serve a warrant believing that there may be "fully" automaitic weapons stockpiles. We know how our government "maneuvered" the media for 51 days, until Janet Reno gave final orders to move in with tanks.
President Clinton defended Reno's actions and laid the full blame for the massacre of the nearly 100 men, women, and children on David Koresh. Pass the buck?
My point is clear...retaliatory action or otherwise should always ensure the safety of civilians. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and I cannot condone collateral deaths in any situation.
Innocent men, women, and children should not be dismissed so easily as legitimate "targets" because of actions taken by a David Koresh, Hirohito, or Hitler. These three men should be held accountable for the deaths they caused, but that does not give a "free pass" to those who did the killing.
Where is the line drawn in conflict? How much protection can you afford civilians before your own safety, or in war, the safety of a nation, is compromised?
I cannot comment on any other nation but my own. With the exception of a Waco, I do believe that it is in the best interests of the United States to follow a standard of protecting innocents. If not just to preserve innocent lives then atleast for, especially in the case of Iraq, public relations and the future of America's image.

Post 8

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:09am

I would like to thank everyone on this thread for giving me the topic for my next article.

George

Post 9

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:17am

Michael wrote:
Do you have a weapon to recommend to the native Americans?

I take it from the bold text that you feel strongly about this. Remember I am not defending the United States per se, merely trying to reason out the principality and defend the right vs. the wrong.
The U.S. was clearly wrong to force the native Americans from their homes, and the native Americans were right to retaliate with force. BUT that occurred well over a century ago, and everyone involved is long dead. Today we live with the effects of that force, however no such force currently is being applied to native Americans; and currently they have no right to initiate force. Churchill's belief (and the implication of your statement) is actually racist and wrong, Churchill is attributing evil done by dead Americans to their supposed ancestors of today. By guilt of our bloodline, he is saying we owe reparations to the native American nations. I can't see how someone that adheres to individual rights would ask to recommend a weapon to the native Americans.

I believe that Objectivism is a religion. I believe that people generally tend to believe whatever makes them feel comfortable and if they care more than that, then they find justifications for those feelings. Really clever people find really abstract excuses for their beliefs.
The discussions here on the guilt of civilians in war go nowhere. No one is ever convinced.
One reason why -- and there are many -- is that admitting that you are wrong is anathema according to Objectivism. There exist only right and wrong. If right compromises, then wrong wins. Therefore, no one ever surrenders a fact, to say nothing of a premise.

Religion is a broadly-used term, often more to invoke consternation than define a philosophy. Obviously Objectivism is not an intrinsic belief in a supernatural power, but it could be argued as "[a] cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." I myself feel much freer and happier than I ever did with evangelical christianity, but it's not about religion, it's about understanding and thriving in the world around you. Also I don't see how admitting a mistake is 'anathema', I just admitted a mistake in post #3. It is true you cannot compromise right for wrong, but admitting a fault in logic does not compromise what is right, no more than a failed science experiment compromises science. Our beliefs simply do not match what is true, and we need to reconcile... something I think both of us need some work on.

People who want to kill civiilians would want to kill civilians regardless of what book they discovered. People who find war abhorrent would find war abhorrent if Ayn Rand had never been born. People beat children because they have an emotional need to do so and they find philosophical justifications for it.
Lindsay Perigo founded SOLO as a way for those with a positive sense of life to meet and chat from a shared foundation of Objectivism. No litmus test can cull the sheep from the goats. Just identifying the sheep and goats may be impossible.

Of course war is abhorrent and nobody sane wants to kill civilians, nobody is arguing for these terrible things. But ideas are not built in to us, making us do what we do regardless of what or who can explain it all. I myself was going to go into the peace corps and study to become a career missionary... that all changed because of a book. It is not our actions that guide our philosophy, it is our philosophy that guides our actions.

I am deeply indebted to Ayn Rand for discovering the philosophy of mankind, and I owe a great deal of gratitude to Lindsay for providing a forum of helpful happy individuals with which to test my personal philosophy with what is correct, and find the inconsistencies and contradictions. You're right, there are 'goats', who are not seeking answers here, just defending and justifying their own beliefs. I guess I'll just need to remember who I am talking to. :)

Post 10

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:24am

'MisterMaverick' is Stephen Knoll, apparently one of the people I share this computer with did not log out, and I forgot to check.

Post 11

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:58am

Okay, I hear you phil, blaming collateral death on the force initiator gives a moral pass to create collateral death by the retaliator. Let's see if we can work through this.

Again in "The Objectivist Ethics," Ayn Rand wrote:
"No man--or group or society or government--has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

And this right here shows the retaliator has no right to target innocent bystanders, only against the initiator. It is the "or group or society or government" that has my attention. It seems that group, society, and government are synonymous with individual in this case, where the actions of the group assume the interest of everyone involved. This says to me that the group can be the initiator of force (not just the leader,) and the retaliatory group has the right to use force on the entire initiating group.

So if you are a citizen of 1945 Japan, by principle you are a part of Japan's initiation of force, even though you personally did nothing. To truly be an innocent civilian then, you would have to leave Japan.

I don't recall Wako very well, were the 100 people in the cult, or hostages? I agree in a hostage situation, where you have NO CHOICE but to stay in the group, the retaliating force should make every effort to keep you from harm. Should you die, once again the moral fault is not on your failing rescuers, but the one that held you.

So, apparently Rand's 'society is just a lot of individuals' idea does not apply in the case of national war. That is an inconsistency I cannot reconcile. Can anyone else shed some light on this?

Post 12

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:37pm

The real issue here concerns "the hostage argument."

Do you have the moral right to harm a hostage in the process of protecting yourself against a violent hostage-taker?

If you answer "no," then you are declaring that an abstract moral principle of "rights" trumps its moral purpose: to further one's life and well-being. It means that rights are intrinsic rather than objective and contextual. That view of rights would lead you to altruism: acting self-sacrificially by refusing to defend yourself, on the implicit grounds that the life of another person (the innocent hostage) -- or a platonic conception of "rights" -- takes precedence over your own life.

Anyone who respects innocent human life will of course try to extricate himself from such a situation without hurting any innocents -- if possible. But that may not always be possible. "Collateral damage" is often going to occur when violence is used, even in self-defense. But who bears the moral responsibility for those harms?

Such a conflict of interests is the dilemma created only by the hostage-taker through his use of force. Someone innocent may unavoidably be harmed or die: either you, or the hostage (if you violently defend yourself). But that dilemma is forced upon you by the hostage-taker, and thus is not your moral responsibility. Because force abrogates free choice -- the foundation of morality -- morality ends where a gun muzzle begins.

If you extrapolate this principle to the level of defense against an attack by a collective (a group or nation), you can see how it would apply to war-time situations such as invasions, bombing and the like. While reasonable efforts must be made to protect the lives of innocent bystanders or captive populations, that cannot be the deciding factor of whether or not to defend oneself. Innocents may well die if terrorists or dictators mingle within mass populations, in effect using them as hostages or "human shields." Morally, the blame lies with those aggressors who force such situations, not with those using defensive force to protect themselves. To argue otherwise is to endorse a policy of national or collective altruism.

Libertarians who do not root their notion of individual rights in an ethics of rational self-interest are often prone to do just that. Ripped out of that egoist moral context, "rights" become a Kantian categorical imperative that compels self-sacrificial pacifism. In effect it commands: Thou shalt not use force against an aggressor if it might possibly hurt an innocent -- even if that means one's own death.

If this proves anything, it is the incompatibility of a political system based on Objectivist principles, and those libertarian political systems that are not. For if "rights" are moral principles for social contexts, they can't mean the same thing to people who adhere to different moralities.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 3/10, 12:41pm)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 3/10, 12:45pm)

Post 13

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:41pm

deleted post
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/10, 2:05pm)

Post 14

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:45pm

deleted post

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/10, 2:05pm)

Post 15

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:57pm

Robert doesn�t need to write articles�because his posts, in a couple paragraphs, are the equal of high quality, condensed articles.

Post 16

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:03pm

Gee, gosh, fellas...I, er, don't know what to say...

Seriously, thanks. I think I'll use SOLO forums as an archive for "first drafts" of future articles. All the crap I get here will help me rewrite the pieces so that they're less open to easy criticism.

Post 17

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:58pm

Thank you Robert, your response was exquisite, stating just what I was thinking but could not articulate.

Post 18

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:21pm

I was not going to post on this thread - or even read it - because of the title. I do not want to EVER give Ward Churchill any semblance of respect or sanction.

He is a filthy low down scumbag who I do not want to discuss, think about or in any way take seriously. It was a huge misfortune that he stumbled in to national media attention on a fluke - through no merit of his own.

People can rail and rant against Mahar, but if I remember correctly, he did have the good sense to apologize for his rash monkeyshine - and I'll go one further. I would bet that he meant it because he understood and regretted his own disregard for context when he made his not-so-clever pronouncement.

That does not mean that I predominantly agree with Mahar's views. I don't even watch him enough to make an informed opinion (also I have been out of the USA for a few decades). What few times I did see him, though, I found that his offbeat comments and slant made me think - and I like that.

This other despicable asshole is proudly proclaiming his spiteful trash and defiantly saying that he will apologize to no one - as if he were a paragon of integrity. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

About Indians, Michael M wrote:

"Do you have a weapon to recommend to the native Americans?"

I sure do. It's called a court of law. The armed hostilities are over. The US government did many, many wrong things back then, but it also did many, many right things too. We now have a magnificent nation - a nation of law.

Are there problems and injustices? There sure are. But show me one nation on earth where they do not exist. One of America's greatest virtues is a system that allows for redress and remedy of wrongs based on rights - mainly individual rights.

Today's courts are much better about Indian issues than in yesteryear. And fortunes are being made for Indians in them.

If a white, black or any other human really wants to understand Indian thought and culture, Lakota Indian anyway, one of the most accessible, truthful and marvelous works is Hanta Yo! by Ruth Beebe Hill, friend and neighbor of guess who? Then they could simply go talk to Indians. I personally would never, never, never use a pompous little nobody like that maggot Churchill as a source of information.

About "collateral damage" (how I hate euphemisms!), I don't see much possibility for moral deliberations in the heat of war. In a choice between the horrible and the even-worse, you choose the horrible. Even then it is an excruciating choice for decent people.

I don't care too much for President Bush, but I will stand with him on this: if you are an aggressor and you attack me with intent to kill, I will kick your ass. I will kick your cousin's ass. And I will kick the ass of your whole damn family if your people keep growling at me. But that also means: you stop and I'll stop.

Only then will I start talking about morality.

Michael

Post 19

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:18pm