The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Philippa: Thanks for your comment. I dealt with your point under 3., but let me clarify. An fully knowable unintended negative consequence is still not as morally objectionable as an intended negative consequence. To illustrate: you drive a car, knowing for certain that its emissions contribute to a higher death rate among your fellow citizens than if you did not drive your car. This is still not the same in intent as driving around with the aim of contributing to that higher death rate, even if it is the same in effect. The person who does the latter is morally worse, and we need to retain this distinction in order to be able to condemn such actions to a greater degree. Best wishes Eric On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 06:58:10 -0700 pjw8 <pjw8@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote: > Dear Eric Herring, > "The deliberate killing of innocents is morally worse > >than killing innocents as an unintended consequence". > > A US envoy from the State Dept. at the > UN Commission on Human Rights, who I interviewed on condition of > anonymity in 1999 for my thesis on the Iraqi sanctions, told me it was > preferable to continue the killing of Iraqis through sanctions, because that > was a clear outcome, whereas lifting the sanctions would produce an unclear > outcome ie Saddam Hussein would be "out of his box". The diplomat compared the > sanctions to the end phase of the Vietnam War, which the US couldn't win but > feared the consequences of extricating themselves from the region. The US, he > said, prefered the option of a predictable outcome: ie such and such number > of deaths each week. (Yes, they really think that way...) > If you know your policy is killing people, but you continue, surely there is > intent? > Yours sincerely, Philippa Winkler > > >===== Original Message From Eric Herring <Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk> ===== > >Dear list: > > > >On comparing the sanctions on Iraq and the terrorist attack > >on the US: > > > >1. The deliberate killing of innocents is morally worse > >than killing innocents as an unintended consequence of the > >pursuit of the guilty. In this sense, the terrorist attack > >on the US is morally worse than the sanctions on Iraq. > > > >2. More deaths of innocents is morally worse than fewer > >deaths of innocents. In this sense, the sanctions on Iraq > >are morally worse than the terrorist attack on the US. > > > >3. In either case, deaths of innocents which one fully > >anticipates are morally worse than deaths of innocents > >which are unanticipated. In this sense, the terrorist > >attack on the US is morally worse than the sanctions on > >Iraq only to a very limited degree, as after a very short > >time (a matter of less than six months at most), the > >catastrophic consequences were well known to > >decision-makers and have continued to be known to them. > > > >How one weighs these three factors is a subjective one > >which produces one's overall evaluation. > > > >As far as condemning something while attempting to > >understand it is concerned, consistency is vital here. > >Whether something is right or wrong, one should attempt to > >understand it. The problem here is when the ambiguous word > >'understand' is used to mean not merely comprehend but also > >to imply moral mitigation selectively. I condemn both the > >sanctions and the terrorist attack. I also seek to > >comprehend both, as part of my desire to end the sanctions > >and prevent further terrorist attacks. > > > >As far as Just War theory is concerned with regard to a > >US military response, the burden of proof regarding all its > >elements (in particular a reasonable prospect that there > >will be success and that the foreseeable good will not be > >outweighed by the harm) is on the US government. > > > >In a sense there are merely statements of the obvious, but > >only from a particular moral position. > > > > > >Eric > >---------------------- > >Dr. Eric Herring > >Department of Politics > >University of Bristol > >10 Priory Road > >Bristol BS8 1TU > >England, UK > >Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582 > >Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133 > >http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics > >eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk > > > >-- > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq > >For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk > >CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings. > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq > For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk > CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings. > ---------------------- Dr. Eric Herring Department of Politics University of Bristol 10 Priory Road Bristol BS8 1TU England, UK Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582 Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133 http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk CASI's website - www.casi.org.uk - includes an archive of all postings.