Osama Bin Laden Is Dead (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I'm not troubled by the killing of bin Laden, but not simply because he was a bad person (unlike the random child).

me either, and not for that reason, either. I am not for the killing of all bad people. In this particular case, I have no problems with it. I am just addressing what seems to be the argument, that, because opinions about bin Laden differ, he should not be killed (or should not be killed extrajudicially).

[Ocean]

Interesting that you would have interpreted what I said as relating to "love thy enemy". But, actually, I wasn't thinking about that.

My argument is that our judgments of others, and also of ourselves, are inherently biased. What seems to us as a perfect justification to capture, torture or kill someone else, may be far from it to people who look at the same events from a different perspective. So, being aware of the fallibility of our judgments should make us more cautious about our righteous claims.

There are also practical reasons for that. If we act in a righteous and vindictive manner while others believe that we are wrong, our actions are going to be resented and will continue to fuel further vengeance and violence.

Those are rather simple principles of violence generating more violence.

"Love thy enemy" seems to point at a higher stage of moral development which we don't seem to be anywhere close to, at least as a species. As you said there may be isolated, saintly individuals who can experience such feelings, but they are the exception and not the rule. In a world where people can love their enemies, there are no enemies. But it's the kind of principle that only makes sense when it's applied globally. One side can't love their enemies, while the enemies are shooting at them.

Sorry if I disappointed your inspiration. Mine was a rather more pragmatic line of thought.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

me either, and not for that reason, either. I am not for the killing of all bad people. In this particular case, I have no problems with it. I am just addressing what seems to be the argument, that, because opinions about bin Laden differ, he should not be killed (or should not be killed extrajudicially).

I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I didn't make any statements in favor or against killing Osama Bin Laden. Actually I made a statement that was slightly in favor of that option since capturing him could potentially have had more dangerous consequences.

My comment was made in response to what JonI said about liberals and equality in a general way.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I would say that the assertion that Jon I. made was clear evidence (proof even) that he has no interest at all in why others might disagree with him on the question at hand.

If he did, he could ask relevant questions and see what answers he gets.

But that might illustrate a more complicated set of issues. It's far easier to just make up claims that you think sound bad and attribute them to those with whom you disagree.

Yes, I agree with that.

[eeeeeeeli]

Right. I didn't mean to imply you were saying that. I only meant to agree with you and then offer my own thoughts on the issue.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Right. I didn't mean to imply you were saying that. I only meant to agree with you and then offer my own thoughts on the issue.

Ah, okay. I'm glad to have triggered your inspiration then.

[miceelf]

Sorry, if I misinterpreted, I took JonI to be talking more specifically about this case and claiming that most people here didn't make the distinction between the killing of bin Laden and the killing of innocents. Your response focused on such a distinction (in general, not specific to bin Laden) as being fraught. If you were talking about the general, I apologize, in the context it seemed like more specific.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Sorry, if I misinterpreted, I took JonI to be talking more specifically about this case and claiming that most people here didn't make the distinction between the killing of bin Laden and the killing of innocents. Your response focused on such a distinction (in general, not specific to bin Laden) as being fraught. If you were talking about the general, I apologize, in the context it seemed like more specific.

No need to apologize. I just wanted to clarify my statement. Thanks.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I took JonI to be talking more specifically about this case and claiming that most people here didn't make the distinction between the killing of bin Laden and the killing of innocents.

Actually, Jon I.'s comment was supporting operative's (quoted it and commented on it, and the negative comments were thus directed to those operative was arguing with). Operative's argument wasn't about killing or not killing OBL, but about the use of torture, so I assumed that Jon's were in that context, really taking issue with any objections to torturing those believed to have committed crimes or have knowledge of information that could be used to save lives. Not about whether the circumstances here would have justified the killing of OBL (except to say that the circumstances really don't matter at all, because OBL was a bad man).

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

More on this in one of those "revives debate" pieces so loved by the NYT.

Glad I wasn't the only one driven bananas by that NYT headline.

[Jack McCullough]

I can't believe it!

This is a good discussion, but how can Bob talk about his elation at the death of Osama bin Laden without uttering the phrase "reptilian brain"?