It seems to me that some sort of consensus in favour of action is is required.
Why do yo think that? Does it make it more moral if everybody agrees that it’s a good idea at the time?
Carrick - 07:05pm on 05/09/2008
Carrick...not always but sometimes. Consensus makes it more likely that action taken is founded on a widely accepted moral position and that the action has the appearance of a moral response...IMO of course.
MikeAdamson - 09:05pm on 05/09/2008
That tyrannical governments divert disaster aid to their selfish purposes is not unusually. It’s been happening in Africa for a long time.
docdave - 09:05pm on 05/09/2008
Ain’t this sweet. Democrats must be advising these jackoffs on how to run their country. Where is James Carvell,anyway?
2Hotel9 - 05:05am on 05/10/2008
Mike:
OTOH, what would our reaction be if China moved into Burma in order to ensure relief and “stability”?
Mine personally would be about the same as when I learned that it was the Communist Vietnamese who overthrew the Khmer Rouge: “Thank God SOMEBODY stepped up and did something.”
The instance on absolute moral purity has a tendency to cost more lives than an acceptance of imperfect, but better, results. That’s not saying the end justifies the means, it’s an acknowledgement that the the end result of inaction has to be considered in one’s moral calculus.
Seth Williams - 01:05pm on 05/10/2008
Good comment Seth.
MikeAdamson - 02:05pm on 05/10/2008
2H9
Democrats must be advising these jackoffs on how to run their country.
Once again you are wrong. As usual. Your inability to separate your sick assed inability to distinguish reality from your sick assed desire for socialism is once again clearly illustrated. Did I use simple enough word constructs so you can understand? You stupid fuck?
2Hotel9 - 05:05pm on 05/10/2008
I wouldn’t have used “inability” twice in the same sentence but your point is reasonably clear. You are no doubt ticked that the Republicans have canned Myanmar’s former lobbyist as their Convention coordinator. I think it was the right thing to do although you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
MikeAdamson - 07:05pm on 05/10/2008
MikeA: Wow!! Thanks for the Mynmar link. Very, very interesting.
Mike:
Why do yo think that? Does it make it more moral if everybody agrees that it’s a good idea at the time?
Carrick...not always but sometimes. Consensus makes it more likely that action taken is founded on a widely accepted moral position and that the action has the appearance of a moral response...IMO of course.
That tyrannical governments divert disaster aid to their selfish purposes is not unusually. It’s been happening in Africa for a long time.
Ain’t this sweet. Democrats must be advising these jackoffs on how to run their country. Where is James Carvell,anyway?
Mike:
Mine personally would be about the same as when I learned that it was the Communist Vietnamese who overthrew the Khmer Rouge: “Thank God SOMEBODY stepped up and did something.”
The instance on absolute moral purity has a tendency to cost more lives than an acceptance of imperfect, but better, results. That’s not saying the end justifies the means, it’s an acknowledgement that the the end result of inaction has to be considered in one’s moral calculus.
Good comment Seth.
2H9
Seems more likely to be Republicans I think.
Once again you are wrong. As usual. Your inability to separate your sick assed inability to distinguish reality from your sick assed desire for socialism is once again clearly illustrated. Did I use simple enough word constructs so you can understand? You stupid fuck?
I wouldn’t have used “inability” twice in the same sentence but your point is reasonably clear. You are no doubt ticked that the Republicans have canned Myanmar’s former lobbyist as their Convention coordinator. I think it was the right thing to do although you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
MikeA: Wow!! Thanks for the Mynmar link. Very, very interesting.