2009-04-15
Short of Nukes
I know that the logic I use to come to the conclusions I do, is based on some "obvious assumptions" which I often don't know how to put into words. E.g. when it came time to liberate Iraq, I was astounded by people arguing the toss about whether to go in or not. Isn't it obvious that fighting for freedom is a noble thing to do? Don't you want to be noble? Don't you want your country to be seen as noble rather than a bunch of uncaring selfish pricks? It took an entire year even to be able to unwind the very definition of "freedom" as "not subjugated" so that the intra-country split and subsequent debate could even have terms of reference to start! That was message 666, and was by far the most important foundation.
However, since that is not enough for the thickest of the thick, I've been trying to find the words to describe the other underlying assumptions that produce a sensible and consistent philosophy. Today (after years of thinking), I finally got another one.
The philosophy I run on is to produce justice for the innocent, worldwide, using all available resources (which includes war, not as a first option, not as a last option, but merely an option), SHORT OF RESORTING TO OR TRIGGERING OFF A NUCLEAR WAR, which is a price too high to pay, even for worldwide justice. So long as we can stick with conventional war or below (and below includes simply funding schools or providing Al Hurra), then there is no resource that I wouldn't throw at achieving worldwide liberation/justice, so that we can then have a sensible foundation for human civilization. So a once-off cost of conventional war (should that be required), then we can relax and chase our ever-higher standard of living.
THAT is what a JUST god would want to see, and that is what I did, in the absence of any visible competitor.
Yet another underlying assumption is that justice is valuable, and all innocent humans deserve it regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality. That assumption will of course be challenged by those who don't even accept that an innocent woman has a default inherent right to not be raped though. But what else is new?
|
However, since that is not enough for the thickest of the thick, I've been trying to find the words to describe the other underlying assumptions that produce a sensible and consistent philosophy. Today (after years of thinking), I finally got another one.
The philosophy I run on is to produce justice for the innocent, worldwide, using all available resources (which includes war, not as a first option, not as a last option, but merely an option), SHORT OF RESORTING TO OR TRIGGERING OFF A NUCLEAR WAR, which is a price too high to pay, even for worldwide justice. So long as we can stick with conventional war or below (and below includes simply funding schools or providing Al Hurra), then there is no resource that I wouldn't throw at achieving worldwide liberation/justice, so that we can then have a sensible foundation for human civilization. So a once-off cost of conventional war (should that be required), then we can relax and chase our ever-higher standard of living.
THAT is what a JUST god would want to see, and that is what I did, in the absence of any visible competitor.
Yet another underlying assumption is that justice is valuable, and all innocent humans deserve it regardless of race/religion/sex/nationality. That assumption will of course be challenged by those who don't even accept that an innocent woman has a default inherent right to not be raped though. But what else is new?
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 18:27 
