Cortlandt Wilson asks:
>>The proportionality principle criteria are all subjective.
>It seems to me that the crux of your argument is contained in this one
sentence. Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

That is an excellent question. In true list fashion my answer is, it
depends. On a simple level yes, it is the crux of my argument. On a deeper
level, it is only the symptom of the problem.

My real problem lies in the assumptions behind the principle. I alluded to
the principle's presumption of moral superiority. This theme runs rampant
through the whole of Augustine's City of G-d. There are a number of reasons
for Augustine's approach to the power of governments.

Historically, Augustine lived in the early days of the Byzantine Empire.
Christianity had become the state religion. Imperial power gave prestige to
Christian beliefs. The Pope in Rome was the titular head of the church but
the real power of Christian The-ology rested with the Emperor in
Constantinople. The Emperor decided which doctrines were acceptable and
which were heretical.

This singleness of power makes the "Just War" principle easier to
understand. In Augustine's understanding, there was only one "Proper
Authority" to declare "Just War." "Proper Cause" criteria were easily set;
anything done against the Byzantine Empire was reason for "Just War." The
fact that such "Proper Authority" does not exist today is a reason to
question the whole concept on practical grounds.

On moral grounds, I have a completely different objection to the  "Just War"
principle. Augustine believed that the Emperor, i.e. Christianity as the
Emperor understood it, was an unquestionable authority. I am not going to
argue the merits of Christianity; the problem is in the fact that the moral
authority is based upon one person's or one group's understanding of "G-d's
Will."

This sort of "moral big brotherism" has cost humanity dearly. The moral
authorities have proclaimed time and time again, all in the name of their
moral beliefs, that atrocities were acts of righteousness. (Examples include
but are by no means limited to: Subjugation of Women, subjugation of
indigenous peoples throughout Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas,
pogroms, genocide, infanticide, Crusades, Jihads and Tammy Fay Bakker.) The
principle of "Just War" is nothing more than "Might Makes Right" with a
pretty ribbon on the top.

Cortlandt graciously points to a number of flaws in my  "Just Peace"
concept, for which I thank him. "Just Peace" as was presented yesterday is
less than 24 hours old. The whole concept will require revision both in
ideology and in expression. Cortlandt's question of the Humility criteria is
a case in point. This line does not express what I truly meant to say. As a
second draft of that statement I would write:

Humility - I will not assume my own righteousness. I will strive to see the
point of view of others without prejudice.

I am sure that this will need further revision.

Cortlandt asks two more excellent questions:
> Do you believe in a right to self-defense? Is there ever such a thing as
justifiable homicide?

I absolutely believe in the right of self-defense. I just don't believe
self-defense needs to come in the form of violence. As Wirt was saying in
another thread, helping your neighbors is the best way to keep them from
becoming your enemies. The best way to defend yourself is not to get into a
situation that requires you to defend yourself. If communication breaks down
and one is in a situation that requires defense then there are
well-established principles of non-violent resistance.
This sums up my view on justifiable homicide as well.

I do not under any circumstances advocate, "Turn the other cheek." This one
concept, above any other, is the root of all evil. Instead of letting the
wrongdoer hit you once, you invite them to hit you again. This does not
teach the wrongdoer how to become a better person and it does not secure
Peace for the world. "Turn the other cheek" is the other side of the "Might
makes Right " coin. It shows an inability to deal with "wrong" on any level
above the visceral.

I advocate figuratively pushing the wrongdoer away with your left hand and
bringing him closer with your right. Let the wrongdoer know that their
actions are not acceptable. Allowing a wrongdoer to continue on their path
of disruption is an act of indifference. Helping a wrongdoer to learn how to
live in accordance to the rules of a just society is an act of love.

Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
universal law.
Work For Peace
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *