Joseph,

It is a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you.   I see you as a man who is
grappling with the issues as well as his own human tendencies.

Regarding Just War theory however I think you make several mistakes in your
analysis.

The theory is on-going.   Christian and non-Christian moralists have
grappled with various types of Just War theory before Augustine and they
certainly continue to do so today.   So while I believe your understanding
of Western and Byzantine history may be flawed in the end we must examine
the principles as they are applied in our  modern context.   So even if your
critique of Augustine's beliefs about the authority of his day is correct
it's relevance to today's situation is questionable.

Assuming the Motives and Beliefs of Others.  I would caution you about
assuming that your evaluations of other men's understandings, beliefs, and
motivations are correct.   For example, to assume that other men did not or
are not aware of the dangers of self-righteousness; is that not an example
of an attitude of moral superiority?   You didn't invent the concept of
humility for the first time.

Superiority as an Prejudice vs. as a Position.    I think you fail to make a
key distinction about morality.   Morality is about doing what is better,
even what is best if that is possible to know.   Morality is inherently
about what is superior, that is, better.   We cannot have morality without
having moral superiority.   The attitude that is often called "moral
superiority" is perhaps better called prejudice: the assumption that the
question has already been answered; a coming to a conclusion without making
a moral judgment.

> 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.

I believe you repeat the error that you criticize others for.  Your critique
of moral authorities is a case in point.   Your choice of examples is
selective.   In each of the cases you site the justifications have been and
are questioned by other moral authorities.  At minimum the "moral
authorities" cancel each other out.  Yet you stand in judgment over which
ones were right!    You seem to select the evidence that fits your
conception and ignore others; a situation that is typical of the stance that
you are trying to avoid.

It seems evident from your list of terribles above that you have a moral
position from which you judge each case and you find each case to be morally
wanting.   How is it that you do that?   The answer I suggest is simple: you
do it on the basis of a set of principles.   Principles that are not so
different from the ones that you reject.

Your statement above IMO bastardizes and twists Just War theory most
unfairly.  You seem to miss a major point of Just War theory and moral
theory in general: to base judgments on sound principle -- the better angels
of our nature -- rather than tradition, prejudice, or expediency.  I think
you commit the fallacy of throwing the baby out with bathwater.

Once again I say that your position is no better than the position you wish
to replace.     My belief is that your position is a moral step backwards.


Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of rosenblatt, joseph
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:49 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Worth reading
>
>
>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 *

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