Obama to CIA: Bombs Away! No Let Up in US Drone Attacks

[chefmike]

New President Approves Continued Attacks That Have Killed 8 of al Qaeda's Top 20
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6718124&page=1

During the campaign, Obama called for cross-border attacks against high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even before the CIA campaign began.

Well done, President Obama!

No rest for al Qaeda or Bin Laden!

:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

[El Nino]

Sound familiar?

[chefmike]

During the campaign, Obama called for cross-border attacks against high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even before the CIA campaign began.

[hippifried]

Don't worry. There's always another top 20. Hell, we've been killing a #2 or #3 every other week for years now.

Afghanistan's a loser. We need to get the hell out of there. There's no solution & nobody can figure out who the "enemy" is from day to day. We already made the mistake of making Osama bin Laden the grand poobah personification of terrorism. A worse mistake would be to expand this insanity into Pakistan or Iran.

[El Nino]

Obaaamaaaaa baaaa baaaa

[chefmike]

UNITED NATIONS — President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/direct-diplomacy-with-ira_n_160952.html

[hippifried]

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials.
Diplomacy? Hell, we never released the assets we siezed in '79. For 20 years, we had no truck with Iran, but we kept the money anyway. It'd probably be worth over a $trillion by todays standards.

[chefmike]

Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials.
Diplomacy? Hell, we never released the assets we siezed in '79. For 20 years, we had no truck with Iran, but we kept the money anyway. It'd probably be worth over a $trillion by todays standards.

Yes, I read something that reminded me of that recently. I thought we released at least a portion of the assets, but to tell you the truth I'd have to look it up and I'm not so inclined at the moment.

[thx1138]

Among the latest victims were 2 women and 3 children...hard core al Qaeda members, no doubt.

[El Nino]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! We don't get fooled again!!! -THE WHO

OH YEAHHHHHHHHH

[chefmike]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! We don't get fooled again!!! -THE WHO

OH YEAHHHHHHHHH

Slow day at the meth lab, El Nutjob?

[chefmike]

Among the latest victims were 2 women and 3 children...hard core al Qaeda members, no doubt.

That's unfortunate. So were the civilian casualties due to al Qaeda on 9/11. War is hell.

[thx1138]

I think there's something in the UN rules of warfare about targgeting non combatants. Maybe the bush administration withdrew its signature or maybe they apply to every nation except the US, UK and Israel. I don't know. Someone help me out here.

[El Nino]

Chef, you are an extreme victim of disinformation. I feel sorry for you.

[chefmike]

That is fucking hilarious coming from HA's poster boy for the lunatic fringe. I notice you backed off posting any more links from white supremacist Hal Turner when I called you on it. Why was that? Did you realize you had revealed too much of your true nature, Kaczynski?

[chefmike]

I think there's something in the UN rules of warfare about targgeting non combatants. Perhaps you should first offer proof that there were indeed non-combatant deaths, and that non-combatants were in fact targeted and weren't what is referred to in the military as collateral damage. PROOF FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE. NOT ONE OF YOUR LOONY LINKS.

[El Nino]

"Loony Links" Chef? What, and your sources are based in 100% objectivity? Think again boy.

[thx1138]

Can you prove to me all the people in the world trade center buildings were non combatants too?

[thx1138]

or maybe they were just collateral damage.

[thx1138]

too little too late: http://www.indystar.com/article/20090128/NEWS/901280337/1001/NEWS

[thx1138]

These wretched people have vitually next to nothing to survive and they can't even go to bed at night and be assured they won't die in their sleep by a US 500lb. bomb. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Their only crime is that they are Muslims.

[thx1138]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/28/gates_skeptical_about_vast_troop_boost_in_afghanis tan/

[Oli]

This is an AGM-114 Hellfire missile. It is either laser or radar guided. It's maximum weight is 105 lbs.
http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/hellfire.gif

The Predator can carry 2

This is a 500 lbs bomb. It's guidance system is...Gravity. It's maximum weight is...500 lbs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Mk-82_xxl.jpg

The Predator can not lift off with one of these attached to it.

Thank you for your pious, pompous reply. Please have your facts in order before doing so again.

[SarahG]

Don't worry. There's always another top 20. Hell, we've been killing a #2 or #3 every other week for years now.

Afghanistan's a loser. We need to get the hell out of there. There's no solution & nobody can figure out who the "enemy" is from day to day. We already made the mistake of making Osama bin Laden the grand poobah personification of terrorism. A worse mistake would be to expand this insanity into Pakistan or Iran.

Whoever said liberals can't also be hawks is wrong.

[hippifried]

I don't care how the bomb is delivered or who does it. Detonating explosives in populated areas is an act of terrorism.

[SarahG]

Among the latest victims were 2 women and 3 children...hard core al Qaeda members, no doubt.

There is always collateral damage. Always has been, and always will be.

If it would make you feel better, we could always go back to our old tactics of just carpet bombing everything with incendiaries. Seemed to work out well against Dresden and Japan...

[SarahG]

I think there's something in the UN rules of warfare about targgeting non combatants. Maybe the bush administration withdrew its signature or maybe they apply to every nation except the US, UK and Israel. I don't know. Someone help me out here.

You would have a point....... if we were actually seeking out civilians to blow up.

Hmm, wait a minute. "Seeking out civilians to blow up" sounds familiar from somewhere. Oh that's right, that's what these extremists have been going out of their way to do for decades now. :roll:

[SarahG]

I don't care how the bomb is delivered or who does it. Detonating explosives in populated areas is an act of terrorism.

And the second urban areas are called off limits is the second these radicals pick those urban areas to base their operations.

Why do you think Hamas and Hezbollah picked residential districts, in cramped residential neighborhoods, from next to hospitals, and next to schools- to fire rockets into Israel?

[El Nino]

Murder is murder, and war, is a euphimism for genocide.....

[SarahG]

Murder is murder, and war, is a euphimism for genocide.....

And a fox may steal your hens.

That doesn't change that there are scenarios in which killing isn't murder.

[El Nino]

True, but by and large, imperialistic agression commenced in another country, fueled by a military-industrial-banker complex? well, you know...

[SarahG]

True, but by and large, imperialistic agression commenced in another country, fueled by a military-industrial-banker complex? well, you know...

Just because something is profitable is not, in itself, evidence that profit was the rational behind that action.

In this case it is pretty obvious that there are groups that intentionally try to maximize civilian collateral deaths by basing their operations in residential, urban areas.

In those cases, reacting to those select groups is a rational, sound, ethical choice. An unfortunate one, but one that cannot always, wholly be avoided.

This makes sending an occasional rocket into Pakistan infinitely different from preemptively invading a country for no reason what-so-ever (i.e. Iraq), or staging a fake international incident to hide the preemptive element of the engagement (i.e. Tonkins).

Now if you can show that these select groups are NOT actually using civilian-concentrated areas to engage other forces (i.e. showing that Hamas didn't actually shoot rockets from the streets in front of hospitals into Israel) then that changes things.

[Niccolo]

True, but by and large, imperialistic agression commenced in another country, fueled by a military-industrial-banker complex? well, you know... El Nino

That's "penitential narcissisim" at it's most nauseating. To paraphrase Sam Harris, nothing in El Nino's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For El Nino, intentions do not seem to matter.

The article you provided a link to in a Boston newspaper can be read as a statement of intent by American forces to to everything humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties during any military operations.

Compare that with the many acts of terrorism that have been carried out around the world in recent years, where as Sam Harris said, the aim was to maximise civilian casualties. One wouldn't drive a 4WD filled with gas bottles and six inch nails into the front door at Glasgow Airport and then try to blow it up, for example, unless one's intent was to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Why are you unable to acknowledge the difference between these two morally distinct positions?

[El Nino]

"six of one, a half dozen of the other"
And from a strictly political perspective, we are the agressors, dropping bombs in a foreign land. Logic would have it that those who retaliate are freedom fighters, in their own right. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Most people can't see this.

[hippifried]

The war in Afghanistan was strictly bloodlust. 9/11 happened & somebody had to pay. There were no Afghans on the planes, & I've never seen any definitive evidence that Osama binLaden had anything to do with it. Some network voiceover mentioned his name after the second plane hit (that's when they knew for certain it wasn't an accident), & before the collapses started, & everybody just jumped on the bandwagon. "Oh it must have been..." Since we had no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, the "negotiations" were done via CNN & other networks with a TV remote setup. The pundits had redneckia worked up into a frenzy, mouth foam & all. When ordered to "Hand over binLaden!", the Taliban dude answered "We don't have him.". When pressed further over the ensuing weeks, he said that if we wanted the Taliban to get involved, we should produce evidence. 2 days later, we were dropping bombs.

19 Arabs, mostly Egyptian with a few Saudis & Yemenis, hijacked 4 planes, using nothing but a couple of razor blades & a lot of chutzpah, & crashed them causing intense damage. For payback, we bombed the city of Kabul in non-Arab Afghanistan. That was ok though, because American bombs are super smart, so we were just bombing Talibans. Oh the Taliban were/are a bunch of fanatic assholes, but they had nothing to do with 9/11. The reality was that we had no clue which building was which or who was who when we were dropping bombs in a populated area. We also had no idea where Osama binLaden was. Not ever. We've been pretending to chase a ghost around central Asia for the last 7 years without any intention of ever finding him. It's just an excuse for checking out those daisy cutters & bombing the snot out of a country without the wherwithal to fight back.

Now we're turning the whole thing into a video game. Whoop de doo. Hey Pakistan, we're not violating your border. It's just the machine. But it's ok, because we're just bombing alQaedas & unimportant Pakistanis who'd just be a pain in your ass later anyway.

As an American, it's an embarassment.

[trish]

Of course one’s degree of culpability depends on whether one’s actions and their consequences were intentional, deliberate, on purpose or otherwise. If an action carried a risk of collateral damage, or an expectation of collateral damage, then it seems to me the actors share in the responsibility for the actual damages that occurred. Suppose one’s intentional act led inadvertently to the death of a child. The intention of the act was not to kill the child. However, the actor may have been aware that his action would put that child at risk. If so, by performing the action, he deliberately put the child at risk, whether that was his intention or not. For this I believe he is culpable. On the other hand, our actor may not have known that this particular child was at risk, but rather only had an expectation that some anonymous group of bystanders would suffer injury or death. Still, by acting, he deliberately put these people at risk even though it was not the intent of his action, and so he shares in the blame for the damages that befell them.

Whether you’re carpet bombing Baghdad or Kabul, or lobbing mortar shells into Israel or firing missiles into Gaza, you’re quite deliberately placing bystanders in harms way and justifying it using your particular take on what the benefits of the action will be versus the costs. The bottom line of that despicable cost-benefits analysis is that the death of a child (which is a devastating loss to her immediate family) counts as a minor loss of face in the eyes of a few relatively voiceless people around the world who care.

[Niccolo]

When were Baghdad and Kabul carpet bombed then? I must have missed that .. are you referring to something that actually happened, or are you just making that up?

[Niccolo]

"six of one, a half dozen of the other" - El Nino.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt. Try again.

[Niccolo]

double post

[trish]

Touche'

Did you miss the point deliberately, or intentionally?

[Niccolo]

Well, that's a complex question if ever I saw one. I was busy downloading porn in another window, and for some strange, unfathomable reason found my attention drifting in that direction... I found a "Nicki Reed" scene and they're quite rare, so that was always going to be what I was concentrating on for the next few minutes, lol ..

So if I just made the quick point that I thought you had used some stirring language that sounded good, but didn't refer to a genuine event at all, well that's why ..

It's an interesting problem to think about: the problem of "dirty hands." Let's see where we're at: if I'm reading you right, you're saying that the motives of two people who each carry out an action that results in another person being harmed can be quite different. Not only that, those different motivations need to be considered when one is thinking in moral terms about a particular act.

Shouldn't your second paragraph reflect this though? Instead of talking about carpet bombing Kabul, shouldn't it say something about British troops (let's say) doing everything they possibly can to minimise civilian casualties while attacking a military target? Surely such an act cannot just be lumped together with someone attacking a "soft" non-military target and doing everything they can to maximise civilian casualties?

And I'm not sure if these two types of act can be properly described using the same phrase - "deliberately placing bystanders in harms way." In this context, doesn't using the word "deliberately" suggest intent? (And as I've already said, and I think you agree with me here, aren't their intentions different?)

"Knowingly," perhaps?


Right got to go just now, I've got a DVD to watch tonight, and the kettle's on so it's time to make some tea, & get out a packet of Digestives. It's an interesting problem though, as I said, and I'll get back to it later on. Can I just throw a quote out there for the moment? It's (IMO) the key passage in "The Prince." And it might be the most succinct expression of the "dirty hands problem" ever committed to paper.

"A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity." (trans. by Peter Bondanella.)

[trish]

Any person or state that, regardless of their intent, deliberately chooses to pursue an action that will knowingly kill bystanders, deliberately chooses to kill bystanders. That much is simple logic. The point is that if you deliberately choose to kill bystanders, then you are morally culpable for their deaths.

Examples of such states are Palestine, Israel, United States, or any nation that calculates that a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable in their interactions with other states. Do feel free to choose your own examples.

[Niccolo]

Of course, one’s degree of culpability depends on whether one’s actions and their consequences were intentional, deliberate, on purpose or otherwise.

[trish]

And as I've said in my last two posts, the actions against bystanders, when one knows there will be collateral damage, are always deliberate.

[El Nino]

I understand the premise of the discussion. And I actually agree with a bunch. What I take issue with are the dubious and subjective rationales that governments often use to engage the elements of war. The war on terror as we know it, is like a, 2 steps back, 1 step forward type of thing. In point of fact, it tends to give rise to more "terrorists". It is a frequently overlooked phenomenon; this blowback thing. Ultimately, it compounds the retaliation factor and exponentially generates passion in the multitudes of those being attacked. When innocents are slaughtered (for any reason) by the hands of the masters of war (a profitable enterprise by the way), one thought comes to mind... Karma's a bitch

[hippifried]

Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence for political purposes.

War is terrorism.

[chefmike]

Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence for political purposes.

War is terrorism.
Semantics notwithstanding, I'll continue to side with the USA when dealing with terrorists who seek to destroy America by whatever means. Makes sense to me. I certainly don't think there were ever terrorists in Iraq that needed to be dealt with until we created the current mess, and I still think we should withdraw ASAP. I can't say the same about Afghanistan at this point, not that I don't think the way we handled Afghanistan and it's invasion to have been all wrong from the beginning.

[Niccolo]

And as I've said in my last two posts, the actions against bystanders, when one knows there will be collateral damage, are always deliberate. - trish

What's your point?

Our military forces, when they are attacking a military target, do everything humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties.

Terrorists, when they are attacking soft, non-military targets, do everything humanly possible to maximise civilian casualties.

Isn't that true?

[El Nino]

Our military forces, when they are attacking a military target, do everything humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties.

Isn't that true?

Not always... how can you be so sure? Is that what they are telling you?

[Niccolo]

double post

[Niccolo]

When you say "they" I take it you are referring to this "military-industrial-banker complex" of yours? Are you entering David Icke country now? I realise that there are people out there whose mental software has been corrupted by "penitential narcissism" and who will do almost anything to find fault in their own country, and to avoid passing judgement on Islamic terrorists, but the reality is that Islamic terrorists, when they are deliberately attacking soft, non-military targets, do everything they possibly can to maximise civilian casualties. Always. For sure. And we know this because they tell us that's what they're going to do, and then we see them doing it.

Isn't that true?

As for your earlier remark about one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter: we've all heard the expression, but using it as an attempt to "frame" current events is pretty naive. The fact is that there are people out there fighting to take our "Western" freedoms away. Blowing you up as you use the tube to go to work, well that's a pretty effective way of restricting someone's "negative freedom." There just aren't as many doors open to you if you're dead. And you can't walk through any if your legs have been blown off. But overt acts of terrorism like 7/7 are just part of it. The list of people living in the West who have been actively persecuted because they said something that wasn't in complete accordance with the notion that Islam is a religion full of sweetness and light is a long one: Salman Rushdie, Robert Redeker, Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Michel Houllebecq, the Danish cartoonists, anyone who published the cartoons, Theo van Gogh, Geert Wilders .. ask any of them whose freedoms Islamists are fighting against. Of course you won't be able to ask Theo van Gogh because Mohammad B stabbed him in the street and murdered him. And you won't be able to ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali because she's in hiding somewhere, comdemned to live under armed guard for the rest of her life in case some Islamic wingnut catches up with her and takes her life. You could try asking Geert Wilders ... but that might be difficult too, since he's currently being prosecuted in the Netherlands for speaking his mind, and if the dhimmis in Holland have their way, he won't be allowed to answer you. If you want to talk about fighting for freedom, maybe we ought to start thinking about fighting for our own, hard-earned freedoms. Some people just can't see this though ..

Bruce Bawer - Submission in the Netherlands. (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0122bb.html)

[El Nino]

Who's really taking our freedoms away Nic? Is Bin Laden legislating away our liberty? Really?

[chefmike]

Oh, I get it. Just because Bush et al passed something stupid like the Patriot Act, the fact that the Patriot Act is wrong makes terrorist activity against the US and others irrelevant and the US government the real enemy? Thus validating all of the lunatic conspiracy theories that you regurgitate ad nauseum?

Makes perfect sense.

[El Nino]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -B.F.

Makes perfect sense...

[El Nino]

To me Chef, it really seems as though, you have a very limited understanding of the fundamental doctrines and principles, upon which this Republic was founded. That's all

[Niccolo]

To me Chef, it really seems as though, you have a very limited understanding of the fundamental doctrines and principles, upon which this Republic was founded. That's all

To me El Nino, it sometimes seems as if you have a very limited understanding of the fundamental doctrines and principles upon which Islamism is founded. Those guys aren't fucking about. They're serious - deadly serious.

Your earlier question about who is legislating away our freedoms is a good one though. You're right on the money there.

A distinction can obviously be drawn between those who would like to take a freedom of ours away, and those who would give it up. And you're right, I think we should remember to think about the latter group.

It's not easy to get such a discussion out into the public domain in a meaningful way though. As Sam Harris said, "To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it."

[hippifried]

"Islamism"????????????????

[Niccolo]

have you never heard that term before? google it.

[hippifried]

have you never heard that term before? google it.
I don't need google to find the meaning of a common usage suffix. I undersand the tem as well as the connotation within your context, & I ain't buying the meme.

You're attempting to use "Islamism" as a derogatory to imply a lockstep mindset. It's a line of hype, & a false premise. You can throw an "ism" on anything, but it's meaningless nowadays because we tend to put them on everything. It's been bastardized by ideologues trying to expand their enemy base. It's bogus.

----------------------------------------

Is there a page missing in this thread?

[trish]

And as I've said in my last two posts, the actions against bystanders, when one knows there will be collateral damage, are always deliberate. - trish

What's your point?

Our military forces, when they are attacking a military target, do everything humanly possible to minimise civilian casualties.

Terrorists, when they are attacking soft, non-military targets, do everything humanly possible to maximise civilian casualties.

Isn't that true?

One frequently gets the impression that collateral damage is acceptable because its accidental. In fact collateral damage is not accidental. When it's predictable, it's deliberate. When a child yells, "But Mom, the terrorists are worse than I am," Mom knows that's no excuse for deliberately killing bystanders, even if the number is kept minimal. Deliberately killing bystanders with the intent of of also striking the target is morally offensive, whether other people are doing it in greater or lesser volume or with other intentions or not.

[yodajazz]

I understand the premise of the discussion. And I actually agree with a bunch. What I take issue with are the dubious and subjective rationales that governments often use to engage the elements of war. The war on terror as we know it, is like a, 2 steps back, 1 step forward type of thing. In point of fact, it tends to give rise to more "terrorists". It is a frequently overlooked phenomenon; this blowback thing. Ultimately, it compounds the retaliation factor and exponentially generates passion in the multitudes of those being attacked. When innocents are slaughtered (for any reason) by the hands of the masters of war (a profitable enterprise by the way), one thought comes to mind... Karma's a bitch

I agree with this viewpoint. For me, it is simply putting myself in another's place. Here's an example; since I am not that far away from Canada. How would I feel if some violent Canadian separitists here hiding next door to my house and Canada killed them and members of my family 'accidentally'. Would I be angry against Canada for invading my space, or proud of them for pursing justice, when they had other means? I believe I would be angry.

But thank, Niccolo for making rational arguments, instead of the usually name calling, stuff.

[Niccolo]

have you never heard that term before? google it.
I don't need google to find the meaning of a common usage suffix. I undersand the tem as well as the connotation within your context, & I ain't buying the meme.

You're attempting to use "Islamism" as a derogatory to imply a lockstep mindset. It's a line of hype, & a false premise. You can throw an "ism" on anything, but it's meaningless nowadays because we tend to put them on everything. It's been bastardized by ideologues trying to expand their enemy base. It's bogus.

----------------------------------------

Is there a page missing in this thread?

Apparently you do need to google it. While you're at it, you might want to google people like Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, and Sayyid Qutb. Read some of their work too. It's very interesting. I find Qutb especially intriguing. Did you know that he lived in America for a while? His writing has been hugely influencial in the Islamic world, and it's well worth checking out.

[Niccolo]

I understand the premise of the discussion. And I actually agree with a bunch. What I take issue with are the dubious and subjective rationales that governments often use to engage the elements of war. The war on terror as we know it, is like a, 2 steps back, 1 step forward type of thing. In point of fact, it tends to give rise to more "terrorists". It is a frequently overlooked phenomenon; this blowback thing. Ultimately, it compounds the retaliation factor and exponentially generates passion in the multitudes of those being attacked. When innocents are slaughtered (for any reason) by the hands of the masters of war (a profitable enterprise by the way), one thought comes to mind... Karma's a bitch

I agree with this viewpoint. For me, it is simply putting myself in another's place. Here's an example; since I am not that far away from Canada. How would I feel if some violent Canadian separitists here hiding next door to my house and Canada killed them and members of my family 'accidentally'. Would I be angry against Canada for invading my space, or proud of them for pursing justice, when they had other means? I believe I would be angry.

But thank, Niccolo for making rational arguments, instead of the usually name calling, stuff.

Well, thanks. I do try. :D

The "dirty hands problem" is as old as the hills. There's been quite a lot written about it. Can a political leader live a "good" life all the time, without exception, or can occasions arise when, in the interests of her state, she must make a choice between what she considers to be two "bad" options?


In Chapter 15 of "The Prince" Machiavelli acknowledged that "many have written about this" and informs his readers that "in discussing this material I depart from the procedures of others." In a devastating criticism of classical morality he then goes on to say, "... since my intention is to write something useful for anyone who understands it, it seemed more suitable for me to search after the effectual truth of the matter rather than its imagined one."

Machiavelli agrees that it would be "praiseworthy" for a ruler to be thought of as faithful, religous, generous, merciful and so forth. But he says that it simply is not possible for a ruler to hold or fully practice all these qualities, because, "the human condition does not permit it."

In the key phrase of the book Machiavelli writes, "A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity."

[trish]

So would Machiavelli approve of the Hamas tactic of placing offensive artillery within schools and hospitals? By doing so, isn't Hamas like the prince who necessarily fails to do good in order to maintain himself? Of course to claim that immoral behavior is sometimes necessary to maintain oneself is not a moral endorsement or a moral prescription, just a statement of fact. Some people and probably all nations will commit crimes in the their self-interest. But citing Machiavelli doesn't morally justify them. Indeed, it's obvious Machiavelli didn't give a damn about describing a moral framework for state actions.

Look, I can morally condemn both Israel and Palestine for their actions. Yet, I can also agree, both are doing what they deem to be necessary to maintain themselves. (In fact I don't agree to the latter; they're both going well beyond the constraints of necessity...but for the sake of argument I won't push that point). Existential necessity or not, their actions are morally reprehensible. You can give a military justification for Israel's actions, for example, or a political justification for Hamas's military tactics for another example. But political and military justifications do not amount to a moral justification.

All I'm saying is don't try to morally justify either party, because it can't be done. No matter how heinous one party is in your eyes, both parties are deliberately killing bystanders. Deliberately killing bystanders can be and is justified everyday by military and political leaders based on military and political considerations, but these have no weight as moral justifications.

[hippifried]

You can't justify war with philosophy, pro or con. There's over a billion Muslims on the planet. Nobody's that influential. The Hadiths aren't fully cataloged & nearly all translations of anything in Arabic or Farsi is coming out of Israel. I don't need a reading list from jihadwatch. It's all irrelevant because the warfare is not about religion.

Religion can be a rallying cry, but so can jingoism, nationalism, or patriotism. This is about control of resources, supply lines, & strategic positioning. Wealth too. There's nothing holy about any of it. Nothing honorable or glorious either. It's a war like any war. Large scale armed robbery. War is terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Machievelli was just another pompous European ass, & is totally irrelevant in the modern world.

[hippifried]

I guess I triple posted.

[hippifried]

grrrr on the double posting.

[El Nino]

I understand the premise of the discussion. And I actually agree with a bunch. What I take issue with are the dubious and subjective rationales that governments often use to engage the elements of war. The war on terror as we know it, is like a, 2 steps back, 1 step forward type of thing. In point of fact, it tends to give rise to more "terrorists". It is a frequently overlooked phenomenon; this blowback thing. Ultimately, it compounds the retaliation factor and exponentially generates passion in the multitudes of those being attacked. When innocents are slaughtered (for any reason) by the hands of the masters of war (a profitable enterprise by the way), one thought comes to mind... Karma's a bitch

I agree with this viewpoint. For me, it is simply putting myself in another's place. Here's an example; since I am not that far away from Canada. How would I feel if some violent Canadian separitists here hiding next door to my house and Canada killed them and members of my family 'accidentally'. Would I be angry against Canada for invading my space, or proud of them for pursing justice, when they had other means? I believe I would be angry.

But thank, Niccolo for making rational arguments, instead of the usually name calling, stuff.

Hey, thanks for having the ability to think empathetically about the current situation(s) that the human race is involved in. Thanks also for noting that Nic does in fact not just blindly turn to mindless name calling when confronted with opposition. At least there are some hints of civility and thoughtfulness on this board... I posted this link in another thread already but I think it is absolutely pertinent here and will bring the discussion "closer to home" if you will...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/gaza-horror-large-photo-gallery-of-gaza-massacre-by-israel/

[El Nino]

Those "smart" bombs don't appear to be so smart after all, eh?

[chefmike]

To me Chef, it really seems as though, you have a very limited understanding of the fundamental doctrines and principles, upon which this Republic was founded. That's all

To me, Nino, it really seems as though, you have a very tenuous grasp on reality. That's all.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=41959

[chefmike]

I think Niccolo pretty much nailed as far as you're concerned Nino: "I realise that there are people out there whose mental software has been corrupted by "penitential narcissism" and who will do almost anything to find fault in their own country..."

[Niccolo]

Of course to claim that immoral behavior is sometimes necessary to maintain oneself is not a moral endorsement or a moral prescription, just a statement of fact. Some people and probably all nations will commit crimes in the their self-interest. But citing Machiavelli doesn't morally justify them. Indeed, it's obvious Machiavelli didn't give a damn about describing a moral framework for state actions.

Look, I can morally condemn both Israel and Palestine for their actions. Yet, I can also agree, both are doing what they deem to be necessary to maintain themselves. (In fact I don't agree to the latter; they're both going well beyond the constraints of necessity...but for the sake of argument I won't push that point). Existential necessity or not, their actions are morally reprehensible. You can give a military justification for Israel's actions, for example, or a political justification for Hamas's military tactics for another example. But political and military justifications do not amount to a moral justification.

All I'm saying is don't try to morally justify either party, because it can't be done. No matter how heinous one party is in your eyes, both parties are deliberately killing bystanders. Deliberately killing bystanders can be and is justified everyday by military and political leaders based on military and political considerations, but these have no weight as moral justifications.

I'm not trying to morally justify Israel or Hamas, I've been trying to talk in general terms about a longstanding political and philosophical problem, and I've tried to see how this can be applied to our own troops, if I've tried to apply it to anyone. Having said that, one can apply general principles to anyone, anywhere. Moving on the the moment, I see you make the claim that it's "obvious" that Machiavelli didn't give a damn about providing a moral framework for state actions. I can only assume that you are not familiar with Machiavelli's work, for that is precisely what he did! (Isaiah Berlin is particularly good here.) I'm afraid I'm a little bit sleep-depped right now, I've just come off a night shift that overran by quite a bit, so I'm not exactly at my sharpest. Nevertheless, I'll have a little go at saying something here ..

You seem to agree with Machiavelli's view, expressed in Chapter 15 of "The Prince" that given the nature of the world, a political leader must get their hands dirty (as it is said). According to you this is a statement of fact. All right then.

And if I'm reading you right, you seem to be taking the view which Sam Harris criticises, that is to say when making any moral calculations, you seem to give no weight to one's motivations at all. I must say I find this rather strange.

The standout difference between our troops and terrorists is that our troops pursue military targets, not "soft" targets, and try their best to minimise any civilian casualties as they fight a military campaign. That also is just a statement of fact. I recently read the book "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell. His SEAL team were compromised when a wandering goat herder fellow came upon them up in the mountains. They let him walk away, knowing that by doing so they would be putting themselves in a real world of hurt, and that is precisely how things turned out. Another well known episode is the British "Bravo Two Zero" operation, where an SAS team trying to find Scud missiles in Iraq were also compromised by a wandering goat herder, also let him walk away, and also ended up in a bad way as a result. These are two well known examples of our troops putting themselves at risk by not shooting a civilian. Think about it: if our military forces were actually, really, intent on doing exactly what terrorists do, then they wouldn't have bothered developing smart weapons. There would be no need. They would just have built more B-52 bombers and as you falsely said earlier, carpet bombed every fucking thing in their road. That's not what they do though, is it?

I'm afraid I'm running out of steam, I've got to get some sleep shortly. One thing is worth mentioning here though: Machiavelli said that a ruler should only do something which is "not good" when it was necessary to preserve one's state. This point is repeated throughout "The Prince." He did not believe that a virtuoso prince would be (or should be) "not good" if it was not necessary. Machiavelli said about Agathocles (the tyrant of Syracuse) that, "his savage cruelty and inhumanity, together with his infinite crimes, do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men." (Mansfield, Chicago.) Or as Isaiah Berlin wrote, so far as Machiavelli was concerned, Agathocles was "excluded from the pantheon." (I'm relying on memory here so that quote might not be exact, it's a few years since I read Berlin's work on Machiavelli.) The point being that for Machiavelli, there is a world of difference between one's being a thug, and being a virtuoso prince.

[trish]

I'm not trying to morally justify Israel or Hamas, I've been trying to talk in general terms about a longstanding political and philosophical problem,…It certainly seems to me, and I dare say many of your readers here, that you have been morally judging the two sides in this conflict. It seems clear you find Hama’s tactics morally repugnant to the point that their actions morally justify Israel’s response. But perhaps, I’m wrong. Perhaps your position is that Israel’s response is morally reprehensible, but nevertheless, politically and militarily expedient. If that is the case, we have little disagreement between us.


…you make the claim that it's "obvious" that Machiavelli didn't give a damn about providing a moral framework for state actions. I can only assume that you are not familiar with Machiavelli's work, for that is precisely what he did!
Let me quote you, quoting Machiavelli,

Machiavelli writes, "A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity." (The italics are mine).


Think about it: if our military forces were actually, really, intent on doing exactly what terrorists do…
How many times must I point out that intent is not deliberation? To deliberately perform an act that will knowingly kill bystanders (even a random set of minimal size) with the intent to take out a military target, is to deliberately kill bystanders and hence is not morally justifiable.


…you seem to give no weight to one's motivations at all.
I do in fact take into account an action’s intent, and it deliberateness among other factors. One may distinguish between an accidental act that killed a bystander, a deliberate act that accidentally killed a bystander and a deliberate act that predictably killed a bystander; neither of these examples intends to kill bystanders but the latter is an example where bystanders are killed deliberately.

But let’s get back to

Machiavelli said that a ruler should only do something which is "not good" when it was necessary to preserve one's state.If you are right that Machiavelli attempts a moral justification of the virtuoso prince, then the word “should” is a normative. That which follows “should” is the moral thing for the prince to do. If the preservation of the state is at stake (and that could mean more than just an existential threat) Machiavelli recommends that the moral thing for the prince to do is to be immoral. As a foundation of moral philosophy that’s pretty weak, don’t you think? But hey, your not interested in moral justification, right? If all you want to say is Israel’s actions against the people in Gaza, terrorists and bystanders alike, is politically and militarily understandable and perhaps even the Machiavellian thing to do, yeah sure. But if you want to morally justify Israel, then….well, I digress…you say that’s not your aim.

[Niccolo]

It's an interesting problem to think about: the problem of "dirty hands." Let's see where we're at: if I'm reading you right, you're saying that the motives of two people who each carry out an action that results in another person being harmed can be quite different. Not only that, those different motivations need to be considered when one is thinking in moral terms about a particular act.

Shouldn't your second paragraph reflect this though? Instead of talking about carpet bombing Kabul, shouldn't it say something about British troops (let's say) doing everything they possibly can to minimise civilian casualties while attacking a military target? Surely such an act cannot just be lumped together with someone attacking a "soft" non-military target and doing everything they can to maximise civilian casualties?

And I'm not sure if these two types of act can be properly described using the same phrase - "deliberately placing bystanders in harms way." In this context, doesn't using the word "deliberately" suggest intent? (And as I've already said, and I think you agree with me here, aren't their intentions different?)

"Knowingly," perhaps? - Niccolo


The standout difference between our troops and terrorists is that our troops pursue military targets, not "soft" targets, and try their best to minimise any civilian casualties as they fight a military campaign. That also is just a statement of fact. I recently read the book "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell. His SEAL team were compromised when a wandering goat herder fellow came upon them up in the mountains. They let him walk away, knowing that by doing so they would be putting themselves in a real world of hurt, and that is precisely how things turned out. Another well known episode is the British "Bravo Two Zero" operation, where an SAS team trying to find Scud missiles in Iraq were also compromised by a wandering goat herder, also let him walk away, and also ended up in a bad way as a result. These are two well known examples of our troops putting themselves at risk by not shooting a civilian. Think about it: if our military forces were actually, really, intent on doing exactly what terrorists do, then they wouldn't have bothered developing smart weapons. There would be no need. They would just have built more B-52 bombers and as you falsely said earlier, carpet bombed every fucking thing in their road. That's not what they do though, is it? - Niccolo


How many times must I point out that intent is not deliberation? To deliberately perform an act that will knowingly kill bystanders (even a random set of minimal size) with the intent to take out a military target, is to deliberately kill bystanders and hence is not morally justifiable. - trish


I do in fact take into account an action’s intent, and it deliberateness among other factors. One may distinguish between an accidental act that killed a bystander, a deliberate act that accidentally killed a bystander and a deliberate act that predictably killed a bystander; neither of these examples intends to kill bystanders but the latter is an example where bystanders are killed deliberately. - trish


I don't think we're too far apart here. I can't recall your drawing a distinction between intent and "deliberation" before now, I have to say. Maybe you did and I missed that. (Quite possible.) I do recall trying to draw that distinction myself (see quote), and when I did so, I didn't get much open agreement on that point. Nevertheless, we seem to be on the same page now.

I have just watched the first episode of Ross Kemp's programme on Sky TV where he goes back to Afghanistan as an embedded journalist with British troops. When I was watching the programme, I had in the back of my mind this issue of "dirty hands." What I saw was in accordance with the argument put forward by Sam Harris, and with the point I have made repeatedly in this thread: it simply is not the policy of our armed forces to deliberately target civilians. It just isn't. Anyone who says otherwise would not be uttering "a statement of fact" (to put it politely.)


Nevertheless it is possible, given the nature of warfare, that there will be civilian casualties in the course of a large scale military campaign, carried out by any military forces, anywhere in the world. That applies to our troops as well, obviously. I agree then, that during a military action, there may be unforseen civilian casualties. Inflicting those casulties would not be the intent of the commanders of the mission, and it would not be the intent of the soldiers on the ground either. But it can happen. It's not clear to me how the term "deliberately" can be applied in this type of case.


It is also possible, as you say, that a military mission could be carried out, and that a certain amount of civilian casualties are regarded as an acceptable cost of completing the mission successfully. It's not clear to me what British policy is regarding this type of action. I do know that our troops have rules of engagement which shows intent on the British side to minimise civilian casualties. And I can only imagine how an incident of this type would be treated in the British press! Apparently writing a work of fiction, or drawing a cartoon somehow constitutes a grievious insult to the Muslim minority in our country - something our politicians seem quite desperate to avoid. What an uproar there would be over a white officer actually harming a member of the ummah! So I'm not sure if any events of this type have even occurred, although as I said, given the nature of war I think it is possible that this has happened in Afghanistan or Iraq in recent years.

(I do recall the incident which caused Piers Morgan, the editor of one of our daily newspapers, to lose his job. His paper ran photographs of white British soldiers allegedly abusing several non-white prisoners. Our own "Abu Ghraib" moment! There was a great uproar! As it turned out though, the photos were faked, the story was bullshit, and the editor who ran the story ended up having to resign.)

I was going to talk a little bit more but I'm running out of time just now, I've got to head off to my work very shortly. This is an interesting problem though, it's worth thinking about. I'd like to ask just one question before I head off.


If the preservation of the state is at stake (and that could mean more than just an existential threat) Machiavelli recommends that the moral thing for the prince to do is to be immoral. As a foundation of moral philosophy that’s pretty weak, don’t you think? - trish

Why do you say that?

[trish]

it simply is not the policy of our armed forces to deliberately target civilians.
To deliberately target civilians and deliberately kill civilians are two distinct things. To strike the target is the intent of any attack. Therefore one cannot unintentionally target a person, building, vehicle etc. I do believe it is U.S. policy not to target civilians. Ergo it is not our policy to intentionally take out civilians. However, there are situations in which we know for certain that an attack on a given target will also result in civilian deaths and casualties. In such a situation, should we decide to proceed with the attack, the attack will be made deliberately and with the intention of taking out the target. But insofar as the attack was made deliberately with the predicable result of killing civilians, we have also deliberately killed civilians. Such an action might be justifiable politically or militarily but if the civilians are true bystanders, the action is certainly not morally justifiable. A commander who orders such an attack just has to shoulder the moral weight of it, she cannot simply excuse herself. I think it is possible, especially in warfare, to find yourself in a moral checkmate; i.e. all available options are immoral. Perhaps it’s best to try to live one’s life or to conduct international affairs (if you’re a virtuoso princess) in such a way as to avoid these situations. I think Machiavelli’s position is that statesman will not always be able to avoid them.


I do know that our troops have rules of engagement which shows intent on the British side to minimise civilian casualties.
I would agree that its civil of the Brits to try to minimize civilian casualties, but to say “I could’ve kill more but didn’t” doesn’t render the act of deliberately killing bystanders morally neutral, it just means you didn’t behave as badly as you could have.

While we’re on the subject, I agree there is a distinction between terrorism and the scenario I just described. The terrorist will target civilians. His rationale is that civilians are not true bystanders insofar as they exercise a political will that supports the state which the terrorist opposes. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to morally justify our actions.


If the preservation of the state is at stake (and that could mean more than just an existential threat) Machiavelli recommends that the moral thing for the prince to do is to be immoral. As a foundation of moral philosophy that’s pretty weak, don’t you think? - trish

Why do you say that?
It involves a contradiction for one thing, a contradiction that would’ve been easy enough to avoid if Machiavelli just grew some balls. Let me explain. Machiavelli seems to be saying that if you’re backed into a moral corner and your only options for action are immoral options, then its moral to take the least immoral option. But how can it be moral to commit an immoral act? What Machiavelli could have said is that when the prince finds himself in a moral corner, he should choose the least immoral option because it is usually the most politically expedient course of action. It is not the moral thing to do...there were no moral options available. After the choice has been made, the moral thing to do is to own up your action, shoulder its weight, live with it and its consequences.

[hippifried]

War is a state of panic. Rules of engagement are just a CYA tactic. All that shit goes right out the window with the first bullit.

It's one thing to sit in your den & wax philosophical about morality, but there's nothing moral about war at all. The deliberate systematic killing of other human beings is a total breakdown of morality. Using degrees of immorality to justify being immoral is just adding lies to the mix. War isn't the good guys going after the bad guys. Taking out a row of houses to make sure you kill one man is not police work. It's hard to make a case for self defence after 7 years of war & occupation in a foreign land.

It's time to put an end to all this crap. Trying to mitigate culpability in mass killing is just making excuses for being too stupid & incompetent to avoid the situation in the first place. It's time for everybody to take a good look in the mirror & stop lying to ourselves.

[chefmike]

So all nations get together and agree to be pacifists...but who has their fingers crossed behind their back?

Thus the need for a CIA...if our nation and others are going to be "immoral" then let's get it right...

[hippifried]

So all nations get together and agree to be pacifists...but who has their fingers crossed behind their back?

Thus the need for a CIA...if our nation and others are going to be "immoral" then let's get it right...
What pacifism? Pacifism is just philosophical babble. Morality is just adherence to the universal code, the "golden rule". I don't have a problem with defence. I'm just not seeing anything going on that's defensive. I'm just advocating being smart, pragmatic, & honest.

I have to wonder just how much we really need a CIA. So far, I'm underwhelmed by their competence & effectiveness.

[chefmike]

So all nations get together and agree to be pacifists...but who has their fingers crossed behind their back?

Thus the need for a CIA...if our nation and others are going to be "immoral" then let's get it right...
What pacifism? Pacifism is just philosophical babble. Morality is just adherence to the universal code, the "golden rule". I don't have a problem with defence. I'm just not seeing anything going on that's defensive. I'm just advocating being smart, pragmatic, & honest.

I have to wonder just how much we really need a CIA. So far, I'm underwhelmed by their competence & effectiveness.

No argument there.

[Niccolo]

Morality is just adherence to the universal code, the "golden rule". I don't have a problem with defence. - h

The problem arises when other people don't adhere to your golden rule. How is one to behave then?

Machiavelli already answered that question for you. It's all fine and dandy being "good". But as Machiavelli noted, if you're in charge of a state, then the human condition does not permit it.

You don't even adhere to your own morality, since you have no problem at all with "defence." War isn't moral, according to you, it's a total breakdown of morality, blah blah blah, all the rest of it, but after saying all that, it turns out you have no problem with it at all. Well, well ..

[Niccolo]

Quote:
If the preservation of the state is at stake (and that could mean more than just an existential threat) Machiavelli recommends that the moral thing for the prince to do is to be immoral. As a foundation of moral philosophy that’s pretty weak, don’t you think? - trish

Why do you say that? - Niccolo

It involves a contradiction for one thing, a contradiction that would’ve been easy enough to avoid if Machiavelli just grew some balls. Let me explain. Machiavelli seems to be saying that if you’re backed into a moral corner and your only options for action are immoral options, then its moral to take the least immoral option. But how can it be moral to commit an immoral act? What Machiavelli could have said is that when the prince finds himself in a moral corner, he should choose the least immoral option because it is usually the most politically expedient course of action. It is not the moral thing to do...there were no moral options available. After the choice has been made, the moral thing to do is to own up your action, shoulder its weight, live with it and its consequences. - trish

I think Isaiah Berlin has addressed your ideas. I was going to write about this a little bit, but my work committments have my attention this week I'm afraid. The best thing to do is just to provide the link to Berlin's article, and you can have a look at it yourself, and see what you think.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10391

[hippifried]

Morality is just adherence to the universal code, the "golden rule". I don't have a problem with defence. - h

The problem arises when other people don't adhere to your golden rule. How is one to behave then?

Machiavelli already answered that question for you. It's all fine and dandy being "good". But as Machiavelli noted, if you're in charge of a state, then the human condition does not permit it.

You don't even adhere to your own morality, since you have no problem at all with "defence." War isn't moral, according to you, it's a total breakdown of morality, blah blah blah, all the rest of it, but after saying all that, it turns out you have no problem with it at all. Well, well ..You don't get it because you're too busy trying to make a philosophical case for the feudal mindset, & looking for a loophole in the moral code to justify it. It's not that complicated, & it's not contradictory. The code is the basis of morality. If you can't fit it to the code, it's arbitrary. Necessity is morally neutral. You do what you have to do when necessary. If it creates a conflict with the code, you don't do more than what's necessary.

The simplest & easiest thing to do is be moral. It's automatic. You literally have to go out of your way to be an asshole. Everybody on the planet knows & understands the code. It's embedded into every society in the world & has been since prehistory. Everybody know's when they're in violation.

Defence & retaliation are not the same thing. When defence is necessary, it's not really a conflict with the code because you're doing to your opponant exactly what you would expect in reversal. Following the code does not require putting up with violations. Retaliation on the other hand is vengeance, It accomplishes nothing else. There's nothing necessary about punishment. War becomes a series of retaliations. The cause gets lost in the shuffle.

Machiavelli didn't answer anything for me. He promoted despotism & I don't accept that. There's no conflict between being moral & being in charge. The despot is not the state. If defending the state, the prince can't reconcile his morality, he's incompetent & needs to go. If he needs to defend his position as despot by losing his grip on morality, he needs to go. That's why, per capita, despots are the most likely class of people to be murdered throughout history. The morality of despotism can't be reconciled.

Aren't you the one who was preaching monarchy a while back?

[trish]

Niccolo’s Machiavelli is entangled in a contradiction, the real Niccolo Machiavelli may or may not be, but either way his advice to the prince is be cruel and brutal when necessary. I pretty much agree with hippiefried’s assessment of Machiavelli, namely


He promoted despotism & I don't accept that. There's no conflict between being moral & being in charge. The despot is not the state. If defending the state, the prince can't reconcile his morality, he's incompetent & needs to go. If he needs to defend his position as despot by losing his grip on morality, he needs to go.

I do take exception to:
Necessity is morally neutral. You do what you have to do when necessary. If it creates a conflict with the code, you don't do more than what's necessary.
I agree that it’s practical advice but it’s not always the moral thing to do. Suppose in a particular situation it comes down to kill or be killed my Mr. X. Necessity, I assume, would dictate that you kill Mr. X, certainly against the golden rule since you would prefer Mr.X allow you to live. We can understand why you would kill Mr. X. A jury would probably aquit you. The state may not even prosecute. But that doesn’t make the action moral. There are people (The Amish and Quakers, for example) who would sacrifice their lives before they would diverge from the golden rule. Their course of action is the moral one, but not one that most of us can follow.

A worse example is a company commander who either has to sacrifice innocent bystanders to eliminate the enemy, or allow his men to be slaughtered. Here neither sacrifice seems moral. There’s no way to follow the golden rule. The commander is in a moral checkmate. My (rather pathetic) advice is in order to live a moral life, look ahead. Don’t get backed into moral corners. Don’t do stupid things like join the military[no offense chefmike...but surely when in Nam you were asking, "WTF am I doing here?"], a gang, or become a head of state. I guess the prince’s excuse is that at least we was born into his predicament.

[chefmike]

Don’t do stupid things like join the military[no offense chefmike...but surely when in Nam you were asking, "WTF am I doing here?"

I was fortunate enough to have been young enough to have missed that little tea party, trish. I was also able to choose the Navy for my duty, as I enlisted when the draft had ended. With unemployment the way it is now though, many young people may feel that they have no choice but to join the military, trish. Even knowing that they may end up serving in god knows what hotspot on the globe.
You could also say that there are young people not old enough to leave a gang-infested neighborhood, and may feel that joining a gang is their only chance of survival.
Myself, I wouldn't compare whatever motivates someone to become a head of state to either of the other two situations.

[trish]

I wouldn't compare whatever motivates someone to become a head of state to either of the other two situations.


Good point.

I apologize for making you out to be older than you are. I remembered that you and several other contributors to this forum were vets and I know some of them served in Vietnam...and I got you confused with them, sorry.

[Niccolo]

Morality is just adherence to the universal code, the "golden rule". I don't have a problem with defence. - h

The problem arises when other people don't adhere to your golden rule. How is one to behave then?

Machiavelli already answered that question for you. It's all fine and dandy being "good". But as Machiavelli noted, if you're in charge of a state, then the human condition does not permit it.

You don't even adhere to your own morality, since you have no problem at all with "defence." War isn't moral, according to you, it's a total breakdown of morality, blah blah blah, all the rest of it, but after saying all that, it turns out you have no problem with it at all. Well, well ..You don't get it because you're too busy trying to make a philosophical case for the feudal mindset, & looking for a loophole in the moral code to justify it. It's not that complicated, & it's not contradictory. The code is the basis of morality. If you can't fit it to the code, it's arbitrary. Necessity is morally neutral. You do what you have to do when necessary. If it creates a conflict with the code, you don't do more than what's necessary.

The simplest & easiest thing to do is be moral. It's automatic. You literally have to go out of your way to be an asshole. Everybody on the planet knows & understands the code. It's embedded into every society in the world & has been since prehistory. Everybody know's when they're in violation.

Defence & retaliation are not the same thing. When defence is necessary, it's not really a conflict with the code because you're doing to your opponant exactly what you would expect in reversal. Following the code does not require putting up with violations. Retaliation on the other hand is vengeance, It accomplishes nothing else. There's nothing necessary about punishment. War becomes a series of retaliations. The cause gets lost in the shuffle.

Machiavelli didn't answer anything for me. He promoted despotism & I don't accept that. There's no conflict between being moral & being in charge. The despot is not the state. If defending the state, the prince can't reconcile his morality, he's incompetent & needs to go. If he needs to defend his position as despot by losing his grip on morality, he needs to go. That's why, per capita, despots are the most likely class of people to be murdered throughout history. The morality of despotism can't be reconciled.

Aren't you the one who was preaching monarchy a while back?

Looks like we have a C.S. Lewis fan here folks! :lol:

What a jumbled up mess. There's no conflict between being moral and being in charge? Ever? Wow, you're naive.

Answer the question: what happens when there is, as trish says, a choice between two morally "bad" options? What happens when others don't follow your "code"?

And what's all this about despotism? If you'd care to make an argument for your interpretation, which I feel pretty sure is not based on, you know, actually reading any of NM's work, instead of just chucking around a bald assertion ... course we all know that's not going to happen.

And if you think I was arguing for a monarchy a while back then you must be drinking too much .. I believe it was you who was saying that Europeans are all tangled up in the rights of kings, or some such bollocks.



Defence & retaliation are not the same thing. When defence is necessary, it's not really a conflict with the code because you're doing to your opponant exactly what you would expect in reversal.

Looking for a loophole eh?

[Niccolo]

That's why, per capita, despots are the most likely class of people to be murdered throughout history. - hippifried

An astonishing statement!

Prove it.

No anecdotal evidence, no question begging. Good luck!

[trish]

I do believe you've fallen into an equivocation Niccolo. Of course there is no logical conflict between being in charge of X and being moral. That doesn't mean that conflicts won't arise in practice. Here's an analogy:

There's no conflict between eating an icecream cone and keeping your hands clean at the same time. Some people are good at it, some people get their hands all sticky. To claim there is a conflict is to conflate good practice with poor practice.

I do agree situations can arise, when there are no moral options available. Your prior posts seem to attribute to Machiavelli the opinion that there's some sort of measure of morality and that the moral thing to do is choose the least moral action. I see that as a contradiction. My own view is that whatever you choose to do at that point will be immoral and you will have to take the moral responsibility for it. I'm not sure, what hippiefried will say, perhaps that any choice made at this point will be morally neutral.

[Niccolo]

trish,

I'm still not clear why you say that Machiavelli is "entangled in a condtradiction." (I'm assuming here that you read Berlin's article.) You are articulating what is known as "the dirty hands problem" very clearly indeed. And I don't think you are naive enough to swallow the notion that the leader of a state can always behave in a morally "good" way. An occasion may arise when she must get her hands dirty. So far, so good ..

Machiavelli wrote that a virtuoso prince must be able to do so when it is necessary. In Chapter 17 of "The Prince" Machiavelli questioned what it is to be merciful, and what it is to be cruel. Is it not true that one's inaction can sometimes lead to worse ends than a single act of "cruelty?" NM talks of Cesare Borgia, who was thought of as cruel. Nevertheless, Machiavelli writes, "If one considers this well, one will see that he was much more merciful than the Florentine people, who so as to escape a name for cruelty, allowed Pistoia to be destroyed. (From 1500 to 1502, Pistoia, a city subject to Florence, was torn by factional disputes and riots.) A prince, therefore, so as to keep his subjects united and faithful, should not care about the infamy of cruelty, because with very few examples he will be more merciful than those who for the sake of too much mercy allow disorders to continue, from which come killings or robberies; for these customarily hurt a whole community, but the executions that come from the prince hurt one particular person." (Mansfield, Chicago.)

Machiavelli makes a consequentialist argument here. Inaction can sometimes lead to even worse consequences than a single act that is "not good", and is therefore the "wrong" choice. One must be able to be "not good" and to use that knowledge - when it is necessary. This point is made throughout "The Prince."

I'll mention again the well-known example of Agathocles, someone who was indeed able to be "not good" but whose cruelty and inhumanity "do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men." A thug who engaged in cruelty whenever he felt like it was not a virtuoso prince, he was merely a thug (Or, if you like, a despot.)

"Machiavelli's values, I should like to repeat, are not instrumental but moral and ultimate, and he calls for great sacrifices in their name. For them he rejects the rival scale - the Christian principles [...] as inapplicable to real life. [...] His purpose is [...] to rescue Italy from squalor and slavery, to restore her to health and sanity.

[...] He (NM) thinks [...] ruthless methods are necessary - necessary as means to provide good results, good in terms not of a Christian, but of a secular, humanistic, naturalistic morality.

[...] This is plain enough. There are two worlds, that of personal morality and that of public organisation. There are two ethical codes, both ultimate; not two "autonomous" regions, one of "ethics," another of "politics," but two (for NM) exhaustive alternatives between two conflicting systems of value." (Isaiah Berlin, "The Question of Machiavelli," NYRB, vol 17, No. 7.)

[trish]

I said,

Niccolo’s Machiavelli is entangled in a contradiction

This is because you wrote:


I see you make the claim that it's "obvious" that Machiavelli didn't give a damn about providing a moral framework for state actions. I can only assume that you are not familiar with Machiavelli's work, for that is precisely what he did! (Isaiah Berlin is particularly good here.)

in reference to the quote by Machiavelli

A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity.

Your reading of Machiavelli has him building a moral framework for later princes to follow. I take it you were paraphrasing the above sentiment of Machiavelli’s when you wrote:


Machiavelli said that a ruler should only do something which is "not good" when it was necessary to preserve one's state.

I assume then that you use the word "should" in its normative sense; i.e. “You should do X” means “X is the moral thing to do” or “X is the good thing to do”. Hence you have Machiavelli in the position of claiming that the good thing to do is in fact something that is not good. If you are right about Machiavelli, then he’s quite clearly caught in a contradiction. No matter how many wonderful benefits arise later on from this choice of action, it is still a logical contradiction to call it good and not good; it is one or the other, not both. Machiavelli might have just called a spade a spade, but he didn’t. Why not? Why doesn't your Machiavelli own up to the immorality of the recommended actions? __because he so dearly wants to morally justify each and every action of the idealized prince. Just like some people so dearly need to morally justify each and every action of Hamas and others need to morally justify each and every action of Israel, and still others need to morally justify the actions of some other nation, state or organization.

My own reading of Machiavelli on this point is moraline free (to use a Nietzschean coinage): Machiavelli, in the above quote, doesn’t use the word “should”, he sticks to the notion of necessary actions. Moreover he explicitly states the object of that necessity: if the prince is to maintain his political authority, it is necessary at times to act in ways that are not good. I read this as Machiavelli recommending the prince to take politics seriously and morality less so seriously. At his best Machiavelli may be seen as advising the prince to minimize the damage to his soul (to put it in terms of the day) by selecting the immoral action that will yield the most moral fruits in the future.

[Niccolo]

Did you read that article by Berlin? I assumed you had.

"Machiavelli, we are often told, was not concerned with morals. The most influential of all modern interpretations - that of Benedetto Croce, followed to some extent by Chabod, Russo, and others - is that Machiavelli, in E.W. Cochrane's words, "did not deny the validity of Christian morality, and did not pretend that a crime required by political necessity was any the less a crime. Rather he discovered ... that this morality simply did not hold in political affairs, and that any policy based on the assumption that it did, would end in disaster. His factual objective description of contemporary practices is a sign not of cynicism or detachment but of anguish."

This account, it seems to me, contains two basic misinterpretations. The first is that the clash is one between "this morality" and "political necessity." The implication is that there is an incompatibility between, on the one hand, morality - the region of ultimate values sought after for their own sakes, values recognition of which alone enables us to speak of "crimes" or morally to justify and condemn anything; and on the other, politics - the art of adapting means to ends, the region of technical skills [...] which take the form "If you want to achieve [i]x, do y" without necessarily asking whether x is itself intrinsically desirable or not. This is the heart of the divorce of politics from ethics which Croce and many others attribute to Machiavelli. But this seems to me to rest on a mistake." (Berlin, "The Question of Machiavelli")

Et cetera ..

[trish]

We know Isaiah maintains that Machiavelli’s advice to the ideal prince in not in conflict with even a very strong view of morality such as moral realism. But how would Isaiah, better, how would you address the issue I raised above?

If Machiavelli thinks actions which are not good are sometimes also good, then he’s involved in a contradiction.

Isaiah fails to address this point directly. And so far you have failed to address it directly.

Machiavelli might have gotten around the contradiction by claiming the moral value of an action varies with context and an action that is almost always not good can in the right context be good. However, he doesn’t seem to take this tact; he instead insists that


…it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good,...


Perhaps Machiavelli was just a poor philosopher and merrily maintained contradictions.

To my mind, however, the solution seems clear. Machiavelli can be taken for his word; i.e. interpreted literally. For Machiavelli there was no contradiction to avoid because he was concerned with maintaining the prince’s power not his soul.

[hippifried]

Machievelli is irrelevant, except as a source of what mindsets to avoid. I did get to thinking about CS Lewis though. I know he's famous & all that, but looking back, I can't remember ever reading anything by him. I can't think of a single title off hand.

Sorry spud, but you can't pigeonhole me. I'm not a cultist. I don't follow anybody else's philosophy. I'm not too lazy to think for myself. I've always considered the formal study of philosophy stifling to the mind. Most philosophers were crackpots anyway. The ideas contained in the volumes of rhetorical bullshit could be condensed into a couple of pamphlets.

[Niccolo]

I believed I had addressed that point directly by providing a link to Berlin's complete essay. Again: have you read it, or did you just read what little extracts I could be bothered typing out from it on this thread?

[Niccolo]

I mentioned C.S. Lewis because you appeared to have put forward one of his more well-known arguments. It's so well-known in fact that I assumed you knew about it. (Since you had brought it up.)

I have no intention of pigeonholing you, not do I think of you as a "cultist." I would ask that you observe your golden rule though, and treat others as you would wish to be treated. Do not disregard what others say because you want to pigeonhole them, and do not be intellectualy lazy and declare anyone who disagrees with you to be a cultist (of the Rand variety, for example.) Observe your own "code!"

Maybe you can't ..

[trish]

Machiavelli insists the ideal prince cannot live a traditionally moral life without putting his people in peril. He also insists the ideal prince cannot maintain his power and live a moral life, in the sense that an ordinary worker or a monk can live a moral life. Moreover, Machiavelli advises the ideal prince to “learn how not to be good” in order to “maintain himself.” That these three points are made by Machiavelli, you and I and Isaiah would agree. One could take issue with Machiavelli on these points but at the moment I prefer not to. You and Isaiah hold that by following Machiavelli’s advice the ideal prince acts morally. It seems to me Isaiah’s argument boils down [to] pointing out all the good that comes from a few of the prince’s moral indiscretions. He doesn’t directly address the logical contradiction involved in maintaining an act can be good and not good, he only sidesteps the [logical] conundrum and sweeps it under the rug of future benefits.

There is an alternative that you and Isaiah might be hinting at. It may be that Isaiah sees Machiavelli as positing two kinds of morality: morality for ordinary folks, church goers and monks and a morality for the elite such as princes and aristocrats. Again neither you nor Isaiah explicitly address the paradox, but this tact of two moralities would do the job. An act that is not good according to the morality of paupers could be good as judged by the morality of the elite. However, this way around the paradox wouldn't allow Machiavelli to remain consistent [with] the sort of moral realism Isaiah describes at the top of this page.

So perhaps you could clarify your position (my preference), or Isaiah’s position (if you must) and in doing so resist making another reading assignment. In polite conversion one may recommend related reading, or note your sources, but you can’t assign homework, we’re not your students.

[Edits in square brackets]

[hippifried]

The Universal Code of Human Interaction is the basis of all morality & ethics. It's the single rule that allows us to live in close proximity to other humans. It's the only rule we really have. It's not my code.

[chefmike]

The Universal Code of Human Interaction is the basis of all morality & ethics. It's the single rule that allows us to live in close proximity to other humans. It's the only rule we really have. It's not my code.

Exactly. I think that's basically what the great philosopher Stuart Smalley meant when he said: "....it's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world."

Or is it carpet bomb the whole world?

[Niccolo]

The Universal Code of Human Interaction is the basis of all morality & ethics. It's the single rule that allows us to live in close proximity to other humans. It's the only rule we really have. It's not my code.

Impressive capital letters! :lol:

[hippifried]

Glad you're so easily impressed.

[Niccolo]

Glad you're so easily impressed.

Well who could fail to be impressed by your use of upper case letters. That kind of thing makes all the difference ..

[Niccolo]

There is an alternative that you and Isaiah might be hinting at. It may be that Isaiah sees Machiavelli as positing two kinds of morality: morality for ordinary folks, church goers and monks and a morality for the elite such as princes and aristocrats. Again neither you nor Isaiah explicitly address the paradox, but this tact of two moralities would do the job. - trish

Exactamundo! Well, nearly. If you really want to go down this road, then you ought to spend a little time reading what Berlin actually said. I remember reading it for the first time. My head was swimming and I actually felt nauseous. I'd been struggling with this issue myself for quite some time, and then, to use a Henry Miller-ism, Bango! What a kick in the balls! I must say, I didn't intend to hand out reading "assignments", after all this isn't exactly polite conversation, not as such. We’re not sitting in a cafe drinking coffee and having an interesting little chat before going back to work. We’re using a message board on the internet, where it’s not at all unusual for one to post a link to an interesting article that rests elsewhere. And as I explained earlier, my commitments at work meant that I didn't have a lot of time this week to spend on this board, which is after all only a hobby. (It might be fun sometimes, but it certainly doesn’t pay the bills.) So I thought that if you were interested in the topic, you could do far worse than read what Berlin had to say about it. One doesn't have to be familiar with everyone he mentions in the article to get the gist of it. He has such a fine turn of phrase, I couldn't possibly hope to do any better, and I thought you might as well see what the man himself wrote.

I actually printed out Berlin's article at work so I could re-read it myself, but unfortunately when I got home I dropped it, and naturally there were no page numbers on the printout! So I had to go back online and look at that version, then sort through the hard copy to get it back in order, which took a wee while to do. The best laid schemes o' mice an' men, gang aft agley ...

How can an act that is "not good" at the same time be considered good? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

In his article, Berlin does argue that Machiavelli rejects Christian ethics, in favour of, as he puts it, another system, another moral universe. (This is kind of the point of the article.) I wouldn't necessarily say that Christianity is a moral system for common folk and priests - although one could certainly argue that Christianity and political life are incompatible - but on this particular point Machiavelli's writing is, in Berlin’s view, "transparently honest and clear. In choosing the life of a statesman, or even the life of a citizen with enough civic sense to want his state to be as successful and splendid as possible, a man commits himself to rejection of Christian behaviour."

Can an act be thought of as "not good" in a Christian sense, and yet be seen as the best course of action, according to another, different way of understanding the world? I think so. (The phrase you quoted is sometimes translated differently, but I believe "learn how not to be good" is the correct translation.) After all, Christianity has informed our thinking, our cultures, and our language, in many ways. We can make a point in Christian terms, one that someone from our own culture will understand immediately, without ever being a true believer ourselves. I think that Machiavelli's phrase can be taken in this way. Consider what comes before it:


Because I know that many have written about this, I am afraid that by writing about it again I shall be considered presumptuous, especially since in discussing this material I depart from the procedures of others. But since my intention is to write something useful for anyone who understands it, it seemed more suitable for me to search after the effectual truth of the matter rather than its imagined one. Many writers have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen nor known to exist in reality. For there is such a distance between how one lives and how one ought to live, that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done achieves his downfall rather than his preservation. A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity. (trans. by Peter Bondanella)

It seems to me that Machiavelli is referring to what has gone before, to people who "profess goodness," and to a shared cultural understanding of what that phrase meant. (Or what people thought it meant anyway.) So when Machiavelli, in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, asserts that one can indeed "profess goodness," but one will "come to ruin among so many who are not good" can this not be understood as part of the context which gives the phrase you quoted its meaning? In the real world, “one can say this generally about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, and greedy for gain.” And in such a world, if one “professes goodness” in the Christian sense, if one lives according to “what ought to be done,” and is humble and meek, considers the lilies, and thinks not of the morrow, then one is going to be fucked up the arse on a regular basis. Or as Machiavelli put it, such a person “learns his ruin rather than his preservation.” No, if one is to hold one’s own in such a hostile environment, one must do as others do, and “learn how not to be good.”

I’ll get back to this idea, but I think it would be worth writing a couple of paragraphs first, on what had gone before Machiavelli’s book. As you probably know, there was something of a literary genre consisting of “advice to princes.” Many people had tackled this subject before Machiavelli put pen to paper (as he says in the opening paragraph to Chapter 15.) And one of the things Machiavelli does in “The Prince” is undermine much of this earlier work. The traditional concept of virtus pictured the vir as having certain moral qualities, or virtues, such as wisdom, courage etc. Writers such as Cicero and Seneca also credited the vir with additional virtues, such as honesty, liberality and magnanimity. The prevailing opinion was that in order to achieve honour and glory, one should behave as virtuously as possible. For example, in Book II of De Officiis one reads that Cicero considered the idea that “a thing may be morally right without being expedient, and expedient without being morally right” to be a “pernicious doctrine.” Machiavelli turned this on its head; in Chapter 16 for example, he talks about what had been thought of as the virtue of generosity. If a ruler wants to take Cicero’s advice and “avoid any suspicion of penuriousness” then he will have to be “ostentatiously lavish.” But this will lead to him having to “lay excessive burdens on the people, to impose extortionate taxes, and to do everything else he can to raise money” in order to fund his “generosity.” On the other hand, if, to use a phrase from the Sopranos, he treats nickels like manhole covers, at the end of the day he won’t have to levy such harsh taxes on his people, and “with time he will come to be considered more generous.” Machiavelli argues that “there is nothing that uses itself up faster than generosity; for as you employ it, you lose the means of employing it, and you become either poor and despised or else, to escape poverty, you become rapacious and hated. And above all things, a prince must guard himself against being despised and hated. Generosity leads you both to one and to the other.”

I think then, that Machiavelli acknowledged what others had said before him for several reasons. The existing work was so well known, he could hardly do otherwise; his little book giving “advice to princes” didn't spontaneously arise in a literary vacuum. So Machiavelli needed to address what had already been written on the subject, and he needed to communicate what he wanted to say in terms that would be readily understood. Quentin Skinner made an interesting observation about what Machiavelli wrote in Chapters 16 and 17 of “The Prince.” He did not simply say that it was wrong to argue that one should always be virtuous, he laid a question mark alongside the usual understanding of the virtues themselves. Is generosity really a virtue ... or is it a vice? Quite subversive.

One can, of course, take many of Machiavelli’s comments as a straight repudiation of what has gone before; if others have said one must be good, he points out that this just doesn’t work and that one must “learn how not to be good.” (Perhaps then, one can simply take this expression as a negative statement: “No, not that.”) Cicero (again in De Officiis) said that “... wrong may be done, then, in either of two ways, that is, by force or by fraud, (and) both are bestial: fraud seems to belong to the cunning fox, force to the lion; both are wholly unworthy of man, but fraud is the more contemptible.” Machiavelli says, “.. a prince must know how to make good use of the natures of both the beast and the man. [...] Since then, a prince must know how to make use of the nature of the beast, he should choose from among the beasts the fox and the lion; for the lion cannot defend itself from traps, while the fox cannot protect itself from the wolves. It is therefore necessary to be a fox, in order to recognise the traps, and a lion, in order to frighten the wolves: those who base their behaviour only on the lion do not understand things.” Christianity tell us, “.. be sure your sin will find you out.” (Numbers 32: 23) Machiavelli says, “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state.” (trans. by George Bull.) And so forth ...

Returning briefly to the notion of a prince learning how not to be good: this does not mean that Machiavelli is advocating some form of despotic, Robert Mugabe-like rule. As I said before, Agathocles was not considered by Machiavelli to be a virtuoso prince; his cruelty and inhumanity “do not permit us to honour him among the most excellent of men.” Machiavelli warns explicitly against a prince “being rapacious and a usurper of the property and the women of his subjects.” He also asserts that a prince will be despised if he is “considered changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, and irresolute.”

A virtuoso prince should (and would) “strive to make everyone recognise in his actions greatness, spirit, dignity and strength.” He shouldn't practice the traditional princely “virtues” at all times, for they can turn out to have ruinous consequences, but instead, “have a mind ready to turn itself according to the way the winds of Fortune and the changing circumstances command him.” That is to say, he must “learn how not to be good, and use this knowledge or not use it according to necessity.” And talking of Fortune ...

I could go on here, I’ve barely scratched the surface. Obviously, it’s possible to write a whole book about Machiavelli. As I’ve said already though, I have some work commitments at the moment, so I don’t really have time to do that (haha). Maybe I’ll manage to read one though. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani” might go back on to my reading list. Next stop Amazon!

In conclusion, I think it's wrong to say that Machiavelli is sweeping a logical conundrum under the rug because he makes a consequentialist argument. Would it not be more accurate to say that you are sweeping what Machiavelli (and others) actually wrote under the rug, and have created a logical conundrum where there isn’t one?

Still, this is all good fun. It’s been a while since I did anything with Machiavelli, and I’d forgotten how refreshing it can be to go back to his work, and have a wee look at it. As I said before though, no matter how much fun this is sometimes, pottering about on a message board doesn’t pay the bills. I’m really going to have to do more of that, and less of this, over the coming few weeks.

[trish]

Let’s recap. A dominate concern of this thread is the fate of bystanders both in military missions and terrorist attacks. You rightly pointed out, with apparent moral outrage, that terrorists intend to kill bystanders, indeed as many as possible. Somewhere around page four I entered the conversation, adding that military encounters which do not intentionally kill bystanders, nevertheless do deliberately kill them and such encounters cannot be morally justified either. I was under the impression that this was a relevant post because the discussants were concerned with the morality of actions that result in collateral damage. On page seven I mistook you as invoking Machiavelli to morally justify actions that lead to collateral damage when they are necessary for the maintenance of power. However, you weren’t interested in moral justifications, or so you said. Nevertheless, you were curious to know why I thought Machiavelli couldn’t be used to morally justify the actions of a virtuoso prince. Indeed you indicated that Isaiah Berlin succeeds in extracting Machiavelli from moral condemnation. So even though you aren’t interested in morally justifying certain sorts of acts that lead to collateral damage, you nevertheless seem to believe that they can sometimes be morally justified on the basis of Berlin’s interpretation of Machiavelli. According to Berlin’s Machiavelli, a prince has moral obligations distinct from those of ordinary people. It is moral for a prince, according to Berlin’s Machiavelli, to initiate what ordinary folk would call immoral actions, if it is necessary to maintain himself and thereby assure that “good” may flower in the future. I take it, since your handle is Machiavelli’s first name and that you directed the conversation toward Machiavelli and in particular the Berlin interpretation of him, that you endorse this approach to the morality of statecraft. It is with this vision of morality (one for the people and another for the leaders) that you advise us to judge the actions of the United States, Britain, Israel, Hamas, Iran, North Korea, etc. There have been others who explicitly suggested there were two moral standards: one for ordinary folk, and one for the elite few who are destined to lead. But Machiavelli’s got it sufficiently fine tuned so that we can eliminate those others who already went down this path (e.g. Mussolini and Hitler) as having misunderstood the natural limitations placed upon the morality of the ubermenschen. Okay, gotcha (in the sense that I think I understand where you’re coming from).

[hippifried]

Wow Trish! That was a really long paragraph just to say "so fucking what!".
:deadhorse

[Niccolo]

However, you weren’t interested in moral justifications, or so you said. - trish

Where?


Nevertheless, you were curious to know why I thought Machiavelli couldn’t be used to morally justify the actions of a virtuoso prince. - trish

I was curious to know why you thought Machiaveli was entangled in a logical conundrum when, as I've just argued, this was not the case. Since you have made no mention of your original position in your latest post, I take it that you accept that your original criticism didn't stand up to close scrutiny. So shall we say that your previous criticism, which you appeared to base on a "literal reading" of a single quote from Ch. 15 of "The Prince," was no good then? You accept this?


There have been others who explicitly suggested there were two moral standards: one for ordinary folk, and one for the elite few who are destined to lead. But Machiavelli’s got it sufficiently fine tuned so that we can eliminate those others who already went down this path .. - trish

Again I'll refer you to what Machiavelli actually wrote, the examples he gave of people who exemplified the qualities which he thought actually constituted virtu - and just as importantly, the (many) people who did not! I have mentioned this several times now, and it's quite an important point, if one wants to understand where Machiavelli "was coming from."

You questioned earlier, I believe, whether Machiavelli had a set of balls. You may already know that he was subjected to torture at one point, and endured several drops of the "strappado." Following this, he is said to have composed a letter to his political masters containing some lines of poetry, and ended it by asking, "Is this how poets are treated?" (As you'll know, many artists from that era, who are still regarded highly today, were subsidised by "the elite few destined to lead," to use your term.) So did Machiavelli have a set? Unquestionably. He seems to have had a bit of a sense of humour too, if one looks at some of the other things he wrote. He was really quite an interesting fellow. Just thought I'd mention that ..

I believe I originally brought up Machiavelli's writing because the topic, as you rightly say, was "the dirty hands problem." You have articulated this problem yourself on this thread several times now. And Machiavelli is one writer whose name invariably crops up when this topic is being discussed. As I think you have said in the course of this thread, the leader of a political entity, a state, whatever term one wishes to use, can be confronted with a nasty situation, where there appear to be no good options - a moral dilemma, if you like. Let's see now, let's try to imagine that a plane has been hijacked, and a radio transmission has been overheard, so we know what the hijackers are planning to do. They're going to fly the plane into a hospital. There's a sick childrens unit attached to the main body of the hospital, the kids are too sick to move, and there's no time to move them anyway. Does the PM, or the President, depending on which country this is happening in, order the plane to be shot down? What a shitty situation to be in. The people on the plane are dead anyway. That plane's going down shortly, there's no two ways about it. Should the man or woman in the top job order it shot down ten minutes early though? Shooting down a plane with scores of civilians aboard is definitely not a good thing to be doing. But should it be done in that situation - when inaction will lead to even worse consequences? What do you think?

One writer who's worked on the dirty hands problem has spoken about guilt, and how important it was for a political leader to feel bad after getting their hands "dirty." It'd ensure they didn't do something like that again in a hurry, and made it more likely that they'd own up to it, and so be held accountable. (That's the gist of it anyway.)

Another writer I remember reading years ago, a Canadian lad I think, whose name escapes me right now, spoke about the way huge organisations could sidestep the dirty hands problem, because there were so many people involved that individuals could avoid responsibility, and any subsequent feelings of guilt. Anyone who's worked for a large organisation will know how difficult it can be sometimes getting anyone to a) make a decision, b) own up to it, and c) feel bad about it afterwards. So I think that this writer, whose name I can't remember right now, made a good point there ..

Could an argument not be made then, that it would be better to have one person in charge (the right person obviously, not your Agathocles or your Hitler types) because they would feel bad about doing something that got their hands dirty, and would be more likely to own up to it afterwards? That's quite an interesting idea ..

However, that same Canadian guy also spoke about the way getting one's hands dirty could corrode one's original intentions, one's original guiding beliefs if you like, so that after a while one would find it easier to get one's hands dirty, and also, instead of doing so for the benefit of one's state and the people in it, one could end up doing so for very poor, let's say relatively trivial, personal reasons.


There's been quite a lot written about this particular issue, no doubt about it. And if one Googles it to see what's out there, one finds that Machiavelli's name is mentioned quite often. After all, just as Machiavelli had to address what the likes of Cicero and Seneca had written before him (their work was so well known) so one can reasonably expect Machiavelli's writing to crop up whenever "the dirty hands problem" is being written about or discussed. It's worth familiarising oneself with "The Prince" before commenting on it, though. As for Berlin succeeding in extracting Machiavelli from moral condemnation (as you put it): I don't think that's a full, accurate portrayal of what Berlin actually said. One could say, perhaps, that Berlin has a fair old crack at explaining the moral condemnation of Machiavelli over the years. Berlin also argues, quite forcefully, that it is a mistake to say that Machiavelli is altogether unconcerned with moral issues. Again I would have to say that if you want to get to grips with what Berlin said in his article, it's worth spending a little time reading the article. It's really quite something.

And with that I think I'll nip across to Tescos for some ham and cheese, so I can make myself a nice sandwich later on. :)

[trish]

So now that we have some understanding of Berlin’s (and your) Machiavelli, let me ask how the Prince’s morality applies, if at all, to a modern republic, such as the U.S. In particular, I would like to consider the following:

The government of the U.S. is of, by and for the people. The president, the vice president, the congress and the senate are elected (for the most part). Insofar as the legislatures are representatives of the people, they and the people they represent are responsible for the consequences of the laws that get enacted. Insofar as the president is elected and supported by the people, he and the people are responsible for the consequences of his actions (when he is acting as president).

For the sake of argument let’s momentarily grant that the republic is not totally dysfunctional, so that the citizens do indeed share the responsibility for the decisions made by their elected representatives and the president. Now the president is not a prince. The president is just a proxy for citizens. His power is ours, concentrated in one office. Our power is distributed but in many ways greater. The president is only in power for a few years; whereas each citizen remains in power for his or her lifetime. We elect and we remove. Are all citizens therefore princes? Would Machiavelli have all of us subscribe to the higher morality of the elite, at least when we’re performing as citizens; i.e. voting, campaigning etc.?

Suppose the answer is, “Yes, we are all princes.” Is it okay for a citizen, in the course of political argument, to lie in order, when necessary, to maintain the power of his party? If we are all princes, are we not all justifiable targets of enemy states? In this way, does Machiavellian morality play into the hands of terrorists?

On the other hand, suppose the answer is, “No, we are not all princes.” Then we are all commoners, and the president is just our proxy. Would Machiavelli have the president follow the morality of the commoner?

Perhaps Machiavelli would regard the citizens as commoners and the president as the prince. I don’t think such a attribution would be consistent with the notion of a republic, but let’s consider it for a moment. When the president orders what a commoner would call an immoral action (say the torture of a prisoner, for example), as prince he’s immune from the charge of immorality. Being the prince, if the act was necessary, his action was moral in accordance with princely morality. But we citizens, are responsible for that action too (for we elected the president) but we are subject to the restraints of common morality which does not condone torture (remember torture was just an example….you may substitute any other action that is commonly regarded as immoral). This I think, you will grant is a peculiar situation (where we are morally responsible for the president's actions but he is not), and it why I don’t think a Machiavellian can consistently hold the president of an ideal republic to one morality and the citizens to a different one.

It would seem there are some difficulties in applying Machiavellian ethics to a modern ideal republic, which escaped Machiavelli’s notice, owing to the place and time in which Machiavelli lived.

Any thoughts?

[Niccolo]

I believe I originally brought up Machiavelli's writing because the topic, as you rightly say, was "the dirty hands problem." You have articulated this problem yourself on this thread several times now. And Machiavelli is one writer whose name invariably crops up when this topic is being discussed. As I think you have said in the course of this thread, the leader of a political entity, a state, whatever term one wishes to use, can be confronted with a nasty situation, where there appear to be no good options - a moral dilemma, if you like. Let's see now, let's try to imagine that a plane has been hijacked, and a radio transmission has been overheard, so we know what the hijackers are planning to do. They're going to fly the plane into a hospital. There's a sick childrens unit attached to the main body of the hospital, the kids are too sick to move, and there's no time to move them anyway. Does the PM, or the President, depending on which country this is happening in, order the plane to be shot down? What a shitty situation to be in. The people on the plane are dead anyway. That plane's going down shortly, there's no two ways about it. Should the man or woman in the top job order it shot down ten minutes early though? Shooting down a plane with scores of civilians aboard is definitely not a good thing to be doing. But should it be done in that situation - when inaction will lead to even worse consequences? What do you think? - Niccolo.

I asked first! :wink:


(And what, you want me go off and read the Discourses now? Bloody hell quine! Now these are all interesting questions, and the subject can easily drag you in, there's no question about it. But to go over all this properly would take us right through to the tattie holidays - and beyond! Maybe you could have a little crack at the Discourses yourself, and see what you think?)

[trish]

We overhear the radio transmissions, so we think we know the terrorists’ plans. Of we could find out later that they planned to force the president to have the plane shot down, and the transmissions were simply staged. One never knows anything for certain. But to continue: if this were science fiction we could just let them proceed with their plan, and if they really do crash into the hospital, we can back-step in time and divert the calamity. Or we can pull the plane to safety with a tractor beam. But seriously: were I the president, I’d order the plane shot down. The difference between me and Berlin’s Machiavellian prince is I would admit it was a deliberate act that predictably led to the death of innocent bystanders, who for all I know for certain may have lived otherwise. I would admit that insofar as the act was deliberate and predictably led to the death of innocent people it was an immoral act. I would not claim the standards for morality are lower for me just because I’m the leader. I would fully expect the senate to live up to their duty and consider the possibility of my impeachment.

[To anticipate hippiefried: It may very well be that the innocent bystanders in the plane would also have shot down the plane under the same circumstances. If so, and if the terrorists wanted to force my hand, then ironically, my action didn't break the golden rule! Of I can't know what the passengers on board want. After the fact the senate can interview loved ones of the victims, etc. etc. Since the responsibility of my actions as president is shared by the citizens, they will decide (perhaps through the senate) whether the action is sufficiently grievous to require punishment.]

Now it’s your turn.

[Niccolo]

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/vatican-buries-the-hatchet-with-charles-darwin/

I was just reading this, & thought you might like to check it out.


Just read your post too, do you think if a president was in that situation and chose that course of action, they would be impeached? Really?

And if that's the course of action you would choose, the interesting question to ask is ... why? You consider it an immoral act, you're deliberately causing the death of civilians, but you'd do it anyway. In some sense then, you must consider the act a good one. But you have stated here that it's not good. Are you sure you're not entangled in a logical conundrum? :wink:

[trish]

Of course it's not a good a action...it's deplorable. What's worse, is that in a democratic republic the citizens are ultimately responsible, for they decide whether to accept and help shoulder the moral gravity of the decision, or they reject the decision and have me impeached. Just because the costs of the other available actions seem to be worse, doesn't mean that the they are worse, nor does it mean the chosen action is in some sense good. To think that this is somehow contradictory is to make the hidden assumption that every time nature or human affairs hands you a set of choices, at least one of them will be moral or good. I see no reason why this should be so. Indeed, it would appear that many counterexamples are in evidence.

Would an actual president be impeached under these circumstances. I doubt it, but it does depend. Suppose cell phone records indicate later that the passengers were working on a way to force the terrorists to land. Suppose evidence is found that the terrorists were really planning to swerve at the last minute. Suppose there's some rich family members of the victims who take it in their heads to press the matter. One just never knows anything with certainty.

All of us, leaders or not, are forced at times into making bad and immoral choices. The trick for an individual is to navigate life so as to keep the number and seriousness of these moral checkmates to a minimum. The trick for the leader of a nation is to do the same for the nation. How the hell did our hypothetical nation get into this situation to begin with? Why are there people so upset with us that they’re willing to crash a jetliner into a hospital? Could the ship of state been navigated in such a way as to avoid this predicament? Could it be that bad moral choices in the past have resulted in the moral checkmate in which the state finds itself now?

I'll get back to on Darwin later. Remember, I posed some questions in my post of Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:23 pm.

[Niccolo]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders was today refused entry to the United Kingdom. Lord Pearson, who asked him to come across to the UK, went on to Sky News and took Lord Ahmed to task. It was really something, I've never seen anything like it on British TV before.

Lord Pearson asked Lord Ahmed directly just what he thought of the principle of abrogation, which says that later verses in the Koran override any earlier verses which contradict them. So the more warlike verses which deal with Mohammad's time in Medina take precedence over those dealing with his more peaceful spell in Mecca. Lord Pearson laid it right out there, and said we ought to be able to discuss this openly and honestly. (I agree.)

Lord Ahmed blustered a bit then said that in his opinon every verse in the Koran was the same. A very poor answer indeed. But an excellent question - asked on prime time TV on Sky News as well. Way to go Lord Pearson!

[hippifried]

[To anticipate hippiefried: It may very well be that the innocent bystanders in the plane would also have shot down the plane under the same circumstances. If so, and if the terrorists wanted to force my hand, then ironically, my action didn't break the golden rule! Of I can't know what the passengers on board want. After the fact the senate can interview loved ones of the victims, etc. etc. Since the responsibility of my actions as president is shared by the citizens, they will decide (perhaps through the senate) whether the action is sufficiently grievous to require punishment.]
Well, since I've been evoked... :D

One more time. Necessity is morally neutral. You do what's necessary, irrespective of moral conflict, because morality isn't at the top of the priority list. The moral dilemma is there because the abstract is controlled by the conscience rather than the fight or flight response of survival. The code would seem to stem from the propagation instinct, like empathy for one's own kind. It also has a survival aspect since we are social critters. There's strength in numbers, & the code, our basic morality, allows us to gather together. With our advanced abstract thought processes, it's more than a herd mentality. Despite the rantings of fanatical individualists, it's our collectivism that's given us the ability to move beyond basic scavenger/gatherer to agrarian & industrial societies.

The code is constant, but scenarios don't always play out because the variables of reality aren't static. I think the biggest moral dilemma is what would seem our willingness to accept the replacement of morality with rules. Rules are a power scheme. The code is flexible to the situation, & works from both an altruistic or egoistic standpoint. I think too much emphasis is put on rules, whether code based or arbitrary, & not enough on following one's conscience. As the definitions of morality expand more & more into the arbitrary, we're expected to obey rules without clear understanding of why the rule exists. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason morality is ignored.

Even the herd mentality isn't always what we think it is. It's interesting when basic survival suddenly takes a back seat to altruistic defence of one's own. This is cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Never give up.

[trish]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783



So what is the purpose of this film, if not to incite and confirm the hatred that already exists for Islam? We are all already too familiar with the tragedy of religious fundamentalism. We know there are strains of it in every religion and that today there seems to be a particularly virulent strain of it in the Islamic religion. The film doesn’t explain why this might be so, or hint at the political causes or distinguish between the politically radicalized Islamic fundamentalists, and ordinary practitioners of the faith.

The film itself is an artful overlay of passages from the Koran with horrible images of terror, clips of lurid hate speech, headlines, etc. all backed by beautifully performed elegiac music from the Western classical repertoire. There is no attempt at analysis. There is every attempt to alarm. I found the film to be particularly inflammatory and eminently unhelpful. The film points to the rise of Islamic immigrants in Europe and ends with a call for Europeans to defeat Islamisation as Nazism and Communism were defeated.

Now I find religion as deplorable as the next woman; but I fail to see what good can come of this alarmist propaganda.

[hippifried]

Muslims in Europe are like Indonesians in Australia or Mexicans in the US. Geert Wilders is the eurotrash version of Tom Tancredo or Lou Dobbs. Eurotrash nazis managed to get rid of most Jews, so now they have their sights on this week's "enemy". Hitler was a parrot. An eloquent parrot, but a parrot none the less. Take any of his speeches & change the target, you have the memetic rhetoric of any hate campaign before or since. Nazis are coming out of the closet in Europe again, just like the Klan keeps crawling out from under their rock over here. The difference is that we don't try & ban the nutjobs. The best way to marginalize idiots is to give them the limelight.

[trish]

The difference is that we don't try & ban the nutjobs.

We do refuse at times to grant visas to the occasional writer, artist or intellectual with whom the administration disagrees. At least that was the case with past administrations.


The best way to marginalize idiots is to give them the limelight.

I couldn't agree more.

[El Nino]

How 'bout that "No Fly" list...

[Niccolo]

Pat Condell (http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/02/pat-condell-freedom-go-to-hell-indeed/).

[trish]

Condell is right that freedom of speech should include the right to criticize religion, even particular religions, including Islam. And he is right that Geert Wilders’ film is critical of Islam. However, Condell is on the wrong track when he asserts, “If these people are afraid of this film…,then they are afraid of their own scripture.” As I explained in a post above, Geert Wilders’ film is an artful, but nevertheless atrociously hateful piece of propaganda. Anyone with half a brain knows that propaganda (especially propaganda directed against your own group) is something to be feared. We know this from the Jewish experience in NAZI Germany. It is not at all surprising that Muslims were prepared to utilize civil disobedience (e.g. besiege parliament) in protest of Wilders’ film which was to be shown there. Condell felt free to call this a “threat of Muslim violence.” Believe me, I’m no friend of religion, any religion. But I’m no friend of hate and prejudice either. I understand that Europeans feel threatened by the influx of Muslims and the spread of Islamic culture across their landscape. I also understand that many Muslims do not understand or appreciate the role of free speech in European society. They’re not going to learn to accept it when the only speech being offered is the alarmist hate speech of Geert Wilders. Why on Earth would parliament choose to begin a discussion of Islam in Europe with a film like that? Watch it. See if there’s even one frame that's unbiased, analytical or rational.

[Niccolo]

Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/why-we-need-a-new-churchill-to-stand-against-islamic-extremists-14197276.html)

I have watched it. Funnily enough I felt no hatred, nor was I incited to violence. It would be nice if you could provide some quotes, actual words uttered by Geert Wilders, to support any of your assertions about this little movie of his. I'd be interested to know what you think of the comparison with Churchill (mentioned in the above article.) And I'd be interested to know what you think about the hatred, etc. that has not been shown in a movie, but has been actually expressed in a physical way before now by Islamists in Wilders' own country.

http://fullmetalcynic.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/a-worthy-cause-the-ayaan-hirsi-ali-security-fund/

I'd also point out that the images in Wilders' movie are not fictional, he didn't imagine them, then create images on his laptop using CGI software; those were real events, committed by ... we all know who they were commited by. And those images and headlines are all taken from news programmes & papers which we have all seen & read already. Should those same news programmes be censored too in future, in case Jacqui Smith thinks that something they say might upset the smooth running of the New Labour project?

Anyway, got to go for now ..

[trish]

Wilders' film opens with Tchaikovsky’s Arabesque and scenes of an elegantly bound Koran. Cut to a cartoon of a Muslim holding a bomb, the aural background now a ticking clock. Then an artful cut to one of the less noble sentiments from the Koran “Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering,” (could be straight out of Machiavelli) and now the aural background is a single voice singing from a minaret. Then cut. In silence we follow a jetliner across the New York skyline. It nears the Twin Towers. One is already ensconced in a cloud of thick black smoke. The screen splits. On the left are more examples of lurid prose from the Koran. On the right we’re still following the plane. Back to one screen. The plane strikes the tower and penetrates. It’s a photographic wonder, focused and beautifully composed. Now we hear the shocked cries of the watching crowed. We hear people on cell phones inside the building screaming “I’m gonna die”. Just as the camera slowly followed the plane to the tower, now it follows the long slow fall of a jumper down, down the steep canyon. All the way down we hear the conversation of a woman inside the building, “I’m going to die.” “I’m burning up.” Cut to the train station in London, etc.

You really think this is not propaganda, not alarmist, not incendiary?

Suppose the film instead showed the Old Testament and Torah elaborately bound while Strauss’ Solome played in the background. Cut to a cartoon of a fat nosed jew holding money bags and a bomb. Now cut to a visual of the the passage, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” written in beautiful calligraphy. Perhaps in Hebrew and translated into English. Perhaps some religious music in the background from the Jewish tradition sung acapella. Cut to a missile lauched from Israel. The camera follows it silently arcing across the sky. Cut to some other despicable passage from the Old Testament or the Torah, there’s plenty to choose from. Split screen, missile and passage. Back to one screen. The missile strikes Gaza. Sounds of despairing people. Fire, smoke, devastion invade the screen. The camera follows the limp body of a twelve year old boy as he’s carried away on a stretcher. Etc.

I’m not saying Europe doesn’t have problems with Islam. Some speech helps and some speech creates more problems. This film does no good at all. I'm not for censorship either. Government shouldn't suppress speech. But it doesn't have to help propagate all speech either.

[hippifried]

I’m not saying Europe doesn’t have problems with Islam. Some speech helps and some speech creates more problems. This film does no good at all. I'm not for censorship either. Government shouldn't suppress speech. But it doesn't have to help propagate all speech either.Europe just has problems.
Really. It's Europe. It's the UK. It's not the same mindset as the US. Without the foundation based on natural unalienable rights, there are no recognized rights. There's just freedoms granted by the state. Rights & freedoms go together, but there's a difference between a freedom, & a right. Freedom is circumstantial & dependent on where you are at any given time. You have rights for no other reason than you're a human being, irrespective of recognition by any governing entity. I think most people understand this concept, although I can't think of a single government outside our own that officially recognizes it. Maybe that's why there's always so much strife.

[Niccolo]

In an article for the Guardian published on 13th February, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh, wrote an article in which he supported the decision to prevent Geert Wilders from entering the United Kingdom.

Huhne asserts that freedom of speech is “our most precious freedom of all” but says that there must be “a dividing line” which should not be crossed in “a civilised society.” Huhne argues that Wilders’ movie is “an incitement to hatred and violence” and as such, it violates John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which Huhne considers “the key liberal principle in this case.” Huhne therefore supports the decision of Jacqui Smith to restrict Wilders’ freedom of speech on this occasion.

“The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Penguin Classics, p. 68.)

In this passage, Mill states his “one very simple principle,” often referred to as the Harm Principle. Mill argued in his book that violating the Harm Principle was not a sufficient condition for a state to act against an individual. “…it must by no means be supposed, because damage, or probability of damage, to the interests of others, can alone justify the interference of society, that therefore it always does justify such interference.” (ibid., p. 163.) Mill talked of how people with similar interests could legitimately compete with one another. Many people within a competitive profession might apply for a particular job. Most of them will end up being disappointed, and some may even suffer financially because they did not get it. But the state should not act to prevent the successful party from carrying out their work. Society benefits by permitting this kind of so-called “harm” to others.

According to Mill, a civilised society also gains from people speaking their mind freely. Individuals benefit from being able to think for themselves, and civilised society as a whole benefits since it is “capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.” Censorship has an altogether different effect. In the second chapter of his book, Mill writes that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation – those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.” (ibid., p. 76.)

In a footnote to the same chapter, Mill argues that “there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing or discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (ibid., p. 75.) He admits to one exception however: “… even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed (italics mine) are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard.” (ibid., p. 119.)


A distinction is drawn here between the expression of one’s opinions, and any subsequent acts which cause harm to another. One may hand out placards to a mob who have gathered around the house of a corn dealer, or one may speak to an already excited mob assembled before the house of the CEO of a bank, a man whose actions caused many members of the mob in question to lose their jobs and perhaps, in some cases, their own houses. Under such circumstances, if one expressed the view that the CEO of the bank was a greedy and short sighted individual who should be held accountable for his own actions, then it seems more likely that the object of those views would be harmed than if one expressed those same views in a letter to a national newspaper.


Does Geert Wilders’ travelling to the UK at the invitation of Lord Pearson, to show and discuss his movie “Fitna” constitute a violation of Mill’s Harm Principle? No, it does not. Lord Pearson and his colleagues were not assembled before anyone’s house. They intended to meet Wilders in the House of Lords. And no rational person would ever describe them as an “excited mob.” So any analogical argument claiming that the scenario of Wilders’ proposed showing of his movie matches the example used by Mill to illustrate what he thought might justify action by a state just would not hold.

Mill adds to this elsewhere; talking specifically about “the doctrine of tyrannicide” he says that “the instigation to it, in a specific case, may be a proper subject of punishment, but only if an overt act has followed, and at least a probable connection can be established between the act and the instigation.” (ibid., p. 76.) One cannot help noticing that both here and in the “corn dealers” passage, Mill says that the actions he describes may be punished. He does not say that they should be, or that they must be punished. Mill had an exceptionally high opinion of his wife, and said in his autobiography that “… there was not a sentence of it (On Liberty) that was not several times gone through by us together, turned over in many ways, and carefully weeded of any faults, either in thought or expression, that we detected in it.” (Mill, Autobiography, Adamant Media, pp. 251–252.) Mill chose his words carefully, and when he says that one may be punished for expressing one’s views in a particular set of circumstances, it’s clear that this is in accordance with Mill’s statement, quoted earlier in this essay, that if someone violates the Harm Principle, then this can justify the state’s taking action against them, but it does not follow that this will always justify such state interference.

Chris Huhne claims in his article that there is an emotional appeal to “anti-Islamic feeling” in “Fitna.” But as Theodore Dalrymple has already pointed out, an appeal to anti-Islamic emotions is not the same as incitement to harm Muslims, just as an appeal to anti-Labour or anti-Conservative emotions is not the same as incitement to harm members of either political party. (FrontPage Magazine, 18th Feb 09.) It follows that there is a logical gap in Mr. Huhne’s written argument. To bridge it, Huhne has to rely on the unspoken assumption that Lord Pearson and the other people invited to see Wilders’ movie in the House of Lords would see an emotional appeal on screen, then in their own minds convert this into something else entirely. But as we all know, Lord Pearson is an able debater, who is quite capable of addressing an issue rationally without allowing any emotions he might experience to overpower him, let alone lose control of himself to the extent that he would actively harm another person. To suggest otherwise is not only an insult to Lord Pearson, it is a patent absurdity. On this absurdity, Chris Huhne’s argument rests.

Huhne also thinks that if he says Wilders’ movie is ”a 16 minute incitement to violence” then he can safely say that John Stuart Mill would have had ”Fitna” censored by the state. Huhne seems unaware of what Mill actually wrote about freedom of thought and discussion. According to Mill, expressing one’s views might justify some form of action by the state, “but only if an overt act has followed.” This clearly has not happened in this case. Lord Pearson went ahead and showed ”Fitna” in the House of Lords without Geert Wilders, and not one of the people who watched the movie has gone on to harm another person.

Anyone giving Huhne’s argument a passing glance can see that it just doesn’t work. One wonders why politicians like Huhne really supported the decision to prevent Geert Wilders from entering the UK. Although Mill explicitly rejected the idea that a state should silence an individual for thieir own good, Richard Reeves, Mill’s biographer, has said that politicians do sometimes behave in a paternalistic way, and use Mill to help “dress it up as a liberal policy.” (spiked review of books, article 4923) A moment’s thought tells you that having Geert Wilders detained at Heathrow was never going to silence him. After all, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wilders has already been threatened with death, so it’s safe to assume that he isn’t going to be intimidated by someone telling him to use the return half of a plane ticket. But could this course of action have been taken pour encourager les autres? Is it possible that politicians like Huhne think they know what’s best for us, and that, in their opinion, the citizens of this country should not be allowed to question whether Islam is a religion of peace? Is it possible that Jacqui Smith wants people to know that this government will, as John Stuart Mill put it, visit evil upon anyone who expresses in a public or political forum the heretical opinion that Islamic terrorism has its roots not in poverty, or lack of opportunity, but in the teachings of Islam? Is it possible that politicians in this country will betray the values of our own culture without hesitation, and actively persecute not just fellow Europeans, but homegrown British citizens as well, in order to allow Islam to advance from the foothold it has already gained inside the United Kingdom?

Is this the kind of world we’re living in now?

[trish]

Personally, I wouldn't argue that Wilders should be denied entrance into the country, nor would I argue that he shouldn't be allowed to show his film. I would argue that his film is not at all helpful to the discussion; that it is propaganda and hate speech. It is a poor place to begin a discussion of Islam in Parliament. Were I a member, I would deny Wilders the privilege of showing his film in Parliament. Seeing that people are not generally granted the right to address Parliament, I do not see this as an infringement on free speech.

[hippifried]

The argument in the UK is about how much to restrict freedom. It's not about rights.

[trish]

The London Times ran an article on the affair, to which Niccolo alludes,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5718039.ece

It says, “Immigration officials denied the Dutch MP entry to the country after the Government decided he should not be allowed to attend a screening of his controversial anti-Islamist film tonight.”

It’s not clear to me from the article whether the film was shown in Parliament. It seems that it was. So it’s difficult to know what the fuss is all about.

As I said above, I would have done just the opposite were I a Member of Parliament. I would’ve voted to invite Wilders into the country to participate in the Parliamentary discussions. I would presume the film can be shown within Great Britain’s borders (if not I would've moved to allow it to be shown), but I would have voted against showing it in Parliament. Government doesn’t have to lend it’s credibility to hate speech and propaganda.

Hippiefried is right. Great Britain and Europe do seem to be having some trouble with the whole concept of free speech, freedom in general and rights.