Comments on: The sometime first duty of intelligent men http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/ I might have been born yesterday, sir, but I stayed up all night. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:52:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Ananth http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-519 Ananth Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:19:20 +0000 http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-519 yes I read that paragraph "If there is any possible way to achieve the intended effect without producing the unintended effect, then double-effect does not apply — the doctor may not slice, the general may not attack. If there is any possible way to achieve the necessary intended effect without producing the unintended effect and you act, instead, in a way that produces this secondary effect, then you have not produced “collateral damage,” you have simply slaughtered civilian" The problem with that is the word possible. You are dealing in equations and variations and simulations where things are <b>possible</b> but remain <b>unlikely</b>. In matters like this, and I am not giving you the point that such a possible solution exists but lets take it for the arguement, it not partical nor feasible to engage in every outcome that has the possibility to render the desired outcome, expecially when you take the probablilty of a successful out come in to account. yes I read that paragraph
“If there is any possible way to achieve the intended effect without producing the unintended effect, then double-effect does not apply — the doctor may not slice, the general may not attack. If there is any possible way to achieve the necessary intended effect without producing the unintended effect and you act, instead, in a way that produces this secondary effect, then you have not produced “collateral damage,” you have simply slaughtered civilian”

The problem with that is the word possible. You are dealing in equations and variations and simulations where things are possible but remain unlikely. In matters like this, and I am not giving you the point that such a possible solution exists but lets take it for the arguement, it not partical nor feasible to engage in every outcome that has the possibility to render the desired outcome, expecially when you take the probablilty of a successful out come in to account.

]]> By: Steve http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-517 Steve Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:35:36 +0000 http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-517 As a matter of fact, the exact qualifier you mention is addressed by Fred Clark, in the excerpted quotation, by all the words that aren't bolded. As a matter of fact, the exact qualifier you mention is addressed by Fred Clark, in the excerpted quotation, by all the words that aren’t bolded.

]]> By: Ananth http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-515 Ananth Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:56:23 +0000 http://stevesiwy.com/blog/2006/07/29/the-sometime-first-duty-of-intelligent-men/#comment-515 I don't think Dershowitz's justification is neccessary or correct. However the two points you bring up about civilians, <b>You’re not allowed to kill civilians</b> and <b>all civilian casualties are to be universally condemned</b> are not entirely what the norms are all. You need to add the qualifier of intentionally, or perhaps something to express the level of effort to prevent the killing of civilians.... if you were to bomb a missile depot and happen to kill the janitors who were working there, should that be universally condemnded, are you not allowed to kill those civilians there? If a large amount of civilians decided to 'protect' an artillary position by planting themselves in and around the position, are the still civilians, and therefore you cannot destroy it, or they no longer civilians so it doesn't count in your statement. I don’t think Dershowitz’s justification is neccessary or correct. However the two points you bring up about civilians, You’re not allowed to kill civilians and all civilian casualties are to be universally condemned are not entirely what the norms are all. You need to add the qualifier of intentionally, or perhaps something to express the level of effort to prevent the killing of civilians…. if you were to bomb a missile depot and happen to kill the janitors who were working there, should that be universally condemnded, are you not allowed to kill those civilians there? If a large amount of civilians decided to ‘protect’ an artillary position by planting themselves in and around the position, are the still civilians, and therefore you cannot destroy it, or they no longer civilians so it doesn’t count in your statement.

]]>