I have written a couple of posts against common arguments that are used in opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria. While that eventually seems to have been taken off the table thanks to Russia's savviness, I think that moment is still rich and very interesting. There is no doubted it shaped the current media and social media configuration around the Syria issue.
In this post, I want to focus on a trend I see implicit in a lot of commentary/exhortation on Syria. I take a U.S.-centric perspective here because it makes the "we" I use (see below) more direct.
There as a trending argument that seems to go as follows: "The situation in Syria is so bad that we have a moral duty to do something." Variations are {horrible picture / video} and then "and the West doesn't do anything."
This argument is actually a disguise for two possible (incompatible) arguments:
(1) it is morally impermissible to stand idle when others are suffering this much. In other words, the existence of this intensity of suffering itself, on its own, means we need to do something. Not doing something is immoral because it entails a failure to fulfill a duty. That duty is precisely the duty to do something.
(2) if we don't do something it's going to continue and there are ways to make it stop. The war (at its current scale) stopping is a good thing, it's a better alternative than the war going on. That indicates there is a way to make things better. Not doing anything would mean not executing that particular alternative that could make the situation better, and failing to make things better when you can is bad.
The first kind of reasoning is not only very dangerous, it is also deeply flawed for the same reason: it can be used to justify any action in any circumstances. Instead of being a careful approach that tries to weigh options, it bases itself on the very dubious claim that any "something" is better than "nothing." We should be careful about that argument, and never forget the when you can. We need to know when we can and we need to know why we can and do it.
When things are bad, we have a moral duty to think about how we should relate to it and THEN act if there is something to be done. It's NOT about doing any action because, whatever it is, it's presumably better than no action.
Note: it's interesting that, despite their fundamental difference, both arguments rely on the fact that even if there is a moral distinction between action and omission, omission cannot be devoid of moral consequences or weight.
In this post, I want to focus on a trend I see implicit in a lot of commentary/exhortation on Syria. I take a U.S.-centric perspective here because it makes the "we" I use (see below) more direct.
There as a trending argument that seems to go as follows: "The situation in Syria is so bad that we have a moral duty to do something." Variations are {horrible picture / video} and then "and the West doesn't do anything."
This argument is actually a disguise for two possible (incompatible) arguments:
(1) it is morally impermissible to stand idle when others are suffering this much. In other words, the existence of this intensity of suffering itself, on its own, means we need to do something. Not doing something is immoral because it entails a failure to fulfill a duty. That duty is precisely the duty to do something.
(2) if we don't do something it's going to continue and there are ways to make it stop. The war (at its current scale) stopping is a good thing, it's a better alternative than the war going on. That indicates there is a way to make things better. Not doing anything would mean not executing that particular alternative that could make the situation better, and failing to make things better when you can is bad.
The first kind of reasoning is not only very dangerous, it is also deeply flawed for the same reason: it can be used to justify any action in any circumstances. Instead of being a careful approach that tries to weigh options, it bases itself on the very dubious claim that any "something" is better than "nothing." We should be careful about that argument, and never forget the when you can. We need to know when we can and we need to know why we can and do it.
When things are bad, we have a moral duty to think about how we should relate to it and THEN act if there is something to be done. It's NOT about doing any action because, whatever it is, it's presumably better than no action.
Note: it's interesting that, despite their fundamental difference, both arguments rely on the fact that even if there is a moral distinction between action and omission, omission cannot be devoid of moral consequences or weight.
No comments:
Post a Comment