tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862565.post1044604034768107214..comments2012-06-16T11:59:35.014-07:00Comments on <center>Runes</center>: More on "wars of choice"M.J. O'Brienhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13494821452318393286noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37862565.post-23478809473220144022007-01-20T02:50:00.000-08:002007-01-20T02:50:00.000-08:00I don't think we really disagree about much, here,...I don't think we really disagree about much, here, but I would take a little bit of issue with the description you give of the outcome of my position: <br /><br />"If each war as a "particular case," we end up in the pragmatist position of doing a cost-benefit analysis that might go something like this: is war in a given situation likely to produce a better result than refraining from war, or conversely, is it likely to result in less overall harm?"<br /><br />While this is strictly-speaking true, I worry about this way of framing it, because we are <b><i>very bad</i></b> at making these calculations. It's not enough, as Comrade Max pointed out, that a war be aimed at some kind of tangible benefit--it has to be a really, really big and important benefit, like survival. The point of my "principled pacifism" is that I think it would be better to have a general rule that we don't even bother making these calculations. In particular cases where the benefits would be absolutely overwhelming and (crucially) indubitable or at least widely agreed-upon, we could make exceptions.<br /><br />The trouble with this, of course, is that it's always possible to argue that your own pet war fits these conditions. If my version of "principled pacifism" were to be widely accepted--ha!--this problem might become less acute, though, since it's usually laughably obvious that pet wars don't fit these conditions if you start out with even the slightest skepticism toward solving problems militarily.ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308264045246008025noreply@blogger.com