A couple of people have expressed puzzlement or disagreement about my
proposition that the numbers of deaths are not what matters. John Taylor
writes: "it seems self-evident that 100,000 deaths are 'worse' in the sense
of more awful, tragic, waste of human life irrespective of whether one
thinks they are 'worse' in the sense of more immoral." I don't know whether
we can say that 100,000 deaths is more awful or tragic than 15,000 (roughly
the initial estimate based on the "body count"). We can, however, make a
judgment about the morality, and my note was concerned with the morality of
the issue.
Let me give a different, and I hope a less contentious, example, which might
help to explain the moral position I'm taking. Think of a famous case of
murder - you have plenty to choose from - like Harold Shipman, who
compounded murder with betrayal of trust. Then contrast the case of Edwin
Chadwick, who murdered no-one, but was responsible for far more unnecessary
deaths. Chadwick's promotion of sewers in Victorian London was based on a
misconceived theory (the theory of "miasma"). Chadwick's determination to
get the policy through, and his rejection of contradictory evidence about
the causes of cholera, led to the dumping of effluent in the water supply.
(Finer's biography of Chadwick suggests that over-riding opposition and and
his obstinacy in refusing to listen to alternatives were simply two sides of
the same coin.) This approach was certainly responsible for thousands of
deaths; it may have been as many as 30,000. He correctly identified the
problem, and sought to remedy it, but made a dreadful mistake. Chadwick
killed more people than Shipman; that does not make him worse. The morality
of an action depends on its motivation and rationale, not on its
consequences.
This, I hope, should help to explain the difference between myself and David
Gordon. David writes: "If you take the argument that there is no moral
difference to its extremes then you accept that there is no difference
between one death and the extinction of a species or genocide." There is
a difference - genocide is a crime against humanity in its own right. Jay
Ginn is also right to say that repeated immoral acts are worse than single
immoral acts. But the difference is related to the intention of the
perpetrator, not the numbers of people involved.
The same arguments extend to the actions of the coalition. However, the
evidence from the recent survey raises fresh moral issues which the
occupying forces must address. I also take John Taylor's point, that
disregard for the Geneva Convention vitiates their actions.
Paul Spicker
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|