djugurba - 10/15/2004 2:09 PM
Bot, I'm curious as to how you view W's 'freedom is on the march' and such as being a different kind of imposition. Is it a paternalistic, 'they don't know any better, and anyone who has a chance would choose freedom' type of argument? Or is it an appeal to the purported morality of said system one way or the other? No sassy personal response required, I'm just curious how you view the difference (I certainly think there is a difference btw!)
And, without rehashing everything, what are your personal grounds for holding that the war in Iraq is both moral and just?
I just want to understand clearly- No refutations of other positions, just yours please. I'd like to get a bead on it.
Excellent question, but I'll drop Dubbie from the question so as to avoid, as much as I can, the usual deflection into Dubbie this, Dubbie that. [Given his past, maybe he was actually called, "Doobie"?] The point being that I cannot read anybody's mind and therefore, find it personally fruitless to ascribe motives to a politcian's words. Instead, I'll tell you why I believe that imposing democracy is usually a better moral choice than allowing the continuation of brutal despotism.
I believe that the natural state of life is freedom.
Since humans are a part of nature (rather than apart from nature), our natural state is freedom. We are taught during maturation and through acculturation to circumscribe our free expression for the good of family, clan, tribe, nation, and species.
The balance between the natural freedom of the individual and the constraints from outside can be self-imposed or can be coerced and enforced by others or both. The ideal is self-impostion of constraints of freedom, this is true liberty--the finest expression or gift of respect by an individual living in a free society to that society.
Sometimes wrong-thinking people require imposed rules to protect society from the individual malefactor. At the most subtle level, these are societal taboos, then morals, then finally laws at the most coarse level. In an ideal society, there would be no need for taboos, morals or laws. There is no ideal society, so we deal with the practical impostition of taboos, morals, and laws. This we call, "politics".
When political solutions are imposed that are in conflict with freedom and liberty, then a dissonance may occur. The population constrained by the unjust imposition of political will may, through force, come believe that particular political model is the right one. This is what I believe happens when despotic and/or totalitarian systems impose control on society over a long period.
But since the natural state of life is freedom and the natural inclination of humans is to love life, removing the forced imposition of despotism on human beings--emancipation--is always and eternally a good and noble and just goal for free people everywhere.
From this, my belief concerning Iraq, etc.