JUST A THOUGHT - ON THE MORAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF ATTACKING ANOTHER COUNTRY ON 'MORAL GROUNDS.' PART 3.
Is it the case that, because of its very limited and carefully controlled impact, it does not really have to stringently 'meet any legal criteria'?
So, with their being no clear legal basis for carrying out the attack, and with it not being a precedent.
Since that had already been set through the machiavellianistic manipulation of the UN in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq over 15 years ago.
Might it be the case that there is a 'moral justification' for the attack on Syria?
But how do we, or should we define what is 'moral' and what is 'immoral.'
Since the presumption, or premise, must be that the Syrian are doing or about to do something which is, by definition and comparison, 'immoral.'
And that the human impact of such an act/s, is so severe that they warrant corrective act/s of 'moral propriety' to prevent or stop them.
Or, as Prime Minister May might say, to stop, to deter the alleged or presumed or designated perpetrators from continuing to do it or repeat it.
But, the use of 'morality' as an argument to invade another country and make war against them, can be very questionable.
It can lead into uncomfortable territory, full of dilemmas. Not least because, there are those amongst us who would argue that war is 'immoral.'
And that, if that is so, how, then, can those who would use 'morality' as a 'justification' for making war, avoid or answer the charge, the accusation, if you like.
That they are being hypocritical and 'wrong', in resorting to 'immoral' means to achieve or try to achieve 'a moral outcome'?
That, it seems to me, would require those who resort to such a mean, to seek refuge in arguments about 'greater good', 'lesser evil', 'least detrimental outcomes', 'means of last resort', etc.
To be continued!
Comments