More Shue
A couple of links of potential interest found on the internets regarding Henry Shue...
Here's an interview with Henry Shue from 2001, on the subject of World Hunger and Moral Obligation. He reiterates many ideas we've already discussed. One interesting issue that comes up is the difference between his position on our obligations to help compared to those of Peter Singer. Peter Singer is the most famous utilitarian philosopher (perhaps the most famous living philosopher, period) who is well known for vigorously defending moral positions that most people find insane, and doing it disturbingly well. The article Shue refers to in the interview is one in which Singer argued that our obligation to help, assist, and give to needy, distant others should have virtually no bearing on our relationship to them, and our moral obligation to give and assist shouldn't end until we've given away so much as to be just about as impovershed as they are. Shue disagrees with this strong utilitarian position, but he doesn't (to my mind) make clear exactly how much, and why.
There was some conversational drift toward the question of how Shue would address a "post 9/11 world." I myself am rather convinced the radical shift in the world before and after 9/11 is asserted more often than it is successfully argued or defended, but that's just me. Here is a link to a statement made by Shue only a few days after the fact. Personally, I don't actually find this all that insightful--mostly, he's issuing a warning that military solutions to what happened a) may not work, and b) may cause the rights of more innocents to be violated. I agree, in general, on both counts (as does almost everyone, I suspect--all proponents of military solution understand that it might fail, and it'll probably kill a fair number of innocent people--it's a question of tradeoffs). But nevertheless, here is Shue's raw (9/17/2001) take on the world after the terrorist attacks.
Speaking of terrorist attacks--did anyone realize that Tuesday was the 10th anniversary of the attack on the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? I'm somewhat amazed at how little press coverage that got. I think people forget a bit too easily that a sizeable portion of the terrorist threat we live under is from domestic terrorism, and the media doesn't help that perception when they let the 10th anniversary of the second worst terrorist attack of our lifetimes go unmentioned! Here's a link to one of the only stories on the 10th anniversary I've found on a major national news outlet.
posted by David Watkins @ 8:22 AM
5 Comments:
In reading the link and reflecting on this event that was so tragic when it occurred I can't help but wonder if over time 9/11 will also slip into the category of a past tragic event. In honesty the more the years pass the less weight the oklahoma city event seems to carry. A new threat has replaced it and sadly it gets overlooked.
I'm sure that's true to some extent. As tragic events become historical, they become less tragic. Still, can you imagine anywhere near this much silence on 9/11/2011? Especially if Al Qaeda is still operating and posing a threat (as fringe-right domestic terrorists certainly are)?
imagine if Al Qaeda is still posing a threat in 2011, what would that mean about our efforts now?
[Can we get our question for the next week by Friday? that would be way cool and make it easier to plan out the week. I am working on the reading for next week and it would be nice to know what I need to pay especially close attention to as far as the paper is concerned. Thank you.]
anyone read 1984? that scares the crap out of me, that orwell understood things the way that he did and was almost prophetic. that americans are so easily manipulated by the media that eveyone "forgets" events and pertinent information that would lead them to think very differently (i think) than they do now. for instance, anyone remember that bush jr. was convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and THAT was the reason that troops were sent in, otherwise it would have been an ILLEGAL UNPROVOKED MILITARY INVASION. now we are over there under what auspices? freedom and democracy? iraqi's continue to die, americans and allies are dying, iraqi's do not want us in their country and continue to fight back. where are those WOMDs? why do we continue to send people YOUNGER THAN I AM (24) to kill these people and to be killed?
thought-provoking, mootable pv. just my thoughts, well anyways gl & be chipper is what i say
Post a Comment
<< Home