![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 8th, 2023 11:53 pm"In my capacity as a moral philosopher -
The Q isn't whether it is just or morally unambiguous for the US to send cluster munitians to Ukraine. The Q is whether it is military necessary - and whether that necessity outweighs all other political considerations.
First, let's look at what the question is not.
The Q is not whether Ukraine should use cluster munitions - it is whether the USA should give Ukraine cluster munitions (Ukraine has already used some).
The Q is not whether Ukraine would get an immediate military benefit from US cluster munitions - the consensus is that it would.
The Q is not whether there are strong reasons for the USA NOT to give Ukraine cluster munitions - any reasonably arguer must agree there are.
The Q is:
Does a broad picture of US national interest allow the military advantage Ukraine will derive to outweigh other considerations - inc alienating allies, routinizing the use of a weapon we may want to ban, damaging the moral case for backing Ukraine, and so on.
There is also the question of endangering future Ukrainian civilians. Here the answer "that's up to Ukraine to decide" doesn't work. It's up to Ukraine to demand these weapons - anybody in their place would; it's up to the USA to give them. Let's clarify this a bit more.
It's not a good idea to cry "imperialism" each time someone points out that Ukraine's & USA's national interests do no overlap completely.
It is only a combo of Ukrainian courage + a benign projection of US imperial power that's kept Putin's brutal imperial invasion at bay.
Let's briefly turn to ethics. One way to judge a political decision is procedurally, by looking at how it was made.
Looking at Biden's decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine sideways, we can draw a lesson about the place of ethics in political decision making.
We don’t want politicians who are too quick to override ethical considerations. But we also don’t want politicians who are immobilised by situations in which ethical considerations need to be put aside in favour of necessity.
Obama's alleged remark about himself- "we have a president who is good at killing" is about this. Obama, if he did indeed say this, didn't mean: "I am casual about killing". He meant: "I can kill without losing a moral compass & without being paralysed by the consequences."
A key take away here is that in politics, ethics is one consideration among others. It's a disaster when politics loses all sight of ethics, but if all you've got is ethics, there is no politics. High powered politics requires decisions with disastrous human consequences.
Another key take away is that reasons don't go away just because they are outweighed. In politics, a decision that is on balance reasonable will often contain significant moral wrong.
Biden's process feels adequate. He felt the pressure of all the considerations against the decision he made.
He prioritised US national interest in giving Ukraine a weapon she badly needs, and harmed the political momentum toward a global prohibition of cluster munitions."
The Q isn't whether it is just or morally unambiguous for the US to send cluster munitians to Ukraine. The Q is whether it is military necessary - and whether that necessity outweighs all other political considerations.
First, let's look at what the question is not.
The Q is not whether Ukraine should use cluster munitions - it is whether the USA should give Ukraine cluster munitions (Ukraine has already used some).
The Q is not whether Ukraine would get an immediate military benefit from US cluster munitions - the consensus is that it would.
The Q is not whether there are strong reasons for the USA NOT to give Ukraine cluster munitions - any reasonably arguer must agree there are.
The Q is:
Does a broad picture of US national interest allow the military advantage Ukraine will derive to outweigh other considerations - inc alienating allies, routinizing the use of a weapon we may want to ban, damaging the moral case for backing Ukraine, and so on.
There is also the question of endangering future Ukrainian civilians. Here the answer "that's up to Ukraine to decide" doesn't work. It's up to Ukraine to demand these weapons - anybody in their place would; it's up to the USA to give them. Let's clarify this a bit more.
It's not a good idea to cry "imperialism" each time someone points out that Ukraine's & USA's national interests do no overlap completely.
It is only a combo of Ukrainian courage + a benign projection of US imperial power that's kept Putin's brutal imperial invasion at bay.
Let's briefly turn to ethics. One way to judge a political decision is procedurally, by looking at how it was made.
Looking at Biden's decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine sideways, we can draw a lesson about the place of ethics in political decision making.
We don’t want politicians who are too quick to override ethical considerations. But we also don’t want politicians who are immobilised by situations in which ethical considerations need to be put aside in favour of necessity.
Obama's alleged remark about himself- "we have a president who is good at killing" is about this. Obama, if he did indeed say this, didn't mean: "I am casual about killing". He meant: "I can kill without losing a moral compass & without being paralysed by the consequences."
A key take away here is that in politics, ethics is one consideration among others. It's a disaster when politics loses all sight of ethics, but if all you've got is ethics, there is no politics. High powered politics requires decisions with disastrous human consequences.
Another key take away is that reasons don't go away just because they are outweighed. In politics, a decision that is on balance reasonable will often contain significant moral wrong.
Biden's process feels adequate. He felt the pressure of all the considerations against the decision he made.
He prioritised US national interest in giving Ukraine a weapon she badly needs, and harmed the political momentum toward a global prohibition of cluster munitions."