(urth) Wolfe Heretic?

[Thomas Bitterman]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Paul B <pb.stuff at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Bitterman <tom at bitterman.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Paul B <pb.stuff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In that case, I amend my reply about the justice of the crusades to "It
>>> is not a sensible moral response to say that injustice following other
>>> injustice is somehow more just".
>>>
>>
>> This puts self-defense in a difficult position.
>>
>
> Of course not, you're being silly.  Self-defense is just.  The crusades had
> nothing to do with self-defense.
>

I never said that self-defense was unjust (or just), simply that your maxim
implies that self-defense is unjust.


>
> Yes, the Muslims were certainly invaders, but does it mean that another,
>>> wholly unrelated conqueror is somehow more justified in conquering them in
>>> turn?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.  In short, see World War 2.
>>
>
> You persist in silliness.  The factions that are considered "just" in that
> war were not after conquest.
>

The analogy I was after was this:
- country A conquers country B
- unrelated country C conquers country B, thus wresting it from country A

In WW2 we could have A=Germany, B=France, C=United States, whereas in the
Crusades we could have A=Muslims, B=Holy Land, C=Christians.  The big
difference being that the U.S. gave France back to the French, while the
Christians looked to set up their own kingdoms.  Of course, at that point
there were not really all that many "natives" to hand over the Holy Land to,
so the parallel becomes inexact.

In a little more depth, the Crusades were just another in a long line of
>> wars between countries.  There is nothing especially heinous about them that
>> sets them apart from many other wars.  The idea that the big bad Christians
>> sucker-punched the peace-loving natives is not based in reality.
>>
>
> Now you're making things up and pretending I said them, for which I applaud
> your imagination.  What I did say was that conquest is unjust.
>

My imagination rocks!

What you said, originally, was, "Except maybe the crusades (I'm sure it
didn't seem just to those who'd been living in the Levant previous). "  To
which my (summarized) reply was, "Conquerors have no reason to feel they are
being treated unjustly when they are in turn conquered".

To come back to Wolfe, perhaps the Hieros have a right to drown Urth.  The
analogy is to a causus belli - what humanity did to them in the past was so
horrible that they are justified in their present actions.  Or,
alternatively, that at some point humanity entered into an agreement with
them, knowing the possible consequences, and we are still bound by that
agreement.

Enamel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20080718/310ccb9f/attachment-0005.htm>