I think there’s a myopia of minimisation that this piece fails to take into account.
The continued existence of brutal regimes such as Hamas or ISIS will lead to more death and suffering in the long run. If it is a just cause to topple them, why are 5000 dead civilians now more important than 10,000 over ten years?
In general a more aggressive attitude can shorten a war and reduce the overall amount of casualties. It’s even more myopic to judge the myopia of heroism solely on the basis of the short term consequences.
I agree with most of what he says, though I think he's downplaying the important aspect that we discussed here about the importance of goals in war to the discussion about means
Oct 26, 2023·edited Oct 26, 2023Liked by Kurt Gray
This article attempts to make some interesting points, but I think it unfortunately misses the mark because it doesn’t consider a critical aspect: time. The article focuses solely on the terrorist act and the cost of the hero’s response to the terrorist attack. This makes sense in your movie example: if the cost of the hero’s response is greater than the cost of the terrorist act that triggered it, then the response of the hero to the terrorist act is immoral. But in the movie example, after the hero’s response, the movie ends! In contrast, in real life, time marches forward. So in assessing the morality of the hero, we can’t ignore what happens in the time after the hero’s response. The article implies that you can’t predict what will happen next after the hero’s response, so you ignore the question. But the answer to the question of what happens next is decisive in answering whether the hero’s response is moral. For example, if the United States or any other foreign power had not taken any action regarding ISIS in Syria, it’s true that the civilians killed and other damage caused by the hero’s response would not have happened. But a consequence of no response to ISIS’s terrorism is that ISIS would certainly have maintained its territory or expanded it. This would have led to more people suffering at the hands of ISIS, including more barbaric terrorism involving beheadings, murders of civilians, tortures, and hostage taking. But even worse, it would have signaled to other nefarious organizations throughout the world that they too could pursue the tactics of beheadings, murder of civilians, tortures, and hostage taking, and that nobody would stop them. If our heroes stop acting out of concern that the inevitable civilian casualties of war outweigh responding to barbaric terrorism, barbaric terrorism will become an accepted, normalized behavior in our world. To many people with good morals who believe in the preciousness of human life, the prospect of barbaric terrorism proliferating unabated throughout our world is literally terrifying. When considering whether the inevitable deaths resulting from the hero’s response are moral and acceptable, one must compare not only to the cruelty of a terrorist organization’s actions immediate past actions, but to the summation of the terrorist organizations’s past organizations that the future terrorism that will result throughout the world when terrorist organizations learn that they can act against civilians with impunity. Consequently, it appears the hero in your title is not the one who is myopic, but rather it is your article’s failure to consider the long-term impact of not responding to heinous terrorist attacks that is myopic.
I typically have great respect for your work and insights, and I’d love to hear a response on the concerns raised here.
As an Israeli, I have to say that rescuing the hostages is not the major motivation for Israel's response. There is no way any sane person could return to her or his community at the border of Gaza without a very strong reason that these horrific events will not repeat themselves. And since Israel is a small country, we are all at the border of Gaza. Israelis and Palestinians will only be able to co-exist (so we hope and pray) after this terrorist regime - who puts killing Israelis ahead of their own people's prosperity - are removed from power.
I think there’s a myopia of minimisation that this piece fails to take into account.
The continued existence of brutal regimes such as Hamas or ISIS will lead to more death and suffering in the long run. If it is a just cause to topple them, why are 5000 dead civilians now more important than 10,000 over ten years?
In general a more aggressive attitude can shorten a war and reduce the overall amount of casualties. It’s even more myopic to judge the myopia of heroism solely on the basis of the short term consequences.
I'll add that my former teacher wrote an extensive reply to some philosophical issues to be found here:
https://dailynous.com/2023/10/30/how-not-to-intervene-in-public-discourse-guest-post/
I agree with most of what he says, though I think he's downplaying the important aspect that we discussed here about the importance of goals in war to the discussion about means
This article attempts to make some interesting points, but I think it unfortunately misses the mark because it doesn’t consider a critical aspect: time. The article focuses solely on the terrorist act and the cost of the hero’s response to the terrorist attack. This makes sense in your movie example: if the cost of the hero’s response is greater than the cost of the terrorist act that triggered it, then the response of the hero to the terrorist act is immoral. But in the movie example, after the hero’s response, the movie ends! In contrast, in real life, time marches forward. So in assessing the morality of the hero, we can’t ignore what happens in the time after the hero’s response. The article implies that you can’t predict what will happen next after the hero’s response, so you ignore the question. But the answer to the question of what happens next is decisive in answering whether the hero’s response is moral. For example, if the United States or any other foreign power had not taken any action regarding ISIS in Syria, it’s true that the civilians killed and other damage caused by the hero’s response would not have happened. But a consequence of no response to ISIS’s terrorism is that ISIS would certainly have maintained its territory or expanded it. This would have led to more people suffering at the hands of ISIS, including more barbaric terrorism involving beheadings, murders of civilians, tortures, and hostage taking. But even worse, it would have signaled to other nefarious organizations throughout the world that they too could pursue the tactics of beheadings, murder of civilians, tortures, and hostage taking, and that nobody would stop them. If our heroes stop acting out of concern that the inevitable civilian casualties of war outweigh responding to barbaric terrorism, barbaric terrorism will become an accepted, normalized behavior in our world. To many people with good morals who believe in the preciousness of human life, the prospect of barbaric terrorism proliferating unabated throughout our world is literally terrifying. When considering whether the inevitable deaths resulting from the hero’s response are moral and acceptable, one must compare not only to the cruelty of a terrorist organization’s actions immediate past actions, but to the summation of the terrorist organizations’s past organizations that the future terrorism that will result throughout the world when terrorist organizations learn that they can act against civilians with impunity. Consequently, it appears the hero in your title is not the one who is myopic, but rather it is your article’s failure to consider the long-term impact of not responding to heinous terrorist attacks that is myopic.
I typically have great respect for your work and insights, and I’d love to hear a response on the concerns raised here.
Thank you for some much-needed nuance and reflection on our moral impulses. This piece has been healing.
thanks for writing it.
As an Israeli, I have to say that rescuing the hostages is not the major motivation for Israel's response. There is no way any sane person could return to her or his community at the border of Gaza without a very strong reason that these horrific events will not repeat themselves. And since Israel is a small country, we are all at the border of Gaza. Israelis and Palestinians will only be able to co-exist (so we hope and pray) after this terrorist regime - who puts killing Israelis ahead of their own people's prosperity - are removed from power.
This is a powerful piece! TY!