naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
12709 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #3
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
If you disagree with my criticism of oppression-status granting infinite moral immunity, be specific about what limiting principle you'd propose
Suppose someone is unjustly jailed and destined for execution. He's exhausted all legal avenues for reprieve. He discovers a way to escape, but it means murdering his jailors, who are innocent blokes just trying to make a living. So he performs his plan, leading to suffering of both his victims and their families. Is he worthy of condemnation? My gut instinct says pretty clearly no.
The key limiting principle is about effectiveness: he's got a plausible, concrete plan of action that can lead to his goal. Murdering one of his jailors just to make a point would be reprehensible. The issue with both Hamas and Israel is that neither of them seem to have a concrete plan for their suffering-creating acts to lead to their desired goals. Razing Gaza to the ground is only marginally more likely to get Israel increased long term security for its citizens than murdering folks at a music festival is going to get Hamas a state from river to sea.
It sucks for Israel, because its goals are more reasonable than those of Hamas (even granting those their most generous interpretation). But sometimes you're just stuck with an unfortunate hand: if a country deals with tornadoes that kill hundreds of people every year, it sucks, but it doesn't mean you should drop bombs on your neighbor, because those bombs aren't going to do anything to make the tornadoes go away.
Suppose someone is unjustly jailed and destined for execution. He's exhausted all legal avenues for reprieve. He discovers a way to escape, but it means murdering his jailors, who are innocent blokes just trying to make a living. So he performs his plan, leading to suffering of both his victims and their families. Is he worthy of condemnation? My gut instinct says pretty clearly no.
This is not a good analogy because Hamas members aren't unjustly jailed and Hamas directed it's attacks at random civilians, not prospective jailers. Nor did they need to kill civilians as part of their escape. And even if you're using jailers in the loose sense of people who are responsible for infringing on the liberties of Gazans, so politicians, police, military, maybe some bueraucrats and civil servants (which still doesn't fit who Hamas attacked), then there's all sorts of wider implications for where else you'd find similar attacks to be acceptable. The elephant in the room is the mass false imprisonments associated with lockdowns, but there are plenty of other causes you could find where some individual group was plausibly unjustly prosecuted and now supposedly have justification to murder 1,000+ civilians?
To put it another way, this justification for Hamas's actions would apply far better to actions that are far more universally condemned.
It's consistent: if it isn't clear, I think both Israel and Hamas are the prisoners who murder an innocent guard for no reason, just to make a point, which is reprehensible.
That said, it's a bullet I'm willing to bite: if either Hamas or Israel had a solution that killed thousands of innocents that actually managed to solve their problems, I'd consider it morally acceptable. (That said, I'm rooting for Israel's vision for the region over Hamas's, but I classify that as an aesthetic preference, not a moral one.)
The tornados that I'm familiar with do not have moral agency, and that is one of the many differences between them and humans. Is there a particular reason to suggest that Palestinians do not have moral agency?
Agency is only relevant to the extent it gives you additional levers to achieve your goals: if you can create some incentive structure among your enemies to result in better outcomes for you, then of course you should.
Does it seem likely that Palestinians will respond in a way amendable to Israel to a more militarized incentive structure?
I don't think there is a plausible strategy that Israel could pursue that would result in a friendly response from the Palestinians.
However, given a sufficiently militarized incentive structure, one might be able to proceed from "negative response" to "no response." If the Palestinians are moral agents, this incentive structure could be described as the just deserts of their previous actions.
I agree that Israel is stuck with an unfortunate hand; I do not agree that they are left without effective strategies.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Suppose someone is unjustly jailed and destined for execution. He's exhausted all legal avenues for reprieve. He discovers a way to escape, but it means murdering his jailors, who are innocent blokes just trying to make a living. So he performs his plan, leading to suffering of both his victims and their families. Is he worthy of condemnation? My gut instinct says pretty clearly no.
The key limiting principle is about effectiveness: he's got a plausible, concrete plan of action that can lead to his goal. Murdering one of his jailors just to make a point would be reprehensible. The issue with both Hamas and Israel is that neither of them seem to have a concrete plan for their suffering-creating acts to lead to their desired goals. Razing Gaza to the ground is only marginally more likely to get Israel increased long term security for its citizens than murdering folks at a music festival is going to get Hamas a state from river to sea.
It sucks for Israel, because its goals are more reasonable than those of Hamas (even granting those their most generous interpretation). But sometimes you're just stuck with an unfortunate hand: if a country deals with tornadoes that kill hundreds of people every year, it sucks, but it doesn't mean you should drop bombs on your neighbor, because those bombs aren't going to do anything to make the tornadoes go away.
This is not a good analogy because Hamas members aren't unjustly jailed and Hamas directed it's attacks at random civilians, not prospective jailers. Nor did they need to kill civilians as part of their escape. And even if you're using jailers in the loose sense of people who are responsible for infringing on the liberties of Gazans, so politicians, police, military, maybe some bueraucrats and civil servants (which still doesn't fit who Hamas attacked), then there's all sorts of wider implications for where else you'd find similar attacks to be acceptable. The elephant in the room is the mass false imprisonments associated with lockdowns, but there are plenty of other causes you could find where some individual group was plausibly unjustly prosecuted and now supposedly have justification to murder 1,000+ civilians?
To put it another way, this justification for Hamas's actions would apply far better to actions that are far more universally condemned.
So is this a consistent gut instinct or no?
It's consistent: if it isn't clear, I think both Israel and Hamas are the prisoners who murder an innocent guard for no reason, just to make a point, which is reprehensible.
That said, it's a bullet I'm willing to bite: if either Hamas or Israel had a solution that killed thousands of innocents that actually managed to solve their problems, I'd consider it morally acceptable. (That said, I'm rooting for Israel's vision for the region over Hamas's, but I classify that as an aesthetic preference, not a moral one.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The tornados that I'm familiar with do not have moral agency, and that is one of the many differences between them and humans. Is there a particular reason to suggest that Palestinians do not have moral agency?
Agency is only relevant to the extent it gives you additional levers to achieve your goals: if you can create some incentive structure among your enemies to result in better outcomes for you, then of course you should.
Does it seem likely that Palestinians will respond in a way amendable to Israel to a more militarized incentive structure?
I don't think there is a plausible strategy that Israel could pursue that would result in a friendly response from the Palestinians.
However, given a sufficiently militarized incentive structure, one might be able to proceed from "negative response" to "no response." If the Palestinians are moral agents, this incentive structure could be described as the just deserts of their previous actions.
I agree that Israel is stuck with an unfortunate hand; I do not agree that they are left without effective strategies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link