3 ms·
The problem here depends on what "it" she believe was the it that was worth, isn't it? If she believed their death is worth, like the linked video title sugges
by zaat 5y ago
The problem here depends on what "it" she believe was the it that was worth, isn't it?
If she believed their death is worth, like the linked video title suggest, finding Iraq's non existent WMDs, than yes. But if she believed that the alternative is a much worse state with a lot more bodies and suffering then it is a defensible moral choice.
And it is not like she was standing behind what she said - she said she fell into a trap[0]. Compare to Truman, who approved the actual Hiroshima, and "never lost any sleep over that decision.” [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_against_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_a...
[1] https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Peter-J.-Kuznick/2479/article.html
- trasz 5y agoSo, if Putin, or Stalin, believed they are doing the right thing, then their crimes become a “defensive moral choice”?
- bigmattystyles 5y agoI think op is saying that to them (Putin/Stalin) they will delude themselves into thinking that. I didn’t get the gist that they meant everyone.
- zaat 5y agoIt should have been defensible moral choice, I have corrected it. If Putin or Stalin believed that their actions are the right thing, meaning they have decided to act due to moral reasons, than it would be moral choice. If the moral choice is defensible or not depends on the moral reasoning - you don't have to agree with someone's moral position to see agree that it is a valid position even if you don't share it (even strongly oppose it). Saying someone's position is defensible doesn't mean he did the right thing.