4 ms·
> It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affront to humanity and to condone using it. A lot of people (particularly Americans) seem to
by pxc 2y ago
> It's emphatically not coherent for you to consider something an affront to humanity and to condone using it.
A lot of people (particularly Americans) seem to think of nuclear bombs in exactly this way. They typically see the 'some task' to be of extremely outsized necessity and importance, and I think they'd say that makes the two ideas cohere.
- tempfile 2y agoThen those people do not seriously think nuclear weapons are an affront to humanity. It doesn't just mean "very bad". It's against human dignity. You shouldn't do it, ever. Killing isn't an affront to humanity, but torture is, for example. If you think using nuclear weapons can be justified, then you don't think they're evil, you just think they're dangerous.
- pxc 2y agoI absolutely agree about nukes. The US' use of nukes was barbaric imperialism and when USians' say it was justified I think that's a transparent post-hoc rationalization. And I agree totally that the position I outlined is deeply hypocritical. I'm less sure that it's an outright logical contradiction, but I'm inclined to agree with you there as well.
- Vecr 2y agoIf you claim something is an "affront to humanity" it clearly induces doubt in your opponent that you would use it. Not a good negotiating position where deterrence is concerned.