Dennis,
=========
Just War Theory promotes collectivism by imposing restrictions on the moral right of individuals in a free nation to protect the value of their lives, and by advocating that a victim nation sacrifice its’ soldiers and jeopardize the freedom of its citizens in favor of some “greater good.” It devalues the lives of the individuals in a free state by nullifying or minimizing the critical distinction between aggressors and victims.
=========
Not “my” Just War Theory (JWT). My JWT is already exhausted by 3 simple tenets:
(1) Legitimate Authority – war should only be declared by leaders
(2) Just Cause – war should only be initiated in order to right “wrongs”
(3) Right Intention – war should only be fought in order to advance Peace and Justice
That’s it. Try – by applying these 3 rules – to promote collectivism. Try – by applying these 3 rules – to advocate soldier sacrifice. Try – by applying these 3 rules – to jeopardize citizen freedom. Try – by applying these 3 rules – to minimize the distinction between aggressors and victims. I’d love to see you try it, because I’m pretty sure that you will be required to argue imperfectly (and I am prepared to point that out).
=========
Just War Theory refers to a specific school of thought about the ethical nature of war, and encompasses a variety of viewpoints with certain general principles in common (good intention, good outcome, proportionality, et. al.).
=========
Well, maybe “your” JWT does all those things, but mine doesn’t. Just as Rand said bad rights drive out the good (like bad money drives out good money), so, too, does bad Just War theorizing drive out good Just War theorizing. The most recent example I can think of – of this wrong way to do things – is when economists and game theorists equate Rational Economic Man with a cut-throat, short-range utility maximizer in a vacuum. It’s a disservice to the concept “rationality” to view it in such a concrete-bound way.
=========
To equate Just War Theory with the application of ethical principles to war is to discredit any opponents of that specific school, in much the same way that advocates of altruism like to imply that egoism does not count as a valid way to think about morality.
=========
Right, people shouldn’t ever attempt to equate these “two” things (see directly above).
=========
Even Ayn Rand considered herself to be on an equal historical footing with the theologian Thomas Aquinas.
=========
That should be a clue regarding one’s chosen perspective on JWT.
=========
… the current validity of any theory must be evaluated on its own merits
=========
Agreed.
=========
As I indicated elsewhere in the essay, the retaliating nation is not violating the rights of the citizens of the aggressor state. It is their own government which has done so.
=========
Agreed.
=========
It was not a tangent, old chum. My comment was consistent with my underlying theme of defending Objectivists from foolish, unwarranted attacks.
=========
Well, okay. But I was distracted by what I viewed as an imperfect criticism of JWT in the process. George H. Smith shouldn’t paint all Objectivists with a broad moral brush. Some of us are more rational than others are. Some of us are more moral than others are. Just because we all supposedly recognize the fact that:
“…yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.”
… and we all supposedly see the wisdom with regard to choosing to:
“Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible …”
… doesn’t mean everyone is using his or her mind right – or restricting their conjecture to those things that they would have the ability to defend in a court of law, for example (by outlining the rational steps to their conclusion, as well as adequately addressing the marshaled criticisms or rival conclusions).
=========
Who needs a stand-in?
=========
My point was that Rand, herself, would disagree with B & E on foreign policy (according to her “take” on Vietnam). The upshot is that you can’t take what it is that B & E have to say and then – with magical glitter – assume that that’s the Objectivist “take” on JWT or on the Iraq War or whatever (see independence of thought quotes above).
=========
Do B & E even explicitly state the limited Just War Theory propositions? If they do, do they examine them?
Reply:
I thought I made clear that Brook and Epstein do precisely this. You can see for yourself here.
=========
[after skimming the long essay] Well, if they do do this (as you say they do), they don’t do it in the clear and easy and precise and distinctive manner in which I – with probably a touch of adult attention-deficit disorder -- would have done it. They don’t put the propositions in a list anywhere. They don’t devote a section with a heading.
=========
“The ultimate embodiment of Just War Theory…is the present overall foreign policy of President Bush: the ‘Forward Strategy of Freedom’….”
“By preaching self-sacrifice to the needs of others, Just War Theory has led to the sacrifice… of the greatest nation in history for the sake of the worst nations today.”
=========
This is merely an instance of the “bad money” syndrome mentioned above.
=========
Holy Zeitgeist, Batman! That sounds almost Hegelian.
=========
Well, I’ve been accused of worse (e.g., a “subjectively individualistic” Nietzschean)!
J
=========
George Bush is an evangelical Christian and an altruist, and he needs a theoretical foundation to justify his actions—to others and himself. By analyzing the ramifications of Just War Theory, Objectivists are trying to expose those foundations and destroy them.
=========
Bush is one of the many exploiters of altruism (as means to an irrationally selfish end). However, I make no claims – and caution you not to – to know anything about his so-called “faith.” For all I know, he just says he’s Christian to gain more votes (note: this is a tenet of the NeoCon philosophy, to pander in this exact way).
Analyzing ramifications is great, just don’t paint with too broad of a brush. Broad brushes are required for basic issues, but the size of the brush wielded has to be “earned” (by scrupulous attention to detail – instead of wholesale moralization).
Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to the B & E essay if I would get on my butt and finally read it …
J
Ed
| 
