Life connected au des while technology evolves by design?

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Academic Communalism

I once watched the Marist policy debate team affirm that the US Federal Government should begin constructive engagement with Hamas. Their argument was that the Israelis were forcing the Gazans to live in a ghetto under physically dangerous and emotionally traumatizing Israeli military actions: the opposing team argued that it would be unethical to constructively engage with Hamas because even though there is no protrusion for Hamas to penetrate Israel if pressurized (eliminating US military funding to Israel would leave Israel with a very competent military and a wellspring of peace like which achieved the end of South African apartheid) this could cause rampant chaos. Marist agreed unlike the other team's incidental impact scenario, the abdication of possibilities are systemic and siege impacts must come first.

As Marist was quixotic in arguing that the massive unfair impacts of the status quo that their plan addressed were much more certain to happen than the incidental impacts the other side used to argue against their plan, the situation of Palestinian powerlessness is an interesting quagmire of ethical responsibility. Classical ethics holds that one who is aware of the impacts of their actions at the time of executing them is systemically responsible for those impacts. It also holds that actions one is aware of the possible impacts at the time they execute them have the personific impacts of consequences that actually do happen as the circumstantial result of such actions. But it says nothing of those who are incapable of responding to the gravity of certain impacts.

I suppose we need ethos to address such circumstances. Nethics won most rounds they affirmed the counter-plan, but the judge of this round didn't convict the peace of humanitarian relations.

No comments:

Post a Comment