Saturday, October 01, 2011

Geostrategic morality

Since Jamin Hubner lacks the moral discernment to properly frame the Arab-Israeli conflict, we need to walk him through the process.

1. Let’s assume (arguendo) that Israel and her Muslim neighbors are equally bad. Let’s stipulate moral equivalence for the sake of argument.

For some odd reason, Hubner lacks the moral discernment to draw the correct conclusion from that worse-case scenario. He apparently imagines that if Israel and the “Palestinians” are equally culpable, then they are entitled to equal treatment from the US, or Christian Americans.

This is strange coming from somebody who considers himself a Calvinist. A staple Arminian objection to Calvinism is that God is unjust if he is inequitable in his treatment of human beings. The stable Reformed response is that unequal treatment is only unjust if both parties have just claims on God. If both parties merit a certain level of treatment, then it would be wrong of God to deny to one group the treatment it deserves.

If, however, both parties are guilty, then God can justly discriminate. It is not unjust for God to be unfair (i.e. inequitable) if both parties are culpable. If neither party is entitled to better treatment, then it’s not wrong of God to treat one party better (or worse) than another.

To take a human illustration, if you have two mob families which commit mutual atrocities, then they forfeit their prima facie right to equal treatment.

2. American husbands and fathers have a moral obligation to defend their dependants (e.g. wives, kids, aging parents) against the jihadis.

3. American Christians, through their elected representatives, have a right to form military alliances that serve to protect their families against foreign aggression. National defense is a logical extension of self-defense.

4. Even if (arguendo) Israel is just as bad as her Muslim neighbors, American foreign policy can rightly accord preferential treatment to Israel as a military ally in our common fight against global jihad.

Israel has certain assets which contribute to our mutual security interests. Israel has excellent intelligence resources. Israel can also function as base of operations for joint military campaigns in the region.

To revert to my earlier illustration, suppose both mob families are equally corrupt, but one is dangerous to the public safety in a way the other is not. Suppose one family is into gambling while the other is into drug trafficking. Suppose the police lack the wherewithal to single-handedly defeat the dangerous mobsters, but it can successfully take down the dangerous mob family it if temporarily teams up with the other mob family. By so doing, the police save the lives of many innocent bystanders. That would be morally permissible. 

1 comment:

  1. But neither of the mob families in your hypothetical are dirty Zionists, so the analogy fails out of the gate. The police should find out which mob family has the closest ties with Jews, and then that one should be taken down first, right Jamin?

    I'm a really quick study. Plus I've read "The Protocols" so I have my prioritites straight.

    In Christ,