morality — VOICES for REASON

A follow up to my post on Obama’s policy and “just war” doctrine: NPR ran a story Friday that eloquently illustrates how this approach undermines our military, how it (understandably) frustrates our troops, and how it needlessly exposes them to greater risks. The story describes a clear-cut incident where U.S. forces observed insurgents planting a road-side bomb, but under newly tightened, even more restrictive rules of engagement, the soldiers had to let them get away with it.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the report are the comments from Gen. Stanley McChryrstal who champions this approach and believes it will bring us success.

Listen to the audio (4m55s).

image: Flickr/dvids//CC BY 2.0

When accepting his Nobel Peace Prize — a ludicrous, debased award also bestowed on murderers like Yasser Arafat — President Obama spoke about his foreign policy. Pervading his Nobel speech there was a peculiar undertone of contrition. If translated into words, it would go something like this: “Ideally, we would behave like Gandhi, never resorting to the use of force in asserting our rights . . . but alas, as commander-in-chief of the United States, I’m duty-bound to protect the lives of Americans, and that now means having to fight. Sorry about that.”

This apologetic drift flows naturally from the substance of Obama’s foreign policy.

A key point in the speech is that America must uphold — but has lately fallen short of — the standards set by “just war” doctrine. Summarizing this widely held view of morality in war, he explains that a war is justified only “when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Onkar Ghate took part in a BusinessWeek debate on whether Ayn Rand’s philosophy of rational self-interest is relevant to today. There’s a stark contrast in the attitude of the two sides regarding the seriousness of the issue, and it’s heartening to see from the comments that that fact has not been lost on many readers.

Here’s an excerpt from Dr. Ghate’s argument:

If Ayn Rand’s philosophy of rational self-interest is irrelevant today, then so is the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration gave sanction to selfishness: to the moral right to live your own life, to exercise your liberty, to pursue your happiness. No more taking orders from king or society. Each was free to live for himself.

You can read the rest here.

I’d like to direct you to an excellent blogpost by Dr. Greg Salmieri (visiting assistant professor of philosophy at UNC Chapel Hill) on the attention that Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged have been receiving of late. Much of the hype, he observes, is missing the point.

Most of the recent discussion of Atlas has focused on its political themes, creating the impression that the novel is essentially a condemnation of government intervention in the economy. However, its scope, its relevance to the current crisis, and the reasons for its enduring appeal go much wider and much deeper than this. Galt goes on strike not simply against high taxes and unjust regulations, but against the morality of altruism, which Rand identifies as the cause of such measures, and against the world-view of which this moral code is an expression-a philosophy that denies the efficacy of reason and the absolutism of reality.

If you’re intrigued by Dr. Salmieri’s comment, you’ll be able to read more in an upcoming new book: Essays on Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. See the table of contents here. (Dr. Salmieri is one of the contributors to that forthcoming collection of essays.) This is the latest and final volume in Dr. Robert Mayhew’s Essays series, which focuses on each of Ayn Rand’s major works of fiction. If you’re interested, you can check out the others in the Ayn Rand Bookstore.