Volenta wrote:A fair comparison would be to reverse the whole history and other context is well. And in that case I don't think you can justify painting a picture of a peaceful Israel (instead of Palestine) in that case either. Indeed, it would be very similar.
I think Harris constructed this thought experiment because of the intuitive appeal it has to take away any sympathy for the Palestinians. It has no real value in thinking about the subject.
I agree that would be a more fair comparison, but fairness and sympathy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Just because I understand HOW a monster was created, and I can sympathize with that monster, doesn't make it any less of a monster.
Volenta wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:If they would, though, then that's relevant. Because I don't believe this is an issue of "rights", but rather overall consequences, seeing a slightly less evil civilization flourish over a more evil one is the lesser evil (slightly).
Sounds to me like your appealing to some kind of social justice. Even if I didn't think Harris' comparison experiment was faulty, I don't think there is a good philosophical argument to support your claim. I don't think there is any ground to just give less moral consideration to more evil people. This exceeds primitive moral intuition, so it's probably the more controversial claim to make, but I think it is nonetheless the correct one.
No, I'm just appealing to consequence. All consequences being equal, I don't think evil people necessarily deserve less moral consideration: but in terms of winning a conflict, where one will survive and come out superior in power and influence, I favor the lesser of evils because the effects on the world are a little better. I'm less afraid of Israel and how it will influence the world. The forces at work in Palestine gaining any kind of power or influence (as they are now, and how they have been created to be a monster) would be much more dangerous.
Volenta wrote:This might be true to some extent, but I don't think it would be a reason to be against it.
Candy for dinner is better than starving, of course. And a Palestinian democracy (democratically elected theocracy)
may be better than the state it's in now. But maybe not. What if it ends up just being a better organized terrorist state?
Volenta wrote:We tend to forget that the west has taken it's time as well (not really that long ago really on historical scale), which was also not without massive illiberal problems either.
Sure, but can we afford such a state existing today, potentially to fund terrorism, and protect those terrorists from the law?
Maybe this is one of a few cases, because of what Palestine has been turned into and the amount of hate generated (the fault of the U.S. and Israel, but none the less) that it's better for them not to be organized.
I think questions like this make things more complicated.
Volenta wrote:I think it's harder for Israel to support it, given the threat Israeli Jews see of them of becoming in the minority.
That's a big concern, yes. It's a difficult situation all around.
Volenta wrote:I think this is not only a problem of liberal shows, but a problem of shows in general. Maybe this is even somewhat inevitable.
Probably. Although conservative shows tend to have token liberals, don't they?
Volenta wrote:The Rubin Report is probably also attracting a particular type of viewers, and turning away others because of this guest selection.
Do you think this will bias the direction his show takes?