1,523
edits
Changes
Debate:Were both sides in the Cold War morally equivalent? (view source)
Revision as of 22:01, August 21, 2007
, 22:01, August 21, 2007→NO
::Finally, you seem to think that the Soviets just wanted to survive (not to conquer) and that whether they "struck first" or not is not a matter of ethics. In short, you regard them as having precisely the same moral standing as America: this is the textbook definition of [[moral equivalence]], so I can't understand why you repeatedly reject my application of that concept, unless it is because you are unaware of the definition. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:20, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Finally, you seem to think that the Soviets just wanted to survive (not to conquer) and that whether they "struck first" or not is not a matter of ethics. In short, you regard them as having precisely the same moral standing as America: this is the textbook definition of [[moral equivalence]], so I can't understand why you repeatedly reject my application of that concept, unless it is because you are unaware of the definition. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:20, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought it was off-topic because I was not answering the question "were both sides in the Cold War morally equivalent?" It's not a question I have an interest in answering; on the main page I was answering the question "is Russia being deceitful when they say they feel threatened?", which is also what I'm answering here.
:::I think you give me too much credit (or not enough, I guess...); I do not have a "fondness for relativism". There are good deeds, and there are evil deeds, but rarely will you find an "evil doer" who thinks they are actually doing evil. (Or sometimes, they know they are doing evil, but they think it is justified because it is for the common good; either way they place themselves in the "good" category). I don't know if that makes me a relativist, but that's where I stand. Ed Poor thinks that the USSR was evil, but Comrade Edski Pooravich thinks that the US was evil. It's not a matter of who is ''actually'' evil, but what each side thinks about the other side.
:::The bigger issue here is that you are talking about deterrence from an ethics point of view, and I am talking about it from a political theory point of view. I'm not denying that there are ethics involved with a decision to push the big red button, but [[deterrence theory]] is not about that at all. It's a logical, cause-and-effect emotionless analysis at the problem of nuclear proliferation, and how to ensure you won't be attacked -- whether or not the opposition has the credible will to attack you. Whether or not moral equivalence happens to apply is not relavent to the argument at all; it's coincidence that it does, not design. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:01, 21 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: I realize this overlaps Az's excellent points below. I wrote this, then didn't post until I had finished [[deterrence theory]], which is the crux of my whole argument)''
==OTHER==
==OTHER==