Tuesday, April 15, 2003
10:55 am
Irrational? 15th April 2003.
Has anybody else had conversations like this?
IRENE: So remind me – why did we attack Iraq? To liberate the Iraqi people so they could be ruled by a foreign general? To enforce the will of the United Nations against its will? To rid the world of weapons of mass destruction (except ours)?
NIKE: Of course not. We attacked Iraq because her weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to us. It was a simple case of self-defence. All right, pre-emptive self-defence, but you can’t afford to wait to be nuked, can you?
IRENE: Not if you are going to be nuked. But why did we think we were? Iraq had no means of delivering her weapons to us, & in any case she must have known the retaliation she could expect.
NIKE: But none of that would stop her from supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, would it? That’s were the danger lay.
IRENE: But why should she have wanted to give away any of her hard-won arsenal to al Qa’eda, her sworn enemy? Wouldn’t that be rather dangerous? And wouldn’t there still be the risk that the West would guess where the weapons came from? Doesn’t such an implausible hypothesis need at least some evidence of its truth before it can be acted upon?
NIKE: Ah, but you are forgetting: the Iraqi regime was irrational. They could do anything, however mad. They were even mad enough to let themselves be attacked by America.
… Though not mad enough to use weapons of mass destruction in their own defence…
Irrationality is Nike’s trump card, but it is surely worthless. What counts as irrational? Presumably behaviour that cannot be explained in terms of an agent’s conscious reasons. But, once you accept that he is an evil so-&-so with a callous disregard for the sufferings of others, a tasteless bozo who assuages his insecurities by extorting worship from slaves, Saddam Hussein’s behaviour is in every case explicable in terms of conscious reasons. So why suppose he should ever have been irrational?
There is no good reason, but I can understand why Nike uses it as a last resort. Once Irene has shown her that Saddam had no good reason to do anything she feared, & every good reason not to do it, Nike is forced to deny, whatever the evidence to the contrary, that reasons for & against hold any sway over Saddam Hussein. Once she has done so, she can have a lot of fun. She can impute any motive whatever to Saddam, without having to justify doing so. With only a small sleight of hand, she can show any action of Saddam’s to have been irrational, simply by neglecting to explain it. And she can dismiss any reasoned argument showing that Saddam would do something different from what she says he will, on the grounds that any account that commends itself to a rational being must be an inaccurate description of Saddam’s state of mind. She can dispense with rational argument altogether.
Irrationality. What better way to navigate an irrational world?
Has anybody else had conversations like this?
IRENE: So remind me – why did we attack Iraq? To liberate the Iraqi people so they could be ruled by a foreign general? To enforce the will of the United Nations against its will? To rid the world of weapons of mass destruction (except ours)?
NIKE: Of course not. We attacked Iraq because her weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to us. It was a simple case of self-defence. All right, pre-emptive self-defence, but you can’t afford to wait to be nuked, can you?
IRENE: Not if you are going to be nuked. But why did we think we were? Iraq had no means of delivering her weapons to us, & in any case she must have known the retaliation she could expect.
NIKE: But none of that would stop her from supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, would it? That’s were the danger lay.
IRENE: But why should she have wanted to give away any of her hard-won arsenal to al Qa’eda, her sworn enemy? Wouldn’t that be rather dangerous? And wouldn’t there still be the risk that the West would guess where the weapons came from? Doesn’t such an implausible hypothesis need at least some evidence of its truth before it can be acted upon?
NIKE: Ah, but you are forgetting: the Iraqi regime was irrational. They could do anything, however mad. They were even mad enough to let themselves be attacked by America.
… Though not mad enough to use weapons of mass destruction in their own defence…
Irrationality is Nike’s trump card, but it is surely worthless. What counts as irrational? Presumably behaviour that cannot be explained in terms of an agent’s conscious reasons. But, once you accept that he is an evil so-&-so with a callous disregard for the sufferings of others, a tasteless bozo who assuages his insecurities by extorting worship from slaves, Saddam Hussein’s behaviour is in every case explicable in terms of conscious reasons. So why suppose he should ever have been irrational?
There is no good reason, but I can understand why Nike uses it as a last resort. Once Irene has shown her that Saddam had no good reason to do anything she feared, & every good reason not to do it, Nike is forced to deny, whatever the evidence to the contrary, that reasons for & against hold any sway over Saddam Hussein. Once she has done so, she can have a lot of fun. She can impute any motive whatever to Saddam, without having to justify doing so. With only a small sleight of hand, she can show any action of Saddam’s to have been irrational, simply by neglecting to explain it. And she can dismiss any reasoned argument showing that Saddam would do something different from what she says he will, on the grounds that any account that commends itself to a rational being must be an inaccurate description of Saddam’s state of mind. She can dispense with rational argument altogether.
Irrationality. What better way to navigate an irrational world?
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
April
(66)
- Diminished - 30th April 2003, 23.50 Sixty years a...
- The Plotter Thickens Matthew D'Ancona writes on C...
- Britain in Iraq - 27th April 2003, 18.20 Given th...
- Putting the puzzle together - 27th April 2003, 17....
- Let us have our say - 27th April 2003, 15.42 Paul...
- What happened in the Convention - 27th April 2003,...
- Paris-US rift - 24th April 2003, 23.00 To reitera...
- What future for the Common Foreign and Security Po...
- News from the Convention - 24th April 2003, 22.17 ...
- George the Dragon Tomorrow being St. George's day...
- A Succinct Precis of Franco-German Contradictions ...
- Wordsmithing - 21st April 2003, 20.32 Perhaps the...
- Biased Biased BBC? The Biased BBC blog has been g...
- The issue of Iraqi sanctions - 20th April 2003, 18...
- Zimwatch: Send for the Troops Alasdair Palmer wri...
- Staying on, and on According to the Telegraph: ...
- So Easy - 20th April 2003, 13.55 It is always a p...
- After Empire Theodore Dalrymple writes a depressi...
- Cheering Crowds One of the most facile of the pro...
- The world's most powerful Trots While talking abo...
- Why National Sovereignty trumps Human Rights Harr...
- Mandarins against the Special Relationship Prospe...
- Divisions on European Defence - 20th April 2003, 2...
- Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British R...
- Is it all just Wilsonian? John Ikenberry's articl...
- Clear as mud Well I think I know why generally le...
- Zimwatch: It can get worse, now the world's starti...
- EU asked for it So we have the formal acceptance ...
- The Fallen - 15th April 2003, 22.46 Some deaths i...
- Unriven There's too many sunny optimists out ther...
- Gabbing We have a new contributor. Dr Sean Gabb,...
- Irrational? 15th April 2003. Has anybody else ha...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 101 Monday, 14 A...
- Iraq: A spur to European integration - 14th April ...
- Missile Defence: Costs and Benefits to the UK - 14...
- Hungary votes yes - 13th April 2003, 22.22 On a l...
- Those cheering crowds, ctd The picture below come...
- Does the British Government support looting? This...
- The St Petersburg Trio - 12th April 2003, 16.48 C...
- ... or you're with the terrorists So Britain is n...
- Even Governments Lie The lack of weapons of mass ...
- What our rulers think One of those Things I Mean ...
- Damn - 10th April 2003, 22.07 One of the possible...
- The "Reckoning" - 10th April 2003, 21.35 Jack Str...
- Can we go home now? Now that Baghdad is under Ame...
- UNresolved? - 8th April 2003, 22.40 Tonight, Blai...
- Defining Quagmire So what's this worry about quag...
- Further developments in European Defence - 7th Mar...
- The Hungarian Referendum - 7th April 2003, 20.13 ...
- Zimwatch: Spot the difference In South Africa the...
- Understanding Blair (Revisited) - 6th April 2003, ...
- New Forum For those of you who want to have a gen...
- The penny drops: Links update - 6th April 2003, 15...
- Reclaim the Bases - 6th April 2003, 0.26 When doe...
- Was Private Eye the first blog? Discuss This is a...
- Blackwell's Charge - 5th April 2003, 23.27 Lord B...
- Anyone out there who can explain this Maybe my br...
- Losing friends over the war? Here's a way to make...
- Euforia - 4th April 2003, 23.25 Just as a follow ...
- The penny drops - 4th April 2003, 22.55 If you re...
- Zimwatch: Almost official Not much to report apa...
- Now I'm pro-war Welcome to all the Political Scie...
- Trapped by their publics - 1st April 2003, 22.40 ...
- Zimwatch: A deadline passes So the deadline has ...
- More of the same As if to show what's in store fo...
-
▼
April
(66)
0 comments:
Post a Comment