Ouch... McMahan is one of my intellectual heroes, and I have always admired his clarity on ethical issues, especially the ethics of killing. Hence, it is disheartening to see someone like him lack even basic moral clarity on this current issue. While we may disagree on Israel's actions, it should be evident to all that there are significant moral differences between the political leadership of Israel and Hamas, as well as between Israeli hostages and Gazan civilians when considering justifications for collateral harm. It's not solely about nationality, as McMahan suggests. If even he can't provide clarity, how can we expect confused protesters and commentators worldwide to understand the issue?
Absolutely, there are indeed a couple of good contributions, hence my "gratifyingly, not all" insertion in the last paragraph. I intentionally employed a touch of hyperbole in my presentation. Additionally, attempting to capture all the letters would have been quite overwhelming. Thank you for sharing the links—they are definitely worth delving into!
Well and good, I understand your point about 'innocence' and liability to harm, but I still think this is insufficient to justify the ongoing operations, at least in parts
In my argument, you'll find that I maintain a stance of indifference. In fact, I do not assert any particular expertise on this matter, and I cannot definitively state whether certain operations are justified or not. My sole intention is to highlight that morally significant differences exist between Gazan civilians and the hostages. I firmly believe that McMahan's assumption, which equates nationality as the sole difference between them, is erroneous.
Consider, for instance, a slight variation of McMahan's thought experiment: Imagine you can choose between two options. You can either choose to kill one Hamas leader along with 10 hostages, or one Hamas leader along with 10 civilians. While both options are certainly unappealing, if you apply the logic found in McMahan's chapter on "Civilian Liability to Lesser and Collateral Harm" (Chapter 5.3, pp.218-221), it becomes evident that one option is still preferable.
Ouch... McMahan is one of my intellectual heroes, and I have always admired his clarity on ethical issues, especially the ethics of killing. Hence, it is disheartening to see someone like him lack even basic moral clarity on this current issue. While we may disagree on Israel's actions, it should be evident to all that there are significant moral differences between the political leadership of Israel and Hamas, as well as between Israeli hostages and Gazan civilians when considering justifications for collateral harm. It's not solely about nationality, as McMahan suggests. If even he can't provide clarity, how can we expect confused protesters and commentators worldwide to understand the issue?
What's equally eyebrow-raising is seeing McMahan needing a nudge about Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 towards the end of the JP/Ono debate.
Stumbled upon another half-witted commentary penned by a philosophy professor from the University of Chicago just the other day, who recklessly adds to the cacophony of 'butchering here, and butchering there' narratives: “It's clear that Israel, which is now an international pariah because of its butchery in Gaza, should have…” (found here: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2024/05/exactly-as-predicted-months-ago-there-is-now-famine-in-parts-of-gaza.html).
And yet another wave of absurdity and decline crashes upon us. Check out this gem from academia, accusing Israel of "scholasticide." It's like the Smith letter, but with extra malevolence and extra stupidity. Take a look: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc7_K7qybzbeiBAg7sYTxbp1VOyYBrYPaxRf8jvHuBa0kQHlg/viewform
There are actually a couple of excellent responses, written by philosophers beyond David Enoch's contribution mentioned in your post. For example, you might want to explore the response to the Oxford letter by six Israeli philosophers (https://replytoacademicson.wixsite.com/replytoacademicsonga) and Seyla Benhabib's rejoinder to the infamous "Philosophy for Palestine" manifesto (https://medium.com/amor-mundi/an-open-letter-to-my-friends-who-signed-philosophy-for-palestine-0440ebd665d8). These are definitely worth a read!
Absolutely, there are indeed a couple of good contributions, hence my "gratifyingly, not all" insertion in the last paragraph. I intentionally employed a touch of hyperbole in my presentation. Additionally, attempting to capture all the letters would have been quite overwhelming. Thank you for sharing the links—they are definitely worth delving into!
Well and good, I understand your point about 'innocence' and liability to harm, but I still think this is insufficient to justify the ongoing operations, at least in parts
In my argument, you'll find that I maintain a stance of indifference. In fact, I do not assert any particular expertise on this matter, and I cannot definitively state whether certain operations are justified or not. My sole intention is to highlight that morally significant differences exist between Gazan civilians and the hostages. I firmly believe that McMahan's assumption, which equates nationality as the sole difference between them, is erroneous.
Consider, for instance, a slight variation of McMahan's thought experiment: Imagine you can choose between two options. You can either choose to kill one Hamas leader along with 10 hostages, or one Hamas leader along with 10 civilians. While both options are certainly unappealing, if you apply the logic found in McMahan's chapter on "Civilian Liability to Lesser and Collateral Harm" (Chapter 5.3, pp.218-221), it becomes evident that one option is still preferable.