“Political violence,” like the violence sometimes perpetrated against abortion providers?
I guess I’d better lead off by saying that I do not – NOT – condone violence against abortion providers, even if you believe such violence may prevent the death of an unborn child. I’m more of a “win their hearts and minds” kind of guy. Provide alternatives to abortion, and convince the people that those alternatives are better.
But that was the first question that came to mind when I read this:
Meanwhile, the Republican criminals in Wisconsin forced through their attack on workers’ rights, leading to an uproar in Madison. (Thanks to Steve Nadler for the link.) At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke.
That’s Brian Leiter, a “left-liberal philosopher who teaches at the University of Chicago,” according to James Taranto. The “acts of brazen viciousness” he mentions are the limits being placed on public employee unions’ bargaining power.
In multiple updates to his post, Leiter claims his utter shock at the outrage his comment created. How can anybody get mad about “the raising of verboten questions on a philosophy blog!”
He’s just asking questions, see. It’s just a philosophical debate.
Let that “philosophical debate” take place at a Tea Party rally, of course, and then it’ll be Hitler and Cruella de Vil’s illegitimate love child shooting gay baby seals with flaming copies of the Koran. But, feh.
Fine, Dr. Leiter. You want a philosophical debate? Let’s have a philosophical debate. If political violence is justified in a debate over collective bargaining, then is it also justified in protecting the lives of yet-unborn babies, especially when those yet-unborn babies have reached a point at which they could survive outside the womb?
If not, why not?
Via Charlie Sykes.
UPDATE – Linked at Creative Minority Report, and at Doug Ross. Thanks, guys.
UPDATE II – No links, but James Taranto and Ann Althouse are revisiting the subject.
Comments are closed.
You’re a little late to the party.
Grim noticed a few days ago and pertinently posts:
…justifying violence is much easier than justifying terrorist violence: if you merely want to know when you may take up arms against the government, as opposed to a civilian population, the standards are much easier to meet. In general, too, the philosophical community has been enamored of nonviolent resistance movements like Gandhi’s and Dr. King’s; and they invariably miss the fact that Gandhi’s movement led to the wars of partition, in which perhaps a million people were killed; while Dr. King’s movement was successful not because its nonviolence swayed the violent, but because it finally forced the President to call out the National Guard. It was the Guardsmen with their rifles that made real King’s reforms.
See: http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2011_03_13_archive.html#2452146445536832056
Also some internal-link cites of interest.