“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Though I guess there’s a point hiding in there. If two random people are stranded in the desert with enough water for one to survive, their value systems will both say “I want the water”, but they point at different “I”s. Even if they manage to cooperate and draw straws, there’s still room for the stronger to just take it because of “incompatable value systems”—even if the value systems have the same fundamental structure after abstracting away specific beliefs and positions.
However this definitely doesn’t apply in modern day relationships and I very much doubt that it applies to terrorists either.
“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Killing your enemies is pretty terminal.
(Historical footnote for visitors from the future: “today’s news” alluded to upthread refers to the Charlie Hebdo killings, a phrase which should be easily googleable for a long time to come.)
Sounds pretty obviously instrumental to me. “Why do you want to kill your enemies?” has pretty obvious answers. “so they won’t kill me”, “so I can take control of their resources”, etc.
And if you take those away, perhaps by making them unable to harm you, finding a way to take their stuff without killing them, etc, how much do you expect people to still care about killing their enemies?
“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Though I guess there’s a point hiding in there. If two random people are stranded in the desert with enough water for one to survive, their value systems will both say “I want the water”, but they point at different “I”s. Even if they manage to cooperate and draw straws, there’s still room for the stronger to just take it because of “incompatable value systems”—even if the value systems have the same fundamental structure after abstracting away specific beliefs and positions.
However this definitely doesn’t apply in modern day relationships and I very much doubt that it applies to terrorists either.
Killing your enemies is pretty terminal.
(Historical footnote for visitors from the future: “today’s news” alluded to upthread refers to the Charlie Hebdo killings, a phrase which should be easily googleable for a long time to come.)
Sounds pretty obviously instrumental to me. “Why do you want to kill your enemies?” has pretty obvious answers. “so they won’t kill me”, “so I can take control of their resources”, etc.
And if you take those away, perhaps by making them unable to harm you, finding a way to take their stuff without killing them, etc, how much do you expect people to still care about killing their enemies?