All sympathy for trying to support peacekeeping. However esp. on LW I’d expect—hope—it to be more successful if done without excessively strong rethoric and with instead more sober careful dissecting of pros and cons. The entire quoted start seems overly generalized claim: In addition to finding this claim obviously misguided, I find the entire rest of the long post didn’t bring arguments to actually even half-justify this strong claim; and the linked posts to where structurally the arguments seem to partly be outsourced aren’t doing it either.
Obviously, there could be situations where political violence—and even private, unilateral only—political violence could be acceptable in nearly everyone’s moral taste. Imho for good reasons. Think of being gifted with a chance of violently and terminally sabotaging an extraordinarily evil dictator, in a situation where chances are good enough that what follows is more reasonable than him. Note, “Unlikely to happen?” is of course not a rebuttal to the scenario, when OP claims that even if it would work, it would be immoral. So, OP sounds like crazy advice to me. And isn’t being “effective”—effective for your cause I guess? - by definition not hurting your cause.
Civil Disobedience [I love the book] might more often than not backfire, and may sometimes not be absolutely (whatever absolutely though means) justified even if its proponents think it would be, but it doesn’t mean even in potential cases where it would be having moral clear net pluses & work out it would quasi by definition be wrong.
All sympathy for trying to support peacekeeping. However esp. on LW I’d expect—hope—it to be more successful if done without excessively strong rethoric and with instead more sober careful dissecting of pros and cons. The entire quoted start seems overly generalized claim: In addition to finding this claim obviously misguided, I find the entire rest of the long post didn’t bring arguments to actually even half-justify this strong claim; and the linked posts to where structurally the arguments seem to partly be outsourced aren’t doing it either.
Obviously, there could be situations where political violence—and even private, unilateral only—political violence could be acceptable in nearly everyone’s moral taste. Imho for good reasons. Think of being gifted with a chance of violently and terminally sabotaging an extraordinarily evil dictator, in a situation where chances are good enough that what follows is more reasonable than him. Note, “Unlikely to happen?” is of course not a rebuttal to the scenario, when OP claims that even if it would work, it would be immoral. So, OP sounds like crazy advice to me. And isn’t being “effective”—effective for your cause I guess? - by definition not hurting your cause.
Civil Disobedience [I love the book] might more often than not backfire, and may sometimes not be absolutely (whatever absolutely though means) justified even if its proponents think it would be, but it doesn’t mean even in potential cases where it would be having moral clear net pluses & work out it would quasi by definition be wrong.