I hate to pick on well-intentioned commentary from the resident Ethics Alarms Reasonable Cephalopod, but so be it: I can’t let this pass. Several commenters were lining up to defend this bit of circular argle-bargle from Kamala Harris yesterday:
There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”
Extradimensional Cephalopod, as always trying to arbitrate, wrote, “Jack, if we separate the statement from the person saying it, the statement itself is fine. It’s a statement of the ideal outcome.”
To be blunt: WRONG. The statement is not “fine,” and statements of ‘ideal outcomes” are not ethical unless the ideal outcome is possible and achievable. Otherwise, aspiring to the “ideal outcome” when it cannot be achieved wastes time, misleads, creates futile hope, and misallocates resources. My verdict that Harris’s statement is self-indicting garbage isn’t based on who she his or her history as a lightweight and policy fool. Anyone who put their name behind a similar statement would have to be judged similarly.
Hey, if you don’t strive for the ideal, you’ll never know if you could have achieved it, right? (As Harris might say.) Yeah, well, after over 75 years of utter failure ending in a multi-generational blood feud in the midst of one of its worst outbreaks, I think there is time to conclude “the ideal ain’t happening.”
Maybe she’s lying, and knows what she said is nonsense. Maybe she’s total moron, and really think it’s possible to “get the deal done,” teh deal being the elusive “two-state solution” was most feasible in 1948, when the Palstimians rejected it, and is—I would say “obviously” except that it apparently isn’t obvious to Harris, Biden, and the historically ignorant dolts the two are either trying to con or one of that groups members—the least feasible time for a “two-state solution” is after Hamas has launched cease-fire shattering terror attack on Israeli civilians and Israel has retaliated with shock an awe.
EC’s cover of “Imagine”continues: “Beginning with the end in mind is one of Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. We want people to stop fighting and build trust. I think that’s a good outcome to work towards. What outcome did you have in mind?”
What outcome? Oh, I dunno, how about one that has better prospects for success than an ice-sculpture’s chance of lasting through Satan’s testimonial dinner? We want people to stop fighting and build trust—between two sets of people who hate each other, distrust each other, and in the case of Israel, have suffered every time they have extended even a modicum of trust, and who have been given no reason to change their minds. The “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”—Ive read it(meh..)—do not included wasting time, effort, energy, credibility and resources on pie-in-the-sky.
Such policy nostrums are proof of dishonesty (as in Barack Obama’s case) or incompetence (as in Harris’s case). Obama claimed he was going to maintain a strong defense, invest in education, nationalize health care insurance, preserve entitlements, and lower the national debt. Harris says she’s going to bring down inflation while spending billions on handouts, lower taxes, and cutting corporate profit margins. She’s going to fight climate change while making the U.S. energy-independent. Her “new way” was previously known as “magic.”
Ethical, responsible policy agendas require making realistic choices, stating them clearly, and allowing the public to assess whether they like the cost-benefit analysis. “Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity” is not a choice, it’s a phony dream, no more useful, honest or attainable than “end world hunger” or “all the people livin’ life in peace.” Continuing to claim the impossible was possible is how Hitler got Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. No, claiming the impossible is possible and that you can achieve it is destructive and wrong.
How many times does this lesson have to be learned to stick?
Ethics Alarms 
“Hey, if you don’t strive for the ideal, you’ll never know if you could have achieved it, right? (As Harris might say.) “
Except she would say it this way: “Striving for the ideal is…you don’t know if you could do it unless you strive, right?…so achieving the ideal by striving for it is how we achieve and we should always strive for what we want to achieve. What we should always strive for is the ideal. We don’t know if we could achieve the ideal without striving for it.”
You should stop making singular posts attacking the comments on your blog that you disagree with. It doesn’t really facilitate a healthy atmosphere.
It also doesn’t help when you start your rebuttal with “To be blunt: WRONG.” It’s essentially meaningless and you could just go on to actually explain why you think they’re wrong instead of just saying so.
statements of ‘ideal outcomes” are not ethical unless the ideal outcome is possible and achievable.
I’ve seen you use this as an argument before. It’s an unfalsifiable claim since only you are deciding what is possible and achievable, when really you have no idea.
I’d also disagree that ideal outcomes, however unlikely, can’t be ethical. Im not sure where you came up with that rule or why you think it’s persuasive.
s
Shut up, and Good-Bye.
1. Nobody tells me what I should and should do here. It’s my forum, and my rules.
2. This is a symposium and works like a class room. I can, have and will respond in a post to provocative comments.
3. EC sends along plenty of constructive criticism my way, and it is appreciated. He/It can take it.
4. It’s not an “argument,” it’s a valid principle. And provable by historical precedent as well as common sense, with pacifism being the best example.
5. You want to ignore that? Great, waste your time chasing rainbows and voting for incompetent liars.
6. Seeking impossible ideal outcomes—I never said that all ideal outcomes are impossible, but that an ideal outcome in the Middle East is, and obviously so—is unethical, and I was very specific about why. If you have a rebuttal to what I laid would, it’s too bad you didn’t write that, instead of impugning me. Too late now!
7. The principle that uptopianism is crap is persuasive to anyone who understands competence, responsibility, leadership, pragmatism, proportion, prudence and utilitarianism, ethical values all.
8. You’re banned
Which I consider an ideal solution.
There is an axiom that states sunk costs are sunk. What this means in elementary parlance is don’t keep throwing good money after bad. Time and resources wasted chasing a goal that cannot be achieved because of intransigence of one or more participants is unethical. It is the waste that is unethical not necessarily the desire to strive toward an outcome with maximum global social benefit; the definition of ideal. Most of us strive to be the ideal man or woman but fall woefully short of that goal 100% of the time. I am reminded of people body dysmorphic disorder who wind up horribly disfigured because they sought to be the most beautiful through plastic surgery – think Jocelyn Wildenstein. Perfection is far too often the enemy of the good.
Pretending that an ideal outcome is achievable is lying. Thus unethical because it promotes waste of resources that could be used to achieve greater marginal benefits elsewhere. Every minute trying negotiate the non-negotiable prevents prevents working toward other goals.
Would anyone believe today as Chamberlain did in the 30’s that one can have peace and stability with Adolph Hitler by signing a non-aggression pact. That is what is being suggested with the two state solution.
Striving for the ideal requires a common vision of what ideal looks like and is measurable in terms of maximum total satisfaction. We cannot even agree here what constitutes a women let alone what is the ideal condition in the middle east.
“There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity.”
Who destroyed the peace and security in the region?
Which of the two outcomes below will create peace and stability which is the claimed ideal?
Hamas wins the propaganda war. The west succumbs and stops providing defensive weaponry to Israel and The Palestinians, with Iranian assistance take control of the entire region by virtue of military strength which cost significant Jewish civilian casualties . The Muslim faith is the only faith permitted and Sharia law extends to all. Jews are now governed by Muslims.
Israel successfully defends its territory by militarily defeating Hamas which cost significant Palestinian civilian casualties but continues to allow people of all faiths to enter the country to work and play, worship as they choose, participate in its government as citizens.
Choose – That is the current choice.
Also the obsession with impossible ideal outcomes is at the root of the “March of Folly” fallacies, discussed often here. Picket’s charge would have been an ideal plan, except that it was INSANE, and Lee’s generals knew it. How was it ethical to pretend a frontal assault on an artillary-reinforced position, up a grade, was rational? Sure, it would have been wonderful (for the South) if it worked, but it couldn’t work, and all the necessary data existed to prove that.
Would anyone believe today as Chamberlain did in the 30’s that one can have peace and stability with Adolph Hitler by signing a non-aggression pact.
Some revisionists now argue that Chamberlain knew the deal was hopeless, but also that the British public would never support war against Hitler unless Hitler’s ruthlessness was undeniable….and that GB needed time to rebuild its military—so he knowingly sacrificed his political career for a stalling deal that would be a failure.
Was he that smart???
Unless Chamberlain had stated as much then I cannot agree that later rationalizations by Chamberlains apologists are correct.
Who knows what was going through his mind? Chamberlain wasn’t a fool. I agree that if he was playing a long game, he wouldn’t have celebrated the Munich deal so enthusiastically.
And instead of making a shallow critique when Jack has laid out exactly why he views the two-state solution unattainable, you could have used your time to offer why it isn’t infeasible. You just perpetrated in your comment the exact same behavior you’re accusing Jack of.
In addition, it is an ethical position that dates back thousands of years that it is wrong to try to achieve goals that are not possible. The way you address this, though, is not to discredit it as an ethical principle, but instead take umbrage that Jack has declared something infeasible. If you disagree that it is infeasible, make that case.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand this comment came in just a tad too late.
Thanks for rescuing my comment, Jack!
(Self-serving on my part….)
Okay, so then the proper thing to do is to state the ideal outcome, and follow up with, “here are the obstacles that make this ideal outcome infeasible, so we’re aiming for this feasible outcome instead.” That way we’re aware that if the obstacles leave the picture, we can upgrade our goals. We can also look for opportunities to chip away at the obstacles in the meantime.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t actually answer the question. If we’re not aiming for peace, what are we aiming for? What do you expect to happen to the Palestinians?
1. Yes, that is what you do. Utopianism is pretty well discredited, and rightfully so.
2. Israel wipes out Hamas. The Palestinians elect leadership that is not devoted to terrorism and that credibly accepts Israel’s right to exist. The US does not undermine Israel’s efforts to protect itself by calling for outcomes that would be seen as a gain for Hamas. After an appropriate period in which the Palestinians cease programming terrorists in their schools and demonstrate a sincere commitment to peace, a process to AGAIN try to broker a two-state solution would be triggered.
A long-shot, on a long-timeline. But not impossible. But almost. It’s not one deal, however, but many.
Alright, so it seems like the major differences are that Harris is skipping the part about wiping out Hamas and expecting to be able to wrap up the whole thing in one deal instead of incrementally. Everything else seems to line up well enough with the outcome you described. Peace does require that Palestine stop trying to destroy Israel and that Israel have the ability to defend itself. I think even Harris would be willing to explicitly agree with that much.
I think your criticism lacks nuance and constructiveness. You’re tossing the baby out with the bathwater, saying an entire statement is wrong. You’re not acknowledging anything good that people can build on. If it is possible to build a better world, people are not going to learn how from you, if this is how you educate people.
The trick is to replace “no” with “yes, if”. When you can identify the obstacles that make things impossible, you can reduce the problem to a collection of simpler problems. (That said, sometimes looking at the big picture is necessary for simplifying things further.) People can figure out ways to tackle those obstacles. That’s the path to making the impossible possible.
And those who say a thing cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
EC, there is nothing you can build on. It’s not even competent diplomacy, and there is no baby. What I described is a path to a future baby, if everything breaks right. She’s demanding a cease-fire now, and that ensures that there will be no baby, just more Hamas terrorism.
In law, this is called a material distinction. The entire statement IS wrong, because it is in the context of short-term policy. I love your system, but sometimes positions are just irresponsible, dishonest, or dumb. This is an example.
War occurs when at least one side wants something other than peace.
In times of war, peace occurs when one of the opposing sides is beaten into submission.
Regarding a negotiated peace with Hamas, it is not going to happen. To think otherwise is delusional.
I draw your attention to the:
Hamas Covenant 1988 The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement
Article Thirteen States:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”
Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers? “But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow – verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith: “The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.”
Excellent, Tom!!
So much is made of the notion that “Donald Trump is an existential threat” to…whatever he’s “threatening” today. Well, Hamas IS a true, real-life, existential threat to Israel.
So, either Hamas lives and Israel as we know it dies, or Hamas dies and Israel lives. THAT is an existential threat…one lives and one dies. Not both live, but one is weakened. Not both live, and one is on life support. Not both live and both come to an understanding. Not Yassir Arafat huminahumina’ing over the definition of “jihad”.
No, none of that. One lives…one dies. Israel…Hamas.
Which one?
Ugh…the penultimate paragraph should begin, “No, none of that.”
Proofreading is your friend, Joel.
Jack, thank you for correcting that. It’s much appreciated!
If I can’t proofread sufficiently for myself, at least I can help you out…
Sometimes “yes, if” doesn’t work, and to go back to Covey’s 7 Habits that you cited, that’s where you let go of “Win-win” and acknowledge the reality of “No Deal”. Hamas says, “Yes, the Jews can live, if they will be subject to our rule”. For the Jews this is absolutely out of the question. Israel says “Yes, we can have a cease-fire, and the Palestinians can have their own state, if Hamas surrenders unconditionally and turns over all their weapons of war”. For the Palestinians this is absolutely out of the question. You can’t expect Israelis to settle for merely a pause on terrorism, and Hamas has made clear, in their own charter, that they will settle for nothing less than rule “from the river to the sea”. Hence the only available course is victory or death. If you or Harris, got a better idea, then apply your superior statecraft and give us specifics. If you can’t do that, then YOU are the one just sitting back and criticizing those who are doing the business of trying to win the war.
THIS
Hope to chime in from Nevada.
wastes time, misleads, creates futile hope, and misallocates resources.
This is only unethical if it’s done either on purpose or with some sort of negligence or mismanagement. Having a lofty goal that may work out isn’t unethical.
Creating futile hope is not unethical. Hope is often futile to begin with. See the ending of Shawshank
What is the hope at the end of Shawshank futile, DD? Red gets a period of freedom to spend with his friend in a nice warm climate. It’s reduced expectations, sure, but still…
Red thinks Hope is bullshit and Andy thinks Hope is the best of things. Red didn’t believe he or Andy would ever get out. Red hoped to see his friend and in the book they aren’t shown meeting again. But against all odds, they did
Which validates hope. King likes hope. He ends “The Mist” with it, and that’s probably the end of the world.
At some point, you stop trying to disagree with someone and just go “Bite me”, Harris and the State Department have reached that point in many folks view. EC is correct that never trying to do better is a losing proposition, but Humans have to acknowledge reality to succeed.
Let’s look at this in a slightly different way.
30 or 40 years ago, people looking at Northern Ireland would reasonably have said that the prospects for peace and a settlement there were basically non-existent, right?
And yet — it happened. But. It didn’t happen from outsiders trying to force the British to make a unilateral peace with the IRA. They would have listened to that about as well as the Israelis today.
As I understand it, what happened was that people on the ground, on both sides basically got together saying basically, “No more of this, it’s insane”. But it happened from the bottom up, not imposed from the top.
Please correct me if I am 100% off base, but that’s a broad brush outline of what I understand happened.
————–
So could something like that happen with Israel and Palestine? I think so, even though it seems exceedingly unlikely right now. I think it would have to start with the Palestinians who would have to form some sort of movement to convince the Israelis they were sincere and wanted to live peacefully alongside one another.
It’s not going to come from Hamas — their raison d’etre is hatred of the Jewish state and destruction of Israel.
I don’t think it’s going to come from the Arab states — they see the Palestinians as a useful club to wield against Israel. That’s one reason none of the Arab states have been willing to take in the Palestinian refugees in their country. Also they look at the example of Jordan and think “Not in my country!”
So I think it could happen.
I think it’s pretty unlikely any time soon.
I don’t think Biden’s policy of wielding a club against Israel and ignoring Hamas is going to get much done other than prolonging the conflict.
————
Oh, and by the by, I just read that the Biden administration has just acknowledged that they don’t see a cease fire happening before the end of his term.
The Harris campaign is the Obama campaign redux. Present a blank canvas upon which idiots can project what they want. David Axelrod must be back on the payroll. But the Harris administration will be worse for the country than the Obama administration. Buckle up, boys and girls.