Jonathan Meades. It is a cult of "puritanical, po-faced, censorious nothingness"" href="/post/2017/10/20/The-fate-of-artists-and-of-art-itself-is-in-the-hands-of-too-few-persons-who-share-kindred-tastes-and-cultish-dogma-says-lt;stronggt;Jonathan-Meadeslt;stronggt;-It-is-a-cult-of-puritanical-po-faced-censorious-nothingness.aspx" />

Chemical Weapons & Ethics, Revisted

Embed from Getty Images When Obama was president, the “red line” he drew for the Syrian regime was the use of weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons. President Trump has also
Philosophy News image
Embed from Getty Images When Obama was president, the “red line” he drew for the Syrian regime was the use of weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical weapons. President Trump has also embraced the red line, asserting that Syria has gone “beyond a red line” with its recent use of chemical weapons. Trump has said that this attack changed his attitude towards Syria and Assad. Presumably the slaughter of civilians with conventional weapons did not cross the red line or impact his attitude very strongly. Those of a cynical bent might contend that the distinction between conventional and chemical weapons is accepted because it grants politicians the space needed to tolerate slaughter while being able to create the appearance of a moral stance. This moral stance is, of course, the condemnation of chemical weapons. As I wrote in 2013, this red line policy involving chemical weapons seems to amounted to saying “we do not like that you are slaughtering people, but as long as you. . .

Continue reading . . .

News source: Talking Philosophy

blog comments powered by Disqus