Hand wringing on Syria

One of the more absurd accusations levelled at former Prime Minister Tony Blair this last week was to blame him for the lack of intervention in Syria. The argument runs that the reason for the West holding back from intervention is the legacy of Iraq. What is somewhat hypocritical is that many of those now adopting this position would have been against intervention at any cost. It is as if the lessons of intervention in Iraq should not be learned: regime change rarely works and it leaves a bloody mess.

But this isn't a criticism of Tony Blair. It is a lesson learned. So we sit back unable to act when hundreds of thousands of Syrians suffer. We wring our hands and cry foul, yet we have no idea what to do. I can't help feeling that Blair and Bush would more likely than not have intervened long before now. I was against intervention. What I no longer know is what is best. Perhaps I should rephrase that: I no longer know which is worse, the bloody cost of not intervening, or the bloody consequences of military intervention and regime change. The truth is we don't know.

Comments

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog