I think that a few key questions were left either unanswered or unasked during class on Thursday, so I will attempt to address them here.
The first is that of responsibility. Shannon put it out there as something along the lines of "Do we have a duty to help other nations (in situations like Somalia) if we have the resources?" The general consensus was that we do, however, Somalia is a unique case. We are trying to aid a 'nation' without any form of government to help their own people, on top of that, those in charge are the ones who are preventing aid. Do we have a duty to help those unwilling to help themselves? Now, I am not trying to attack Somalia here, but it seems as if we did the wrong action in trying to give foreign aid instead of just intervening and attacking. It was foolish of the U.S. to get involved if they didn't plan on giving them means to help themselves in the future. (i.e. a viable government)
The next question is sort of implied by the fact that we are going in to save lives, yet are doing so by taking away lives, even though it was not our main objective. How can we justify the weighing of lives? That is, we are killing people in order to save people, either way it is the same action. At least with non-action we are not held responsible(haha, maybe?), by going into Somalia we are actively killing. I guess this is sort of the argument against capital punishment: killing people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong. Logically speaking, healthy warlords and their troops are more of a benefit to society as a whole than starving and disease ridden civilians. Any thoughts on this?
It seems that even intervention for humanitarian efforts cause a lot of confusion, as the goal is just(assuming that it IS the goal), and the means are "supposed" to be just, but in the end, there is no way to ensure the continuation of lives. All of this leads to the purpose: what is the purpose of life? Merely to live sounds too simple, saving the world too large. Are we actually bound by the laws of nature to aid those we can?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't think nature has much to do with it. The "law of nature" has certainly proven to be beyond my comprehension, so I don't concern myself with it. I think the question of humanitarian aid is simply a question of what you think is right. (I think that's what you were trying to say, anyway.)
ReplyDeleteA great difficulty is ascertaining who "wants" aid and who doesn't. You said, "Do we have a duty to help those who don't want to help themselves?" To me, this is summing up the desires of all Somalians as the desires of the few ruthless leaders who are warring over the country. I wasn't there, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Somalians wanted (1) food, and would have welcomed aid, and (2) peace, and would have welcomed peace.
Maybe I'm being arrogant. After all, it was only just over two hundred years ago that Americans fought a Revolutionary War for their own reasons and would have been outraged at the thought of France sailing in as a third party, defeating both armies and imposing peace. Then again, perhaps we would have quickly gotten hover it if France had only stayed long enough for the Colonials to vote the British out and set up their own government.
Is this what the Somali people wanted (and continue to want)? I have no idea, and perhaps that is telling. It seems to me the will of the Somali PEOPLE--not the UN and not just the warlords, either--is something that hasn't been appropriately addressed. Sadly, even the Somali people's will is undermined by their lack of information. Undoubtedly they have been swamped with propaganda and have no idea what to believe.
The more the question is examined, the more complex it gets. But as Sheri said, oftentimes finding a solution isn't the goal. Pondering the problems can be just as important.