[ad_1]
I have just posted this further comment on the need for a ceasefire in the Palestinian / Israeli conflict on Twitter:
Let me offer a basic philosophical comment on what is happening in Israel and Gaza.
If you have to know the heritage or ethnicity of a civilian being killed as a consequence of war before you can decide on your response to their death, then you need to ask if you are being ethical.
The same is true if you have to know the heritage or ethnicity of the person who has killed them.
In my opinion, we should think that the death of a civilian killed during war is wrong, whoever they might be and whoever killed them.
John Rawls’ described this as acting from behind a veil of ignorance. His philosophy suggests that we can only know what is truly ethical if we observe an action (including our own) in that way. In other words, the ethical action is only such if it is independent of the observer and the person being observed.
We are only ethical in that case if we condemn the deaths of civilians in war, whoever they are.
That is what I am doing in this conflict.
And that is why I think a ceasefire – necessarily being a demand on both sides in the conflict, and not one or the other – is what is necessary now.
The observations on comments made on a post on the same theme posted earlier today apply equally here.
For those who wonder where most of my ethical stances come from, Rawls and his idea of the veil of ignorance informs a great deal of my thinking.
[ad_2]
Source link
