Barbara's balance

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Now there's an argument!  Thanks, man, I was feeling kinda wore out.  And I
couldn't'a said it that good anyway. You should speak out more often.  Toby
too.
I've heard Quail's argument in other people I know.  Real people I admire
and respect (well, used to).  One fellow at work in particular said
essentially--after I sent him one of Doug's articles via e-mail--I don't
have to care about  the starving people of Afghanistan because 1) they were
starving before anyway  2) they're not the only ones around the world
starving  3) their own government doesn't care about them so why should we?
What can I say to that?  What do you say to a person who just doesn't care
about the about the other people of the world?  What could I ever say to
somebody to convince him to care?  That's what it basically comes down to,
I'm convinced. Like Pynchon alludes to on GR 862--the 'mortal sin' of Man is
drawing that line in the sand. Making that fatal distinction in the value of
life so you can justify to yourself in killing your enemy (or anybody in the
way of  killing your enemy, whatever the case may be).  The mortal sin of
man is the creation of US and THEM! It's even in square brackets! "[The true
sin was yours: to interdict that union...]"  He's speaking directly to his
Reader.  It doesn't matter whose character he's speaking  through. He's
speaking directly to you, and he's speaking to the very heart of Man. It's
complex thing our collective psyche, but I think he means to imply, It
really starts with *you*.

Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: Chaim Gingold <cog at slackworks.com>
To: Pynchon List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Barbaras' balance of horror


>
> While it is of course true that the precarious position of the Afghan
> people is due in part to the Taliban regime (not to mention our historic
> support of the Mujahideen, droughts, & other factors) this is not a
> sufficient condition for the people's starvation, though it certainly
> doesn't help. The US's political/military actions are in fact stopping the
> flow of food into Afghanistan, which certainly is a sufficient condition
> for the starvation of a great many people, so it isn't at all clear to me
> that the US can absolve itself of the consequences of its actions by
> saying "yeah, but if it weren't for these evil people..." We must
> differentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions.
>
> Also, Quail's argument that the current course of action is the proper and
> ethical one rests on the presumption that there is a binary choice to be
> made: either force the Taliban and Al Queda network into submission and
> accept the starvation of millions of innocent people -or- accept the
> consequences of inaction which will lead to more attacks on US interests
> (which is ostensibly worse). While those are certainly two possibilities,
> this can only be a false dichotomy -- obviously there must exist more
> possibilities for action and effect. It may, for example, even be true
> that the US can continue with this campaign and not starve one Afghani.
>
> Arguing that it is ethical to take someone's life is a hard argument to
> make. Making the case that it is right to take the lives of millions of
> people is that much harder to do. I am unswayed by the argument that it is
> acceptable and just to take action leading to the death of millions
> because it is the only alternative. It chills my blood to hear such a
> specious argument made for the starvation of so many.
>
> I don't believe that the line of reasoning which critically considers the
> humanitarian aspects of action (and in this case the US attack) "another
> psychological weapon in their arsenal," but rather an indispensible tool
> in the arsenal of every intelligent and humane person.