Henry David Thoreau vs. Iraqi innocents
 

In his work "On Civil Disobedience" Thoreau carefully and meticulously extends the morality of the individual to include the morality of the state in which that individual participates. Where the state is engaged in an immoral activity [in Thoreau's case, slavery], any individual who does not actively disengage himself from the activities of that state, though he suffer the full wrath of the state for such disengagment, is accountable for the moral actions taken up by the state.

By extension, the ethic may be stated thus. Where a regime perpetrates morally evil acts, an individual who does not stand in opposition to that state is culpable for the acts perpetrated. This principle, though not clearly articulated, has been one of the driving motivations behind the "Not in my name" anti-war protests.

My question is this: how might this principle be extended to the Iraqi regime? It is unquestionably a reprehensible, morally evil regime which perpetrates unspeakable acts of horror upon it's own people. Are those individuals within the regime who do not stand in opposition to it morally culpable for the actions undertaken by the state they participate in?

If not, why not?
If so, how might this ammend the notion of "innnocent Iraqi civilians"?

-sm

That's really an interesting thought. [broadbrush]The philosophical problem with holding all Iraqis responsible for the acts of their leaders is that Thoreau's individualism is very much an extention of western thought. Iraqis don't take personal responsibility for the acts of their B'ath Party because in their world things happen, things are not done. [/broadbrush] I'm totally talking out my ass here but wouldn't a leader in such a society have to be unbalanced?

This creates a problem for me since I believe its up to the Iraqi people to change leaders not up to our government. I believe that in time we can subvert their system with ideas, making our own governments unjust actions unnecessary.

removing ass hat, backing slowly away

I wish the U.S. Government would have just funded and supported local Iraqi resistance movements, instead of getting directly involved themselves. It doesn't sully our reputation with the locals, and it keeps the regime change "in the family" so to speak. That way the Iraqis don't feel like we're just coming in and taking over.

Griff's broad brush point has led to some people arguing that Democracy can *never* take hold in some areas of the world, and that's what a lot of Bush's last speech was about. He does not agree with that assessment.

I don't think the Iraqi civilians can be held responsible at all. When a dictatorship is enforced by killing and torture and such, it's more like a kidnapping situation. Thoreau can't ask somebody to actually put their life on the line in such a case unless he believes in the supremacy of the state - that someone's life is worth nothing if they don't live as part of a functional government.

Just look at it this way, if you were living in Iraq would you be the first to attempt to start a revolution against Saddam??? If you can't say yes then you have no right to hold Iraq citizens responsible.

Iraqi resistance movements don't last long.

Remember, we're dealing with a country in which 100% of the people showed up to vote (presumably including people in comas in hospitals) and cast 100% of their votes for Saddam.

The conventional rules don't apply.

In my case, I believe it could take hold if it becomes part of the culture and percolates up. Imposed from above, it will just be considered another sign of Western imperialism, no matter how pure our intentions. I've been wrong before, hopefully I am now but...

Sometimes I crack myself up.

Japan.

Undertoad, isn't this always the situation within which just revolutions occur? I'm struggling to think of a situation where power wasn't wrested from an immoral dictatorship (or king, or Generalissimo, or Polituburo) that enforced their rule with pain, cruelty, and fear.

Revolution, particularly just revolution, always "waters the tree of liberty with blood". This does not alter the ethic of personal morality within a given state; it adds physical consequence to a moral decision (Apologies to Deride, and all other Post-Modern ethicists).

Give me some time to think through the second part of your comment. I don't know that Thoreau defined his philosophy as pertaining to this situation, but perhaps we can take up his tools, and forge the remaining edifice of thought.

-sm

sm, your first paragraph confuses my tired mind. By "just revolutions" do you mean "just and good revolutions", or "just revolutions, with no strings attached"?

...was a nation united behind their religious devotion to their emperor. MacArthur coopted that devotion. Iraq is rife with partisan groups united temporarily in their hatred of Hussein. Religous factions in Iraq are loyal only to their vision of Gods will, thats going to be a huge problem for any ruler.

Naw, I'm with Griff on this one; the people can revolt if they kinda understand what the situation is, if they're kinda bent that way... but that's a Western bent.

It was the 60 Minutes piece on Kim Jung Il that really got to me. The people are trained to be subservient. There isn't a revolutionary movement because the people have been whipped into such a level of ignorance and submission that Il is their God.

Take that Terry! Who's the sidekick now?

Re: Henry David Thoreau vs. Iraqi innocents
 

Thoreau was wrong. Silence is not assent, nor inaction approval.

There are so many injustices being perpetrated today -- in the US, let alone Iraq -- that no one could hope to protest them all. It is absurd to think that each injustice a person does not protest, he is responsible for.