.
Here's a difficult thing about ethnic cleansing. Suppose the evil party wants a people gone, ded or alive. Just gone from a specific area. They inflict harm on them. Now there's a third party and it has to decide whether to accept refugees.
To accept refugees means to assist the evil party in its plan. Such acceptance of refugees may even be a necessary part of the evil plan. To not accept them means they will suffer harm.
The right thing to do would be to intervene and force the evil party to stop its evil actions, but suppose that would not be practical for whatever reason:
Should the refugees be accepted or not?*
Would help in evacuation / resettling equal complicity in ethnic cleansing?
The international law scholars certainly have opinions on this and possibly they even have a consensus. I didn't bother to check this, for this time I'm rather thinking about the ethical dimension than the legal one.
S O
*: Pretend it's only about the quesiton of agreeing with another country taking them in, suhc as permitting evacuation flights over territory if an aversion to let certain brown people into your country gets in the way of thinking clealry and within the limits of this case / model.
.
You are asking the wrong questions, what happens when the parties who regard ethnic cleaning as morally repulsive decided to militarly, financially and politically assist the party carrying it out.
ReplyDeleteIt would definetly be complicity.
ReplyDeleteBut, it's not like the hypocritical countries are not complicit already, as they have send arms and financial aid to the actor carrying out the ethnic cleansing.
Unlike you, I think working through the problem using legal principles and words helps to solve its ethical dimension. In such a scenario, accepting refugees does have that Effect (Erfolgsunwert), but it was not your Purpose (Absicht). So what you are really asking about is whether "Complicity" requires Absicht or just a degree of bedinger Vorsatz.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, if we accept that it is not practical to stop the perpetrators, then a solution that at least preserves their lives and their existence as a nation can be justified.
That's why when a certain President suggested a plan to move all of a certain victim population elsewhere, I wasn't nearly as annoyed as the "international law scholars". I really don't understand why it is so hard to at least cut any and all aid to the perpetrators, but unfortunately not helping a certain country seems politically impossible in said President's country. In that case, moving the victim population elsewhere is justifiable as the least bad solution to the problem.
A East German civil rights activist complained that they wanted justice, but instead got the rule of law by the reunification.
DeleteThere's definitely a substantial difference between legality and ethicality, fairness or justice.
Yes, but legality is usually created for the sole purpose of maintaining ethicality, fairness and justice.
DeleteSo, there is a significant overlap between the two.
And in this case, there is.
There are many steps that do not require use of force, that can be employed to hurt the preparator.
No, laws get set to
Delete(1) make society run without excessive conflict/suffering
(2) benefit the powerful
(3) sustain/maintain the aforementioned features (stability)
(4) least priority; make society run well/prosper
This is very visible in national and international laws.
Not quite, laws usually have an ethical basis for their creation.
DeleteWithout the ethical basis, they simply become dictates by the powerful.
*"(1) make society run without excessive conflict/suffering
Delete(2) benefit the powerful" *
These two points do not apply to the current perp.
As the current perp is only as powerful as the West wishes it to be and the perp's action will make the region less stable and with excessive suffering.
If Germans love Palestinians - just send Palestinians to Germany, its a win-win situation. Oh, wait, Germans love them only when they DID NOT contact them.
ReplyDeleteOh, that's cute. Anonymous wants to provoke me. So cute!
DeleteProvoke? Nope. You're supposed to stay inside the model. To leave it is a refusal to think about the model presented. That's an intellectual failure.
DeleteWhat model? There's but an off-topic remark.
DeleteThe topic was about ethicality, not about what should be done, who loves whom or who benefits from something. Thus it looked like a minimal thinking invested kind of provocation.