Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://www.philosophicalvegan.com/
Innocent in their respective opinions. And neither would any of the people he mentioned, in their own respective opinions.Sam Harris wrote:Whether or not you admire the man’s politics—or the man—there is no reason to think that he would have sanctioned the injury or death of even a single innocent person.
From what I know of them, no, they would not have used this hypothetical weapon very differently. They would have targeted different people, but not used them very differently.Sam Harris wrote:What would Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden do with perfect weapons? What would Hitler have done? They would have used them rather differently.
The response to my exchange with Chomsky has been extraordinarily heated. Many people appear confused both about its contents and about my motives for publishing it.
It would not be productive—or, I think, fair to Chomsky—for me to argue my case in great detail after the fact. But I would like to close the door on a few common misconceptions:
1. I did not publish this exchange because I believe that I “won” a debate with Chomsky. On the contrary, I spent the entire time struggling to begin a conversation that never got started. I remain confused about Chomsky’s position on several important issues and would sincerely have liked to discuss them.
2. It is now clear to me that I did (in a very narrow way) misrepresent Chomsky in The End of Faith. Obviously, he had asked himself “very basic questions” about what the U.S. government intended when it bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. Rereading that text, along with the relevant section of his book 9/11, I can see that my point was not that he literally hadn’t asked these questions but that the answers he arrived at are, in my opinion, scandalously wrong. Perhaps Chomsky didn’t literally “ignore the role of human intentions,” but he effectively ignored it, because he did not appear to give intentions any ethical weight. I now see that to the extent that he does weigh intentions, he may do so differently than I would (for instance, he says that Clinton’s bombing al-Shifa without thinking about the consequences is “arguably even worse than murder, which at least recognizes that the victim is human”). This would have been interesting terrain to explore. I consider his related claims that virtually everyone professes benign intentions, and that such professions are generally meaningless, to be false. Professions aside, there can be vast ethical differences between sincerely held beliefs about what is “good,” and these differences are often very easy to discern. To pretend otherwise is to risk destroying everything we are right to care about.
In any case, I can now see that I was using rather rhetorical language in my book and that Chomsky was entitled to reject my characterization of him on literal (if pedantic) grounds. He had asked the questions I said he hadn’t; I just didn’t like the answers. Conceding this doesn’t render the views he expressed in 9/11 easier to digest. But given the umbrage that Chomsky took over the offending phrases, it would have been helpful if I had admitted that they were sloppily written and, in a narrow sense, untrue. Nevertheless, all our real work would still have lain ahead of us.
3. Chomsky’s charge that I misrepresented him on the topic of “moral equivalence” is far less credible. Judging from what he wrote in 9/11 (as well as in our exchange) he may view the bombing of al-Shifa to be ethically worse than the attack on the Twin Towers.
4. Because my aim was to have a productive dialogue, I ignored most of Chomsky’s initial accusations in the hopes of establishing some basic principles and a spirit of mutual goodwill. He viewed this as evasive—or as conceding points that I would not, in fact, have conceded. This contributed greatly to the sense that we were talking past each other. I agree with readers who feel that I might have done more to get the conversation on track. Still, I was quite bewildered by the level of hostility I met in Chomsky, and I did the best I could at the time.
5. Certain readers saw my focus on Chomsky’s tone as an abject attempt to dodge hard questions. I can only reiterate that it wasn’t. I had ready answers to most of the points Chomsky raised, and where I didn’t I was genuinely interested in discovering what I thought in conversation with him. For instance, his observation that my view of intentions requires that I count certain sincerely motivated horrors as “ethical” (albeit within the context of a mistaken worldview) is something I discussed in the very excerpt from The End of Faith provided (see footnote 47). Whether such a charitable view can reasonably be applied to Hitler and Japan during WWII (I think not) is something that I would have been happy to discuss, had we ever got there.
What would the reaction have been if al-Qaeda had blown up half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.? I’m sure it would have been considered a terrorist atrocity, and rightly so. Where is my published attack on the religious motivations of George Bush? It’s in my book The End of Faith and in many subsequent articles. I wasn’t dodging these questions. I just viewed them as distractions from the necessary work of our first agreeing about basic ethical principles. Nothing I said or didn’t say should have been construed as an unwillingness to criticize the U.S. government or to discuss any of its specific actions that may, in fact, constitute atrocities. As to whether we can trust Chomsky’s account of the al-Shifa bombing, I have my doubts.
In each of my emails I was merely attempting to begin an exchange that would be worth reading—having considered the preceding volleys both unproductive and unpublishable. In the end, I decided to publish the whole mess to demonstrate how difficult it can be to have a conversation on these important topics, in the hopes that some good might come of showing what that effort looks like on the page. I’m not sure I made the right decision, but I am certain that what I published bears little resemblance to any debate that Chomsky and I would have had if we had formally engaged each other in print. Needless to say, I agree that a person’s tone, however contemptuous, isn’t relevant to the substance of a debate. Had this been a debate, I’d have been happy to have Chomsky at his angriest.
Finally, I can only say that I was greatly disappointed by my encounter with Chomsky. I had truly hoped to have a productive conversation with him. —SH
That's what Chomsky needed to hear.Sam Harris wrote: 2. It is now clear to me that I did (in a very narrow way) misrepresent Chomsky in The End of Faith. Obviously, he had asked himself “very basic questions” about what the U.S. government intended when it bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant.
That's fine. And to some extent I agree. But Harris kind of misses the point here that Chomsky didn't seem to want to definitively answer these questions because he didn't consider them either morally clear or very important.Sam Harris wrote: the answers he arrived at are, in my opinion, scandalously wrong.
Deciding through careful consideration that intentions are unfalsifiable and for various reasons may be of questionable or unclear moral weight is not the same as ignoring them.Sam Harris wrote: but he effectively ignored it, because he did not appear to give intentions any ethical weight.
Yes, arguably, maybe, could be considered, perhaps, might, not certainly.Sam Harris wrote:for instance, he says that Clinton’s bombing al-Shifa without thinking about the consequences is “arguably even worse than murder, which at least recognizes that the victim is human”
This might have been interesting to explore if Harris had admitted his misrepresentation of Chomsky from the start when asked to do so.Sam Harris wrote:This would have been interesting terrain to explore. I consider his related claims that virtually everyone professes benign intentions, and that such professions are generally meaningless, to be false.
This is a MUCH more important point.Sam Harris wrote:Professions aside, there can be vast ethical differences between sincerely held beliefs about what is “good,” and these differences are often very easy to discern. To pretend otherwise is to risk destroying everything we are right to care about.
Harris still doesn't get it. I saw nowhere that Chomsky asserted this. He pondered it as a possible view in terms of the ethical relevance of motivation, but it seemed more rhetorical, and to point out what he believed to be the subjectivity of such claims.Sam Harris wrote:3. Chomsky’s charge that I misrepresented him on the topic of “moral equivalence” is far less credible. Judging from what he wrote in 9/11 (as well as in our exchange) he may view the bombing of al-Shifa to be ethically worse than the attack on the Twin Towers.
Now that is Ironic.Sam Harris wrote:4. Because my aim was to have a productive dialogue, I ignored most of Chomsky’s initial accusations in the hopes of establishing some basic principles and a spirit of mutual goodwill.
With a very poorly construed thought experiment -- this perfect weapon -- yes. Chomsky was not impressed, and I'm not surprised.Sam Harris wrote:For instance, his observation that my view of intentions requires that I count certain sincerely motivated horrors as “ethical” (albeit within the context of a mistaken worldview) is something I discussed in the very excerpt from The End of Faith provided (see footnote 47).
And yet Harris called off the exchange for precisely that reason, it would seem.Sam Harris wrote:Needless to say, I agree that a person’s tone, however contemptuous, isn’t relevant to the substance of a debate. Had this been a debate, I’d have been happy to have Chomsky at his angriest.