"Proportionality" is not stoic. Defending a right to be more brutal than our enemy is a downward spiral which attains a living hell. This particular quarrel is a family feud which goes back to two chapters: Genesis 16 & 17 > https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/16/1/s_16001. Until we come to terms with this we will continue to dehumanize each other. We in the west have a processing problem, brilliantly unpacked by Joseph Henrich in THE WEIRDest PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
Next up is my take on nationhood. As with corporations, there are things we sacrifice as individuals in order to get what only the collective can deliver. In terms of scale and of ethics it is not accurate to humanize states, churches, nations or NGOs. Humans don't run by bylaws, or charters. So there is no moral equivalence between the acts of nations, individuals, networks of intelligent computers, etc. They are all different kinds of creatures, evolved for different purposes. So their actions must be assessed differently.
Nevertheless I think we are in agreement of the foolish and deadly hubris of making policy of our disgust or of our hate.
I respectfully disagree. "Proportionality" is indeed stoic, as it involves a calculation of appropriate response. The more emotionally driven the response, the greater the possibility of the downward spiral toward greater brutality.
"Proportionality" is not stoic. Defending a right to be more brutal than our enemy is a downward spiral which attains a living hell. This particular quarrel is a family feud which goes back to two chapters: Genesis 16 & 17 > https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/16/1/s_16001. Until we come to terms with this we will continue to dehumanize each other. We in the west have a processing problem, brilliantly unpacked by Joseph Henrich in THE WEIRDest PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
Next up is my take on nationhood. As with corporations, there are things we sacrifice as individuals in order to get what only the collective can deliver. In terms of scale and of ethics it is not accurate to humanize states, churches, nations or NGOs. Humans don't run by bylaws, or charters. So there is no moral equivalence between the acts of nations, individuals, networks of intelligent computers, etc. They are all different kinds of creatures, evolved for different purposes. So their actions must be assessed differently.
Nevertheless I think we are in agreement of the foolish and deadly hubris of making policy of our disgust or of our hate.
I respectfully disagree. "Proportionality" is indeed stoic, as it involves a calculation of appropriate response. The more emotionally driven the response, the greater the possibility of the downward spiral toward greater brutality.