Interesting moral quandary

[Plotinus]

Mainstream liberal politicians urge economic sanctions on Iran as a better strategic and moral option to a hot war.

Read this New York Times article, about a passenger plane crash in Iran that killed more than 70 people: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/world/middleeast/10iran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Note the final paragraphs:

"Iran's air industry has been plagued by safety concerns for years, at least in part because international sanctions have prevented the country from purchasing new American and European aircraft and spare parts for the ones it has.

Iran's American-built aircraft were purchased before Iran's 1979 revolution, when the two countries cut off relations. Airlines, including Iran's flagship carrier, Iran Air, have struggled to keep those planes, as well as aging and often unreliable aircraft bought from Russia and other former Soviet states, in service.

In July 2009, a Russian-built Tupolev passenger jet operated by Caspian Airlines of Iran crashed on its way to Yerevan, Armenia, killing all 168 passengers and crew members.

In December 2005, 108 people were killed when an Iranian military plane, a Lockheed C-130, crashed into a high-rise housing block outside Tehran. The following November, a military plane crashed on takeoff at Tehran's Mehrabad Airport, killing 38 people."

Those accounts alone give us almost 400 dead in five years. And who knows how many other such crashes aren't accounted for in the article, or are unknown to the US altogether.

That's a not-insignificant number of civilians.

So the quandary, or more like a vagary, is: are sanctions immoral? Is the US in some way morally culpable for these deaths? To what extent, if at all, are sanctions "better" than a hot war? Than terrorism?

 

[Carbon]

One can guarantee that with a real war civilian casualties will be far higher than with simple sanctions.

 

[steiner666]

I don't believe we are responsible for the deaths in any way. No ones forcing them to continue using apparently outdated and dangerous aircraft, thats their own choice. If anyones to blame, it is the people who maintain the planes and run the airlines/airfield who allow people on board the aircraft when they are in need of such dire maintenance.

It's pretty stupid for a country to hate on and stir up shit with another country that they depend on so One could also argue that the stubbornness of their own government is whats causing these deaths. You can't really go around violating human rights, amassing WMDs, and wishing death to a country and then expect them to help you improve your aircraft lol. Moral of the story: don't wish death on the hand that technologically improves you.

 

[Plotinus]

One can guarantee that with a real war civilian casualties will be far higher than with simple sanctions.

Yes, that seems indisputable. But is morality quantifiable in this way? Maybe you have heard of the interesting thought experiment done on Americans many years ago. Test subjects were given the following scenario:

You are standing on a bridge above parallel train tracks. A train approaches on one track, where a 15 passenger van has stalled. It's clear that the van and people inside will be destroyed by the oncoming train. On the other track, a single man is sleeping.

You see that a lever on your bridge will switch the train to the second track, killing the sleeping man but sparing the van passengers. Do you pull it?

The overwhelming majority of respondents answered in the affirmative. They were then asked this follow-up:

You are again on the bridge, but this time there is only one train track, with the van stalled on it. With you on the bridge is a single companion. You see that by pushing this person off the bridge onto the tracks, you would derail the train, killing the person but sparing the van passengers. Do you push him?

The majority of respondents answered that they would not.

I, for one, am not persuaded that a purely pragmatic viewpoint - "this saves the most possible lives" - is also necessarily moral.

I don't believe we are responsible for the deaths in any way.

Sounds like we need to distinguish between causes here. Do you mean to say that we are not morally culpable? That's how I read you. I don't see how it's possible to deny that our actions have played a part in these deaths. True, Iran could change its policies to satisfy us. But then, we could always lift our sanctions without Iran's change in policy. We might not bear "responsibility" in the moral sense, but there is definitely a causal connection.

No ones forcing them to continue using apparently outdated and dangerous aircraft, thats their own choice.

Also true, but only of the Iranian government. The people actually killed on those planes were civilians. They did not have a say in their country's foreign policy, or in ours. They were victims of diplomatic crossfire, so to speak. One could almost say the same of American civilians. The difference is that our government is democratically elected, while theirs is not. To the extent to which you believe regular Americans can impact policy, that's the amount of blame we would share in. The same cannot be said of Iranians.

You can't really go around violating human rights, amassing WMDs, and wishing death to a country and then expect them to help you improve your aircraft lol.

Agreed. The people in charge of Iran are childish and short-sighted, and doing immense damage to their country and its citizens. But this alone doesn't absolve us of all guilt.

 

[stinkmeaner]

These sanctions are not the only problem since they can easily buy Russian planes to replace their fleet, companies like Ilyushin, Tupolev, and the Ukrainian Antonov all make commercial airliners, in fact these Russia is really stepping up in the airplane industry and have introduced or about to introduce several new passenger and military planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MS-21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100 and for military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA smell another cold war manufacturing rivalry between the West and East.

 

[Plotinus]

These sanctions are not the only problem since they can easily buy Russian planes to replace their fleet, companies like Ilyushin, Tupolev, and the Ukrainian Antonov all make commercial airliners, in fact these Russia is really stepping up in the airplane industry and have introduced or about to introduce several new passenger and military planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MS-21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100 and for military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA smell another cold war manufacturing rivalry between the West and East.

Perhaps you know something I don't, but my understanding is that Russia is participating in this round of sanctions. The major news over the past summer was that Obama's diplomacy had succeeded in bringing Russia and China around to much tougher sanctions than they were willing to accept prior to his effort.

In some ways that's an argument against our accountability - the sanctions are implemented by many countries, not just the US - some of which could also supply replace plane parts if they were not upholding sanctions. Still, we led the campaign for these sanctions and it is because of us that most countries are participating.

 

[lwien]

These sanctions are not the only problem since they can easily buy Russian planes to replace their fleet, companies like Ilyushin, Tupolev, and the Ukrainian Antonov all make commercial airliners, in fact these Russia is really stepping up in the airplane industry and have introduced or about to introduce several new passenger and military planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MS-21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100 and for military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA smell another cold war manufacturing rivalry between the West and East.

Perhaps you know something I don't, but my understanding is that Russia is participating in this round of sanctions. The major news over the past summer was that Obama's diplomacy had succeeded in bringing Russia and China around to much tougher sanctions than they were willing to accept prior to his effort.

In some ways that's an argument against our accountability - the sanctions are implemented by many countries, not just the US - some of which could also supply replace plane parts if they were not upholding sanctions. Still, we led the campaign for these sanctions and it is because of us that most countries are participating.

So..........taking your perspective on this, are we also to blame for those that are starving in North Korea and those that are living in poverty in Cuba?

 

[Plotinus]

Well, that's not necessarily my personal perspective. Just an idea I came across in the popular press that I'm not used to seeing in print.

I guess it is a can of worms. My instinct is to grade our culpability based on my own political opinions about each of these countries. (We are responsible for Cuba because we should have opened trade with them years ago; we are not responsible for Korea because they're a violent, reckless, and reprehensible regime that deserves whatever it gets, and then some; etc.) But that seems like a pretty imprecise way of determining the fate of civilians.

 

[stinkmeaner]

These sanctions are not the only problem since they can easily buy Russian planes to replace their fleet, companies like Ilyushin, Tupolev, and the Ukrainian Antonov all make commercial airliners, in fact these Russia is really stepping up in the airplane industry and have introduced or about to introduce several new passenger and military planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MS-21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100 and for military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA smell another cold war manufacturing rivalry between the West and East.

Perhaps you know something I don't, but my understanding is that Russia is participating in this round of sanctions. The major news over the past summer was that Obama's diplomacy had succeeded in bringing Russia and China around to much tougher sanctions than they were willing to accept prior to his effort.

In some ways that's an argument against our accountability - the sanctions are implemented by many countries, not just the US - some of which could also supply replace plane parts if they were not upholding sanctions. Still, we led the campaign for these sanctions and it is because of us that most countries are participating.

I don't know the exact details of the sanctions, but I know they have bought Russian planes not long ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6959026.stm

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, that's well before the sanctions would have taken effect. Though it is puzzling that they wouldn't have taken advantage and purchased more parts when they had the chance.

 

[lwien]

we are not responsible for Korea because they're a violent, reckless, and reprehensible regime that deserves whatever it gets, and then some; etc.

I guess the same things could be said about Iran.

What's more than unfortunate, is that with sanctions or war, innocent civilians get hurt. I've heard that although the Iranian government despises the US, the Iranian population, who by the way, is very young, holds the USA in very high regard which is even more amazing considering that the sanctions that we impose have a direct affect on their daily lives.

 

[stinkmeaner]

It is garbage anyways, why should sanctions punish civilians? It just spreads hate against America and its allies.

 

[lwien]

It is garbage anyways, why should sanctions punish civilians? It just spreads hate against America and its allies.

Because that is one of the intent of sanctions. One of the primary intents is for the sanctions to affect the general population so much that a change in power may take place due to their government not performing to expectations.

I just don't think they ever work. Has there ever been any documented cases in which they have?

 

[stinkmeaner]

It is garbage anyways, why should sanctions punish civilians? It just spreads hate against America and its allies.

Because that is one of the intent of sanctions. One of the primary intents is for the sanctions to affect the general population so much that a change in power may take place due to their government not performing to expectations.

I just don't think they ever work. Has there ever been any documented cases in which they have?

I think U.S. Government would like to think sanctions played a part in the downfall of the Soviet Union, but in reality the sanctions led the Soviets to develop one of the most technologically advanced military's in the world, along with a strong Airline industry for civilian aircraft, this at a time when barely any other country(other than USA) produced large commercial airliners.

Our government puts sanctions on Iran but lets communist China flourish and even become preferred trade partner, it just shows that U.S. just bullies those who are too small to fight back.

 

[Plotinus]

I think you can credit sanctions with the fall of a couple of post-Soviet eastern European dictatorships. But it's also important to remember that sanctions aren't zero-sum. It would be great if the Iranian regime fell, but even if it does not, sanctions can make life hard enough for Iranian politicians that they become more amenable to favorable compromises to us. This works in two ways: by pissing off Iranian civilians such that their politicians get nervous (even if total collapse isn't imminent); and with direct action, i.e. sanctions designed to hit at a country's elite (travel bans, frozen offshore accounts, restrictions on luxury goods, etc.)

As for this:

it just shows that U.S. just bullies those who are too small to fight back.

I don't think anyone is in need of that proof. This is the law of the jungle, and international relations are conducted based on the law of the jungle.

 

[steiner666]

Yeah i could see the other perspective if this was a cure or vaccine or something that they needed to survive that we were denying them, something they couldnt get anywhere else. but this is just modern technology that people lived without for many, many years. It's not like their life depends on their ability to fly, they aren't birds and people are free to leave the country by vehicle or something, and fly from another country's more modern/safer airlines if they really really want to travel.

and what if one day they somehow got their wish and america really did die, and just pulled a yoda and vanished. who would they hate on and blame for their lack of technological and political progress and quality of life lol

 

[vapirtoo]

America is a moral quandry. We speak about
freedom and equality while ramming it up everyone's
ass. Then we get annoyed when they don't like it.
Sometimes to me AHmedenajan( whatever ) does make some
salient points in his raves against zionists and American interests
in the middle east. I know he is an asshole, but most world leaders
are. America likes to fuck you, then help you. Just my humble opinion.

 

[lwien]

Ya know, like everything else, we've done some good things and we've done some bad things. The question is, have we done more good than bad for the world as a whole. In my opinion, all things considered, the scales tip more to the good.

 

[vapirtoo]

is that a digital scale?
'cause there will be many zeros after that decimal point
leaning towards the good.

 

[VWFringe]

i've been somewhat radicalized just recently, by watching all my news on Link TV, so i really dig this kind of talk, but saw some shows that made me really take a double-take...check these out...

"IRAN: is not the problem"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5708329875314599685#
http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/

And, of course, to really understand the concept of blow-back...from South America to Saudi...

"Apology of an Economic Hit Man"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynGBMUgdmg
http://www.hitmanapology.com/en/news

 

[Qbit]

You are standing on a bridge above parallel train tracks. A train approaches on one track, where a 15 passenger van has stalled. It's clear that the van and people inside will be destroyed by the oncoming train. On the other track, a single man is sleeping.

You see that a lever on your bridge will switch the train to the second track, killing the sleeping man but sparing the van passengers. Do you pull it?

The overwhelming majority of respondents answered in the affirmative. They were then asked this follow-up:

You are again on the bridge, but this time there is only one train track, with the van stalled on it. With you on the bridge is a single companion. You see that by pushing this person off the bridge onto the tracks, you would derail the train, killing the person but sparing the van passengers. Do you push him?

The majority of respondents answered that they would not.

I, for one, am not persuaded that a purely pragmatic viewpoint - "this saves the most possible lives" - is also necessarily moral.

Ah this old chestnut. Yeah well I don't think that the questions are as pure as they might seem to some. IMO anyone dumb enough to sleep on train tracks is taking the massive risk of getting run over by a train. So you're not really killing him in the same deliberate sense as you would if you pushed a bystander onto the tracks.

 

[fidget]

How are the sanctions against Saudi Arabia going?

 

[lwien]

How are the sanctions against Saudi Arabia going?

We have sanctions against Saudi Arabia?

 

[lwien]

I think U.S. Government would like to think sanctions played a part in the downfall of the Soviet Union, but in reality the sanctions led the Soviets to develop one of the most technologically advanced military's in the world...........

And I think THAT was "one" of the biggest causes of their downfall. They went broke trying to keep up with our military expenditures.

 

[ccroller]

If they can enrich uranium, build nuclear reactors, and build missles with a range of 2000km on their own they can figure out how to fix the fuc#in planes themselves.