I didn’t make these rules. I don’t endorse these rules. Following and enforcing these rules is, in my opinion, both morally indefensible and lethally foolhardy.
But yet still, these are the rules.
1. If you propose a war, then what you are proposing is the best imaginable possible outcome. This best imaginable possible outcome is, therefore, the only thing you need to support and defend when advocating for your proposed war.
2. If you oppose or question any proposed war, what you are objecting to is that best imaginable possible outcome and only that best imaginable possible outcome. If that BIPO is, to pick a fairly common example, Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity, then any opposition to the proposed war is equivalent to opposition to Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.
3. The only way for war opponents to exonerate themselves of the charge of opposition to the BIPO is for those war opponents to propose some alternative, non-military means for achieving this same outcome.
4. Considerations of prudence, wisdom, plausibility, and likelihood are irrelevant to this obligation war opponents have to provide a non-military path to the best imaginable possible outcome. It doesn’t matter if the proposed war is “likely” to make everything even worse, increasing suffering and prolonging injustice. Those concerns are hypothetical. The BIPO is objective and real and inevitable.
5. Any discrepancy between the actual outcome of the proposed war and the best imaginable possible outcome advocated by its proponents is entirely the fault of that war’s opponents. They opposed the BIPO, after all, so they will bear the blame for having prevented its appearance.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In