Sociology and Philosophy quiz
Kevingao
67WarTerrorismLackeyAutosavedThreee.docx1. How does Lackey explain the difference between preventive and preemptive force? Which does Lackey intend to support and oppose in this article?
According to Lackey, preventive force is the force utilized against an individual or a country that might do evil acts (has some problem of doing it). On the other hand, Lackey describes preemptive force as the force utilized against a nation or individual who will do evil acts (has some likelihood of doing it)
2. Summarize the preventive force argument. What criticisms does Lackey list against it right after he explains it?
The Preventive Force Argument intended to show that there is never a morally signifier difference between preventive and preemptive force.
Suppose an evil action E can only be brought to materialization by plan A, B, C making it more probable E will succeed
The utilization of force to get rid of the plan at the state A, B or C is preventative, but the utilization of force at stage D is preemptive
The variance between the steps is just but likelihood, a meter matter of degree.
As such, if the preemptive force at stage is alright morally, the preventive force at earlier stage is alright too
As such, there is an absence of moral difference between the two.
3. Summarize the Dr. Y & Mr. X scenario. How is that intended to support the distinction that the preventive force argument claims is “bogus?”
The Dr. Y and Mr. X scenario very well supports the distinction between the preventive force arguments. In many ways than one it proves that mostly plan A, B, and C are kept covert and thus it makes well-meaning preventive force interventions impossible
4. How are Lackey’s discussions of uncovering and interpreting overt acts intended to illustrate what he calls the “problem of knowledge?”
The one problem of knowledge that comes about after overt acts have been discovered is that military intervention is given priority as the only solution; there is no consideration of other means,
5. What argument does Lackey present to support that assuming the worst of one’s opponents is not as prudent as some suggest. Does he make a good case?
Lackey very well proves that assuming the worst of one’s opponent may make one to underrate them or be quick to use military action against them. This is not right because intervention: must have a just humanitarian purpose; it must be a last resort; and there ought to be reasonable chance of success.
6. How is the first “trolley case” intended to support the argument for preventive force?
The first trolley case is utilized to support the argument for preventive force in that killing a few people is better than killing many people. In the trolley case, pulling the lever and making the trolley to be derailed to kill a single individual is better than going straight ahead and killing more people.
7. Why point is Lackey trying to make by constructing the second, more complicated “trolley case” example? Do you think he makes a good case?
By constructing the second, more complicated trolley case example Lackey is trying to make the point that human life should be held in high regard and never should it be traded or perceived as expendable subject to political interests or humanitarian efforts.
8. Summarize Lackey’s position on the subject of solicitation, corresponding to “substantial steps” and “overt acts” from the example in #3. How does his example of the television and the stereo illustrate this point? Does it make a good foundation for his comments on Mr. Tamimi’s comment about the Columbia?
