I wasn't excessively impressed by this book. I wasn't UNimpressed, but did leave feeling rather indifferent. It's a very small book for such a big subject, and didn't mention too much that I haven't read or heard before, although I haven't seen all these ideas set out all in a row in one place before.
At one point in the book, the author states as a given that committing acts of violence fulfils a psychological need. He presents this idea as though it's obvious, but it isn't obvious to me. I don't know anything about violence fulfilling a psychological need, so to me it reads like a random idea that he made up and stated as a given. This causes me to wonder what other givens in this book might not necessarily be facts.
The book also loses some credibility in my eyes because the author only barely alluded to the fact that if a state practises torture or takes preemptive military action, it thereby gives the impression that it thinks these kinds of actions are perfectly legitimate. By contributing towards this legitimization, the state is endangering its own citizens: show that you think torture is legitimate, and your enemy may take that as leave to torture your own citizens; show that you think preemptive military action is legitimate, and your enemy may take preemptive military action against you. This is very much something a state needs to take into consideration when ethically analyzing its position, and the author does a disservice by not including it in his book.
No comments:
Post a Comment