XPost: alt.religion.islam, alt.religion.christianity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.religion, soc.culture.usa   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   Fighting Fire with Ire: 3 Lessons from Noam Chomsky’s Takedown of Sam   
   Harris   
      
   The day before Mayweather fought Pacquiao, New Atheist Sam Harris   
   released an email sparring match he’d had with famed linguist and   
   leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky. In his bestselling book The End of   
   Faith, Harris had accused Chomsky of drawing a “moral equivalence”   
   between 9/11 and the 1998 U.S. missile attack on the al-Shifa   
   pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which the Clinton administration had   
   allegedly believed to be a chemical weapons factory.   
      
   The ensuing debate, which occurred over a four-day email exchange, is   
   the most uneven public intellectual bout in recent memory. Chomsky   
   repeatedly called out Harris’s rhetorical evasions and sloppy   
   thinking, at one point describing one of Harris’s arguments as “so   
   ludicrous as to be embarrassing.”   
      
   For his part, Harris was persistent and calm, but he seemed to   
   fundamentally misunderstand the scope of Chomsky’s critique. Harris   
   repeatedly asked Chomsky to be more polite, and offered to let him   
   revise his comments before publishing the exchange. Chomsky refused   
   the offer.   
      
   Here at The Cubit we read a lot of bad arguments, and you might be   
   surprised to learn that Chomsky’s refusal to just be polite came as a   
   welcome surprise. Here are three take-home lessons from the Harris vs.   
   Chomsky Fight of the Century.   
      
   1. Call Out Bullshit Thought Experiments.   
      
   For Sam Harris, “not all cultures are at the same stage of moral   
   development.” Yes, he admits, the U.S. has committed atrocities at a   
   larger scale than many of our enemies, but we have higher moral   
   standing because these were mistakes. Harris likens the U.S. to a   
   “well-intentioned giant,” whose aims are good even if it occasionally   
   blunders.   
      
   Underlining the good intentions of the U.S. even during attacks like   
   the one on al-Shifa, Harris offered the following thought experiment:   
      
       Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated   
   sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine   
   humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly   
   batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply. They   
   have communicated their concerns to the FDA but were rebuffed. Acting   
   rashly, with the intention of saving millions of lives, they unleash a   
   computer virus, targeted to impede the release of this deadly vaccine.   
   As it turns out, they are right about the vaccine but wrong about the   
   consequences of their meddling—and they wind up destroying half the   
   pharmaceuticals in the U.S.   
      
       What would I say? I would say that this was a very unfortunate   
   event—but these are people we want on our team. I would find the FDA   
   highly culpable for not having effectively communicated with them.   
   These people are our friends, and we were all very unlucky.   
      
   Chomsky’s response:   
      
       The scenario you describe here is, I’m afraid, so ludicrous as to   
   be embarrassing.  It hasn’t even the remotest relation to Clinton’s   
   decision to bomb al-Shifa – not because they had suddenly discovered   
   anything remotely like what you fantasize here, or for that matter any   
   credible evidence at all, and by sheer coincidence, immediately after   
   the Embassy bombings for which it was retaliation, as widely   
   acknowledged.  That is truly scandalous.   
      
       And of course they knew that there would be major casualties.   
   They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably   
   even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes   
   the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking   
   down the street, who cares?   
      
       In fact, as you would know if you deigned to read before launching   
   accusations, they were informed at once by Kenneth Roth of HRW [Human   
   Rights Watch] about the impending humanitarian catastrophe, already   
   underway.  And of course they had far more information available than   
   HRW did.   
      
       Your own moral stance is revealed even further by your complete   
   lack of concern about the apparently huge casualties and the refusal   
   even to investigate them…   
      
       I’ve seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this   
   level.   
      
   The Take-Away: If your opponent creates a thought-experiment that   
   bends reality to fit their assumptions, pummel them with the facts.   
      
   2. “Civility” is a Dubious Rhetoric When it Comes to State Power   
      
   In The End of Faith, Sam Harris accuses Chomsky and other leftists of   
   “moral blindness” towards the important differences between “the kind   
   of force civilized democracies project in the world, warts and all,   
   and the internecine violence [perpetuated by Muslim governments].”   
   Harris argues that there is a qualitative moral difference between the   
   U.S. and the Muslim world, which leftists like Chomsky cannot see.   
      
   Chomsky critiques Harris on two fronts. First, he deconstructs the   
   accusation of “moral equivalence,” a term that “has been regularly   
   used… to try to undercut critical analysis of the state one defends.”   
   Of course there are moral differences between a terrorist attack   
   against defenseless civilians and a U.S. missile strike that was   
   believed to target a chemical weapons manufacturer. The problem with   
   the accusation of “moral equivalence” is that it creates a relativist   
   strawman, distracting us from more substantial ethical questions about   
   U.S. actions.   
      
   Second, Chomsky dismantles Harris’s claim that good intentions alone   
   can separate the U.S. from its moral enemies. “Professing benign   
   intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes,”   
   Chomsky points out, and so the claim the U.S. means less harm than it   
   enacts is an empty one.   
      
   Throughout their exchange, Harris fails to recognize or address these   
   substantial critiques. Instead, he accuses Chomsky of “running into   
   the weeds” and focusing too narrowly on these points, calls him   
   cantankerous and prickly, and refuses to move forward until Chomsky   
   has sufficiently outlined—to Harris’s liking—the moral hierarchies of   
   various violent intentions.   
      
   Harris asks Chomsky to be civil and return to a question that had   
   already been answered, rather than “litigating all points (both real   
   and imagined) in the most plodding and accusatory way.”   
      
   Chomsky’s response:   
      
       I agree with you completely that we cannot have a rational   
   discussion of these matters, and that it is too tedious to pretend   
   otherwise.  And I agree that I am litigating all points (all real, as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)